Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 11:48 AM
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>, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.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
Hello IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I thought you should review the harassing emails I've received from the Party at Interest/Stalker since September 11th when I sent yet again another Cease & Desist letter. The lengths these individuals have gone to target me, my sons, and others betrays their words and farcical cover stories. Michelle Rice, Cohen's lawyer, sounds like a truck driver. I suppose lying through one's teeth in court really does work as is true in Cohen's case. Rice did write in one of her motions that she thinks I have issues with her because she domesticated the fraud Boulder order. I have issues with liars who attempt to assign me dating relationships, bill for lying about me and this situation, and will do and say whatever it takes for Leonard Cohen. Do keep in mind that Kory & Rice have simply assisted Cohen with his pathetic fabricated narrative - all meant to defend their client against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud. Of course, the narrative is not supported by evidence and IRS should not rely on fraud but review the evidence itself. That might explain why Cohen is now attempting to seal evidence.
The attempts to distance themselves is thoroughly moronic. Gianelli should be prosecuted for lying to IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office on behalf of Leonard Cohen. That's who benefits from the Party At Interest's lies and the fraud before LA Superior Court, no?
All the best,
Kelley
Law Offices of Deborah Friedman, Deborah Friedman and Craig Mordoh, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
OPINION
DOI TODD, Acting P. J.-
Plaintiff and appellant Palm Property Investments, LLC, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Fereydoon (Fred), Simin, Sara, Jacob and Saghar Yadegar (sometimes collectively the Yadegars) in an unlawful detainer action. The trial court ruled that appellant failed to meet its burden to show it satisfied the service requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1162. fn. 1 Appellant contends that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court should not have excluded the proof of service as hearsay and should have considered the effect of the Yadegars’ admission that they were served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 30, 2003, Pieper and Fred entered into a second addendum to the Lease, which modified the rent amount according to a sliding scale that corresponded to the number of months in advance rent was paid. On June 23, 2003, Pieper and Yadegar entered into a third addendum, which provided that rent would be reduced to $32,000 annually in exchange for a 12-month advance rent payment, with the Yadegars receiving credit for a previous $18,000 prepayment. The third addendum also provided that there would be no rent increases during the term of the Lease and extended the lease term for five years to November 30, 2010, with one option to extend the Lease for an additional five years to November 30, 2015.
Prior Litigation.
In December 2003, Enpalm, LLC, and Pico 26, LLC (collectively Enpalm), acquired the Property from the Trust. Alleging that it was unaware of the Yadegars’ long-term lease at the time it purchased the Property, Enpalm filed its first action against the Trust and the Yadegars in August 2004. The trial court granted the Trust’s and the Yadegars’ motion for judgment in June 2006.
In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed, rejecting Enpalm’s argument that the term of the Yadegars’ tenancy had been litigated in the first action and determined to be month-to-month. (Enpalm v. Yadegar, case No. B201175, filed December 30, 2008.) In April 2009 the trial court entered an award of attorney fees and costs on appeal, ordering Enpalm to pay the Yadegars $70,770 in attorney fees and $552.25 in costs.
Wilmington Park, Inc. acquired the Property through foreclosure. After the Yadegars informed the new owner of the offset, it neither sued the Yadegars to collect rent nor took any other action to obtain rental payments from the Yadegars.
The Instant Unlawful Detainer Action.
Appellant purchased the property in October 2009. On November 4, 2009, a registered process server served the Yadegars with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit that stated that the amount of rent due was $4,899.99. In response, the Yadegars, via their attorney, wrote to appellant on November 5, 2009, stating that they had been served with a three-day notice, outlining the history of the litigation between them and the prior owners of the Property, disputing that any amount was then due and offering to pay $17,000 as representing the balance of the annual rent due from October 2009 to April 2010.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that it met its burden to show proper service of the three-day notice, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to admit into evidence the process server’s declaration and erroneously ruled that the Yadegars’ admission of receipt of the notice was insufficient to establish proper service. Though we cannot conclude that appellant met its burden of proof to show proper service, the proof of service should have been admitted and accorded a presumption of the facts stated therein. For this reason, we must reverse the judgment and remand the matter for retrial. fn. 3
I. Applicable Unlawful Detainer Principles.
[1] “Unlawful detainer is a unique body of law and its procedures are entirely separate from the procedures pertaining to civil actions generally.” (Losornio v. Motta (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 110, 115.) Sections 1159 through 1179a comprise what is commonly known as the Unlawful Detainer Act; the statutes are “broad in scope and available to both lessors and lessees who have suffered certain wrongs committed by the other.” (Losornio v. Motta, supra, at p. 113.) An unlawful detainer action “‘is [194 Cal.App.4th 1425] a statutory proceeding and is governed solely by the provisions of the statute creating it.’ [Citations.] As special proceedings are created and authorized by statute, the jurisdiction over any special proceeding is limited by the terms and conditions of the statute under which it was authorized [citation], and . . . . [t]he statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citations.]” (Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 599–600.)
[2] According to the statutes governing unlawful detainer proceedings, “‘a tenant is entitled to a three-day notice to pay rent or quit which may be enforced by summary legal proceedings (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161) but this notice is valid and enforceable only if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1162.)'” (Kwok v. Bergren, supra, 130 Cal.App.3d at p. 600, quoting Lamey v. Masciotra (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 709, 713.) Stated another way, “[p]roper service on the lessee of a valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is an essential prerequisite to a judgment declaring a lessor’s right to possession under section 1161, subdivision 2. [Citations.]” (Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 513.) “A lessor must allege and prove proper service of the requisite notice. [Citations.] Absent evidence the requisite notice was properly served pursuant to section 1162, no judgment for possession can be obtained. [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
[3] Former section 1162 specifies three ways in which service of the three-day notice may be effected on a residential tenant: “1. By delivering a copy to the tenant personally. [¶] 2. If he or she is absent from his or her place of residence, and from his or her usual place of business, by leaving a copy with some person of suitable age and discretion at either place, and sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at his or her place of residence. [¶] 3. If such place of residence and business cannot be ascertained, or a person of suitable age or discretion there can not be found, then by affixing a copy in a conspicuous place on the property, and also delivering a copy to a person there residing, if such person can be found; and also sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at the place where the property is situated.” As explained in Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at page 514, “[w]hen the fact of service is contested, compliance with one of these methods must be shown or the judgment must be reversed.”
II. Because the Yadegars Were Served By a Registered Process Server, Evidence Code Section 647 Applied to Accord a Presumption to the Facts Stated in the Proof of Service.
The trial court here relied exclusively on Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 511, to conclude both that the proof of service was inadmissible hearsay and that the Yadegars’ November 5, 2009 letter acknowledging service of the three-day notice was insufficient evidence of appellant’s compliance with section 1162. In Liebovich, the landlord served the tenant with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit via certified mail, and tenant denied that he ever received the notice. To meet its burden to show compliance with section 1162, the landlord offered evidence at trial comprised of an affidavit of service by certified mail and a certified mail return receipt with an illegible signature. (Liebovich, supra, at p. 514.) Though the trial court entered judgment for the landlord on the basis of this evidence, the appellate court reversed, holding that the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence of proper service in accordance with section 1162. (Liebovich, supra, at p. 514.)
The Liebovich court determined “that the affidavit of service alone (putting aside questions concerning the return receipt) was insufficient to prove the controverted fact of service. [Citations.] Affidavits of service may not be relied on at trial to prove a three-day notice was served pursuant to section 1162; testimony of the person who made the service is required. [Citation.]” (Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 514.) The court adopted the reasoning of Lacrabere v. Wise (1904) 141 Cal. 554, 556 (Lacrabere), where the court determined that the method of proof sanctioned by section 2009 fn. 4 has no application where proper proof of service constitutes an element of the landlord’s claim directly in controversy. (Liebovich, supra, at p. 515.)
While on its face Liebovich would appear to dispose of appellant’s contention that the affidavit of service should have been admitted as adequate proof of statutory compliance, this matter does not fall squarely within the confines of that authority. A dispositive distinction here is that service was effected by a registered process server. In contrast, there is no indication in either Liebovich or Lacrabere
5 Although appellant has not cited and we have not located any California case applying Evidence Code section 647 in an unlawful detainer action, courts routinely apply other Evidence Code provisions in unlawful detainer actions. (E.g., Plaza Freeway Ltd. Partnership v. First Mountain Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 616, 621–622 [applying Evid. Code, § 622 in an unlawful detainer action]; Ramona Manor Convalescent Hospital v. Care Enterprises (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1120, 1137 [applying Evid. Code, § 352 in an unlawful detainer action].) Moreover, nothing in the governing statutory scheme suggests that the Evidence Code should not apply to unlawful detainer proceedings. (See generally, §§ 1159–1179a.)
Consistent with this authority, at least one treatise assumes that the Evidence Code section 647 presumption would apply in an unlawful detainer action notwithstanding Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 511: “Normally, the landlord will have to produce the person who served the notice to testify to the facts of service. When the issue is controverted, proof by affidavit alone will not suffice. [Citations.] [¶] . . . However, if the notice was served by a registered process server [citation], plaintiff may take advantage of a statutory presumption: The registered process server’s proof of service can be introduced as a business record [citation], thereby creating a presumption affecting defendant’s burden of producing evidence. [Citations.] [¶] If defendant does not introduce rebuttal evidence, the trier of fact must find for plaintiff in accordance with the presumption. Conversely, the presumption is dispelled by defendant’s introduction of rebuttal evidence, and the burden shifts back to plaintiff to put the person who served the notice on the stand to testify to proper service.” (Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2010) ¶¶ 9:204.1-9:204.2, p. 9-54 (rev. # 1, 2009), italics omitted.)
