River Deep Blog: Kelley Lynch - Motion to Supplement the Record

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

WASHINGTON DC 20217

KELLEY ANN LYNCH

Petitioner Electronically Filed

v. Docket No. 17085-15

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Respondent

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

Petitioner Kelley Lynch hereby respectfully moves this Court to supplement the record in the above referenced case. Petitioner aks this Court, in the person of Chief Judge Michael Thornton, to investigate whether or not Stephen Gianelli has contacted IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office with respect to her Petition. Gianelli, who is not a party to any matter related to Lynch and/or Leonard Cohen has repeatedly contacted IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others and submitted fraudulent information to them with respect to her. Many of the harassing emails relate to IRS and federal tax matters. In his July 31, 2015 harassing email to Lynch, Gianelli informed her “Not to worry! The IRS Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and I are getting along fine!” This individual is also harassing Lynch about this Court’s request for a determination from IRS of an alleged “whistle blower claim” he believes Lynch submitted to IRS. This individual who engages in stalking, harassment, intimidation, threats, and witness tampering has taken the following position with respect to Lynch’s Petition in this matter. “Therefore, your petition, in part at least, purports to appeal the purported denial of a whistleblower claim relating to Leonard Cohen.” One of the roles this individual appears to play is that of an agent provocateur/infiltrator who attempts to elicit information.

This individual has relentlessly targeted Kelley Lynch’s sons since hearing from Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, in May 2009. Lynch has no idea who this individual is apart from his allegations that he is a Bay Area lawyer. He appears to be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team although he has not filed a formal entry of appearance. See Exhibit A.

Petitioner also requests this Court to review the Declarations of her sons, John Rutger Penick and Ray Charles Lindsey, that have been submitted to numerous Courts, IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, Senate Judiciary Committee, and others. See Exhibit B.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this motion, requesting an investigation into Stephen Gianelli’s potential communications with IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office, be investigated by this Court.

Dated: 5 September 2015

Signed Kelley Lynch

______________________________

Kelley Lynch

EXHIBIT A

HARASSING EMAILS – AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2005

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 1:47 PM
Subject:
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>

Hi IRS, FBI, DOJ, and Senate Judiciary,

Here are some of the Criminal Stalker's emails over the past month. I will now submit these to Tax Court, since Gianelli harassing me over whistle blowing issues, and have created a private blog for my federal RICO suit that will permit the Court to review the excessive criminal harassment Gianelli has engaged in (with others) since hearing from Michelle Rice in 2009. That will include the evidence that Gianelli, Walsh, et al. attempted to terrorize my sons. I view that as criminal witness tampering because that's precisely what it was so please review their declarations that have been submitted to nuemrous courts and will now be submitted to Tax Court.

Declaration of John Rutger Penick

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html

Declaration of Ray Charles Lindsey

Is Gianelli getting along with the Chief Trial Counsel's Office? I think Tax Court should address that matter and will now request an investigation by the Tax Court into this allegation.

Kelley

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated Saturday, July 25, 2015 6:55 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Not to worry! The IRS Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and I are getting along fine!

Thank you for asking! Good luck with the pending motion to dismiss!

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 6:55 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; stan.garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com
Subject: Re: KVW Latest Legal Documents

Stephen Gianelli,

I wonder why IRS is on my blog reading about you, Cohen, federal tax matters, and the fraud domestic violence order? Make some calls

and come up with your next round of lies and insanity.

Kelley Lynch

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

IRS,

I see you were on my blog. Did you block Gianelli for harassing IRS?

Kelley

1 Exit Time: 20 Jul 2015 09:27:22 Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: 1440x900		Total Visits: 1 Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States IP Address: Internal Revenue Service (152.220.16.213) [Label IP Address] Search Referral: www.google.com/#1 (Keywords Unavailable) Visit Page: riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/05/kelley-lynchs-email-to-leonard-cohe
	Total Visits: 1 Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States IP Address: Internal Revenue Service (152.220.16.213) [Label IP Address] Search Referral: www.google.com/#1 (Keywords Unavailable) Visit Page: riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/05/kelley-lynchs-email-to-leonard-cohe

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi FBI,

Gianelli belongs in prison. That is entirely clear. He wrote that he's not representing the public figure KVW. So why is he criminally harassing me over this woman? Did Linda Carol lie to LAPD's TMU? We shall find out.

Kelley

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Senate Judiciary,

The Criminal Stalker and other operatives continue to target me and others. Have you read Ann Diamond's declaration re. the types of operatives Cohen uses or the tactics he employs? See attached. That does explain Gianelli's possible connections to Gary and Louis Spector - or Michelle Blaine. I refer to her as the female Leonard Cohen: a bald faced liar and thief. One normally has to go to a hell realm to find these types of subhuman beings. LA Confidentially evidently appreciates their skills.

Kelley

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike Feuer and Mayor Garcetti,

This is blatant criminal harassment. These people appear to be the scum of the earth and they are targeting LA residents and others.

Kelley Lynch

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

I tend to doubt KVW, the public figure Gianelli is criminally harassing me over, wrote the latest documents filed in the Sam Mennings estate matter. This woman's defense to the Small Claims matter, before Gianelli assisted her in defrauding Paulette (by lying about statutes to the Small Claims Court), was Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory. She then showed up with Gianelli's legal argument. The only person who referred to this woman as a prostitute is Linda Carol and she confirmed that for LAPD's TMU personally. As for the Wanted Poster - I have no idea who created it and could care less. I view all of these individuals as unsavory characters and opportunists. That's my personal opinion.

Having said this, KVW called Robert Kory after receiving Paulette's rent demand letter and that demands an investigation - particularly as the Criminal Stalker has decided to criminally harass me over a woman I wouldn't associate with if my life depended on it.

Kelley

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Stephen Gianelli,

It looks as though you are now writing KVW's legal documents in the Sam Menning case she recently lost. I am remind you to cease and desist with your ongoing criminal harassment.

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to a so-called Wanted Poster re. KVW. She probably created it herself. I never accused KVW, the public figure you advised you are not representing, of being a prostitute. You are the individual who relentlessly writes about that issue.

When you defraud someone of rental arrears, including by lying in Small Claims Court, that is fraud.

In any event, you have said you are not representing this woman. I will, of course, ask a court to help determine who is writing any legal documents she submits attempting to fraudulently target me.

Cease and desist, criminal.

Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Subject: Von Watteville vs. Brandt, et. al
To: Paulette Brandt <PAULETTEBRANDT8@gmail.com>, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>, linda carol <lindacarol184@gmail.com>
Cc: Karina Von Watteville <karina.inger.v@gmail.com>

‎This is a reminder that the statute of limitations for libel arising out of the publication of the flier using the photograph taken by Paulette Brandt and the allegations allegedly originating with Linda Carol and republished by Kelley Lynch in mass emails and on her public weblog falsely accusing Ms. Von Watteville of being dirty, bug infested, a prostitute, and as being guilty of "fraud" is two years.

That other shoe has not yet dropped. But it will drop.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated Saturday, July 25, 2015 6:55 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,

YOU wrote to ME on July 26 implying that the IRS was reading your blog about ME.

Apparently, this was calculated to cause me to go all a twitter with concern. I therefore informed you that I am getting along with the IRS just fine (and I am) including the nice guy and bellow California Bar member who just moved to dismiss your tax court petition for lack of jurisdiction (just as I predicted).

And yes, Ms. Lynch, the tax court is going to GRANT THE MOTION. Because the tax court has no jurisdiction over your issues and complaints.

And no, Ms. Lynch, Michelle Rice has zero to do with anything that I write.

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 8:05 PM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; stan.garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com
Cc: Michelle Rice
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated Saturday, July 25, 2015 6:55 AM

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Is there a reason Gianelli would be attempting to interfere with a federal tax matter before Tax Court? He is aware, and has harassed me over this,

that there is a Tax Court matter (Docket No. 017085-15). The Tax Court, not IRS, determines jurisdiction issues. Why would he contact the IRS

Chief Trial Counsel's Office? For one, Stephen Gianelli is an amateur agent provocateur who attempts to infiltrate matters. Didn't he hunt down Agent

Sopko's partner or husband at DOJ? Didn't he contact Agent Sopko? The lengths this proxy has gone is insane. Why he is attempting to interfere

with federal tax matters? Why did the City Attorney work with this criminal?

I've copied Leonard Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, on this email since Cohen appears to argue Leonard Cohen's legal issues while criminally harassing me,

my sons, sister, Paulette Brandt, and many others.

Kelley Lynch

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:27 AM
Subject: Court of Appeal Case Number B265753 - default notice per rule 8.100(c) sent 7/30/2015
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

A separate fee waiver must be requested in the court of appeal using Judicial Council form FW-001. (CRC, rule 8.26 (a).)

à“The court cannot waive the fees for preparing a reporter’s transcript in a civil case.” (<http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/fw015info.pdf>; bold font original.)

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Subject: 8/1?
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

SEARCH RESULT: There are no future hearings scheduled for Case Number BQ033717

-----

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LEONARD COHEN, an individual, Case No. BQ037717 (Domestic Violence)---------------------[WRONG CASE NO,]

NOTICE OF MOTION;

Plaintiff MOTION TO SET ASIDE DOMESTIC

vs. VIOLENCE ORDER; MEMORANDUM;

DECLARATIONS; ETC.

KELLEY LYNCH, an individual Hearing Date: September 1, 2015

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 9:57 PM
Subject: BQ033717 case summary re: "future hearings" as of 8/9/2015 ("None")
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

CASE SUMMARY

Case Number: BQ033717
LEONARD NORMAN COHEN VS KELLEY ANN LYNCH

Filing Date:  05/25/2011
Case Type:  Civil Petition - TRO/Dom Violence (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Pending

Future Hearings

àNone

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

The use of Judicial Counsel Form FL-300 “Request for Order” (which has the same meaning as “motion” – see Code Civ. Pro. § 1003 “An application for an order is a motion.”) is MANDATORY.

See California Rules of Court, Appendix A, Judicial Council Legal Forms List and prefatory language at unnumbered ¶ 1 [“…each mandatory Judicial Council legal form is identified as mandatory by an asterisk (*)…”.] and, within the body of the list, the listing for FL-300 – which is marked with an asterisk [“FL-300* 7/1/2012 Request for Order’].

In other words, when you file a motion in Family Court (except for a motion wherein a more specific form is specified) the moving party MUST use form FL-300 Request for Order – in lieu of the typical “motion” papers employed in general civil litigation.

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:07 AM
Subject: FYI- Docket No.: 017085-15; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Part 35. Tax Court Litigation
Chapter 3. Motions
Section 2. Jurisdictional Defects

35.3.2 Jurisdictional Defects

35.3.2.1 (09-21-2012)
Tax Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction

1. The Tax Court is a statutory court of limited jurisdiction, and strict compliance with all essential jurisdictional elements is necessary before the court is empowered to enter a legal decision in the case. Generally speaking, the Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine income, gift and estate tax liability, transferee liability with respect to these taxes, certain excise taxes, declaratory judgments under sections 6110, 7428, 7476, 7477, and 7478; and certain other causes of action such as interest abatement, relief from joint and several liability, and collection due process proceedings. With minor exceptions, the jurisdiction of the court with respect to taxes extends only to those years and taxes in which a deficiency or liability was determined in the statutory notice of deficiency or liability and raised in a timely petition to the Tax Court. Jurisdictional questions may be raised by the court upon its own motion or by either party at any stage of the proceeding. Normally, all questions concerning jurisdiction should be resolved prior to the filing of the answer.

