From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:20 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch Supplement to Tax Court Motion
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@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@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, 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
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:20 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch Supplement to Tax Court Motion
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@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@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, 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
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I've now supplemented my Tax Court motion. Tax Court
corrected the title of the Motion filed September 5, 2015. See attached
supplement.
Kelley
|
Filed
|
Filings and Proceedings
|
Action/Status Date
|
Served
|
Document
|
||||||||||
|
07/06/2015
|
PETITION FILED
by Petr. Kelley Ann Lynch: FEE WAIVED
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
07/06/2015
|
REQUEST FOR
PLACE OF TRIAL AT LOS ANGELES, CA by Petr. Kelley Ann Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
07/06/2015
|
APPLICATION
FOR WAIVER OF FILING FEE by Petr. Kelley Ann Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
||||||||
|
07/08/2015
|
NOTICE OF
ATTACHMENTS IN THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
07/23/2015
|
MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Resp. (OBJECTION)
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
09/03/2015
|
ORDER RESP. BY
9/25/15 FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
09/05/2015
|
MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD by Petr. Kelley Ann Lynch (EXHIBIT)
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
09/08/2015
|
NOTICE OF
DOCKET CHANGE OF REPORT BY PETR. KELLEY ANN LYNCH FILED 09/05/2015. THE WRONG
DOCUMENT TITLE WAS SELECTED AND THE RECORD HAS BEEN CORRECTED TO PETITIONER'S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD.
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
09/08/2015
|
REPORT by
Petr. Kelley Ann Lynch (EXHIBIT)
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
REPORT
|
|
|
eFiled:
|
9/8/2015 at 3:13 PM Eastern time
|
|
Transaction #:
|
344222
|
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON DC 20217
KELLEY
ANN LYNCH
Petitioner ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
vs.
Docket No. 17085-15
COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Respondent
ADDENDUM TO
PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
THE RECORD
Petitioner
Kelley Lynch hereby respectfully moves this Court to supplement the record in
the above referenced case with this motion and the evidence attached hereto and
made a part hereof in Exhibit A.
Lynch
has reported Gianelli’s conduct to IRS, FBI, and DOJ as it relates to her, her
sons and sister, Paulette Brandt and others.
This conduct has been ongoing since Stephen Gianelli heard from Leonard
Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, in or around May 2009. It has been coordinated with other
individuals. Those individuals would
include, but are not limited to, Michelle Blaine (Phil Spector’s former
assistant) and Susanne Walsh (Leonard Cohen’s fan). The harassment now extends to this Tax Court
Petition. Stephen Gianelli has also
publicly stated that he contacted IRS Agent Luis Tejeda, Los Angeles,
California and transmitted fraudulent information to Internal Revenue Service
about Kelley Lynch. This individual,
while evidently serving as Leonard Cohen’s proxy, is not a party to any matter
involving Kelley Lynch and/or Leonard Cohen.
He has not entered a formal entry of appearance in any of these
matters. That would include this Tax
Court matter, all matters before LA Superior Court, the District Court in
Colorado, and/or the Central District Court in California. See Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BC338322, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BQ 033717, Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. BS099650, United States District Court (District of Colorado) Case
No.1:05-cv-01233-LTB, United States District
Court (Central District of California) Case No. 2:05-cv-06047, and Boulder Combined Court Case No. C0072008C.
Natural
Wealth’s lawsuit details some of the tactics used against Kelley Lynch by
Leonard Cohen and his legal representative, Robert Kory. Lynch’s sons, John Rutger Penick and Ray
Charles Lindsey, have addressed some of this criminal harassment – including as
it relates to Stephen Gianelli – and the tactics themselves in their
declarations that have been submitted to this Court. See Declarations of John Rutger Penick and Ray
Charles Lindsey submitted to this Court.
Stephen
Gianelli, who Lynch does not know, is obsessed with her blog (riverdeepbook.blogspot.com)
and the matters presently before LA Superior Court, the Appellate Division, and
Tax Court. He has informed Lynch that he
worked with the City Attorney of Los Angeles on at least two occasions to Lynch
falsely arrested. Lynch believes this
Court should understand that the City Attorney argued that she was not in
possession of IRS required tax and corporate information and the tax matters
are a ruse. The Tax Court should take
into consideration the fact that Cohen and his representatives failed to report
the 2001 income from the Sony sale to Internal Revenue Service. This matter was confirmed in Robert Kory’s
January 2005 memorandum to Lynch’s lawyers.