[4] We agree that where service is carried out by a registered process server, Evidence Code section 647 applies to eliminate the necessity of calling the process server as a witness at trial. This conclusion is consistent with the purpose of the unlawful detainer procedure to afford a relatively simple and speedy remedy for specific landlord-tenant disputes. (See Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 151.) [194 Cal.App.4th 1428] Accordingly, we conclude the trial court erred by failing to apply the evidentiary presumption afforded by Evidence Code section 647. The excluded proof of service established that a registered California process server served the three-day notice. Moreover, the proof of service indicated that the Yadegars were served in accordance with the requirements of section 1162, subdivision (3). (See Nourafchan v. Miner (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 746, 750–751 [§ 1162 does not require a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting personal service before resorting to the alternate method of service by posting and mailing], disapproved on another point in Minelian v. Manzella (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 457, 464; Highland Plastics, Inc. v. Enders (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d.Supp. 1, 6 [same].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for retrial in accordance with the views expressed herein. Appellant is awarded its costs on appeal.
FN 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Subject: Fw:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated September 11, 2015 11:55 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian, IRS Office of the Chief Counsel + others
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cease and desist. What does Boulder have to do with it? It just explains the Ramsey case and the fact that Boulder has a serious problem with pedophiles. The
Sincerely,
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Subject: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.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
Sincerely,
Gianelli/Cohen/Kory/Rice’s Utterly moronic attempts to distance themselves from one another.
(No one has accused Rice, who appears to be an insane sycophant, of being a child molester; the Colorado order - issued without findings - was not properly registered in California; and Cohen, his legal team, and Party-At-Interest are clearly associates-in-fact and this situation was pre-meditated).
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Subject: Your recent blog posted email claiming a "cover your ass" email
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Subject: Your recent blog posted email claiming a "cover your ass" email
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
FYI
---Forwarded message---
From: Michelle Rice [mailto:mrice@koryrice.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed "motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence matter"? (See 4/14/2015 email)
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed "motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence matter"? (See 4/14/2015 email)
And who cannot control their emotions? Booo hooo Kelley Lynch called me a child molester in emails that no one ever reads....
Boooo fucking hoooooo...... man up and put on your big boy pants and shut the f*&k up.
Do me a favor and keep inciting her to file more motions, you are making me richer than f*&k. In fact, I think I can pay off my mortgage on my $2 million Hollywood Hills home with jetliner views by the end of this year.
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
Gianelli’s alleged relationship with Leonard Cohen’s legal team (with whom he has communicated since targeting Lynch, her sons, and others – beginning in or around May 2009)
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Your claim that I am simply "covering up" my "real party involvement" with "cover your ass emails"
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Your claim that I am simply "covering up" my "real party involvement" with "cover your ass emails"
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You could not be more wrong.
If I were you I would concentrate more on the legal authorities I have transmitted to you, and their implications for your motion, than my motive in transmitting them.
---Forwarded message---
From: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
To: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>; Dan Bergman <DBergman@bergman-law.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed "motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence matter"? (See 4/14/2015 email)
To: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>; Dan Bergman <DBergman@bergman-law.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed "motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence matter"? (See 4/14/2015 email)
Stephen:
No, Stephen, it is your ego that is in the way here.
The reason Robert requested you only email him is because you were sending dozens of emails to me a day sending me unsolicited emails regarding Kelley Lynch, which I did not even read. Your fixation on Kelley Lynch is truly pathological.
The truth is Stephen, now that the gloves are off, so to speak, is that you did not have the balls or the "juice" to get her arrested when she was harassing you for years in San Francisco. I have all of the emails where you were reporting her to the police, FBI, etc. All to no avail. Some big criminal lawyer you are. You did not have any viable contacts in law enforcement that could help you out after your long self-proclaimed illustrious career as a criminal lawyer ?
It took little ole me - the lawyer who you claim produces "workmanlike" product for my client - to get Lynch arrested. Through connections I made. That's right, I got it done. In fact you wrote me following her March 1, 2012 arrest in Berkeley expressing your surprise (still have that email, shall I send it to you, with a copy to Dan, to refresh your memory?) that I was able to get it done when you could not. So your claiming now that you were instrumental in getting her arrested is nothing more than assuaging your own fragile ego. Your pathological jealousy of me is as sick as Lynch's jealousy of our firm's success as Leonard's lawyers, managers, and representatives. Throughout our ten year tenure Leonard was inducted into the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame, achieved the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, saw his album Old Ideas debut on Billboard at Number 2, behind Lana Del Rey, the highest charting album of Leonard's entire career. And yes, I attended all of those events. You did not Stephen.
Now that we are speaking truth and dispensing with civilities - I will say it - you have been trying for years to take credit for my work because unlike you, I do not self-promote my considerable successes, but rather let
has-runs and never-weres like yourself step in to try to get a little bit of my considerable light. Shamelessly discussing with Leonard Cohen fans on your blog what actor is going to play you in any Cohen-Lynch bio-pic.
What a shameless starf*ker you are. The cold, hard truth of the matter is your career was nowhere and you glommed onto the Cohen-Lynch matter and my successes seeking your proverbial 15 seconds of fame.
So do not think we have not seen your shameless self-promoting postings on leonardcohenfiles.com as if you had anything to do with any of the ten years' worth of litigation involving Cohen/Lynch.
I did not need anyone's help to properly register the out-of-state restraining order. It is properly registered as you have repeatedly stated in your numerous bloviated emails regarding the restraining order that you did not file.
By the way, I also did not need any help flying with Leonard Cohen on a private jet from Burbank to Denver in August and September 2008 to get the permanent restraining order in Colorado either.
Dan: your firm is fired and you are no longer needed in BC 338322 and BC 341120. Please prepare your notice of withdrawal for filing Monday. Robert and I have been discussing in private how little your firm contributed to the recent effort against Lynch. I did all of the work and drafted the two dispositive filings, including the Opposition and Sanctions Motion. The only motion that was barely passable was the Motion to Seal and even then it was barely literate. Robert and I were shocked that you proposed to file a declaration for LC's signature with a sentence "Lynch refused to return documents to him." You will not be assisting in either the restraining order matter, the appeals, nor in the federal court RICO suit she has threatened to file because I did a PACER search and none of your attorneys, including yourself, have done any litigation in federal courts. I have over ten years in federal district courts all over the country, including in Colorado, Nevada, New York and California.
P.S. I do not want to tell you what Leonard Cohen is paying me to defend him in all of the litigation against Lynch, a rate I can command because of my previous record of success. Suffice it to say, it would make both of you sick with more envy than you already seem to have.
Yours very truly,
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
The Criminal Stalker Continues to Argue that he’s merely being helpful
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
You have one shot at making your case that you were not served on October 6.
I strongly suggest that you do not rely on the same evidence and arguments that have failed to persuade Judge Hess in the past.
The reason for this any lawyer can explain to you. On appeal, the appellate panel is REQUIRED to accept Judge Hess' factual findings if they are supported by ANY substantial evidence. That would include the 2005 affidavit of service.
And Ms. Lynch, I have always been "helpful" in that I have given you my honest view of things based on 35 years as a trial lawyer. It was often not what you wanted to hear. But my predicted litigation outcomes have been right in your various matters 100% of the time.
Don't get me wrong, I personally believe that you were served with the summons and complaint in the manner provided by law and in my opinion Judge Hess believes that as well. He has all but said so on the record.
However, unlike your prior unsuccessful motions to vacate the judgment, which were procedurally flawed due to your waiting so long to file, your motion to vacate the RENEWAL is not subject to the same procedural obstacles.
You are therefore entitled to have the fact of service adjudicated.
But you have one shot at it your day in court.
You will either succeed in persuading Judge Hess that you were not served or you will not.
I strongly suggest that you make the most of the opportunity and focus on that issue rather than these dead ends that seem to bog you down.
Frankly, based on your blog posts and emails so far I don't think you have the capacity to do so.
So prove me wrong on October 6 by doing something different that will be a game changer for Judge Hess.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
The Party At Interest/Proxy Stalker Appears to have information that Lynch phoned the Process Server’s Office (in an attempt to subpoena Leon Moore)
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:03 AM
Subject: Process server - SERVICE INFORMATION
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:03 AM
Subject: Process server - SERVICE INFORMATION
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
LEON MOORE
First Legal Support Services
1511 West Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90026
POSSIBLE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: 12141 Centralia Street, Lakewood, CA 90715 (UNVERIFIED)
The Proxy Stalker’s Response to Lynch’s Intent to take Oral Testimony at the October 6, 2015 Hearing re. Cohen, his failure to serve her, and the extortion attempt re. the renewal of judgment
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:36 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:36 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Have you considered (in addition to timely filing and serving the required notice under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1306 (b) (see below for text), serving a subpoena on the process server who filed the affidavit of service asserting that he served “Jane Doe”) at your residence and then mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to that address?