2. A jurisdictional motion is required where the petition attempts to take an appeal from something other than a statutory notice or other valid determination letter permitting Tax Court review; the petition is not filed within the statutory period; the petition attempts to take an appeal with respect to a year or a tax as to which no deficiency (or transferee liability) is determined; the petition is brought by an improper party or a nonexistent party; or, the petition is filed for redetermination of a deficiency or liability which has been paid before the mailing of the statutory notice. Special care should be taken to insure that a corporation, trust, or estate is still in existence and competent to sue. The foregoing jurisdictional items are not all inclusive, and the Field attorney should research the statutory and case law with respect to any case in which there is doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.

3. A jurisdictional defect should be raised in a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as soon as the jurisdictional defect is discovered and any evidence needed to support such a motion is acquired. Field attorneys should avoid waiting to raise such defects in the answer, stipulation or motion under T.C. Rule 122 in order to ensure a prompt resolution of the case and to avoid unnecessary work for the Tax Court.

4. There is no jurisdictional defect in a petition when a petitioner seeks a determination of a section 6651(a)(2) (failure to pay) addition to tax when the Tax Court already has jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency of the tax for the period upon which the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax is based. See Estate of Hinz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-6; Estate of Nemerov v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-186. Motions to dismiss this claim on jurisdictional grounds should not be filed.

5. See CCDM 35.3.8, Motions in Declaratory Judgment Cases and Section 7436 Worker Classification Cases, for guidance concerning motions in these types of cases.

35.3.2.2 (09-21-2012)
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

1. If the document filed with the court as a petition is not properly within its jurisdiction, such as in instances in which a petition was not timely filed, the response should be a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Exhibits 35.11.1-34 through 35.11.1-40. When the petition is late, the Field attorney assigned the case should immediately obtain proof of mailing (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book For Accountable Mail, or equivalent with legible United States postmark or an appropriate affidavit) from the office that issued the notice and attach the same to the jurisdictional motion. The motion should be filed with the court, if possible, before the answer due date.

2. Any motion based upon a jurisdictional defect must be a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and not a motion merely to strike the petition, in whole or in part. Likewise, a jurisdictional defect concerning a party must be raised in a jurisdictional motion, not merely a motion to change caption. The jurisdictional defect may extend to the entire case, or it may extend only to some taxes or some years or some persons which the petition attempts to bring before the Tax Court. Since the Tax Court must in its final order or decision cover all taxes for all years placed in controversy, and since the court may not enter a decision or final order with respect to any year, tax or person over which it does not legally acquire jurisdiction, a motion should be made to eliminate from the case all parts thereof over which the court does not acquire jurisdiction at the earliest time in which the jurisdictional defect appears in the case. When a jurisdictional motion is not intended to resolve the entire case, it is generally combined with an additional request such as a caption change or striking of certain allegations, signifying that the motion will result in only a partial disposition. Such a motion may be titled Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Change Caption or Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Year 2003 and to Strike.

3. In dismissing a case, in whole or in part, for lack of jurisdiction the court does not determine any tax or transferee liability. Thus, such motions should be filed regardless of whether the respondent has a statutory burden of proof as to the year, tax or person over which the petition attempts to place in controversy but over which the court lacks jurisdiction.

4. The petitioner has the burden of alleging and proving, when questioned, that the court has jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy in the petition. At the same time, the moving party has the burden to establish a prima facie case for the relief requested in the motion. Thus, jurisdictional motions must be based upon facts and not upon failure to allege in the petition a jurisdictional fact known to the respondent. If the court has jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy, and if such fact is known to the respondent although not alleged in the petition, the essential jurisdictional facts should be alleged in the answer so that jurisdiction will appear on the record. Thus, in the latter instances a jurisdictional motion would not be filed, but the missing jurisdictional elements in the pleadings would be cured by allegations in respondent’s answer. In the case of a timely, yet imperfect petition that the court has served on respondent without ordering it perfected, necessary jurisdictional facts such as the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of the petition may be made in a motion for more definite statement with respect to the imperfect petition.

35.3.2.3 (09-21-2012)
Timeliness of Petition

1. In every case a computation must be made to determine the number of days between the mailing of the statutory notice of deficiency and the filing of the petition. The mailing date of the statutory notice is always the date certified or registered mail was sent to petitioner’s last-known address. The envelope in which the petition is mailed to the court bearing a postmark or postmeter mark after the prescribed date is conclusive as to the date of mailing, for purposes of section 7502, precluding the consideration of conflicting evidence as to date of mailing. Thus, in every such case, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be filed. Section 3463(a) of RRA 98 provides that the Service shall include on each notice of deficiency the date determined by the Secretary as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court. Even if the date listed on the notice of deficiency for the last day to file is incorrect and allows more than the statutory 90 or 150 day period to timely file a petition, a petition mailed to the Tax Court on or before the date listed on the notice will nevertheless be deemed timely. If the notice of deficiency fails to list the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court and the petition is otherwise untimely, the Field attorney should contact the office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) concerning how to proceed with the case.

2. Section 7502(f) treats any private delivery service designated by the Service (Designated Delivery Service) as if it were the United States Postal Service for purposes of the timely mailing as timely filing provisions of section 7502. See Rev. Proc. 97–17, Notice 97–26 and Notice 2001–62.

3. If a petition is untimely and the address on the petition differs from the address on the statutory notice of deficiency, a computer check should be made of the petitioner’s last known address and the Field attorney should attempt to obtain the petitioner’s most recently filed return as of the date that the notice of deficiency was issued. Ordinarily a jurisdictional motion should be filed if the petition is not filed within the 90–day period or the 150–day period. See Exhibits 35.11.1-41 and 35.11.1-42 for tables to compute 90- and 150- day periods. Common sense must be used in close cases. For example, if the petition was mailed from San Francisco, the postmark date is illegible, and it is filed with the Court one day late, common sense dictates that it was mailed timely. Any questionable calls should be brought to the attention of Procedure and Administration. Bear in mind that the filing due date of the petition may vary in some circumstances. The 90-day or 150-day period is extended if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or any legal holiday in the District of Columbia, see section 7503; and the time is suspended in some cases falling within section 7508. The petition served upon the respondent should normally bear the notation of the court as to the postmark date shown on the envelope in which the petition was mailed to the court, the lack of a postmark, private delivery service information, or the illegibility of the postmark or delivery service received date. If a postmark is made other than by a United States Post Office, e.g., by a private postal meter registered with the United States Postal Service, and the petition is received by the Tax Court within the time a letter ordinarily would have been received had it been mailed on the last day of the statutory period, no jurisdictional motion should be filed.

4. When the envelope in which the petition was mailed bears a private postmeter mark, section 7502 applies. Under the implementing regulation, Treas. Reg. § 301.7502–1(c)(1)(iii)(b), if the postmeter date is within the 90–day period and the petition was received no later than the ordinary delivery time for mail postmarked at the same place of origin by the United States Postal Service on the last day of the statutory period, the petition will be considered timely filed. If the petition is received later than the ordinary delivery time for documents so mailed and postmarked by the United States Postal Service, it will be considered timely only if petitioner can prove three things: first, that the petition was actually deposited in the mail before the last pickup from the mailbox on the 90th day; second, that the delay in receiving the petition was due to a delay in the transmission of the mail, and third, the cause of the delay. The jurisdictional issue should not be raised if the petitioner can demonstrate informally that the petition was timely mailed. See Exhibit 35.11.1-43, Letter to Petitioner Regarding Late Filed Petition. If a motion to dismiss is filed based on the receipt of the petition beyond the ordinary mailing time, and the petitioner’s response is fairly specific that the petition was mailed on or before the 90th day, the motion may be withdrawn or conceded. The petitioner has the burden of proof, but the Tax Court will not lightly dismiss a petition and thereby deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to litigate the deficiency in the Tax Court. The controlling regulation suggests that a petitioner can avoid the risk of an untimely filed petition by using certified or registered mail. As to registered mail, the date of registration is treated as the postmark date; as to certified mail, the mailer can obtain a postmarked receipt which is evidence of timely mailing and hence timely filing.

5. Every motion filed to dismiss upon the basis that the petition was not timely filed must make out a prima facie case on the untimeliness of the petition. The date the statutory notice of deficiency was mailed must be alleged in the motion. In addition, the filing date of the petition and facts which show that the case does not come within any of the statutory exceptions to the 90–day or 150–day period must be alleged. See Exhibit 35.11.1-34, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Untimely Petition — Late U.S. Postmark. The motion should have attached a photocopy of the executed Application For Registration or Certification (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 or its equivalent) from the United States Post Office. This form sets forth the name and address of the sender of the documents, whether sent by registered or certified mail, the article number, the name and address of the addressee, the type of document mailed, the signature of the employee of the Postal Service receiving the document, and the post office stamp showing the date of the mailing and the post office in which mailed. This application is sometimes referred to as the "mailing list" of statutory notices. On occasion the Tax Court has, on its own, raised a question as to the sufficiency of the mailing list in proving the mailing date of the statutory notice when the mailing list did not set forth the type of document mailed. In some instances, in the absence of a description of the document on the mailing list, it may be necessary to obtain from the person in the office of the Area Director, Service Center, or Appeals, as applicable, who mailed the document an affidavit that the document set forth on the mailing list is in fact the statutory notice upon which the petition to the Tax Court is based. The names and addresses of other taxpayers on the mailing list must be redacted or blocked out to comply with disclosure restrictions. Only the United States postmark and the lines applicable to the petitioner should be exposed when making copies. If the United States postmark is placed on a typewritten or handwritten portion of the list, the postmark must remain readable and any words underneath cannot be eradicated. The minor information that might appear beneath the postmark will be insufficient to disclose anything subject to disclosure or Privacy Act restrictions.

6. If the U.S. postmark on the copy of the mailing list (submitted to the court as an attachment to the original of the motion) is not legible, or if there is no United States postmark on the list, it will be necessary to secure and attach to the motion an affidavit or declaration attesting to the date of mailing of the notice by the person who prepared the mailing list, or that person’s reviewer, or other custodian of the Service’s records of mailing. Where the mailing list or certified mail receipt (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 or its equivalent) is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable, the Tax Court has held that the testimony of the 90-day clerk relative to the procedure for mailing the deficiency notice, while admissible, is not alone sufficient to prove that the notice was mailed. On the other hand, the presumption of official regularity and absence of direct evidence contradicting the government’s evidence of mailing was held sufficient by a district court. Any questions concerning this area may be directed to Procedure and Administration.

7. If the postmark date on the envelope containing the petition is illegible, or if there is no postmark, and there is a substantial question of fact as to whether the petition was timely mailed, a jurisdictional motion may be filed requiring the petitioner to sustain his or her burden as to the timely mailing of the petition. Such a motion is not required if the petitioner’s position is documented as to the circumstances surrounding the mailing and such evidence is a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances. See Exhibit 35.11.1-36, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Untimely Petition — Illegible Postmark/ Postmeter.

8. A question occasionally arises as to whether the petitioner is entitled to 90- or 150-days after the mailing of the statutory notice within which to file a petition with the Tax Court. The taxpayer may claim to have been a nonresident or out of the country at the time of the issuance of the notice and, therefore, entitled to 150 days. In instances of this type, the Field attorney should research the statutory and case law before filing a jurisdictional motion, since there is not always a bright line test to determine the applicability of the 150-day rule.

9. In the event further litigation over a jurisdictional issue becomes necessary, the Field attorney will need to present direct testimony or prepare several affidavits in support of the Service’s position. At a minimum, the Field attorney should have an affidavit from the preparer of the notice of deficiency or another knowledgeable person about the issuance of the particular notice. As needed, depending on the complexity of the particular factual situation, direct testimony or an affidavit from the Service Center Witness Coordinator should explain the particular processing of address information. Additionally, if a taxpayer questions the efficacy of the Postal Service’s proper handling of the notice of deficiency, direct testimony or an affidavit from a postal representative may be needed.