Cohen’s entirely fabricated and fraudulent Complaint (Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC338322) confirms that they failed to file state tax
returns. That would more than likely be
their motive for the tactics they have used against Kelley Lynch. Lynch believes this entire situation was
pre-meditated in 2002 when Sony issued the inadvertent $1 million and $7
million 1099s to Leonard Cohen (Sony/Traditional Holdings, LLC deal) and IRS
inquired about the $1 million deposit that is at issue in this Tax Court
matter. It is Lynch’s understanding that
the alleged evidence the “informant” brought to Cohen’s attention was her July
25, 2004 letter to the Chief Trial Counsel’s office. See Exhibit B.
Excerpt – Natural Wealth June 2005 lawsuit (Case
No.1:05-cv-01233-LTB):
Impact on
all parties of Traditional Holdings failure to report sale to Sony, or manner
in which sale treated (delta of $5 million basis and $8 million sale price may
be consumed in fees paid to third parties).
145.
When these tactics to draw Lynch into his extortion scheme proved futile, Cohen
and
Kory – according to Lynch – turned to far more aggressive means to obtain her
cooperation.
Indeed,
as heard by other witnesses, Cohen and Kory vowed to "crush her," and
planned to use
restraining
orders and other means to prevent her from serving as a credible witness
regarding
both
Cohen's affairs and in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without
success to
draw
her.
146.
Consistent with that vow and plan, and according to Lynch and other witnesses,
and
on information and belief, Cohen and Kory's tactics to terrorize, silence, or
disparage Lynch
have included, inter alia, the following:
a.
contacting City National Bank, where Lynch, Lynch’s son, and Lynch’s father,
all had personal banking accounts, and convincing City National Bank to put a
freeze on all three of their accounts;
b.
alleging that Lynch's father and mother were depositing funds for Lynch in
secret offshore bank accounts, even while, in fact, Lynch's mother was suffering
from Alzheimer's and had moved to Texas to be in the care of her other daughter
in light of Lynch's precarious financial circumstances;
c.
threatening Lynch that she would go to jail if she did not cooperate, and having
her younger son's father, Steve Lindsay, who was also Cohen’s record producer,
repeat these threats in the child's presence;
d.
threatening to "go to child services,” encouraging Steve Lindsay to file legal
action to remove Lynch’s younger (and his) son from her custody, and submitting
affidavits (from Kory and Superfon) supporting that effort;
e. in
a coordinated fashion with Lindsay’s child custody petition, encouraging or directing Steve Lindsay to call
in a warning to the LAPD (not related to Traditional Holdings, but on some
other, unknown pretext) that caused a police team to descend, guns drawn, on
Lynch's home, resulting in her being handcuffed and taken involuntarily, in her
bathing suit, to a hospital psychiatric ward and medicated without her consent,
before being released the next day, during which time Kory attempted to persuade
Lynch’s older son, Rutger, to sell Lynch’s house and provide $3 million; and
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 and any recordings of Stephen Gianelli’s
communications with the Chief Trial Counsel’s Office in Los Angeles, California
– as it relates to this Petition or Kelley Lynch – be preserved as evidence of
the ongoing harassment, witness tampering, intimidation tactics, and his role
as a proxy, agent provocateur, and/or infiltrator.
Dated:
8 September 2015
Signed
Kelley Lynch
Kelley
Lynch
EXHIBIT
A
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Wrong again!
I didn't say that I had no discussions with the Office of the
Chief Trial Counsel. I said those discussions were not about taxpayer
information OR your pending tax court petition.
Nor did I say that the discussions were extensive.
They were nevertheless sufficient to form an impression about
the courtesy and collegiality of opposing counsel in your matter.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:12 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:12 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You still don’t get it.