Because barring that, I don’t thing Judge Hess is going to accept your factual claim on service. He has already said as much in the last hearing transcript. (See e.g., page 8 lines 18-20.)
TEXT OF California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1306 (b)
A party seeking permission to introduce oral evidence, except for oral evidence in rebuttal to oral evidence presented by the other party, must file, no later than three court days before the hearing, a written statement stating the nature and extent of the evidence proposed to be introduced and a reasonable time estimate for the hearing. When the statement is filed less than five court days before the hearing, the filing party must serve a copy on the other parties in a manner to assure delivery to the other parties no later than two days before the hearing.
The Proxy Stalker/Party At Interest Zooms In On A Case Lynch Raise in Her Motion (Re. Cohen’s ongoing attempts to extort money from her re. assets he doesn’t own)
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
See the attached case, Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne, FYI. Under its reasoning:
1. A motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is NOT CONSIDERED to be a motion to vacate the judgment and is therefore not governed by time limits for motions to vacate the judgment such as those provided by section 473.5. This is because the motion does not seek to affect the judgment itself but only the renewal period. For the same reasons one would have AN ARGUMENT that a motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is not a motion to reconsider a previously denied motion to vacate the judgment itself, but the case does not address that issue.
2. The moving party need not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.
3. There is no “due diligence” requirement in filing the motion “earlier” (e.g., after learning of the judgment) because the legislature has explicitly provided for a 30-day time window from the date mailing of notice of renewal of the motion to file it, and the motion is either filled within that statutory time or it is not.
4. Unlike in the cited case (attached), the fact of valid service is DISPUTED – so the moving party still needs to overcome the presumption of valid service created by the proof of service filed by the registered process server. And Judge Hess could still defeat the motion by weighing the evidence and concluding that the moving declarations failed to overcome the presumption in favor of proper service.
5. Res judicata should not be a factor because NO ORDER SETTING FORTH JUDGE HESS’ JANUARY 17, 2014 RULING DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE was ever signed or filed – let alone served. (See the on-line docket “case summary”.) A proposed order was lodged, but NO SIGNED ORDER WAS EVER FILED AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT NO ORDER WAS EVER SIGNED. Since there was no ORDER DENYING THE MOTION entered, no final, appealable order was ever entered – and (arguably) therefore there was no prior finding of proper service.
The Proxy Stalker Is Now Focused on the Fraudulent Proof of Service (Cohen’s Complaint)
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:50 AM
Subject: Operation of presumption afforded by Evidence Code 647 to motion to vacate renewal for lack of service
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:50 AM
Subject: Operation of presumption afforded by Evidence Code 647 to motion to vacate renewal for lack of service
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
California Evidence Code 647. The return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter
16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and
Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption,
affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in
the return.
This means that the moving party has the initial burden of coming forward with admissible evidence of lack of service. Once that is done, the presumption in favor of service DISAPPEARS and the issue is decided as if there were no presumption. (See Evidence Code 602 and below).
Read: (NOTE NAME OF TRIAL JUDGE):
Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar – Court erred in not applying evidentiary presumption of a registered process server’s proof of service under Evidence Code § 647
Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419
[No. B224040. Second Dist., Div. Two. May 3, 2011.]
PALM PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FEREYDOON YADEGAR et al., Defendants and Respondents.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC360360, Kenneth R. Freeman, Judge.)
(Opinion by Doi Todd, Acting P. J., with Ashmann-Gerst, J., and Chavez, J., concurring.)
COUNSEL
Law Offices of Deborah Friedman, Deborah Friedman and Craig Mordoh, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of Ehsan Afaghi, Ehsan Afaghi and Firouzeh Simab, for Defendants and Respondents. [194 Cal.App.4th 1421]
OPINION
DOI TODD, Acting P. J.-
Plaintiff and appellant Palm Property Investments, LLC, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Fereydoon (Fred), Simin, Sara, Jacob and Saghar Yadegar (sometimes collectively the Yadegars) in an unlawful detainer action. The trial court ruled that appellant failed to meet its burden to show it satisfied the service requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1162. fn. 1 Appellant contends that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court should not have excluded the proof of service as hearsay and should have considered the effect of the Yadegars’ admission that they were served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.
We agree with appellant’s first contention and reverse. Because the three-day notice was served by a registered process server, the proof of service [194 Cal.App.4th 1422] should not have been excluded and Evidence Code section 647 applied to establish a presumption of the facts set forth therein.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Yadegars’ Lease.
Since 2002, the Yadegars have leased a penthouse apartment in a seven-unit building located at 408 North Palm Drive in Beverly Hills (Property). On August 12, 2002, the Yadegars entered into a lease agreement (Lease) with the Teitler Family Trust (Trust), then the owner of the Property. The first two pages of the Lease were a standard form lease drafted by the Trust’s representative, Tracy P. Pieper (Pieper), and the third was a one-page addendum drafted by Fred Yadegar (Fred). The standard form portion of the Lease indicated a lease term of one year and a rental amount of $3,500 per month. The one-page addendum modified those terms, extending the lease term to three years and increasing the rent to $3,600 per month in the second year and $3,700 per month in the third year.
On March 30, 2003, Pieper and Fred entered into a second addendum to the Lease, which modified the rent amount according to a sliding scale that corresponded to the number of months in advance rent was paid. On June 23, 2003, Pieper and Yadegar entered into a third addendum, which provided that rent would be reduced to $32,000 annually in exchange for a 12-month advance rent payment, with the Yadegars receiving credit for a previous $18,000 prepayment. The third addendum also provided that there would be no rent increases during the term of the Lease and extended the lease term for five years to November 30, 2010, with one option to extend the Lease for an additional five years to November 30, 2015.
Prior Litigation.
In December 2003, Enpalm, LLC, and Pico 26, LLC (collectively Enpalm), acquired the Property from the Trust. Alleging that it was unaware of the Yadegars’ long-term lease at the time it purchased the Property, Enpalm filed its first action against the Trust and the Yadegars in August 2004. The trial court granted the Trust’s and the Yadegars’ motion for judgment in June 2006.
Enpalm then filed an unlawful detainer action against the Yadegars, which challenged the authenticity of the Lease. In a statement of decision following a bench trial, the trial court ruled that the third addendum to the Lease was enforceable against Enpalm. Accordingly, it found that neither a three-day nor a 30-day notice to quit was appropriate, because the Yadegars were not in violation of the Lease and were operating under a Lease that did not expire [194 Cal.App.4th 1423] until 2010. Judgment was entered in June 2007. In January 2008, the trial court ordered Enpalm to pay the Yadegars $109,062.50 in attorney fees and $1,993 in costs.
In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed, rejecting Enpalm’s argument that the term of the Yadegars’ tenancy had been litigated in the first action and determined to be month-to-month. (Enpalm v. Yadegar, case No. B201175, filed December 30, 2008.) In April 2009 the trial court entered an award of attorney fees and costs on appeal, ordering Enpalm to pay the Yadegars $70,770 in attorney fees and $552.25 in costs.
While the appeal was pending, the Yadegars learned that the Property was in foreclosure and advised the deed of trust holders of their intention to withhold their rent as an offset to the amounts due them under the judgments. Beginning in March 2009, the Yadegars stopped paying rent in order to offset the judgment amounts owing from Enpalm.
Wilmington Park, Inc. acquired the Property through foreclosure. After the Yadegars informed the new owner of the offset, it neither sued the Yadegars to collect rent nor took any other action to obtain rental payments from the Yadegars.
The Instant Unlawful Detainer Action.
Appellant purchased the property in October 2009. On November 4, 2009, a registered process server served the Yadegars with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit that stated that the amount of rent due was $4,899.99. In response, the Yadegars, via their attorney, wrote to appellant on November 5, 2009, stating that they had been served with a three-day notice, outlining the history of the litigation between them and the prior owners of the Property, disputing that any amount was then due and offering to pay $17,000 as representing the balance of the annual rent due from October 2009 to April 2010.
Appellant filed an unlawful detainer action on November 12, 2009. It alleged that the Yadegars entered into a one-year lease on September 1, 2002 that had become a month-to-month lease, and that they had agreed to pay $3,500 per month in rent. It further alleged that it posted on the premises and mailed a three-day notice to pay rent or quit on November 4, 2009, and that the amount of rent due at that time was $4,899.99. Attached to the complaint were copies of the Lease, including the one-page lease addendum entered into simultaneously with the Lease; the second addendum signed March 20, 2003; the third addendum dated June 23, 2003; the three-day notice to pay rent or quit; and the proof of service of the three-day notice. [194 Cal.App.4th 1424]
The Yadegars filed a verified answer, denying the allegations and asserting several affirmative defenses.