10. Cases challenging the processing periods contained in Rev. Proc. 2001–18, 2001–08 I.R.B. 708, should be defended utilizing the existing case law, which generally gives the Service a reasonable processing time to input change of address information. Therefore, extreme care must be exercised in the development of cases questioning the efficacy of the Service’s processing of tax returns. Whenever possible, direct testimony or an affidavit from a knowledgeable Service Center employee should be utilized so that the courts are aware of the lengths the Service must go to in processing the millions of returns received each year. Inasmuch as the Service may now update a taxpayer’s address based on a change of address request filed with the Postal Service, the Service’s procedures for updating addresses based on return information should rarely be at issue in cases before the court.

35.3.2.4 (08-11-2004)
Absence of Valid Statutory Notice

1. Petitions to the Tax Court may be predicated only upon the issuance of a valid statutory notice of deficiency or liability.

2. The Tax Court does not acquire jurisdiction upon the issuance of a 30-day letter, notice of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar notices with respect to the taxpayer’s tax liability. If the petition is based upon the issuance of a 30-day letter, notice of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar notice, a jurisdictional motion should be filed. In this instance, the motion should make out a prima facie case that the petition is based upon a 30-day letter, notice of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar notice. A search must be conducted by the Field attorney, including a computer search, to verify that a notice of deficiency or other determination letter that would confer jurisdiction on the Tax Court has not been issued to the taxpayer. The fact and results of such a search should be reported to the court in the motion by stating that the Service has not issued any other determination letter that may form the basis of a petition to the court.

35.3.2.5 (09-21-2012)
Jurisdiction Over Party Petitioners

1. The court must have jurisdiction over the party or parties who are filing the petition from the statutory notice. If one or all of the listed parties are not the party or parties to whom the statutory notice was issued, a jurisdictional motion should be filed unless it is clear from the petition that the "substitute party" has legal authority to file a petition for or on behalf of the party to whom the statutory notice was issued. See Exhibit 35.11.1-37, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: No Statutory Notice. In that event, a motion to correct caption may be required.

2. In the research of the statutory and case law, it may be necessary not only to examine federal statutes but also state statutes and federal and state court decisions on the legal authority of the purported petitioner to prosecute an action in the Tax Court. Most frequently this question arises in statutory notices issued to dissolved corporations, merged corporations, discharged executors, sham trusts, etc. The question also arises under state or foreign law as to the authority of former officers and stockholders of dissolved corporations or discharged executors to bring the action in the Tax Court. Questions may also arise under state or foreign law with respect to statutory notices to unincorporated associations; in cases in which the notice was issued jointly and severally to a husband and wife and the petition is executed only by one of the parties even though the name of the other party is set forth in the caption and body of the petition; or in cases in which the statutory notice is issued to two or more persons and the petition is executed by only one of such persons and the term petitioner is used rather than petitioners in the caption and body of the petition. In these instances, the entire petition must be examined to determine whether the petition is intended to include all parties to whom the statutory notice was issued. For petitions based upon a statutory notice issued to two or more persons, it is important that it be determined if all of such persons are in fact proper party petitioners so that immediate assessment may be made against any person who did not in fact petition from the statutory notice. If the petitioning spouse, who intends to file a joint petition, fails to clarify his or her intention by filing an amended petition promptly, then a motion to dismiss the nonpetitioning spouse should be filed. Prior to filing such a motion to dismiss, consideration should be given to informally contacting the petitioner to see if the omission was inadvertent.

3. If petitioner’s counsel executes and timely files a petition on behalf of the petitioner, but at the time of filing was not admitted to practice before the Tax Court, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that suit was instituted by a third party should only be filed if there is a question that the attorney is acting on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioner’s counsel should be notified in writing that he or she must take the steps necessary, under T.C. Rule 200, to be admitted to practice before the court and file an entry of appearance after becoming admitted. Otherwise, he or she cannot be recognized by the court or respondent as petitioner’s counsel of record and a motion may then be required to cure the pending jurisdictional defect.

4. As to whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction over a petitioner-corporation to which a deficiency notice was issued as a possessor of cash, see CCDM 35.2.1.1.4.1(1), Possessor of Cash.

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:29 PM
Subject: Your August 11, 2015 blog post - "questions for the IRS and CIA"
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

As any adult with ordinary intelligence and who is not suffering from mental illness well knows, neither the IRS, the CIA, nor any federal agency has jurisdiction over civil litigation between private citizens.

In addition, you have been posing emailed “questions” to the IRS, the Department of Justice, and many other federal agencies and then posting those emails on your blogs for nearly a decade, without receiving a single substantive “answer” to any of your “questions”.

I find this behavior to be most curious.

Since you know full well that your private legal embroilments are not their concern and that you will never receive an “answer”, why do you bother?

Do you imagine that folks reading your blog will believe that you really do have the ear of the IRS, FBI, CIA and these other agencies who you send these conversational emails to?

Because the reaction of most people to this kind of blog post is that you are at best highly eccentric if not downright crazy.

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Subject: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,

Your focus on contested facts leads me to wonder whether you have given any thought to the applicable standard of review in each of your pending and contemplated appeals.

“‘Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.’ Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit.” (Sonic Manufacturing Tech., Inc. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465 [citations omitted].) “In every appeal, the threshold matter to be determined is the proper standard of review — the prism through which we view the issues presented to us. [Citation.]” (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 36, fn. 12.)

Failing to provide a fair statement of facts based on the relevant standard of review - as typically occurs when a person without appellate experience prepares the opening brief - risks not only having the justice set aside the brief, but also risks waiving any arguments based on the defective statement of facts. As the appellate courts have stated, “It is well established that a reviewing court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.”(Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [Internal quotation marks omitted].) Appellants are “required to set forth in their brief all the material evidence on the point and not merely their own evidence. Unless this is done the error assigned is deemed to be waived.” (Ibid. [emphasis in original].) The failure to provide a fair statement of the facts waives any issue relying on those facts. (County of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment Agency (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274.)

Where the trial court’s order granting relief is within its sound discretion, it should not be disturbed “in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478.) “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.” (Id., at pp. 478-479.) Reversal is unlikely where the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

The standard of appellate review of an order refusing to set aside a default judgment is always an abuse of discretion standard. (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 118.)

This is rarely a winning argument.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:03 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated : Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:43 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

No, I did not say that I am giving Michelle Rice ammunition. I said the opposite – that she is the last person in the world that I am communicating with right now. (In fact, were it not for the fact that all of your legal positions are so ridiculously devoid of merit and have zero chance of carrying the day I would be sorely tempted to root for Michelle to fall on her face and lose to a pro se litigant on appeal and in the trial court – but that just isn’t in the cards.)

What I said was that YOU, by forwarding an email to Michelle Rice setting forth a big procedural vulnerability in your typical appellate approach, citing the governing authorities chapter and verse, are giving Michelle Rice ammunition to use against you. Particularly since we all know that – despite these authorities – you will completely disregard (indeed ignore) the applicable standard of review in favor of a self-serving, once sided recitation of disputed facts. And now Michelle Rice has the legal authorities to blow you out of the water by reminding the court of appeal that you have waived your arguments on appeal at her fingertips without a single hour of research.

We have had this conversation before, in the context of your direct appeal from the judgment of the criminal conviction against you in 2012. You disregarded the standard of review then in favor of a one-sided, self-serving recitation of disputed facts then as well, and the appellate panel held that you had WAIVED your arguments on appeal.

You keep repeating the same behaviors expecting different results. Or perhaps you don’t care about winning at all – you simply want to make your former employer’s life miserable. Either way you are going to lose and keep losing.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

______________________________________________________________________________

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:43 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog posted email to Michelle Rice dated Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>

Hello IRS,

I'm being criminally harassed over Cohen - and have (together with my sons and friends) for six years - and this gives Rice ammunition? How twisted, predictable, and perverted. IRS should seize their computers, etc. I would assume Gianelli's not communicating with Rice right now. These emails will be used in my federal RICO suit. No one is this obsessed with a stranger. And, he remains obsessed with Paulette Brandt, etc.

Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM
Subject: Your blog posted email to Michelle Rice dated Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

I am not trying to “elicit information” about your appeals. Based on my 37 years’ experience in drafting, presenting and arguing civil and criminal writs and appeals in the California Court of Appeal (the first two as a law clerk during law school at a firm representing the California Medical Association and other appellate savvy clients) as well as my familiarity with the legal and factual context of the underlying orders you have discussed appealing on your blog, I know far more about the appeals process in general and YOUR pending and threatened appeals than you ever will. I already know what you will file and what the outcome will be.

My email simply points out that your habit of arguing contested facts from your own perspective (as you did in your direct appeal from the 2012 criminal harassment conviction) in the face of a deferential “abuse of discretion” standard of review (which is the standard applicable to orders denying a motion to set aside a default judgment) is a direct path to appellate failure.

So is IGNORING the applicable standard of review in your opening brief.

Of course, you prefer to talk about what you want to talk about, and the applicable court rules and procedures be damned.

But legal rules and procedure do not operate the way Kelley Lynch thinks they should. They operate the way they always operate for policy reasons that are more important that a pro se litigant’s self-serving conception of “justice” in a given case.

Last, regardless of what you obviously prefer to believe, Michelle Rice is the last person in the world that I am communicating with right now. Therefore, by forwarding my emails to her you are simply giving her more legal ammunition to use against you in the trial court and court of appeal. That is the real irony. Since you are not about to do anything I suggest as the proper way to go about presenting something in court, you are only aiding the opposition.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

____________________________________________________________________________

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com

Michelle Rice,

I continue to be criminally harassed by the proxy stalker. If you have any questions about my appeals, please hit reply all or wait for me to file them. Gianelli has not entered his formal entry of appearance in these appeals.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Subject: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,

Your focus on contested facts leads me to wonder whether you have given any thought to the applicable standard of review in each of your pending and contemplated appeals.

This is rarely a winning argument.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

From: Linda Carol <linda.carol@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:07 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Michelle L. Rice

7209 Sunnydip Trail, Los Angeles-Hollywood, California

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:53 AM
Subject: Your latest hyperbolic blog post
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

The first thing a competent lawyer does is research the biography, quirks and preferences of the judge he or she is going to be in front of. (You can bet that your opponent already has.) Sending you a concise summary re same published by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. is not “harassment”.

You will note from his bio that Judge Silverman worked for a California Supreme justice (Ray Sullivan) for30-years as a staff research attorney. (Staff research attorney is a full time, paid legal position. They work matters up for conference and draft bench memoranda for their justice that analyses the issues raised, sets forth a recommended disposition [e.g., “affirm” or “reverse”] and that often form the basis for the ultimate majority or concurring opinion resulting from the matter.) This indicates two things.

1. He is among the brightest and the best to qualify for and hold that position for 30-years. Indeed, Judge Silverman is probably going to wind up as a justice on the court of appeal.

2. His take on the 2011 California Registration of the 2008 Colorado civil harassment order is likely to be exactly the take that court of appeal staff will have should you elect to appeal the (anticipated) denial of your pending motion.

Finally, since “personal attack” of the opposing party as well as of opposing counsel are you stock-in-trade, and 90% of every declaration you have ever filed has consisted of “argument” as distinguished from admissible facts, you would do well to heed Judge Silverman’s “pet peeves”.

Good luck on at the hearing.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM
Subject: Department 7 judge - note
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

JUDICIAL PROFILE

JUDGE B. SCOTT SILVERMAN

Name: B. Scott Silverman

Position: Judge District: Central Department: 7

Judicial Biography:

Hastings College of Law, J.D.

Stanford University, B.A. 1975-1977

Law Clerk to Associate Justice Raymond Sullivan, California Supreme Court 1977-2007

Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco & Los Angeles, Associate & Partner 11/07–11/08

Commissioner, Los Angeles Superior Court

Appointed Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court 11/08

àPet Peeves Regarding Litigation Conduct

- Lawyers and parties interrupting me or each other during hearings.

- Irrelevant personal attacks on counsel or party.