Contrary to your malice fueled speculation to the contrary, I
have not telephoned the “Chief Trial Counsel’s Office” at a “Washington DC IP
address” or otherwise. Nor did I ever say that I did.
Someone from the IRS (no doubt) clicked on one of the many links
to your blog that you are constantly emailing to the IRS in one of your
daily mass emails – a ritual you have been observing for ten years. That means
only that whoever looked at your blog was able to quickly ascertain that you
are a crackpot, just as every analytical person who has looked at
your blog has been able to see at a glance. The only persons who buy your nonsense
are brain addled and substance abusing people like your former roommate Linda
Carol - whom (true to your pattern) you have now viciously turned on and
the other airheaded people you seem to temporarily attract as followers until
even they start questing your story.
As for my “axe to grind”, I was the wrong person for you to
falsely and maliciously accuse of felony offenses in over then thousand mass
emails republished on your blogs since April of 2009. This malicious conduct on
your part caused me to take an interest in looking into your legal claims about
others and debunking your malicious lies that are published daily in mass
emails and on your blogs.
Whether you chose to disregard this logical explanation or not
in favor of some wacky conspiracy theory I could not care less.
All I know is this: I predicted in 2010 that your
(belated) motion to vacate in BC338322 would be denied – it was. I predicted
that you would be arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for criminal harassment
and violating the Colorado protection order – you were. I predicted your appeal
and your habeas petition challenging your 2012 criminal conviction would both
be rejected, and for the precise reasons I put in writing they were. I
predicted that you would be returned to jail for probation violations,
including your email harassment of your trial prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter. In
January of 2014 you were. I predicted that your SECOND motion to vacate filed
in BC338322 would be denied, because the rules of procedure preclude “two bites
at the apple” and for that precise reason your second motion asking that the
court enter an order vacating the 2006 default judgment entered in BC338322 was
denied on June 23, 2015. I also predicted in 2014 that your threatened motion
to “vacate” the May, 2011 California registration of the 2008 Colorado
protection order would be denied, and it was denied on September 1, 2015 for
precisely the reasons I put in writing.
I have also predicted that your pending motion objecting to the
renewal of the default judgment (which tries to raise the alleged lack of
service of process A THIRD TIME) would be denied. It will be on October 6, 2015
and Cohen’s pending motion for sanctions will also be granted at that time. And
I have predicted that your tax court petition would be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. It will be.
When are you going to learn that my legal assessments of your
preposterous and self-serving legal positions and defenses are ALWAYS spot-on?
One would assume that you are NEVER going to learn. But that is
hardly my problem, is it?
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley
Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch blogposted email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 PM
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
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch blogposted email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 PM
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
IRS,
Apart from the Criminal Stalker's pathetic excuses, it doesn't
make sense that he would call the Chief Trial Counsel's Office re. an IRS
Washington, DC IP address. My Tax Court Petition has nothing to do with
the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud that I reported to IRS
Commissioner's Staff and many others. I have also provided IRS with an
abundance of evidence.
In any event, Gianelli has some type of personal axe to grind
here and we know he is a chronic and pathological liar. He uses this M.O.
to infiltrate matters. See his communications with Bruce Cutler.
Only an idiot would believe his lies about that situation. In any event,
I have been clear - he should feel free to marry Cutler.
Right now - Gianeli's focus is on my Tax Court Petition and all
Cohen-related LA Superior Court fraud/perjury matters. I will also
contact the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office about these harassing emails.
Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:29 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch blogposted email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:29 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch blogposted email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
There you go (again) confusing speculation and malicious wishful
thinking with fact.
I never said that I “discussed” your tax court petition with the
IRS. Nor did I ever have any such discussion.
You wrote to me that the IRS was “reading about” me on your
blog, and cut and pasted the activity log on your blog showing that someone
using an IRS IP address was on your blog. You implied that I was in trouble or
should be worried.
I replied “not to worry” and that “I get along with the office
Chief Trial counsel just fine” and that the lawyer representing the IRS in
opposition to your tax court petition was a “nice guy” – all of which is true,
not of which states that any taxpayer information was discussed at any time.