Following a January 5, 2010 bench trial, the trial court granted the Yadegars’ motion for judgment brought pursuant to section 631.8, reasoning that appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case as to any cause of action alleged. Specifically, relying on Liebovich v. Shahrokhkhany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 511 (Liebovich), the trial court sustained the Yadegars’ objection to the admission of the proof of service of the three-day notice and found that appellant failed to meet its burden to show that the notice was properly served. Judgment was entered in March 2010 fn. 2 and this appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that it met its burden to show proper service of the three-day notice, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to admit into evidence the process server’s declaration and erroneously ruled that the Yadegars’ admission of receipt of the notice was insufficient to establish proper service. Though we cannot conclude that appellant met its burden of proof to show proper service, the proof of service should have been admitted and accorded a presumption of the facts stated therein. For this reason, we must reverse the judgment and remand the matter for retrial. fn. 3
I. Applicable Unlawful Detainer Principles.
[1] “Unlawful detainer is a unique body of law and its procedures are entirely separate from the procedures pertaining to civil actions generally.” (Losornio v. Motta (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 110, 115.) Sections 1159 through 1179a comprise what is commonly known as the Unlawful Detainer Act; the statutes are “broad in scope and available to both lessors and lessees who have suffered certain wrongs committed by the other.” (Losornio v. Motta, supra, at p. 113.) An unlawful detainer action “‘is [194 Cal.App.4th 1425] a statutory proceeding and is governed solely by the provisions of the statute creating it.’ [Citations.] As special proceedings are created and authorized by statute, the jurisdiction over any special proceeding is limited by the terms and conditions of the statute under which it was authorized [citation], and . . . . [t]he statutory procedure must be strictly followed. [Citations.]” (Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 599–600.)
[2] According to the statutes governing unlawful detainer proceedings, “‘a tenant is entitled to a three-day notice to pay rent or quit which may be enforced by summary legal proceedings (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161) but this notice is valid and enforceable only if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1162.)'” (Kwok v. Bergren, supra, 130 Cal.App.3d at p. 600, quoting Lamey v. Masciotra (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 709, 713.) Stated another way, “[p]roper service on the lessee of a valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is an essential prerequisite to a judgment declaring a lessor’s right to possession under section 1161, subdivision 2. [Citations.]” (Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 513.) “A lessor must allege and prove proper service of the requisite notice. [Citations.] Absent evidence the requisite notice was properly served pursuant to section 1162, no judgment for possession can be obtained. [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
[3] Former section 1162 specifies three ways in which service of the three-day notice may be effected on a residential tenant: “1. By delivering a copy to the tenant personally. [¶] 2. If he or she is absent from his or her place of residence, and from his or her usual place of business, by leaving a copy with some person of suitable age and discretion at either place, and sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at his or her place of residence. [¶] 3. If such place of residence and business cannot be ascertained, or a person of suitable age or discretion there can not be found, then by affixing a copy in a conspicuous place on the property, and also delivering a copy to a person there residing, if such person can be found; and also sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at the place where the property is situated.” As explained in Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at page 514, “[w]hen the fact of service is contested, compliance with one of these methods must be shown or the judgment must be reversed.”
II. Because the Yadegars Were Served By a Registered Process Server, Evidence Code Section 647 Applied to Accord a Presumption to the Facts Stated in the Proof of Service.
In an appeal from an unlawful detainer judgment, “‘[w]e review the trial court’s findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] To the extent the trial court drew conclusions of law [194 Cal.App.4th 1426] based upon its findings of fact, we review those conclusions of law de novo. [Citation.]'” (ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266.) Moreover, we review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. (E.g., Austin B. v. Escondido Union School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 885.)
The trial court here relied exclusively on Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 511, to conclude both that the proof of service was inadmissible hearsay and that the Yadegars’ November 5, 2009 letter acknowledging service of the three-day notice was insufficient evidence of appellant’s compliance with section 1162. In Liebovich, the landlord served the tenant with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit via certified mail, and tenant denied that he ever received the notice. To meet its burden to show compliance with section 1162, the landlord offered evidence at trial comprised of an affidavit of service by certified mail and a certified mail return receipt with an illegible signature. (Liebovich, supra, at p. 514.) Though the trial court entered judgment for the landlord on the basis of this evidence, the appellate court reversed, holding that the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence of proper service in accordance with section 1162. (Liebovich, supra, at p. 514.)
The Liebovich court determined “that the affidavit of service alone (putting aside questions concerning the return receipt) was insufficient to prove the controverted fact of service. [Citations.] Affidavits of service may not be relied on at trial to prove a three-day notice was served pursuant to section 1162; testimony of the person who made the service is required. [Citation.]” (Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 514.) The court adopted the reasoning of Lacrabere v. Wise (1904) 141 Cal. 554, 556 (Lacrabere), where the court determined that the method of proof sanctioned by section 2009 fn. 4 has no application where proper proof of service constitutes an element of the landlord’s claim directly in controversy. (Liebovich, supra, at p. 515.)
While on its face Liebovich would appear to dispose of appellant’s contention that the affidavit of service should have been admitted as adequate proof of statutory compliance, this matter does not fall squarely within the confines of that authority. A dispositive distinction here is that service was effected by a registered process server. In contrast, there is no indication in either Liebovich or Lacrabere
5 Although appellant has not cited and we have not located any California case applying Evidence Code section 647 in an unlawful detainer action, courts routinely apply other Evidence Code provisions in unlawful detainer actions. (E.g., Plaza Freeway Ltd. Partnership v. First Mountain Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 616, 621–622 [applying Evid. Code, § 622 in an unlawful detainer action]; Ramona Manor Convalescent Hospital v. Care Enterprises (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1120, 1137 [applying Evid. Code, § 352 in an unlawful detainer action].) Moreover, nothing in the governing statutory scheme suggests that the Evidence Code should not apply to unlawful detainer proceedings. (See generally, §§ 1159–1179a.)
Consistent with this authority, at least one treatise assumes that the Evidence Code section 647 presumption would apply in an unlawful detainer action notwithstanding Liebovich, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th 511: “Normally, the landlord will have to produce the person who served the notice to testify to the facts of service. When the issue is controverted, proof by affidavit alone will not suffice. [Citations.] [¶] . . . However, if the notice was served by a registered process server [citation], plaintiff may take advantage of a statutory presumption: The registered process server’s proof of service can be introduced as a business record [citation], thereby creating a presumption affecting defendant’s burden of producing evidence. [Citations.] [¶] If defendant does not introduce rebuttal evidence, the trier of fact must find for plaintiff in accordance with the presumption. Conversely, the presumption is dispelled by defendant’s introduction of rebuttal evidence, and the burden shifts back to plaintiff to put the person who served the notice on the stand to testify to proper service.” (Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2010) ¶¶ 9:204.1-9:204.2, p. 9-54 (rev. # 1, 2009), italics omitted.)
[4] We agree that where service is carried out by a registered process server, Evidence Code section 647 applies to eliminate the necessity of calling the process server as a witness at trial. This conclusion is consistent with the purpose of the unlawful detainer procedure to afford a relatively simple and speedy remedy for specific landlord-tenant disputes. (See Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 151.) [194 Cal.App.4th 1428] Accordingly, we conclude the trial court erred by failing to apply the evidentiary presumption afforded by Evidence Code section 647. The excluded proof of service established that a registered California process server served the three-day notice. Moreover, the proof of service indicated that the Yadegars were served in accordance with the requirements of section 1162, subdivision (3). (See Nourafchan v. Miner (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 746, 750–751 [§ 1162 does not require a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting personal service before resorting to the alternate method of service by posting and mailing], disapproved on another point in Minelian v. Manzella (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 457, 464; Highland Plastics, Inc. v. Enders (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d.Supp. 1, 6 [same].)
We reject the Yadegars’ argument that application of the presumption would have made no difference; they contend that they overcame any evidentiary presumption by denying in their verified answer that they had been served with the three-day notice. Under Evidence Code section 647, the proof of service “establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in àthe return.” As explained in Evidence Code section 604, “[t]he effect of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is to require the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption.” Thus, the Yadegars were required to come forth with evidence–beyond their answer–in order to overcome the presumption. (See, e.g., Farr v. County of Nevada (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 669, 680–681 [“if a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence ‘applies to a proposition, the proponent of the proposition need not prove it unless the opposing party produces evidence undermining it, in which case the presumption is disregarded and the trier of fact must decide the question without regard to it'”]; People v. Chavez (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1483 [“If some fact be presumed, the opponent of that fact bears the burden of producing or going forward with evidence sufficient to overcome or rebut the presumed fact”].) The Yadegars offered no evidence to show that they were not properly served and instead relied on their answer and appellant’s asserted failure to satisfy its burden of proof. On retrial, they will have the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the presumption afforded by Evidence Code section 647. (See Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1481 [upon credible evidence that document was never received, presumption of receipt from mailing “ceased to exist”].) [194 Cal.App.4th 1429]
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for retrial in accordance with the views expressed herein. Appellant is awarded its costs on appeal.
Ashmann-Gerst, J., and Chavez, J., concurred.
FN 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
FN 2. Although the matter was transferred to Department 64 in the Central District of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County because it was deemed related to the prior unlawful detainer action, appellant obtained a default judgment in the Beverly Hills courthouse where the action had been originally filed. The Yadegars later successfully moved to set aside the default judgment.
FN 3. In view of our conclusion that the proof of service was erroneously excluded from evidence, we need not address appellant’s alternative contention that the Yadegars’ November 5, 2009 letter established proper service. In any event, we would not find that the Yadegars’ statement that they had been “served” sufficient to establish appellant’s strict compliance with section 1162. (Compare University of So. Cal. v. Weiss (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 759, 768-769 [tenant’s admitting receipt of notice deemed sufficient where mailing alone constituted personal service].)
FN 4. Section 2009 provides in pertinent part: “An affidavit may be used . . . to prove the service of a summons, notice, or other paper in an action or special proceeding, to obtain a provisional remedy, the examination of a witness, or a stay of proceedings . . . .”