-Argumentative declarations; use Points & Authorities for argument and Declarations for facts.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:31 AM
Subject: Appeal - Case Number B265753 (It's not so easy to navage the court of appeal as a pro se)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

You failed to file case information statements as required by 8/11/2015 – for BOTH appeals.

To do so you will need to attach a copy of EACH (respective) order you are trying to appeal from AND will be required to identify the STATUTE that provides that each (respective) order you are trying to appeal is an APPELABLE ORDER. (Not all orders are appealable.)

If you fail to do this in the time specified in the written notice, each affected appeal will be DISMISSED.

If you fail to identify a proper basis for appealability in your case information statement, your (affected) appeal will be dismissed as from a “non-appealable order”. (As an aside, this happened to me once – even though I was correct that the order WAS appealable. I had to file a timely petition for rehearing to get the appeal reinstated. That alone was 40 hours of work. See here: In re Marriage of Dupre (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1517 “Stephen R. Gianelli, San Francisco, CA, for Appellant … [Appellant] filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2004. On June 10, 2004, we dismissed the appeal as from a nonappealable order. On June 14, 2004, [Appellant] filed a petition for rehearing. We granted her petition and reinstated the appeal on June 17, 2004.”)

This is one of the many potential procedural obstacles from the filing of the notice of appeal through decision and if you mess it up a DISPOSITIVE one.

Docket (Register of Actions)

Cohen v. Lynch
Division p

Case Number B265753

Date

Description

Notes

08/19/2015

Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.

both appeals

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM
Subject: Your blog-posted email dated Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

As I am sure you know, I do not represent and will never represent Leonard Cohen.

One clear indication of this, aside from the facts that you have been expressly so advised ad nauseam and that the Cohen’s counsel on the referenced appeal is Michelle Rice (and not the undersigned), is that I am bothering to point out your failings to you at all.

If I represented Leonard Cohen’s interests I would not have written to advise you of the Department 7 judge’s qualifications and published “pet peeves” nor would I have advised you that you were in default regarding Appeal - Case Number B265753. Nor would I have bothered to give you any of the other chapter-and-verse primers on the law revealing your various pending legal claims to nonsense.

I would be giving you no “heads up” or assistance at all.

I certainly would not have mentioned certain propensities on your part that annoy the judge you will be appearing in front of on September 1.

As for the appeal, I would have let you simply receive the default notice in Monday’s mail and then let you scramble around trying to figure out what “statement” was being referenced and I certainly would not have pointed out to you a pitfall in filling out the case information statement that could potentially lead to a dismissal of the pending appeals.

You really are quite clueless when it comes to helpful tips. If you were not so obsessed with trying to instantly scream “harassment” every time someone sneezes in your earshot, you might learn something that might make the difference between a hearing on the merits and none at all.

Nothing will win the day for you, however. Your issues are so meritless that even token opposition would defeat them – let alone the polished and spot opposition that you were served with on August 17. But at least you might make it to oral argument in B265753 without the case being dismissed on procedural grounds. If you had the capacity to listen and learn. Which you obviously don’t.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:23 PM
Subject: Your blog posted email dated Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:03 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

You really are clueless.

“Swampland sales pitch”? Ha!

As you will soon learn, there really is something called a “case information statement” that you should have filed in the court of appeal for both pending appeals by 8/11 but did not. You now have just a few days to file them, after identifying the precise legal basis for appelability as to each order appealed from.

Per my prior email, yes, there really is something called a “standard of review” and all of the cases cited in that email, and in other prior emails, are binding and applicable.

Good luck with your hearings on 9/1, 9/3 and 8/6 and with Shepparding your first appeal to the CA/2 through the procedural maze provided by the California Rules of Court and the local rules – with both eyes closed no less.

Sorry to miss out on all the fun in real time, but I leave for the Almafi Coast on Thursday. We will see what is left of your various law and motion claims/appeals upon my September return.

You never disappoint.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:53 PM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

PS:

I note that you have not posted on-line Cohen’s opposition to your self-styled “motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence order”.

Obviously you realize that the opposition conclusively demonstrates the correctness of the 2011 California registration using Judicial Council form DV-600.

NOTE: Lynch never said IRS viewed her as THEIR PARTNER. She has been clear that IRS advised her that they view her as Leonard Cohen’s partner – per federal tax returns, K-1 partnership documents transmitted to them, etc.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:43 PM
Subject: "As Lynch advised the Court - the IRS continues to view her as a partner.".
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

On May 26, 2015 you wrote on Scribd.com (by way of preface for your upload of Leonard Cohen’s opposition to your so called “motion for terminating sanctions”:

“As Lynch advised the Court - the IRS continues to view her as a partner…”. (See here https://www.scribd.com/doc/267109127/Leonard-Cohen-Opposition-re-Kelley-Lynch-s-Motion-Terminating-Sanctions-filed-conformed-5-26-15.)

That is quite a bold claim.

You often criticize those who question the accuracy claim with the words “they don’t speak for the IRS”, which observation applies equally to you by the way. So what EXACTLY is the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that the IRS EVER considered Kelley Lynch a “partner” (let alone that it continues to do so)?

As far as can be determined, the Internal Revenue Service met with you exactly ONCE in response to your emailed claim that you had evidence proving that Leonard Cohen committed “tax fraud” in connection with an alleged abusive tax shelter crafted by tax lawyer Richard Westin (Traditional Holdings, LLC).

In response to that single meeting, on March 6, 2007 Agent Kelley Sopko of the US Treasury emailed you to provide you with the telephone number and address of IRS Agent Louis Tejeda head of the fraud unit at the IRS “who can better assist you”. You were advised to submit your information to Agent Tejeda in writing and that he would “proceed accordingly”.

That is the only time the IRS has corresponded with you, and that single communication over nine years ago certainly does not evince “a partnership” – let alone a continuing one.

Instead, based on the fact that you have flooded the IRS (and other federal law enforcement agencies) for YEARS with daily and weekly emails about Leonard Cohen, and others, you ALLOWED YOURSELF TO ASSUME that the you and the IRS share the same objectives. But that is a fantasy concocted out of a single 2006 meeting and follow up email as well as your tens of thousands of UNILATERAL email to the IRS ever since.

Ask yourself this:

If you were truly in partnership with the IRS why hasn’t Leonard Cohen been prosecuted based on your allegations of tax fraud – as of today, more than nine years after your meeting with Kelly Sopko?

Why hasn’t Agent Tejeda ever returned any of your many phone calls and hand delivered messages or provided you with an email address?

And why has the IRS filed a motion to dismiss your July 6, 2015 tax court petition challenging the tax refunds that Leonard Cohen received in 2006 based on the allegation that you embezzled the entire $7M net proceeds from the Sony sale (see here https://www.scribd.com/doc/266099538/Kelley-Lynch-Alleged-Trial-Evidence-IRS-Binder )?

Indeed, if the IRS viewed you as a “partner” why, in in view of your allegations to the IRS of “tax fraud” you claim to have made as early as April 15, 2005, did the IRS give Cohen a refund at all?

The sooner you start recognizing that your fantasy of a “partnership” (or any relationship) with the IRS is just that, the better off you are going to be.

Stephen R. Gianelli

Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated August 21, 2015 8:51 PM (Athens time)
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

Commencing in approximately April, 2009 and for many years thereafter, you routinely copied me in on email communications you were engaged in with just about everyone in your life (Rutger, Ray, Karen, David, your occasional public defenders and court appointed lawyers) and all of the mass emails you were sending out, sometimes numbering 40 or more a day.

I know more than I care to know about your personal and legal feuds spanning the last decade, mainly from you.

You have received a single email from the IRS in your lifetime, and you could not resist sharing it with the world (including me) – Agent Kelley Sopko’s email of March 6, 2007.

You have received a single email from the FBI, Washington Field Office – dated Dec 23, 2009 at 5:33 AM (reference line “Toward improving communication” that amounts to no more than a routine threat assessment letter stating “Kelley, It sounds like life remains very interesting and exciting. Where are you now? Are you in the Washington, D.C. area? Are you available by telephone?” – translation: You sound like a nut. Are you within striking distance of Washington DC so we need to keep an eye on you? You could not resist sharing that email with the world (including me) either. (Which explains why you continue to pester an FBI field office with zero territorial connection to any of your complaints – unlike the other FBI offices in LA, Houston, and Boulder who all blew you off – the Washington Field Office actually answered you once! (Albeit not for a reason that one would find flattering.)

Given your habit and custom of wearing any email from a government agency as a badge of legitimacy, I am quite confident that there are no others. If there were, you would not have been able to resist forwarding them to the world and them posting the emails on your various blogs as you have the two I referenced. Indeed, you even forwarded around an auto-reply from Anderson Cooper 360 as a confirmation that “the press is listening!”. Ha! You are nothing if not completely predictable, suggestible, and transparent.

My questions were rhetorical.

I already know all I need to know about your sordid tale and how it will end. I have no reason or desire to “fish for information” from you, particularly since I have more insight into your legal situation than you do.

Once the tax court rules on the motion to dismiss, that order will be posted on their website, and we will see if your prior public representations about the subject matter of your pending petition on your various blogs and in mass emails (characterizations you have apparently forgotten publishing) were accurate. One thing is certain, the petition will be dismissed in a few weeks max.

Finally, Ms. Lynch, by sending me over 20,000 emails (many of them layering email upon email and consisting of 40 or more pages), at times at the rate of 40 or more a day, for more than five years, some of the emails using the most vulgar and vile epithets and language imaginable, you have long ago forfeited any claim of alleged “harassment” by me. Which is one of the many reasons why I have never been contacted by ANY of the many local, state, or federal agencies whom you have contacted about me in four different states, including California, Colorado, Washington DC, Texas, and Florida.

Have a nice day. You have an opposition to a sanctions motion to file and I have a plane to Rome in route to the Amalfi Coast to catch.

Not to worry, I’ll try to avoid the “Somali Pirates” you referenced earlier should any of them figure out how to travel from the West Coast of Africa to Italy or Greece as you previously suggested. Ha!

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 8:51 PM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com
Subject: Re: "As Lynch advised the Court - the IRS continues to view her as a partner.".

Hi IRS,

Further attempts to elicit information on the part of the criminal stalker. The Criminal is amused with his conduct. I suppose that's because he has the support of government actors such as the City Attorney and may have found a sympathetic ear with "Alan Jackson" about me. He's lying about IRS matters and harassing me over federal tax matters.

Kelley

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Stephen Gianelli,

I have advised you for over six years now to stop criminally harassing me, my sons, and others. You appear to be amused by your conduct. You are the party who advised me that IRS blocked your emails as "harassing." You continue to lie about IRS matters. My petition has nothing to do with Cohen's embezzlement of approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC. The Tax Court will decide if they have jurisdiction - not the IRS.

You have no details re. my communications with IRS and you will not have any. You are a criminal, engaged in stalking and harassment, and appear to be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen's legal team who attempts to elicit information. The IRS and I are not partners. The IRS has evidence that I am a partner on entities Cohen wrongfully converted to himself by arguing that he is the alter ego.

Please contact someone interested in hearing from you. For instance, the City Attorney of Los Angeles.

Kelley Lynch

NOTE: CASE INFORMATION STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILEDE.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:51 AM
Subject: Case Number B265753 - Like I said
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Future Scheduled Actions

Cohen v. Lynch
Division p

Case Number B265753

Description	Due Date	Notes
Record on appeal filed.	11/25/2015
Appeal dismissed - case information statement not filed.	09/03/2015	7/28/15 Kelley Lynch (Both Appeals)

COURT DIDN’T MENTION FORM DV-600

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:23 PM
Subject: Your blog post of 8/24
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

As the department 7 judge will soon rule, Judicial Council form DV-600 IS the form specified by the Judicial Council to register BOTH foreign civil harassment restraining orders and domestic violence orders pursuant to the authority provided by Family Code section 6404. (See form DV-600, page two and Family Code sections 6401 and 6404.) This could not be more clear from these authorities.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Subject: RE: DV-600 Harassment
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch:

What you call “harassment” other’s (including me) call legal TRUTH.