This is not “rotten logic” it is fact – as is your 10-year
pattern of making unfounded, serious accusations of misconduct against people
you bear grudges against without any facts to support those accusations.
In addition, tax court proceedings are public record. When the
tax court grants the pending motion to dismiss or otherwise issues a decision
or other order disposing of the case, that decision will be available to any
member of the public, including me, on the tax court website.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kelley
Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 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
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 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
IRS,
I'm not convinced about the proxy ambulance chaser (Gianelli)
and his argument re. ex parte communications. First of all, I can assure
IRS that Gianelli does not have a power of attorney from me to speak to IRS
about any tax matter that involves me whatsoever. This man is a
criminal. If I wasn't afforded the opportunity to participate in any
communication this criminal had with IRS about my Petition, that would be a
serious problem. This man appears to be an agent
provocateur/infiltrator. Isn't that why he hunted down Agent Sopko's
partner or husband at DOJ? I didn't ask the Court to decide my Petition
based on Gianelli's self-proclaimed communications with the gentleman handling
the Tax Court Petition at the Chief Trial Counsel's office. I asked the
Court to investigate that matter. I think that will protect the
communications. I also view this as blatant retaliation.
Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 9:54 AM
Subject: Your pending "Motion to supplement the record" purportedly filed in tax court and published on your blog and in mass emails
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 9:54 AM
Subject: Your pending "Motion to supplement the record" purportedly filed in tax court and published on your blog and in mass emails
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
By the way, Ms. Lynch, a prohibited “ex-parte communication”
would be between a party or an attorney and the court concerning
a pending matter.
A communication directed only to an attorney for a
party by a person other than the court WOULD NOT be an
“ex-parte communication”, nor would it be unethical or improper for any
reason – IF such a communication in fact occurred.
Attorneys contact each other about pending cases routinely.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 3:14 AM
Subject: "Motion to supplement the record" in your tax court case
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 3:14 AM
Subject: "Motion to supplement the record" in your tax court case
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
The tax court is not going to decide the pending motion to
dismiss except on very narrow grounds including did the IRS serve you with a
Notice of Determination and if so whether or not you initiated your tax court
petition within 30-days of the date of mailing of that decision.
Your claims that various third parties, including me, are bad
people or are “harassing” you are completely irrelevant to the pending motion –
just as those same claims were completely irrelevant to your three state court
motions that you lost notwithstanding your attempts to interpose those
irrelevancies in those Los Angeles Superior Court proceedings as well.
The court is concerned with the issues before it, not your
general “poor persecuted me” arguments.
The tax court decides cases based on law, not sympathy.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
EXHIBIT
B
Kelley Lynch
419 N. Larchmont
Blvd., Suite 91
Los Angeles,
California 90004
323.935.9939
July
25, 2004
Department
of the Treasury
Internal
Revenue Service
Office
of Chief Trial Counsel
Small
Business/Self Employed Division Counsel
3018
Federal Building
300
N. Los Angeles Street
Los
Angeles, California 90012
Re: Leonard Cohen vs. Commissioner (Docket No.
7024-02)
To
Whom It May Concern:
I
am writing with respect to the above referenced Trial Court case and related
matters. I am Leonard Cohen’s personal
manager and have an ownership interest in three entities with him. Those entities are Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC. These three entities either own or sold
intellectual property.
For
the year 1999, Sony Music issued a 1099 to Leonard Cohen in the sum of $1
million. On January 8, 2002, IRS issued
Letter No. 3219 (SC/CG) to Leonard Cohen for the year ending December 31, 1999
showing a deficiency in connection with tax form 1040. This situation was initially handled by
Leonard Cohen’s personal tax and corporate attorney, Richard Westin, who then
referred Cohen to Hochman Rettig.
I
became particularly concerned with respect to the conduct of Leonard Cohen and
his representatives in January and February 2002. The reason for this is due to hysteria that
arose in connection with the “inadvertent” 1099s Sony issued to Leonard Cohen
personally in the amounts of $1 million and $7 million respectively. Leonard Cohen’s tax accountant wrote and
advised him that he shuddered to think of the penalties and interest due. Leonard Cohen called his tax accountant after
receiving his letter to discuss the matter.