FN 5. Contrary to the Yadegars’ argument we should reject appellant’s argument because it is made for the first time on appeal, appellant did reference Evidence Code section 647 at trial.
The Criminal Stalker Attempts to Argue that He’s Merely Being Helpful
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:44 AM
Subject: The Point
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:44 AM
Subject: The Point
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
The point is, Ms. Lynch, that – out of intellectual integrity – I informed you of a case that is highly helpful to your position in your pending motion.
I laid it out for you chapter and verse in simple language.
The only thing that this case does not resolve for you is the credibility conflict between the declaration of service and your declarations, but procedurally, all of your other potential roadblocks are solved.
But like an Aborigine who is gifted a cellphone and elects to use it as a rock to skip across a pond, you squandered the opening.
It would have been much more effective if you had waited until the opposition was filed and then used the case in rebuttal, but now you have tipped your hand and the opposition will surely deal with this case, instead of ignoring the points raised. Instead, you are so closed minded you actually cannot see the utility of this case at all….amazing.
Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…
Never let it be said though that I did not give you accurate information.
Friday, September 18, 2015
And the Point Is?
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Fwd: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of your motion
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>, 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
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Fwd: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of your motion
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>, 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
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I've asked Rice, rather than Criminal Stalker Gianelli, to respond to the issues raised in my motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. Who cares what the criminal thinks. I've already addressed Fidelity v. Brown in my motion. Rice, in keeping with her predictable behavior, will serve the Opposition precisely 9 days before the October 6th hearing. Gianelli appears to be assisting her with research on these issues. I already advised Hess that his January 2014 order wasn't filed with the court and I wasn't served the order either. Jeffrey Korn promised he would serve it and failed to do so. I also didn't receive the proposed order, with request to comment, when that was sent. I am aware that the final order wasn't registered. So what's the criminal's point? I am aware that there is no finding re. proper service due to all of this. These people have a lot of nerve insulting someone who is pro per for the sole reason that Cohen bankrupted me and stole my share of intellectual property via default while withholding commissions due me for services rendered. LA Superior Court seems to also condone slave labor.
Kelley
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of your motion
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of your motion
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.
See the attached case, Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne, FYI. Under its reasoning:
1. A motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is NOT CONSIDERED to be a motion to vacate the judgment and is therefore not governed by time limits for motions to vacate the judgment such as those provided by section 473.5. This is because the motion does not seek to affect the judgment itself but only the renewal period. For the same reasons one would have AN ARGUMENT that a motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is not a motion to reconsider a previously denied motion to vacate the judgment itself, but the case does not address that issue.
2. The moving party need not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.
3. There is no “due diligence” requirement in filing the motion “earlier” (e.g., after learning of the judgment) because the legislature has explicitly provided for a 30-day time window from the date mailing of notice of renewal of the motion to file it, and the motion is either filled within that statutory time or it is not.
4. Unlike in the cited case (attached), the fact of valid service is DISPUTED – so the moving party still needs to overcome the presumption of valid service created by the proof of service filed by the registered process server. And Judge Hess could still defeat the motion by weighing the evidence and concluding that the moving declarations failed to overcome the presumption in favor of proper service.
5. Res judicata should not be a factor because NO ORDER SETTING FORTH JUDGE HESS’ JANUARY 17, 2014 RULING DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE was ever signed or filed – let alone served. (See the on-line docket “case summary”.) A proposed order was lodged, but NO SIGNED ORDER WAS EVER FILED AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT NO ORDER WAS EVER SIGNED. Since there was no ORDER DENYING THE MOTION entered, no final, appealable order was ever entered – and (arguably) therefore there was no prior finding of proper service.
The Party At Interest (Gianelli) & His Obsession With Tax Court
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:27 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction is limited. Petitioner has burden of proving jurisdiction. Appeals where no STATUTORY NOTICE OR VALID DETERMINATION LETTER or untimely appeals PROHIBITED
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:27 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction is limited. Petitioner has burden of proving jurisdiction. Appeals where no STATUTORY NOTICE OR VALID DETERMINATION LETTER or untimely appeals PROHIBITED
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
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.
[…]
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.
[…]
à4. 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.
Cohen’s Legal Team & The Party At Interest Attempt to Distance Themselves In The Most Moronic Fashion Possible
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Subject: Fw:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
As you can see from the last message from Michelle Rice that I did not delete unread, we are hardly a part of the same “team” (officially or unofficially) and never have been.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
---Forwarded message---
From: Michelle Rice
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:42
To: Stephen Gianelli; Robert Kory
Reply To: Michelle Rice
Subject:
|
We would not have needed to associate in Dan Bergman had you not incited her to further filings in a case that we thought had concluded in January 17, 2014 when she lost the first Motion to Vacate. I have each and every one of your emails thereafter inciting Lynch to file her "long promised motion accusing Leonard Cohen and Kory/Rice of perjury." She filed her "Motion for Terminating and Other Sanctions" on March 17, 2015 after your daily barrage of emails inciting her to do so.... That motion was 1,100 pages. Not something that you want to be on the receiving end of even if it was totally frivolous.
I will also not be reading any of your emails either as I had not been for years until I could not stand by any longer after seeing you repeated emails affirmatively inciting her to move to vacate a valid and subsisting restraining order of my client.
What would do if you had a restraining order and someone was inciting the restrained person to move to vacate your valid order ? And indeed violate that order by inciting further harassment ?
And as for your final immature parting shot - actually Stephen pro se litigants are the most difficult defendants to deal with in litigation.
I will be happy to send a link to the article recently published in the ABA Journal of Litigation on that very subject.
Good riddance.
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
Admitted to practice law in the following jurisdictions: California, District of Columbia and New York
NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>; Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:53 AM
Subject:
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>; Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:53 AM
Subject:
Ms. Rice,
I will not be reading your future emails.
For the record, as far as inciting Lynch to violence the most provocative thing you could have done is associate Dan Bergman.
As far as losing in court to her, if you cannot beat the pro se "retarded kid" you are in a world of hurt.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Party At Interest, Stephen Gianelli
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM to the IRS/FBI/ICE/NSA and others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM to the IRS/FBI/ICE/NSA and others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov
Ms. Lynch,
Your claim that I am an “interested party” in respect to your pending (for now) tax court petition relating to a 2002 prior, adjudicated tax court case involving Leonard Cohen (contending that the 2002 stipulated disposition in that matter was procured through a “fraud on the court”) is ridiculous on its face.
You make no attempt to support such a statement and throw it out there in the public domain like it is self-evident.
“The stakes are high”? Ha!
What “stakes” exactly?
You said the same thing in response to my 2010 analysis of your threatened motion to vacate Cohen’s 2006 default judgment (that it would be denied), in response to my analysis of your direct appeal from and habeas petition following your criminal harassment conviction and 18-month jail sentence (same), in response to my 2013 prediction that you would be remanded to jail for violating your probation (you were), in response to my prediction that your 2015, second motion to vacate would be denied (it was), and in response to my pointing out with reasoned analysis why your other many failed legal positions don’t withstand scrutiny (they all went nowhere).
Were you convicted of criminal harassment in 2012? Yes you were. Was your conviction affirmed on direct appeal and your habeas petition dismissed? You bet. Were your 2013 and 2015 motions to vacate the (now) $14MILLION judgment against you denied? Yes. Was your 2015 motion to vacate the California registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order denied in a court ruling that exactly tracked my earlier analysis of the question? Yes it was.
Let me reiterate: The tax court cares not at all that I wrote to your opposing counsel once requesting a copy of the motion to dismiss your petition or about your claims of “victimhood” and “harassment”. The tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition, and none of these collateral allegations can confer that jurisdiction.
Your pending motion to vacate the renewal of Cohen’s (now) $14 MILLION judgment will be denied; your grounds in support of that order have already been litigated. Twice.
Cohen’s pending sanctions motion will be granted.
Your pending appeals taken from the denial of your second motion to vacate and the order sealing documents are going nowhere.
Any federal court litigation initiated by you and arising out of your former agency relationship with Cohen, which terminated in 2004, will be quickly dismissed.
Why do I care about any of this? Because unlike many of your harassment victims who deal with you passively, hoping that if they remain silent in the face of your electronic harassment in mass emails and on the web you will eventually go away, I decided on a more proactive approach. And if you think for a minute that I need to be paid by Leonard Cohen in order to take an interest in your mass emailed and blog posted slander (as well as your absurd and publicly expressed legal positions) after you falsely accused me of being a “child molester” in mass emails and on your Google indexed blogs, you have a lot to learn about human nature.
Any questions?
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
______________________________
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
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
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
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
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I've received yet another criminally harassing email from the Proxy Stalker, Stephen Gianelli. Nothing deters this man and the stakes are clearly high. He is obviously a party-at-interest.