The fact is, the California Legislature decided to provide in Family Code sections 6401 and 6404 that upon the request of any person in possession of an out-of-state or tribal civil harassment order OR an out-of-state or tribal domestic violence order the order shall be registered with a court of this state in order to be entered in the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System.

Section 6404 subdivision (a) goes on to require the California Judicial Council to set forth the process whereby a person in possession of a foreign protection order may voluntarily register the order with a court of this state for entry into the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System.

As page two of California Judicial Council Court form DV-600 makes crystal clear, that form sets forth the process to register a foreign protection order under Family Code section 6404. Section 6401 paragraph (1) defines “foreign protection order” as a protection order issued by a tribunal of another state. Paragraph (5) of that section defines “protection order” to include an injunction or other order issued by a tribunal antistalking laws of the issuing state to prevent an individual from engaging in (among other specified things) harassment of, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to, another individual.

The 2008 Colorado protection order, therefore, is a foreign protection order as defined by section 6401 that must be registered on request with a court of this state in order to be entered in the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System and Judicial Council court form DV-600 is the proper form to accomplish that registration.

There is really no arguable way around this analysis. It’s not complicated. The meaning of the quoted statutes and instructions appended to form DV-600 is plain.

The fact that your victim testified at your 2012 criminal harassment trial for (among other things) violating the 2008 Colorado protection order that the two of you had a “brief” intimate affair in the 1980’s but that it was not a “romantic” one is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the 2008 Colorado protection order was properly issued in the first instance by the Boulder Combined Court (which issuance you stipulated to at the hearing) and is also irrelevant to the question of whether the 2008 Colorado protection order was properly registered in May of 2011 in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BQ033717.

Similarly, the issues of whether or not you were properly convicted in your 2012 trial of violating the 2008 Colorado protection order and whether or not your sentencing judge improperly imposed so called “domestic violence” fines as a part of your probation (which fines were vacated before you paid them) are also completely irrelevant to your pending motion to vacate in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BQ033717.

Simply stated, those issues about which you complain are not properly before the court.

This is not simply how view the situation, it is how ANY competent lawyer and how any superior court judge reviewing the motion will view it.

You appear to be an intelligent woman not without some legal training and experience. Therefore, your apparently inability or unwillingness to grasp and concede these obvious legal facts of life are puzzling to me but certainly not inconsistent with the frivolous litigation positions that you have expressed in mass emails, blog posts, and court filings over the last six years.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:33 AM
Subject: Your falacious (and legally unsupported) assumption that only "domestic violence" orders may be registered pursuant to section 6404 of the Family Code
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

The below governing language (referenced by section number right on the footer of Judicial Council form DV-600)could not be more crystal clear in requiring the registration of the 2008 Colorado civil harassment protection order in California on request using form DV-600.

Your motion studiously avoids any acknowledgement of, let alone discussion of, this controlling language.

I assure you that the Department 7 judge with have read it.

Ignoring this authority in favor of an irrelevant analysis of whether or not the Colorado order qualifies as a “domestic violence order” is a classic “straw man” argument that will get you nowhere with this judge.

Family Code section 6401. In this part:

(1) "Foreign protection order" means a protection order issued by

a tribunal of another state.

[…]

(5) "Protection order" means an injunction or other order, issued

by a tribunal under the … antistalking laws of the issuing state, to prevent an individual from

engaging in … harassment of,contact or communication with, or physical proximity to, another

individual.

Family Code section 6404. (a) Any foreign protection order shall, upon request of the

person in possession of the order, be registered with a court of this

state in order to be entered in the Domestic Violence Restraining

Order System … The Judicial Council shall adopt rules of court to [s]et

forth the process whereby a person in possession of a

foreign protection order may voluntarily register the order with a

court of this state for entry into the Domestic Violence Restraining

Order System.

[…]

From page two of Judicial Council form DV-600:

“This form sets forth the procedure to register a foreign protection order

under Family Code section 6404.”

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:19 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Since the validity of the protective order you were convicted of violating was a legal element of the charged offense, your criminal conviction os res judicata as to the validity of the Colorado order.

The registration of the order (valid or otherwise) was NOT an element of any offense you were convicted of, and therefore the 2012 judgment of conviction is NOT res judicata as to the propriety of the 2011 registration.

The latter is established as a matter of law by Family Code sections 6401 and 6404, as well as form DV-600.

The Dept. 7 judge will know all of this.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:39 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

‎Ms. Lynch,

CCP section 1008 clearly defines a motion to reconsider as ‎a subsequent motion that requests the SAME ORDER as a prior motion. The cases make clear that the rule applies even if the same order is sought on DIFFERENT GROUNDS.

Your 2015 motion sought orders vacating the default judgment and allowing you to file an answer to the complaint and defend on the merits.

These SAME orders were requested in your 2013 motion and denied on July 17, 2014.

Therefore your second motion is a motion to reconsider by statutory definition.

Citing your own views in the matter and ignoring the pertinent statutory language and cited cases is unavailing.

The sanctions motion will be granted. Not only was your motion a motion to reconsider, it was obviously so.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

‎Ms. Lynch,

Let me set the record straight on a few things:

1. Michelle Rice is the SOLE author of the litigation strategy against you. That includes every declaration signed by Leonard Cohen, the August, 2005 complaint in BC338322, and every pleading filed on Cohen's behalf or signed by Jeffery Korn or Scott Edelman. She and she alone is calling the litigation shots - not Robert Kory, not Edelman, not Korn, not Bergman - and has been since 2005.

2. Rice is terrified that a new judge will grant your motion to vacate the 2011 registration of the Colorado order, because she literally fears for her life now that (she says) she lives 3-miles from you. And she had a lot of trouble getting it registered in 2011.

3. Michelle Rice has threatened to sue me, has said very disparaging things about me, and has made it clear that Leonard Cohen and the undersigned are adverse.

For these reasons my correspondence to you is in no way on behalf of Kory/Rice or Cohen.

In fact, I wish you the best of luck on August 1 - now that Ms. Rice has opened the door in her opposition to the merits of the restraining order and your 2012 criminal conviction.

I think she is making a big tactical mistake. We'll see.

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Mensa; 170 IQ's
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2111/2363052881_dbc5907843_o.jpg

Michelle Rice emailed to inform me that the reason that she has such a grotesquely over sized forehead (see above photo, second from Leonard Cohen moving clockwise) is that she is a member of Mensa with a genius IQ of "170". Leonardo had an IQ of 170 s o you had best be prepared on 9/1!

As for Michelle's Mensa membership - see the Christopher Hitchens ‎essay "The Eggheads and I" published in Vanity Fair. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1996/09/hitchens-199609
‎

‎Good. Luck!

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:56 AM
Subject: M. Rice
To: BlindDistribution@gmail.com

Bragging about your MENSA membership is not SMART.

It only flags you as an insufferable - and insecure - tool.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/08/31/a-thing-not-to-do-when-youre-smart/

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:14 AM
Subject: Case Number: BQ033717 - 09/01/2015 at 08:45 AM in Department CE7, Silverman, B. Scott, Presiding Motion DENIED
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

Judge Silverman was a staff attorney (“clerk”) for the California Supreme Court for many years before being appointed to the superior court bench eight years ago.

He is as bright and analytical as lawyers get. On that foundation he has eight years’ experience as a trial judge – including extensive experience with TRO and restraining orders, domestic violence orders and the California registration of same issued by out of state courts.

I sincerely hope that you listened to what Judge Silverman had to say at the 9/1/2015 hearing.

Notwithstanding Ms. Rice’s tactically puzzling efforts to take the discussion into the merits of your criminal case and away from the mandate provided by Family Code section 6404, that all foreign protection orders MUST be registered on request and the impact of section 6401 – including CIVIL HARASSMENT ORDERS within the definition of foreign protection orders covered by section 6404 is crystal clear.

It is also clear from page two of Judicial Council form DV-600 that it is the form that sets forth the proper procedure for the registration of foreign protection orders, SUCH AS THE 2008 COLORADO ORDER, in California.

Your other complaints regarding the offense you were charged and convicted of, your guilt or innocence thereof, any alleged perjury committed during that trial, and whether or not you were ever in a “dating relationship” with your former employer are all issues that should have been raised in your direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and/or your petition for writ of habeas corpus. In any event, all of those issues are completely irrelevant to the propriety of the May, 2011 registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order using form DV-600 in Case No. BQ033717.

The sooner you realize these things the better off you are going to be.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

PS: I had a fantastic time visiting the Amalfi Coast (just got back) and no “Somali pirates” as you referenced in your email to the FBI/DOJ/IRS. They must all be vacationing in Morocco this year. Ha!

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:56 AM
Subject: Docket No. 17085-15 - ORDER Re: pening motion to dismiss
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Section 7623 (Order, ¶) refers to the determination by the IRS of a whistleblower claim.

The court wants to know whether the IRS previously served you with a notice of determination of your claim to ascertain if there is anything to appeal at this time and if so whether you filed within 30 days of the date of mailing of the notice of determination as required for jurisdiction.

Therefore, your petition, in part at least, purports to appeal the purported denial of a whistleblower claim relating to Leonard Cohen.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch blog posted mass emails dated Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:00 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

Any appeal of judge Silverman’s order denying your motion to set aside the May, 2011 registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order would be an exercise in futility in light of the definition of “foreign protection order” set forth in section 6401 – including any civil harassment order issued by a foreign tribunal under the anti-stalking laws of that state in that definition.

Second, one does not have to consult the boxes checked on the application for civil harassment order to ascertain whether or not the Colorado order was issued under the authority of its anti-stalking law ("Protection order" means an injunction … issued … under the … antistalking laws of the issuing state …”. That definition, by its plain language, refers to whether or not the code section under which the order was issued was intended to address the social evil of stalking and NOT whether the protected person presented evidence of “stalking” to support the order’s issuance. If the legislature wanted to limit the California registration of out-of-state civil harassment orders to orders issued following a factual showing of stalking behavior on the part of the restrained person it could have said so but did not. Instead, section 6401 requires that the order be issued under the law of the foreign state designed to address stalking.

The order registered in California in 2011 was a “permanent protection order”. The temporary protection order (which was superseded when the permanent order was issued) is the order that was supported by the protected person’s testimony. The permanent protection order issued September 2, 2008 is the order that was registered with the California court. That order was not supported by a factual showing at all because before that factual showing could be made at the hearing, you stipulated and agreed (indeed, requested) that the permanent protection order be issued.

More to the point, the permanent protection order appended to form DV-600 and registered with the California Court says right on the footer “Permanent civil protection order issued pursuant to § 13-14-102 C.R.S.” (all caps omitted).

Section 13-14-102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes states, in relevant part:

“Any municipal court of record…shall have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue a…permanent civil protection order…for any of the following purposes: (par) (d) [t]o prevent stalking.”

Therefore, there can be no doubt that section 13-14-102 C.R.S is Colorado’s “anti-stalking law” as that phrase is used in Family Code section 6401.

As such, the 2008 Colorado permanent protection order meets the definition of a “foreign protection order” subject to mandatory registration under Family Code section 6404 using court form DV-600. Nor can you be heard to object to the kind of evidence adduced at the September 2, 2015 hearing, because you interrupted the taking of evidence and requested that the permanent protection order be issued without the further examination of witnesses. The second page of form DV-600 itself explicitly states that it is the proper form to register out of state protection orders pursuant to section 6400.

Of course you can appeal once on the merits as a matter of course. But the propriety of the 2011 registration in California of the permanent protection order issued in Colorado under its anti-stalking law, that any such appeal would be completely and utterly without objective merit subjecting you to sanctions on appeal under the standards set forth by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637.

