River Deep Blog: Kelley Lynch Will Ask Tax Court To Investigational Stalker Gianelli's Statements That He Has Been In Touch With IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office

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.

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

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]

River Deep Blog

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Kelley Lynch Will Ask Tax Court To Investigational Stalker Gianelli's Statements That He Has Been In Touch With IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office

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

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

35.3.2.3 (09-21-2012)
Timeliness of Petition

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

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

Followers

About Me

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Kelley Lynch Will Ask Tax Court To Investigational Stalker Gianelli's Statements That He Has Been In Touch With IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office

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

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

35.3.2.3 (09-21-2012)Timeliness of Petition

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

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

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

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

35.3.2.3 (09-21-2012)
Timeliness of Petition

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

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