This matter was then discussed, both telephonically and in emails, with
Leonard Cohen, Richard Westin, and Neal Greenberg (Cohen’s financial adviser
and investor). These 1099s related to a
deal that Sony pursued which closed in 2001.
What
concerns me specifically is the fact that the Sony deal was done with
Traditional Holdings, LLC and not Leonard Cohen. The $1 million non-refundable prepayment
should have either been paid to Traditional Holdings, LLC or transferred to
Traditional Holdings, LLC. To complicate
matters even further, the assets that were sold to Sony belong to Blue Mist
Touring Company, Inc. and were not assigned to Traditional Holdings, LLC. The reason for this is due to the fact that,
while Sony initially pursued this deal with Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.
(and began their due diligence with that entity), Cohen’s accountant and tax
lawyer raised issues related to collapsible corporations. Richard Westin represents Leonard Cohen. He does not represent me or the entities
themselves. I did provide Westin with a
very limited power of attorney authorizing him to prepare and file the
Traditional Holdings, LLC formation documents with the State of Kentucky. I also agreed, after Cohen instructed him to
do so, to permit Richard Westin to prepare my Indemnity Agreement with respect
to my investment in Traditional Holdings, LLC via a promissory note. I do not understand how an individual invests
in a company via a promissory note and, at the same time, receives
distributions with which to the payments.
I am enclosing Richard Westin’s March 6, 2002 letter summarizing this
matter. I specifically requested that he
write this letter to avoid any future confusion between me and Leonard
Cohen. According to the corporate
records, I receive $20,000 and $24,000 which pays the promissory note and
taxes. I also receive $240,000 year
(from profits) to pay whatever taxes Westin advises are due with respect to
Traditional Holdings, LLC. Richard
Westin handles the Traditional Holdings, LLC tax returns and prepares the
K-1s. While I am to receive 100% of the
profit (and this was the agreed upon amount Cohen and Westin arrived at), I am
unable to obtain financial statements and/or profit and loss statements from
Neal Greenberg. And, while Richard
Westin and Neal Greenberg are supposed to handle all loan documentation
(Greenberg would have those details), most of Leonard Cohen’s loans (totaling millions)
from Traditional Holdings, LLC remain undocumented. I would also like to note that Neal
Greenberg’s financial statements are incoherent and originally co-mingled
Leonard Cohen’s personal accounts; his charitable remainder trusts; and the
Traditional Holdings, LLC accounts on one statement prepared for Leonard Cohen
personally. Greenberg also provides a
courtesy monthly email that includes the loans which he and Westin have
repeatedly confirmed are assets of Traditional Holdings, LLC. I am alarmed by the complete lack of
attention to corporate governance. I
also enclose herewith Neal Greenberg’s January and June 2004 letters to Leonard
Cohen raising “IRS warnings” and dangers.
I’ve reviewed these letters with Leonard Cohen and he advised me not to
inform Neal Greenberg of any future income.
That would include the studio album that will be delivered; his plans to
tour behind that album; and the third intellectual property deal we are
pursuing. That deal is also complicated
because Leonard Cohen is once again demanding unattractive stock deals. Leonard Cohen continually advises me that he
does not want to pay ordinary income taxes.
I find these comments alarming in light of some of the other activity.
I
have no expertise in IRS or tax matters and find a great deal of the
discussions about tax matters thoroughly confusing if not downright
deranged. Some of the information I
receive is incoherent. I do not handle
IRS, tax, accounting, financial, investing, legal or inadvertent 1099
matters. I also do not handle financial
statements, financial reports, loan documents, or promissory notes. Leonard Cohen has a team of professional
representatives handling those matters.
I am enclosing an email dated February 12, 2002 between me, Leonard
Cohen, and Richard Westin that is self-explanatory and addresses some of my
concerns.
On
January 17, 2003, Hochman Rettig wrote David R. Jojola of the Los Angeles
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. This
matter was handled by Steve Blanq at Hochman Rettig. I had concerns about Traditional Holdings,
LLC and the private annuity agreement. I
am enclosing many of the corporate records for these entities; the Annuity
Agreement; and my Indemnity Agreement. I
am also enclosing the stock certificates, non-revocable assignments, and other
documentation related to my ownership interest in Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC which was formed in June
2004 in Delaware (by Richard Westin) and owns the intellectual property
associated with Cohen’s forthcoming studio album.