Any separate federal lawsuit arising out of the California registration of the permanent civil protection order issued by the Colorado court would be barred by, among other things, the absolute privilege afforded to party litigants and their counsel from civil liability arising out of their court filings and as such would be objectively frivolous and sanctionable under FRCP, Rule 11.

Last, pointing all of this out to you after you chose to go public about your legal affairs and intended filings on your public blog and in mass emails is not “harassment” – not does this email contain obscene or abusive or threatening language that qualifies it as “harassment” under any applicable statutory definition.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Fwd: Case Number: BQ033717 - 09/01/2015 at 08:45 AM in Department CE7, Silverman, B. Scott, Presiding Motion DENIED
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com

Michelle Rice,

I remain unconvinced that you may use form DV-600 to register an out-of-state order. I would, however, appreciate the Senate Judiciary's input particularly given the tax implications of this entire situation and your novel position with respect to the Supremacy Clause.

I intend to appeal this matter and am filing a federal lawsuit addressing the fraud restraining order solely. There were no findings in Colorado and that includes with respect to "stalking." It doesn't matter what boxes Cohen checked. He is a proven and chronic liar - and that includes under oath.

The criminal stalker continues to harass me over Leonard Cohen. This has gone on since he heard from you in May 2009. That is not coincidental.

Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Subject: Hope springs eternal (from Kelley Lynch's blog, apparently)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com

“I don't think my federal suits will be viewed as frivolous.”

--Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch's blog posted email dated Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

Just when I think you are starting to behave in a semi-rational manner I read something like this on your blog.

Do you really believe that the United States Senate has or will take an interest in a 2006 default judgment and/or a judgment entered in 2008 in a federal court case in which you were served with process but refused to participate at the time? Or that the FBI has or will either?

Do you really believe that – seven years after the case is over – filing a statement that you “agree” with specified allegation’s in Greenberg’s complaint (which was never adjudicated, by the way and which complaint was dismissed with prejudice years ago) is of ANY legal significance at all?

The objective answer to these questions is, of course, no. As an aside, one presumes that you agree with Greenberg’s implausible allegations because with few exceptions they came directly from you via Norman Posel, with no independent evidence other than your questionable and self-serving account of events to underpin them.

The fascinating question remains: How in the world could you believe any of this matters?

Are you that divorced from reality?

Do you revert to this delusional world view when under stress (such as the stress of losing your 2015 motions after losing your 2013 motion after losing your 2013 appeal after losing your 2012 criminal trial)?

Entire psychiatric courses could be taught about you in medical school.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Hope springs eternal (from Kelley Lynch's blog, apparently)
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com

Hi Senate Judiciary,

I spoke to FBI about the evidence re. criminal witness tampering, etc. and refuse to handle it myself. These are the statements I agree with. Everything else in Greenberg's suit is self-serving. I will now address in federal court the fraud upon the District Court in Denver.

Kelley

NATURAL WEALTH LAWSUIT

AMENDED COMPLAINT

& LYNCH’S SUMMARY OF FACTUAL

ALLEGATIONS & STATEMENTS

Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc., et al. v. Leonard Cohen, et al.

Case No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB

I, Kelley Lynch, agree with the following factual statements and was a witness to much of what was addressed in Natural Wealth’s Amended Complaint (Denver District Court, Case No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB). Therefore, Neal Greenberg, and other Plaintiffs, and I are in agreement with respect to the following facts.

[MESSAGE TRUNCATED]

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:56 AM
Subject: Docket No. 17085-15 - ORDER Re: pening motion to dismiss
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Section 7623 (Order, ¶) refers to the determination by the IRS of a whistleblower claim.

Therefore, your petition, in part at least, purports to appeal the purported denial of a whistleblower claim relating to Leonard Cohen.

EXHIBIT B

DECLARATIONS OF

JOHN RUTGER PENICK & RAY CHARLES LINDSEY

(SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO
NUMEROUS COURTS)

John Rutger Penick

c/o Kelley Lynch

1754 N. Van Ness Avenue

Hollywood, California 90028

Phone: 323.331.4250

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LEONARD COHEN,

Plaintiff

vs. Case No. BQ033717

Case No. BC338322

KELLEY LYNCH, an individual

Defendant

DECLARATION OF JOHN RUTGER PENICK

I, JOHN RUTGER PENICK, declare:

1. I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California. I am the son of defendant, Kelley Ann Lynch. I am over the age of 18 years. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.

2. At some point in October 2004, my mother and Leonard Cohen parted ways. She had worked as his personal manager for approximately 17 years. It was my understanding that they parted ways because my mother hired a new accountant, was referred to tax lawyers, and issues arose with respect to my mother’s belief that Leonard Cohen had committed tax fraud. My mother eventually reported those allegations to the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities. Since that time, Leonard Cohen and others, including my stepfather Steve Lindsey, have engaged in malicious and abusive tactics directed at my mother, me, and my younger brother, Ray Charles Lindsey.

3. In the fall of 2004 and early 2005, I understood that Leonard Cohen was attempting to force my mother into a deal or settlement. I heard many conversations about this. Steve Lindsey actually tried to encourage me to convince my mother to enter into a deal with Leonard Cohen that would be very attractive for her. She refused to negotiate with Leonard Cohen, although he owed her a tremendous amount of money, because she felt he was asking her to provide false testimony against his representatives.

4. Steve Lindsey and my mother separated in 1997. As of the fall of 2004, my stepfather, Steve Lindsey, was in a new relationship and his girlfriend, Dinah Englund, was pregnant with their daughter. My mother had sole custody of my brother until May 2005. The three of us lived together from 1997 until May 2005 when a custody matter was initiated.

5. By the spring of 2005, Steve Lindsey, who had an abusive personality and temperament, was becoming increasingly aggressive and hostile towards my mother, brother, and me. At some point, he hired custody lawyer, Daniel Bergman, and they pursued a completely concocted custody matter involving my brother, Ray Charles Lindsey.

6. I was present for the hearings in that case and know for a fact that the custody matter was based on lies. My mother was a wonderful parent, provided us with a great environment, loved us, and was never even remotely abusive to either of us. Steve Lindsey used fraudulent restraining orders as a tactic against my mother.

7. Both Steve Lindsey and Leonard Cohen owe my mother a tremendous amount of money and I believe they coordinated the custody and litigation matters to force her into deals with them. From approximately May 2005, when the custody matter arose, until my brother was 18, Steve Lindsey failed to have my brother phone my mother although I was present when the Court ordered him to have Ray call her every other night. Steve Lindsey also prohibited my mother and other members of our family from seeing Ray. His lawyer, Daniel Bergman, refused to communicate with her although I was present when he was ordered to do so by the court. It is my understanding that Daniel Bergman now represents Leonard Cohen in a related case. I would assume he represents Leonard Cohen in order to further distress and harass my mother.

8. It is my understanding that Leonard Cohen’s October 2005 restraining order against my mother involved his declaration that addressed my brother’s custody matter and a May 25, 2005 SWAT incident at our home. I would like to address these matters with the Court based on what I personally witnessed.

9. On the morning of May 25, 2005, my mother phoned and asked me to pick my brother up at the house. Ray did not feel well that day, stayed home from school, and this caused Steve Lindsey to become angry which frequently happened with him. My mother said Steve Lindsey, Ray’s father, had repeatedly called that morning and was becoming threatening and abusive. My mother informed me that she did not want Steve Lindsey on our property and asked me to meet Steve Lindsey at the bottom of the hill with Ray. Lindsey intended to drive Ray to school. I personally spoke to Steve Lindsey who confirmed this arrangement. As I was a block away, and Lindsey said he was in Beverly Hills, I immediately drove home, picked Ray up, and drove down the hill. I was accompanied by my friend, Evan Reiss.

10. When I arrived home, my mother and Ray were waiting outside. Ray was on the phone with his father. I got out of my car, walked over to Ray, took the phone and informed Steve that I was leaving the house with Ray immediately, and handed the phone to my mother. When I arrived at the bottom of Mandeville Canyon, Cloris Leachman, rather than Steve Lindsey, was waiting to take custody of Ray. She waved me over and I dropped Ray off with her. I then saw Steve Lindsey and approximately 7 or more LAPD squad cars racing up Mandeville Canyon Road. I turned around, drove up the hill, and saw Lindsey speaking to the police officers. I believe he was providing them with a lay-out of the property. I explained to LAPD that my mother was in the house alone; I had just been with her, and confirmed that I had spoken with Lindsey moments earlier and we agreed that we would meet at the bottom of Mandeville where he would pick Ray up. I also explained that I dropped my brother off with Cloris Leachman who was Lindsey’s girlfriend’s mother. LAPD was uninterested in what I, and others, had to say and appeared to be relying specifically on what Steve Lindsey told them. Steve Lindsey had not been to our house and was not in a position to tell LAPD anything. I heard Steve Lindsey confirm that he called the police. I later heard that my Aunt Karen, my mother’s sister, phoned LAPD but I have spoken with her directly and she assured me that this was not the case. At some point, as the situation unfolded, Steve Lindsey received a phone call and left.

11. The SWAT incident continued to unfold and would last for approximately three to four hours. LAPD, based on what they were advised by Steve Lindsey, asked if my mother had access to a gun and/or weapon. I confirmed for LAPD that my mother did not have a gun and/or weapon in her house. I also confirmed that I, as I was over the age of 18 at the time, owned a rifle that was legally registered. I explained to LAPD that I lived in a separate guest house on the property; my mother did not have keys to the guest house; the door was locked; and the gun was locked in my closet and locked inside a case. My mother did not have keys to the guest house, closet or the case.

12. LAPD questioned me about our dogs. I explained that we had two large Akitas. Throughout the incident, LAPD advised me that they intended to shoot my mother; would let me stay and watch or take me somewhere; and planned to shoot our dogs. At the end of the SWAT incident, LAPD personally informed me that our dog was the hostage and they were taking precautions. I was also informed that Inglewood PD was present.

13. At no point did LAPD ask my mother to come out; approach our front door; attempt to phone her; or attempt to determine what was actually going on. Nothing was going on other than the fact that my mother kept my younger brother home sick and Steve Lindsey became angry.

14. At one point, LAPD asked me to trick my mother into coming out of the house. I therefore asked my mother if she would like a cigarette. I believe LAPD felt that was her “hostage demand” although she did not have a hostage; they understood I had taken my brother down the street; and, she was in the house alone. My mother came out of the house, with our dog Shadow on a leash, and asked LAPD “Who is my hostage? My dog?” My mother was wearing nothing other than a bikini and it was very clear that she did not have a gun or weapon and Shadow was on a leash.

15. After a considerable amount of time passed, LAPD decided they would enter our house, neutralize my mother, and asked me to lead the way. There were officers on our hillside and crouched under the windows. I believe assault weapons and bean bag guns were deployed. LAPD directed me to lead them into the house. I followed their instructions and we noticed that my mother was in the backyard. LAPD rushed through the house into our backyard. At that time, my mother dove into the pool. I witnessed this. When my mother surfaced, she asked an LAPD officer not to “hurt” her and he replied that they were not there to hurt her but were there to help her. Without questioning my mother or explaining why, LAPD handcuffed my mother. As she was only wearing a bikini, I went inside, noticed that my mother had locked Shadow in the bathroom, and grabbed a brocade jacket for her. LAPD then led my mother out front. Two officers pulled up and my mother was placed into the back of the car.

16. A woman who identified herself as Erma Oppenhein asked me if I was okay and wanted to know if my mother was on any medications. I responded that I was okay and informed her that my mother was on heart and asthma medication. These officers then drove off with my mother.