I have forwarded you all of this Criminal's harassing emails. I didn't initiate anything so that Stephen Gianelli, who is most definitely a proxy of Leonard Cohen's (whether or not a cover-your-ass letter exists) and unofficial member of his legal team, can engage in ongoing harassment with respect to me, witness tampering and intimidation with respect to my witnesses, or use the opportunity to insert himself into a Tax Court matter and then lie and falsely accuse me to opposing counsel, Mr. Fabian, in the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office. This is not a personal grievance. This is engaged in blatant criminal conduct and evidence supporting that fact has been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
Tax Court has jurisdiction over fraud upon the court. Both Tax Court and the 9th Circuit follow Hazel-Atlas. I think the person with the actual vendetta is Leonard Cohen. Isn't that why he retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to IRS; used it as an opportunity to steal from me; bankrupted me intentionally; failed to serve me the Complaint; filed and amended tax returns based on the fabricated Complaint narrative; concealed his loans/expenditures totaling approximately $6.7 million from his alleged "retirement" account; applied for an received fraudulent tax refunds from IRS and FTB; used the Complaint to defend himself against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with Agent Tejeda; and joined forces with the Los Angeles District Attorney and City Attorney in targeting me? What will Leonard Cohen do for an encore? How low will Leonard Cohen go? He has now gone so far over the deep end, from my perspective, that he literally hired my younger son's father's custody lawyer. That move appeared to be entirely desperate.
The Tax Court can decide how to handle and respond to my motions. I have addressed this matter with the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office. And, I have advised Gianelli to cease and desist yet again. I think it's obvious that this man is moonlighting for someone regardless of his lame argument that he's a retired lawyer/liar residing in Greece who cannot be extradited.
I'll forward any additional emails I receive from this Criminal to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
All the best,
Kelley
The Proxy Stalker’s Obsession With Lynch, Her Family & Friends, Her Blog, & Leonard Cohen’s Tax Fraud Matters
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:14 PM
Subject: Your emal to Michelle Rice dated Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:14 PM
Subject: Your emal to Michelle Rice dated Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
I always know when you perceive one of my rebuttals to your mass emails to the IRS/DOJ/FBI to be particularly effective: You redact the body of it while complaining about it. I therefore forward herewith the entire email. Please see yellow highlighted text clarifying that it is not “on behalf of Leonard Cohen”.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 12:20 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.
Cc: 'washington.field@ic.fbi.
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM to the IRS/FBI/ICE/NSA and others
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 12:20 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.
Cc: 'washington.field@ic.fbi.
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM to the IRS/FBI/ICE/NSA and others
Ms. Lynch,
Your claim that I am an “interested party” in respect to your pending (for now) tax court petition relating to a 2002 prior, adjudicated tax court case involving Leonard Cohen (contending that the 2002 stipulated disposition in that matter was procured through a “fraud on the court”) is ridiculous on its face.
You make no attempt to support such a statement and throw it out there in the public domain like it is self-evident.
“The stakes are high”? Ha!
What “stakes” exactly?
You said the same thing in response to my 2010 analysis of your threatened motion to vacate Cohen’s 2006 default judgment (that it would be denied), in response to my analysis of your direct appeal from and habeas petition following your criminal harassment conviction and 18-month jail sentence (same), in response to my 2013 prediction that you would be remanded to jail for violating your probation (you were), in response to my prediction that your 2015, second motion to vacate would be denied (it was), and in response to my pointing out with reasoned analysis why your other many failed legal positions don’t withstand scrutiny (they all went nowhere).
Were you convicted of criminal harassment in 2012? Yes you were. Was your conviction affirmed on direct appeal and your habeas petition dismissed? You bet. Were your 2013 and 2015 motions to vacate the (now) $14MILLION judgment against you denied? Yes. Was your 2015 motion to vacate the California registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order denied in a court ruling that exactly tracked my earlier analysis of the question? Yes it was.
Let me reiterate: The tax court cares not at all that I wrote to your opposing counsel once requesting a copy of the motion to dismiss your petition or about your claims of “victimhood” and “harassment”. The tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition, and none of these collateral allegations can confer that jurisdiction.
Your pending motion to vacate the renewal of Cohen’s (now) $14 MILLION judgment will be denied; your grounds in support of that order have already been litigated. Twice.
Cohen’s pending sanctions motion will be granted.
Your pending appeals taken from the denial of your second motion to vacate and the order sealing documents are going nowhere.
Any federal court litigation initiated by you and arising out of your former agency relationship with Cohen, which terminated in 2004, will be quickly dismissed.
Why do I care about any of this? Because unlike many of your harassment victims who deal with you passively, hoping that if they remain silent in the face of your electronic harassment in mass emails and on the web you will eventually go away, I decided on a more proactive approach. And if you think for a minute that I need to be paid by Leonard Cohen in order to take an interest in your mass emailed and blog posted slander (as well as your absurd and publicly expressed legal positions) after you falsely accused me of being a “child molester” in mass emails and on your Google indexed blogs, you have a lot to learn about human nature.
Any questions?
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
______________________________
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
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
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
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
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I've received yet another criminally harassing email from the Proxy Stalker, Stephen Gianelli. Nothing deters this man and the stakes are clearly high. He is obviously a party-at-interest.
I have forwarded you all of this Criminal's harassing emails. I didn't initiate anything so that Stephen Gianelli, who is most definitely a proxy of Leonard Cohen's (whether or not a cover-your-ass letter exists) and unofficial member of his legal team, can engage in ongoing harassment with respect to me, witness tampering and intimidation with respect to my witnesses, or use the opportunity to insert himself into a Tax Court matter and then lie and falsely accuse me to opposing counsel, Mr. Fabian, in the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office. This is not a personal grievance. This is engaged in blatant criminal conduct and evidence supporting that fact has been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
Tax Court has jurisdiction over fraud upon the court. Both Tax Court and the 9th Circuit follow Hazel-Atlas. I think the person with the actual vendetta is Leonard Cohen. Isn't that why he retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to IRS; used it as an opportunity to steal from me; bankrupted me intentionally; failed to serve me the Complaint; filed and amended tax returns based on the fabricated Complaint narrative; concealed his loans/expenditures totaling approximately $6.7 million from his alleged "retirement" account; applied for an received fraudulent tax refunds from IRS and FTB; used the Complaint to defend himself against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with Agent Tejeda; and joined forces with the Los Angeles District Attorney and City Attorney in targeting me? What will Leonard Cohen do for an encore? How low will Leonard Cohen go? He has now gone so far over the deep end, from my perspective, that he literally hired my younger son's father's custody lawyer. That move appeared to be entirely desperate.
The Tax Court can decide how to handle and respond to my motions. I have addressed this matter with the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office. And, I have advised Gianelli to cease and desist yet again. I think it's obvious that this man is moonlighting for someone regardless of his lame argument that he's a retired lawyer/liar residing in Greece who cannot be extradited.
I'll forward any additional emails I receive from this Criminal to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
All the best,
Kelley
Ongoing Harassment Over Tax Court (which does have jurisdiction over “fraud upon the court” as 9th Circuit clearly understands)
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Apparently, when you initiate a court matter you feel that you are entitled to bring to the attention of the court your every personal grievance with non-parties to the litigation. Your tax court case is no exception.
However, the tax court does not even have jurisdiction over your initiating petition – let alone your vendetta against the undersigned and others. You are simply wasting the valuable resources of the tax court on nonsense.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
The Proxy Stalker Continues to Harass Lynch Using Immaterial, Irrelevant, and Farcical “Evidence” While Defending Leonard Cohen
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated September 11, 2015 11:55 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian, IRS Office of the Chief Counsel + others
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
You have a 10-year long pattern of making false accusations of criminality against persons whom you feel aggrieved by. The incident at Juanita’s Restaurant in Boulder, Colorado (where you were arrested by BPD for refusing to leave until the police arrested another diner for “molestation” and a jury convicted you of criminal trespass) is a part of that pattern, as is your 20,000 +/- emails to the IRS/FBI/Justice/LAPD/Santa Monica PD/Houston PD/State Bar of California and many others falsely accusing me of being a “pedophile,” a “sexual predator,” a “terrorist”, “suborning perjury”, “obstruction of justice”, “interfering with a tax fraud investigation”, “false statements”, etc., etc., etc.
There are two people in the world with an axe to grind against Leonard Cohen: Kelley Lynch and Ann Diamond, a Canadian writer who claims a prior romantic relationship with Cohen but that Cohen claims is a stalker and mentally unbalanced. Ms. Diamonds claims that she was abducted as a child and subjected to LSD experiments and sexual abuse by high ranking US military officials and that the British Royal Family engaged in ritual orgies involving animal sacrifice on an island in Greece pretty much speak for themselves. None of the “articles” you cite by Ann Diamond were ever published except by Kelley Lynch.
I simply wrote to Mr. Fabian in July of this year asking if it would be possible for him to email to me a copy of his motion to dismiss in your pending tax court matter. Two months later, in September of 2011, you then filed a formal “motion to supplement the record” in that matter that exclusively addresses your false accusations against me. You then wrote to Mr. Fabian purporting to “confirm” a telephone conversation wherein Mr. Fabian (allegedly) stated that I contacted him regarding the allegations in your pending petition (which he never did, because that never happened). It is this injection by you of your false accusations against me into your tax court matter, and your additional flurry of 30 +/- scurrilous and libelous emails about me that I have responded with three or four emails of my own setting the record straight – including about your history with restraining orders (having them granted against you and being convicted of violating them).
I have also pointed out that you have a history of submitting fabricated evidence to the Los Angeles Superior Court (including the declarations that you have cited to Mr. Fabian, on which declarations you signed the purported signatures of the “declarants”).
Your subsequent emails (eccentrically cc’d to the Russian state security service and others) attempting to explain away all of this have made my point for me: You are simply not credible on any level.