After
I addressed my concerns with Steve Blanq, I sent him some of the Traditional
Holdings, LLC documents and the Annuity Agreement. I then mentioned to Richard Westin that I
spoke to Steve Blanq about these matters.
I received a phone call from Steve Blanq advising me that he spoke to
Richard Westin who informed him that I do not have attorney/client privilege
and therefore Steve Blanq may not discuss these matters with me. Given the fact that I have an ownership
interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC, I find that statement alarming. Leonard Cohen personally wrote Richard Westin
and Neal Greenberg wrapping them in attorney/client privilege and excluding
me.
Hochman
Rettig’s letter addressed the factual and legal analysis of the Cohen v.
Commisioner matter (Docket No. 7024-02) as follows: “Leonard Cohen, through his representatives,
began negotiations in 1999 with Sony Music International ("SMI") for
a buyout of his SMI master recordings catalog. In an effort to secure that SMI
was serious about the buyout and to secure future performance, Mr. Cohen
demanded a deposit of $1,000,000. Ultimately, SMI agreed to this request and on
November 5, 1999, wired Mr. Cohen $1,000,000.
Accompanying the wire transfer was a Ietter dated November 5, 1999 which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The letter from Paul Gilbert of SMI
provides: ‘This amount is deemed a
partial prepayment against the proposed $8 million buy-out of Leonard's future
royalty interests in his master recordings and compositions under all of his
agreements with Sony Music and Sony/ATV.’
The factual basis for treatment as a deposit is further supported by Mr.
Gilbert's letter dated April 1, 2002 (attached hereto as Exhibit B) which
provides: ‘. . . this letter is to confirm that the $ 1,000,000 paid to you by
Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. (“SMEI") in November of 1999 was a deposit
towards a possible royalty buyout …’”
This
is not my understanding with respect to the $1 million prepayment. I would like to keep this letter confidential
because I am convinced that I would lose my job if Leonard Cohen, or his
representatives, were to find out that I contacted IRS. There has been so much paranoia and hysteria
on the part of Leonard Cohen and his representatives over this matter that I
can conclude nothing other than some type of egregious tax fraud has
occurred.
The
history of this deal, and specifically the $1 million non-refundable
prepayment, actually began when Leonard Cohen actively began pursuing intellectual
property deals. He closed the first
deal, with Stranger Music, Inc., in 1996.
He then actively began pursuing other intellectual property which
included a possible bond securitization deal.
As of November 1999, Leonard Cohen planned to close a bond
securitization deal with CAK. In order
to pursue that deal, Cohen formed LC Investments, LLC. CAK demanded a bankruptcy proof entity. However, SOCAN (the Canadian performing
rights society) refused to pay writer share of royalties to a company not owned
100% by the writer, Leonard Cohen.
Therefore, it was decided and agreed (by Cohen and his representatives)
that LC Investments, LLC would collect the SOCAN royalties. These assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc. which is true for all intellectual property excluding the
forthcoming the intellectual property related to the forthcoming studio album
that will be delivered to Sony in the near future. I am enclosing Leonard Cohen’s declaration in
the CAK litigation that ensued and IRS can review the CAK litigation documents
that were filed in the Southern District of New York (Docket No. 1:00-cv-01068-CBM).
What
concerns me about the letter Hochman Rettig wrote is this paragraph: The legal authority is derived from the Supreme
Court decision in Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U-S.
203, I 10 S. Ct. 589 (1990). The Court created a distinction between the
taxation of advance payments and the taxation of refundable deposits, although
the Court confirmed that advance payments are generally taxable and defined
"advance payment" as a non-refundable payment. The Court, however, held that deposits are
not taxable. The Court defined "deposits" as refundable payments that
are made to secure the payor's performance of its legal obligations under the contract.
Please note that the Court also found that a deposit is not taxable even if the
payor elects to apply the deposit against amounts owed to the payee. Thus, if
the payor fulfills its obligations under the contract, the deposit is refunded.