17. Shortly after LAPD left, I received a phone call from Steve Lindsey. He asked me if I would go into Leonard Cohen/Robert Kory’s office and sign over/transfer our house to Cohen and/or Kory. I recall Lindsey asking me to have my mother formally committed and he mentioned their wanting me to sign some paperwork to this effect. I was 18 years old at the time. I decided to phone my father, Douglas Penick, who advised me to speak to a lawyer first. I decided not to return Steve Lindsey’s call. Lindsey also informed me that, if I agreed to sign over/transfer our house to Leonard Cohen and/or Robert Kory, Cohen would provide him with money and they would assist me financially.

18. When my mother was taken from our house, LAPD informed me that they intended to search the premises. They did not appear to be in possession of a search warrant for either my mother’s house or my guest house. I stayed while they searched and found nothing. They confirmed that there was no hostage. LAPD also searched my guest house and understood that my rifle was locked in the guest house; locked in my closet; and locked in a case. LAPD removed my rifle from our property. They did not give their reasons for doing so. I later received a call from LAPD advising me that I could pick the rifle up from West LAPD. My mother and I picked it up and LAPD had removed the lock from the case.

19. After the SWAT incident, my mother phoned and informed me that LAPD had taken her to King Drew Hospital in South Central. I was in shock that LAPD would take my mother to South Central. UCLA was approximately 10 minutes from our home. She explained that Dr. D’Angelo, who worked at King Drew, advised her to wait her turn and she would be promptly released. Dr. D’Angelo also confirmed for me that my mother was being released. Evan Reiss and I drove to King Drew to pick my mother up. At the hospital, Dr. D’Angelo came outside to speak to me and confirmed that he was releasing my mother and did not agree with LAPD’s assessment that she was dangerous to herself and/or others. He also confirmed that there was nothing in the file that would cause my mother to lose custody of my brother. My mother was concerned that the SWAT incident was being used to coordinate a custody matter. We would later find out that her concerns were valid. My mother also informed me that LAPD questioned her about Phil Spector and possible gun incidents on the way to King Drew. She couldn’t figure out how LAPD understood she knew Phil Spector.

20. My mother, who was picking up her property while I spoke with Dr. D’Angelo, then walked out of King Drew. Evan and I drove her home. Ray called while we were driving home but, at that time, we didn’t realize Steve Lindsey had filed a custody matter with LA Superior Court. The custody matter was filed due to the SWAT and Killer King incidents. My mother explained that she was drugged against her will at King Drew and discussed how dangerous the environment was.

21. At this time, due to the King Drew and SWAT incidents, Steve Lindsey also obtained a restraining order against my mother. My mother is the individual who was abused by Steve Lindsey and simply did not want him on our property due to his own aggressive behavior. I do know for a fact that Ray felt tremendous pressure and fear when his father would lose his temper. I believe the custody matter, SWAT incident, and restraining orders were used tactically to discredit my mother and prevail in numerous lawsuits that would be brought against her by Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey.

22. Once we learned that a custody matter had been filed, we also discovered that Betsy Superfon, a friend of Steve Lindsey’s, and Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, submitted declarations in that matter. Betsy Superfon would later inform me personally that she didn’t know what she was signing when she signed the declaration Lindsey provided her. Betsy also told me she felt my mother, if anything, was too good to me and my brother.

23. Robert Kory’s declaration involved allegations that my mother misappropriated monies from Leonard Cohen and addressed the time my mother and brother stopped into his office. My mother attempted to speak to him about legal and business matters between her and Leonard Cohen.

During my mother’s 2012 trial, my brother’s custody matter was raised as an issue. Robert Kory testified that my mother “interrogated” my brother at his office. I have spoken to my mother and brother about this matter, including immediately after it occurred, and both confirmed that my mother simply asked Ray some questions related to information he had heard about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud, missing state tax returns, her share of intellectual property and commissions due her, and their threats to put in her in jail. Those threats were repeated to me and my brother in the spring of 2005 by Steve Lindsey who said he would assist Leonard Cohen. I also personally heard information about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud, missing state returns, my mother’s share of intellectual property and commissions due her, and her requests for tax information.

24. On April 15, 2005, my mother reported Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Betzer, Internal Revenue Service. She had previously reported it to other tax authorities.

25. Steve Lindsey and Daniel Bergman refused to allow me to see Ray. The entire custody matter was based on lies and I believe it was meant to crush and destroy my mother. It was also used to pressure me and Ray.

26. Leonard Cohen would also use restraining orders to discredit my mother. My mother has never threatened Leonard Cohen. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers have refused to communicate with my mother for approximately 10 street years and I believe it’s to say that the situation is thoroughly frustrating. I have been copied on her emails since the spring of 2005 and at no time did I read anything that was threatening or harassing towards Leonard Cohen or anyone else. My mother is the individual who has been relentlessly slandered, harassed, threatened, and intimidated.

27. In the Spring of 2005, my mother was advised by His Holiness Kusum Lingpa to document everything we were going through in emails with witnesses copied in. I was frequently copied on those emails. The primary reason for my mother’s emails was to document everything she had gone through since she reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service. The emails, as my mother has explained many times, are documenting everything for the Internal Revenue Service due to the retaliation over tax matters. The custody matter was clearly coordinated by Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey, and their lawyers. It was my understanding that my mother lost the custody matter because, due to her financial circumstances, she was unable to afford a custody lawyer; the tactics used against her have been malicious; and the results of these actions led to a default that caused the Court to give Steve Lindsey custody of my brother.

28. Leonard Cohen filed a retaliatory with a lawsuit (LA Superior Court Case No. BC338322). I have submitted declarations to Los Angeles Superior Court confirming that my mother was not served Cohen’s lawsuit; we did not have a co-occupant or know anyone who resembled the individual the process server said he served; my mother did not resemble the individual; no one attempted to evade service; and my mother has relentlessly address this matter for years. I have also submitted declarations addressing the fact that I was present when my mother asked Chad Knaak, a friend of mine who lived with us at the time, to call Cohen’s lawyer and advise him that she was not served the lawsuit and if he attempted to serve her she would hold him personally accountable for emotional distress. She also asked Chad Knaak to advise Leonard Cohen’s lawyer that she viewed this lawsuit as Cohen’s attempt to cover up tax fraud.

29. At the time Lindsey filed the custody matter, he owed my mother a tremendous amount of money and that seemed to be part of his motive. I also understood that he had been meeting with Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory about my mother. Steve Lindsey refused to pay my mother what he owed her for Ray’s upbringing and support. He also refused to repay her for monies she expended on behalf of his daughter, Jennifer Lindsey, who lived with us before my mother and Lindsey broke up in 1997. Leonard Cohen also owed my mother money and, after they parted ways, stopped paying her. My mother had also loaned Steve Lindsey money. He simply refused to address these matters and permitted my mother to end up homeless.

30. I have addressed the fact that my mother was not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit. I have witnessed my mother’s attempts to address this with Leonard Cohen and/or his lawyers. She was always told that they would not speak to her and hung up on her. They refused to respond to her emails addressing this, requests for tax information, and other business and legal matters.

31. As of the summer of 2005, my mother’s phone was shut down at some point and many people (including Paulette Brandt, Palden Ronge, Yongzin Rinpoche, Choegon Rinpoche, and Lama Lhanang) kept in touch with us by stopping by the house. Various people brought food, supplies for our animals, and others items. As I was forced to take a job at Whole Foods, I also purchased items for my mother. My mother had no money by this time. Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey refused to pay her what they owed her. It was my understanding that Leonard Cohen would pay my mother what he owed her if she testified against his representatives. It was also my understanding that Sergeant Joe, who monitored my mother’s July 2005 visit at Roxbury Park with my brother (although she was the abused party), advised her to go into Daniel Bergman’s office and make a deal that would make her happy. She refused to negotiate under these terms and conditions. I drove my mother to meet with my brother and Sergeant Joe.

32. In mid-October 2005, Leonard Cohen’s lawyer showed up at our house with the Sheriff’s Department. LASD searched our house and took many items. I was present and they said they were permitted to seize anything with Leonard Cohen’s name on it. My mother was upset because they took her business and personal files and items. The Sheriff’s Department returned and seized items that were in our garage since we moved to 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road. My mother had stored these items as a favor for Leonard Cohen for years.

33. For years, my mother stored boxes of old business documents of Leonard Cohen’s in our garage. He had renovated his garage and my mother agreed to store these items for him. I have spent a considerable amount of time with Leonard Cohen and my mother – at her office, his home, and at our home. I also know his son and daughter, Adam and Lorca Cohen. My mother worked as both Adam and Leonard Cohen’s personal managers.

34. On December 28, 2005, my mother and I were evicted from our home. She ended up homeless in Santa Monica. I went to live with family friends. For a period of approximately one year my mother was essentially homeless. I personally believe Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey, together with their lawyers, intentionally bankrupted my mother so she would be unable to defend herself.

35. By January 2007, my mother was living with an elderly woman in Santa Ana, California. On February 3, 2007, I was in a serious industrial accident at Whole Foods. I was not trained or qualified to work on the meat grinder which we later found out had not been functioning properly for some time. The safety guard was removed without my knowledge. This led to the loss of my fingers and part of my hand. I understand that Leonard Cohen testified, at my mother’s 2012 trial, that she blamed him for this accident. That is a blatant lie. My mother understood that Whole Foods caused this accident. In fact, my mother repeatedly contacted the District Attorney’s office about this matter and asked them to investigate potential criminal negligence. I was copied on some of the emails my mother sent the District Attorney’s office and their failure to investigate upset my mother tremendously.

36. My mother was aware that Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey owed her a tremendous amount of money and, if they paid her what they owed her, I would have been in college. I felt the same way. I am aware that corporate records exist proving that my mother has an ownership interest in numerous corporate entities and Cohen related intellectual property. I am also aware Leonard Cohen offered my mother numerous settlements. I personally heard that my mother was offered many types of settlement offers, including 50% community property, by Cohen and/or Kory. I am also aware that Leonard Cohen refused to pay my mother for commissions due her.

37. In the spring of 2007, my mother came to stay with me for a spell. Yongzin Rinpoche and his wife, Clea Surkhang Westphal, then invited my mother to visit with them at their home outside of Boulder, Colorado. My mother relocated to Colorado in the spring of 2007. Eventually my mother took a long term temporary position with Deneuve Construction in Boulder, Colorado which she seemed to enjoy.

38. I did hear, from time to time, that Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey, together with their lawyers, continued to harass my mother in Colorado. I was also copied in on emails throughout this period of time. Those emails asked Leonard Cohen, or his lawyers, to provide my mother with IRS documentation; a corporate accounting; monies due my mother; and she also attempted to address the fact that she was not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit. I actually met with my mother’s attorney, David Moorhead, in Boulder, Colorado and confirmed a great deal of this information for him.

39. I understand that at some point in 2008, Leonard Cohen flew into Boulder, Colorado to obtain yet another restraining order against my mother. Leonard Cohen, and his lawyers, have gone to extraordinary lengths to target and discredit my mother. It is my understanding that the Boulder Court informed my mother that the Colorado order expired in February 2009. I know for a fact that she believed the original Boulder, Colorado order expired. She believed this before she was arrested in March 2012. Apparently Leonard Cohen registered the foreign Colorado order, my mother was unaware of that fact, and this created a new domestic violence order although my mother was never in a dating relationship with Leonard Cohen.

40. At some point in 2008, while my mother was still staying with Yongzin Rinpoche and his family, I received a phone call from an insurance company lawyer. The individual advised me that they represented the insurance company for Thomas Bradshaw. On June 13, 2005, Thomas Bradshaw rear-ended my mother, knocked her unconscious, broke her nose, caused head trauma, and injured our shitzu, Charlie, who eventually died. This lawyer informed me that Thomas Bradshaw lied to the police about that accident and they wanted my mother to testify for them and against him. I called my mother, passed along the message, and provided her with the lawyer’s name and number.