The IRS, the FBI and the other agencies that you pester daily with mass emailed accusations of criminality about me and me and others have long ago formally designed you an “unreliable informant”.
You have been engaged in this unseemly and bizarre behavior since being fired for embezzlement in 2004 and it has only brought you world-wide notoriety as a convicted stalker, jail, and the complete and total loss of your credibility. Certainly none of the many hundreds of people whom you have “reported” for alleged criminality have ever been prosecuted. The only one who was ever even investigated as a result of your daily criminal complaints has was Leonard Cohen, who in 2007 was exonerated by the Western Regional Supervisor of the IRS Criminal Division, Agent Luis Tejeda.
None of the many local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies you have been serially contacting about me for the past six years demanding my prosecution have even CONTACTED me for a statement, let alone investigated or prosecuted me. The State Bar of California has not even asked me to explain your many complaints.
Ms. Lynch, you are living in the past, harping on things that occurred almost 15-years ago transparently to harm the man you blame for the “destruction of your life” – Leonard Cohen. You have only succeeded in making yourself a nuisance to law enforcement and the civil tax authorities and a laughing stock with the public.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:55 PM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; Opla-pd-los-occ; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@
Subject: Fwd: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:55 PM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; Opla-pd-los-occ; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@
Subject: Fwd: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
Gianelli,
Cease and desist. What does Boulder have to do with it? It just explains the Ramsey case and the fact that Boulder has a serious problem with pedophiles. The
police are well aware of that fact. The manager was a liar who lied to the Sheriff's Department who served my subpoena and didn't act properly (according to the owner).
In any event, I won a jury trial on the ONLY ISSUE I was arrested over. I understand that prosecutors falsely stack charges when they don't have a case.
Study Ann Diamond's piece on you. Mr. Fabian should as well. I think you wrote the bloody stump email and there's probable cause to believe that because you create
these types of monikers and are a dangerously unstable, obsessed psychopath.
You didn't contact Mr. Fabian over my motions with respect to your wrongful communications with his office. You simply cannot stop lying. Your a perfect Leonard
Cohen operative: A DANGEROUS CLOWN.
Kelley Lynch
When Stephen Gianelli’s emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and unsolicited, they are so overflowing with repetitive accusations, misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts, undiluted rage, and general nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of them. My impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he seems to have unlimited energy and endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not know in an attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of having an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as he's concerned, so he's barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under normal circumstances be a sign of mental imbalance.
He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful deductions. His tone is that of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me flashbacks of a courtroom where I’m being cross-examined by a vicious criminal lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the witness. Gianelli’s game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be overwhelmed by a word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his overuse of "copy and paste" -- he's in a hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to make a persuasive argument. He doesnt reread his emails to see what kind of message they actuall convey: that the writer is standing on some soapbox in his mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.
He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the truth, or looking beyond the various documents he "downloaded at his own expense" -- and as anyone with common sense knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in 2004-5. They convey some of the evidence, all of it coming from one side.
Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since 2008, does not make sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him names on the internet, and in revenge he has totally immersed himself in her legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and friends, spreading false stories about her, making up quotes, “visiting her in jail”, posting photes of her residence and roommates on his blog – for the past seven years. Nobody in their right mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no material interest in this case, and is not a paid shill -- behaves like this. It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress leave' or in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing. Hiding behind the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long, especially not on the porous internet. His badly written and often illogical, emotional rants would embarrass and bring him close to professional suicide.
But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a comfortable tax haven on Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his childish fantasies and catty remarks with his tiny circle of cronies. It’s fairly obvious he uses alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g. “Mongochili,” to make it appear others read his blog and share his ‘obcession’ with Lynch. His sheer extremism indicates he is either a “rogue criminal lawyer” gone slightly postal, or a paid agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team. I think the latter.
I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the one intended: it can only make people suspicious of the case against Kelley Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its course? Why subject her to endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared guilty? This kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to be both the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.
Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A single-paragraph response from my end always leads to a flood from his. Each exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which might be worth discussing, if they weren’t drowned by high-volume invective. Of course this could be a tactic: if he really was ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an insufferable bully. Or maybe most of his cases involved low-life criminals or people with little or no education.
He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing -- but then so could I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's one of the reasons, including the 10-year series of precedents, that I am not surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.
If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments to these legal matters, and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He would have no need to bring up my "past" - or a wacked version of it that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's didinfo team. He draws from a psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from other Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, I’m no stranger to slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where anyone can read what I have to say. Much of what I have written on Cohen was initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours that were circulated (and believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much more detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop idol in our celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with people who base their opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive tactics have not really evolved in the past twenty years, since he used them on me.
I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman' who never got over her passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy clichés say much more about him than they do about me or my writing, or why I became interested in what really happened to Kelley Lynch.
And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging Gianelli. But in my experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone Cohen places in charge of his 'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's private entourage that I have met over the years, he may not even realize he's being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable. It's a fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen skirts with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at home, and knows his place, in that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and put the audience into a deeper state of trance.
I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium of Cohen associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived next door to Leonard Cohen, and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I might believe differently. But the essence of what happened to Kelley also happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower stakes. It was relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then – my reputation was damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard Cohen, as Kelley's was.
I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the corruption that is sinking the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree with that. He would only disagree with the idea that we all have an obligation to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and even profit from it.
Ann D.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Subject: RE: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Subject: RE: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
1. I never sent any such “bloody stump” email.
2. You have no evidence that I did. Just like you have no evidence that I am a “child molester”, suborned perjury, that I am “on Leonard Cohen’s payroll” (despite being retired and living abroad) etc. etc. etc.
Instead, these accusations are all malicious and false accusations calculated to cause me harm – just like the false accusations of criminality you have leveled to the IRS and FBI about three former employers who fired you, former landlords, and even a stranger dining in Juanita’s Restaurant who apparently looked askance at your disheveled (judging from your booking photo) appearance motivating you to falsely accuse the man of “molesting his daughter” in the restaurant and refusing to leave until he was arrested (the Boulder PD arrested YOU instead, and you were convicted by a jury of 12 of criminal trespass for refusing to leave on request of restaurant management.
I have an unblemished disciplinary record with the State Bar of California [SBN 83476]. I have never been subjected to a restraining order or held in contempt by any court. I don’t even have any moving violations on my criminal record, let alone misdemeanor or felony convictions. And I have an excellent professional reputation. (See here www.linkedin.com/in/
Last, YOU injected these attacks on me into your case through a “request to supplement the record” in your tax court proceeding. And then you have the nerve to claim surprise that I would be commenting!
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:30 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@
Subject: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:30 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@
Subject: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
Stephen Gianelli,
I am addressing your ongoing harassment over Leonard Cohen legal matters, my countless cease and desist letters, your false and slanderous accusations (made to government agencies and others), the harassment of my sons and others, your attempts to threaten and intimidate witnesses, your attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit information, your provocations, and your communication with Mr. Fabian of the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office. Given the fact that you have repeatedly harassed me with docket information from the Tax Court and actually emailed me documents you downloaded from Tax Court (re. my Petition), it is obvious that you did not actually contact Mr. Fabian for copies of documents which would be an inappropriate request in any event. I have addressed this situation with Tax Court, Mr. Fabian, and advised you to cease and desist.
As for vile and obscene emails, I remain convinced that you sent the “bloody stump” email and other emails using the moniker 14th Sheepdog which you created and used on your entirely slanderous blog.
I, and others, have maintained the harassing emails you have sent since hearing from Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, in May 2009. You are a chronic pathological liar so your self-serving characterizations will not replace the actual evidence. That evidence has been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
I have not accused you of being a pedophile. You attempted to (and did) lure my then minor son into privately communicating with you. I have stated – very clearly – that any adult stranger who attempts to communicate with a minor should be viewed as a potential sexual predator. I have no idea who you are and neither do either of my sons who have addressed this ongoing criminal harassment (and other issues) in their declarations submitted to numerous courts. Ray was quite clear when he informed you, Walsh, and Lawrence that your emails made him physically ill (and noted that Michelle Rice had been copied in) and Rutger was equally clear when he advised you to “shut up” and then addressed your copying him in on an email to the City Attorney by noting that you and Walsh appear to be two “fruitcakes” who stay up all night conjuring up insane accusations.
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Rutger Penick wrote [in response to Gianelli/Walsh’s communications with the City Attorney – copying him in]:
Wow, you guys are ridiculous. What did you do last night? Thinking of things to write? Bravo fruitcakes. Suzanne [Walsh]and Gianelli are meant for each other, thunder buddies?
Sincerely,
Rutger Penick
IT Support Specialist
I have never accused Leonard Cohen or ripping Rutger’s fingers off. He and the City Attorney, who elicited that obscene and vile testimony, are the individuals that made this false statement. I am well aware of the criminal negligence in the Whole Foods matter and repeatedly contacted the District Attorney’s office requesting that they investigate and prosecute the responsible parties. This is also a very serious public health issue.
Actually, Leonard Cohen is the individual who sexually harassed me, forced me to read business/legal documents to him while he soaked in bubble baths, and exposed his penis to me.
I have stated that you appear amused by your repulsive conduct and seem to get off on it. I am aware that Pat Dixon views Eminem’s song “Puke” and his statements about “dry humping” as a threat to him. I am also aware that Alan Jackson views Eminem’s song “Love the Way You Lie” as being about him. I am a friend of Phil Spector’s and remain utterly loyal to him. I have made that abundantly clear since the incident at his home whereby Clarkson shot herself and endangered his life.