That is the exact scenario presented in this matter. This analysis is also consistent with the
United States Tax Court's longstanding treatment of real estate lease deposits
where the Court has distinguished between a sum designated as a prepayment of
rent (taxable upon receipt) and a sum deposited to secure the tenant's performance
of a lease agreement. J & E Enterprises, Inc, v. Commissioner.”
The
reason this paragraph concerns me is that Sony personally contacted me about
pursuing the 2001 intellectual property deal with Leonard Cohen. Stuart Bondell, Sony Music Business Affairs,
explained to me that Sony did not want Leonard Cohen pursuing a bond
securitization deal. Evidently they had
concerns about establishing artist precedent for these types of deal and were
specifically concerned about not having the ability to pay artist record
advances. As Stuart Bondell explained,
advances are the currency of the music industry and permit Sony (and others) to
encourage artists to submit their contractually obligated albums. I phoned Leonard Cohen and explained that
Sony wanted to pursue the intellectual property deal with him. Cohen was somewhat worried that Sony was
making an offer and could later change their minds. Therefore, he advised me that he would be
willing to forfeit the CAK bond securitization deal if Sony paid him a
substantial non-refundable prepayment against the $8 million deal price. The contractual details had to be resolved
and negotiated. I phoned Stuart Bondell
back and passed along Cohen’s message and Sony agreed to pay the $1 million
non-refundable prepayment Cohen requested.
Therefore, from my perspective, Cohen received $1 million in income from
Sony in 1999. However, the assets were
owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. at the time. As of 2001, Richard Westin had formed
Traditional Holdings, LLC who ultimately pursued the stock deal Leonard Cohen
personally demanded.
Your
October 8, 2002 letter to Richard Westin requests all documents related to the
$1 million payment including correspondence, contracts, agreements, royalty
obligations, loan documents, emails, letters, and checks. While I am enclosing a substantial amount of
evidence, IRS would literally have to make arrangements to come into my
management offices and go through the files.
They are voluminous and include the corporate files and corporate books
and records. While I am not involved
with this IRS and/or Tax Court matter at all, I do believe that information is
being concealed from the IRS and that makes me extremely uncomfortable.
It
was my understanding that Richard Westin and Ken Cleveland, Cohen’s accountant,
decided to handle the $1 million as a loan on Cohen’s personal tax return. I was not involved in that discussion but was
on a conference call when they two of them confirmed this and asked me to call
Leonard Cohen to see if he agreed. I
then phoned Leonard Cohen personally; he confirmed that he wanted the $1
million handled as a loan; and I called Westin and Cleveland back and confirmed
this with them.
This
essentially sums up my concerns about the $1 million prepayment; $7 million
inadvertent 1099s; and the fact that the assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc. Initially, after the
non-revocable assignments were executed by Cohen and me, Richard Westin advised
us to begin depositing all royalty income to Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc. At a later date, he advised me (and
some of this is in writing) that those deposits should be explained as inadvertent. This situation also causes me concern because
the income was deposited to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Westin
determined that Leonard Cohen personally should issue the 1099s. Richard Westin also advised me to rip up the
SOCAN and writer share assignments with respect to Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc. I took copies home and enclose
copies herewith.
Another
ongoing issue relates to where the offices for these entities are. There are no offices. I have continuously advised Richard Westin
that my personal management offices are not the corporate entities’
offices. These entities use my P.O. Box
for their corporate office addresses.
Traditional Holdings, LLC’s corporate office is listed as Richard
Westin’s home address in Kentucky. Most
of these entities are Delaware entities.
I do not know why Leonard Cohen and his representatives decided to form
Traditional Holdings, LLC in Kentucky. I
am enclosing letters Richard Westin prepared for Leonard Cohen and me with
respect to the initial proposals with respect to the use of an annuity. Leonard Cohen rejected the first proposal and
did not want his adult children involved in any entity he has an ownership
interest in.
Please
see evidence enclosed.
Thank
you for your attention to this matter and, if I uncover additional information,
I will submit that to Internal Revenue Service as well.
Very
truly yours,
Signed
Kelley
Lynch