41. Immediately following the June 13, 2005 accident, LAPD again came to our house. Due to the SWAT incident, my friend and I informed LAPD that my mother did not want them to enter our house. They disregarded our statements, pushed past us, walked back to my mother’s room, demanded that she hang up the phone, and took her out of the house in handcuffs although she was sitting in her room, quietly speaking to her friend on the phone, and was injured and bleeding. My mother had gone out to buy dog food when she was rear ended on Mandeville by Thomas Bradshaw. At first, when I saw my mother, I thought Steve Lindsey hit her. She was completely discombobulated and unclear about what had happened. I believe she thought I was in the car accident. I saw the accident site. This time LAPD took my mother to UCLA. She was there for approximately 24 hours; I thought she was in the Emergency Room the entire time; and, she was released and came home. UCLA confirmed that my mother had head trauma due to this accident. My mother explained that LAPD visited her in the UCLA Emergency Room and confirmed that they understood she had been rear-ended.

42. After LAPD left our house this time, I noticed that someone had tried to break into the house, while my mother and I had been out that evening, and the bathroom window and mirror were both broken. I decided not to contact LAPD about earlier break-in due to their conduct with my mother.

43. In or around June 2009, I discovered Blogonaut’s Law Blog, owned by Stephen Gianelli, which appeared to be dedicated to slandering and discrediting my mother. Stephen Gianelli, an absolute strange, has now spent over six years harassing and stalking me, my brother, mother, other family members and friends. His obsession with us relates to Leonard Cohen, IRS matters, and the Phil Spector case. My mother is a close personal friend of Phil Spector’s. I have known Mr. Spector since I was quite young and last saw him after the incident in his home. He picked my mother up and took her out to dinner. Stephen Gianelli, and others, have also harassed my mother over the SWAT and King Drew incidents, Ray’s custody matter, and the incident at Phil Spector’s house. I have been copied on these harassing emails. It is my understanding that Phil Spector personally informed my mother that the incident at his house was a suicide.

44. Stephen Gianelli seems intent on slandering and discrediting my mother; isolating her from friends and family; scaring people and turning them against her; and harming my mother. He also appears to intimidate, threaten, stalk, and harass witnesses or people who are supportive of my mother.

45. In June 2013, I received a disturbing email from Stephen Gianelli me that my mother had returned to Los Angeles (which I, of course, knew) and explaining that he had communicated with the City Attorney of Los Angeles who planned to arrest my mother again. By that time, I understood my mother had spoken to the FBI about the situation with Gianelli and LAPD had evidently informed my mother to maintain all emails from Gianelli and Walsh. I decided to reply to see what Gianelli had on his mind and attempted to be cordial in my response. His email alarmed me and caused me to become concerned about my mother’s welfare. Gianelli continued to slandered my mother to me and my brother horrendously and continued to falsely accuse of her of many things.

46. From approximately November 2012 for nearly two years, Stephen Gianelli (and Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh) wrote the City Attorney’s office falsely accusing my mother of many things, slandering her horrendously, and harassing all of us. Stephen Gianelli and Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, were essentially using the City Attorney’s office to harass my mother. I was copied on those emails. My brother and other members of our family and friends were also copied on these emails. My mother continuously advised the City Attorney that she did not want to be copied on emails to them. She was concerned about me and my brother and attempted to address the slanderous allegations made to numerous government officials. The City Attorney never bothered to respond and we continued to be harassed. At that time, Ray and I were residents of Los Angeles. Not too long ago, Stephen Gianelli and Susanne Walsh resumed writing the City Attorney and continued to copy me. My mother also attempted to refute false allegations and information being presented by these strangers to the Los Angeles City Attorney, District Attorney, and other government officials.

47. In July 2013, my brother wrote Stephen Gianelli and Susanne Walsh to advise them that their emails were making him physically ill. My brother has been harassed by these individuals, and others, since he was a minor. Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, has been copied on some of the harassing emails sent by Gianelli and Walsh. Following my brother’s email to Gianelli, Walsh, and others, I also wrote Stephen Gianelli to advise him to stop targeting my mother because she was poor and unable to defend herself.

48. It is my understanding that Leonard Cohen has somehow obtained a domestic violence order against my mother and testified during her 2012 trial that they were “lovers.” I spent a tremendous amount of time with my mother – including at her offices – and also worked for Amazing Card Company when it was located one block from Leonard Cohen’s house and in Santa Monica, California. I would also visit Leonard Cohen’s apartment with my mother. At no time did I hear or witness anything that would lead me to believe that my mother and Cohen were or had been in any type of dating or engagement relationship. I always personally felt that Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey were obsessed with my mother and behaved like jealous men towards her.

49. My mother and I have always been extremely close and she tells me everything. I know how she felt about Leonard Cohen and she hated to stop by his house alone and frequently complained that he sexually harassed her, exposed himself to her, and once looked at people defecating on one another online in front of her. She mentioned that last detail to me because she was concerned that Ray might see these types of things online.

50. At some point, Steve Lindsey told me personally that Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, came into his office and advised him that my mother had sex with Oliver Stone who is a friend of ours. I have known Oliver Stone since I was quite young. He was a friend of His Holiness Kusum Lingpa; helped with His Holiness’ Buddhist center; and spent time at our home. I have also spent considerable time at events with my mother and Mr. Stone. One time we attended a private audience with the Dalai Lama together. Oliver Stone’s wife and baby were with us for that audience and at other times. At no time did I ever witness anything other than a friendship between Mr. Stone and my mother. Steve Lindsey was furious about this accusation and I believe it was used to stir up a custody matter. Steve Lindsey also asked me if my mother’s friend, Richard Rutowski, was my mother’s boyfriend. Apparently, Leonard Cohen and his lawyer also told Lindsey that my mother and Richard Rutowski were having an affair when they were together. Richard Rutowski, who was a friend of Oliver Stone’s, was our family friend, also helped with the Buddhist center, and was not my mother’s boyfriend.

52. I believe our lives were destroyed because Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey owe my mother money and my mother reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.

53. I would like to confirm that for approximately 10 years now, my mother has attempted to ask Leonard Cohen for IRS documents she requires. He has apparently refused to provide her with this information. This situation has been addressed in countless emails I have been copied on over the years. My mother has also attempted to refute the slanderous emails sent to me, my brother, her friends, and many others. She has constantly advised me that Stephen Gianelli is not an attorney of record in any Leonard Cohen matter but he writes as though he is defending Leonard Cohen legally. I have received countless legal opinions from him regarding Leonard Cohen matters.

54. I would like to advise this Court that my mother is a wonderful human being; does not have mental health issues; has never had substance abuse problems; and is the individual who needs protection.

55. I offered to testify during my mother’s 2012 trial; was available to testify in the related case she is presently involved with regarding Leonard Cohen; and have provided my mother with declarations. I personally believe this is why I have been relentlessly targeted, stalked, and harassed.

56. I think it is important for this Court to understand that my mother, brother, I, and many others, have been relentlessly harassed by many parties for years now. We have specifically been harassed over Leonard Cohen and these legal issues. I am not a party to any lawsuit related to Leonard Cohen and there is no reason for people to harass me over Leonard Cohen legal issues, IRS matters, or the default judgment he obtained. At times, Leonard Cohen’s lawyers have been copied on harassing emails sent to me personally.

57. At no time did my mother intend to harass or annoy Leonard Cohen. She has relentlessly advised the parties harassing us to cease and desist. I have advised them to cease and desist. My brother asked them to stop sending these emails. My aunt’s attorney advised Stephen Gianelli to cease and desist. It is my personal belief that Stephen Gianelli, and others, have intentionally attempted to provoke my mother by harassing me and my brother.

58. I also recall Stephen Gianelli writing Daniel Bergman, now Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, at one point, and advising him that he would be willing to provide a declaration in Ray’s custody matter although this man does not know any of us and has no valid or legal reason whatsoever for contacting us. My brother was a minor when Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and others began harassing him. My mother was concerned that some of these adult strangers could potentially be sexual predators and brought this to the attention of the District Attorney, City Attorney, LAPD, and others. I was copied on many of those emails.

59. Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey, and others, have used devious tactics with my mother and have continuously benefitted from their deceitful and abusive conduct.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

This declaration is executed on this 21st day of July 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

SIGNED (SUBMITTED – LA SUPERIOR COURT)

____________________________________

JOHN RUTGER PENICK

DECLARATION OF RAY CHARLES LINDSEY

I, Ray Charles Lindsey, declare as follows:

1.    I am over the age of eighteen. The following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.

2.    I am a resident of California.

3.    Since approximately 2009, I have been receiving emails from Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh (Leonard Cohen’s fan), and others. Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, was copied in on some of these emails.. Apart from Leonard Cohen, I do not know these people and have never met them. These individuals were also posting on the internet about my mother. Most of the emails related to matters involving Leonard Cohen, IRS, and Phil Spector.

4.    My mother was Leonard Cohen’s personal manager for approximately 17 years. They had a falling out in the fall of 2004 to my knowledge. My mother is also a friend of Phil Spector.

5.    On or around May 6, 2013, Ray Lawrence began privately emailing me. I don’t not know him and have never met him. He made serious accusations about my mother and was angry with my Aunt Karen. Karen is my mother’s sister.

6.    While Ray Lawrence was in Minnesota, my mother lived with his roommate, Michael Ingrassia. My mother moved out of their house on June 4, 2013 and shortly thereafter I began receiving an onslaught of emails from him, Stephen Gianelli, and Susanne Walsh. My mother was the target of those emails. Ray Lawrence accused my mother of many things, including stealing Michael Ingrassia’s computer. My mother then sent out an email from Michael Ingrassia confirming that he had given her the computer.

The accusations were confusing and disturbing. Whenever one of these individuals accused my mother of something in their mass emails, she would refute them, asked Gianelli, Walsh, Lawrence, and others, to stop emailing her, asked them to stop contacting her sons, family members, and friends, and/or advised them to cease and desist.

7.    On or around June 18, 2013, I wrote Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and Ray Lawrence advising them to stop contacting me and my immediate family because their emails were making me ill. See Exhibit A.

8.    On June 21, 2013, my brother, Rutger Penick, responded to these emails and addressed the fact that he felt Stephen Gianelli was picking on my mother because she is poor. He sent a copy of that email to Ray Lawrence and Susanne Walsh. My mother and I were copied in as well. See Exhibit B.

9.    At some point, Ray Lawrence’s emails made demands on my mother about property and evidence she left at his house with his permission.. He began threatening to destroy them, sell them, or provide her documents to Leonard Çohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice. Gianelli and Walsh also sent emails advising Lawrence to send my mother’s evidence and paperwork to Michelle Rice. This was upsetting to my mother and she emailed the recipients of the emails the agreement she and Lawrence had entered into permitting her to store her belongings at his house.

9.    The emails from Ray Lawrence were extremely slanderous and accusatory with respect to my mother and were upsetting and confusing. For the time being, they seem to have stopped.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July 17, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.

SIGNED & FILED WITH COURT
Ray Charles Lindsey

EXHIBIT A

From: Ray Lindsey
Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Subject: I'm getting physically ill
To: Susanne Walsh <sanneka@esenet.dk>
Cc: Ray Lawrence <monchobear@gmail.com>, "STEPHEN R. GIANELLI" <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Please discontinue contacting anyone in my immediate family. This is causing me to become ill as a result of the consistent bullshit. I just want everything to stop. I know I've added my share to the pool, but this is getting too much for me. I'm getting in over my head and it's hurting my heart to have to see my mother go through as a result of her own actions and the actions of others.

Can't we all just practice compassion for one moment, please.

EXHIBIT B

From: Rutger Penick
Date: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: I'm getting physically ill
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>, Ray Lawrence <monchobear@gmail.com>, Susanne Walsh <sanneka@esenet.dk>

Stephen shut up already. Live the rest of your worthless life without picking on the poor. I am sure that makes you feel superior.

Sincerely,

Rutger Penick | MCTS:Windows 7

River Deep Blog

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Kelley Lynch - Motion to Supplement the Record - Tax Court

Followers

About Me