I have no idea if Judge Ken Freeman is corrupt or not. LA Superior Court entered a judgment against me, wrongfully converted my property to Cohen, and failed to obtain jurisdiction over me. I know a judge in the Bay Area asked if Freeman was senile or old and his clerk simply had him sign a highly questionable judgment that inserted corporations – not named as parties to the suit – into it.
A jury heard the Boulder PD matter and did not believe Boulder PD. I’m not certain why anyone involved in the matter would brag about that fact. I have stated, and Rutger’s declaration confirms this, that LAPD informed my son that they would shoot me and my dog. They also informed my son that they were there because my dog was my alleged hostage and they were taking precautions. I don’t believe LAPD was at my house for a friendly visit. I can assure you of that and believe they endangered the life of my son who they willfully disregarded.
My letters, including this one, have advised you to cease and desist and addressed your ongoing criminal harassment, stalking, threats, false accusations, slanderous and defamatory statements, blatant lies, witness intimidation, and so forth. You most certainly appear to be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team.
Kelley Lynch
P.S. Leonard Cohen retaliated against me after hearing that I intended to report his tax fraud to IRS. I was advised that the “informant” actually advised Cohen that I wrote the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office on July 25, 2004. Cohen personally addressed these matters with me in the fall of 2004. Given the fact that you were not involved with either Cohen or myself for the 20 years I worked with him, you are not in a position to address his retaliation, theft, tax fraud, or conduct with respect to me. Cohen has a pattern of falsely accusing others, using operatives, and lying.
REDACTED
The Proxy Stalker Continues to Lie to Paulmikell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:23 PM
Subject: Your email dated Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM to the IRS Chief Trial Counsel and posted on your public blog
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:23 PM
Subject: Your email dated Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM to the IRS Chief Trial Counsel and posted on your public blog
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@
Ms. Lynch,
1. To be a valid form of testimony, declarations must be signed by the hand of the declarant. It matters not that you claim to have been granted the declarants’ power of attorney before you signed the witnesses’ names to their declarations. An agent may not subscribe a declaration for a witness under California law any more than an agent granted a power of attorney may take the witnesses stand and testify for his principal. Your statement to the contrary is ridiculous.
2. Paulette Brandt testified in her 2013 declaration in support of your motion to vacate the 2006 default judgment that she was “in touch with you” during the purported month of service, August 2005. She said nothing in her original declaration about being physically present at your home on the very date and time the proof of service reflects that you were served there – let alone anything about personally dying your hair to a color inconsistent with the process server’s description of your hair color at the time of service. Paulette Brandt’s declaration in support of your second, 2015 motion to vacate the same judgment, again based on lack of service, for the first time testifying that she was in your home at the exact time of purported service of a “Jane Doe” who refused to give her name, that no one came to the door of the residence, and that she previously dyed your hair a different color can hardly be fairly characterized as mere “clarifications” of her prior testimony that she was “in touch with” you in August of 2005. It was in fact a material change in testimony, and a highly suspect on at that. Notably, both motions supported by Ms. Brandt’s suspicious testimony were denied.
3. Tax court is known as a “court of limited jurisdiction”. Jurisdiction is entirely a creature of statute and is the exception, rather than the rule. Generally, for the tax court to have jurisdiction over a petition, the petition must contest a notice of tax deficiency or a notice of determination by the IRS, and the petition must be filed within a specified number of days from the date of mailing of the notice – which is presumed correct from the postmark. The statutory time limit is strictly enforced and is considered “jurisdictional”. Tax court jurisdiction is in no way based on what you “think” it should have jurisdiction over. Jurisdiction in this instance is either conferred by statute or there is no jurisdiction. Your notions of common sense have nothing to do with it.
4. Ms. Lynch, YOU are the one who started writing the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and republishing your years running false accusations against me. YOU are the one who filed a formal pleading in tax court exclusively directed at alleged misconduct by me. YOU are the one who has posted those communications and that pleading on your public Google indexed blog. I am simply responding. YOU and the one who opened that door. And the fact remains that you are a convicted serial harasser with a long history of false accusations of criminality against a great many people over a decade and no court or law enforcement agency has ever credited any of your factual assertions during the last ten years. Moreover, none of this constitutes “interfering with a tax court matter” – which is a concept that you have manufactured out of thin air and has zero legal significance.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
______________________________
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
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
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
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
Mr. Fabian,
Stephen Gianelli is lying to you. Is he writing you requesting information? No, he is not.
These declarations were all signed based on powers of attorney from all witnesses stating quite clearly that they asked me to conform them. The declarations, with the original witnesses signatures, and the powers of attorney were submitted to the court. The limited powers of attorney were signed prior to the declarations being submitted. These were signed in one's hand and there are no issues. Leonard Cohen is lying about serving me his lawsuit. I confronted his lies, including with respect to so-called "intrinsic" fraud upon the court. Each witness offered to speak directly to the Court and informed the Court that they were available or present to testify at the January 2014 hearing. The Court did not provide the opportunity for witness testimony. The Court did not provide an opportunity for confrontation per the U.S. Constitution. Stephen Gianelli is a moonlighting operative who argues Leonard Cohen's cases with various parties. That now includes you. The man is a criminal who relentlessly targeted my sons, sister, friends, Paulette Brandt, etc.
Paulette Brandt did not materially change anything. Based on Cohen's further lies to the Court, she explained in greater detail various matters. That would include the fact that she was with me on the morning the process server said he came to my house. He didn't come to my house. The Court willfully disregarded this evidence of extrinsic fraud and has now condoned further fraud and perjury on the part of Cohen and his representatives.
Paulette Brandt testified at the second false arrest hearing based on a domestic violence order that doesn't exist except in California. There was no "dating relationship" and this government will not be assigning me one. It's a disgrace and there is VAWA funding fraud with the City Attorney's office. Also, the Court attempted to extort from me for "domestic violence." This is a matter that should be investigated by the DOJ. Other people have gone to them as well. Part of the problem appears to be their celebrity justice program.
I didn't embezzle anything from Leonard Cohen who is not the corporate entities. Neither he nor LC Investments, LLC own the assets. He is now attempting to hide and conceal evidence of my ownership interest in corporations. He has managed to get this Court to conceal my personal K-1s, stock certificates, publicly available documents, etc. These are his attorney/client privileged documents according to that round of lies. The Court in the fraud probation matter (since Boulder Combined Court informed me and Paulette - for years - that the permanent order expired in February 2009) refused to review the evidence submitted. The Court refused to review the Brady motion which is highly relevant and material. The City Attorney instructed this criminal to continue harassing me and to convey a message to me from their office. I'm not interested in their messages and am well aware that they lie. See my trial and all testimony about federal tax matters. Leonard Cohen still, to this date, has not provided me with IRS required tax and corporate information for the years 2004, 2005, and other periods. Much of this information was due in the first quarter of 2005. Cohen hadn't retaliated with his lawsuit yet. Cohen needed to argue fraud and rescission to explain away his roles in these transactions. My accountant and lawyers were present when Robert Kory offered me 50% community property, etc. on behalf of Cohen. I have some of this in writing and my accountant, who was not fired and did not resign, asked me to call the Treasury agents (after I met with them) to inform them that he recalled this meeting distinctly. He also believes, and worked for IRS, that Criminal Intelligence should be involved in this matter.
Leonard Cohen is the individual who embezzled approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC alone. He understood, and signed agreements, that his loans/expenditures had to be repaid to the corporation within 3 years with interest. I have a letter from Kory confirming that these loans/expenditures are problematic. I have provided that, and other evidence, to IRS Commissioner's Staff.
Rutger explained his declaration and Gianelli's attempts to explain away his six year campaign of terrorism with my sons is falling on deaf ears. My sister's lawyer advised him to cease and desist. My appellate attorney, who believes IRS should investigate my trial, was harassed by this Criminal (and Cohen's fan, Susanne Walsh) for over a year. He has never seen anything like this in his career. Many people have been harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, etc. That includes all the witnesses who provided the declarations Gianelli is lying about. I have sent you the original signed declarations and the limited powers of attorney. Gianelli is aware these exist. He's just a bald-faced liar and routinely lies to IRS, FBI, DOJ, etc. He believes he is immune and, at times, seems amused by his criminal conduct.
I think Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear a matter involving fraud upon the court. It follows Hazel-Atlas. That was Cohen's argument re. the "intrinsic fraud" false accusations contained in the declarations and reply documents filed in response to my motion to vacate. I have no idea why this Criminal has written to inform me that IRS declined a whistle blower award when I never applied for me and advised IRS in 2005 that i would rather live in a cave.
This man is definitely interfering with a Tax Court matter. I want to give some thought, over the weekend, as to how I intend to handle this with the Tax Court and Judge Michael Thornton. I will probably be forced to supplement the recent Motion I filed regarding this matter together with a request that the Court investigate. I will probably inform the Court that Gianelli is now writing you and lying about me and witnesses and I will from here on out simply maintain the evidence. I will probably also let the Court know that we have spoken and I have asked you to maintain the evidence as well. I will submit the originally signed declarations (that Gianelli is lying about) to Tax Court together with the limited powers of attorney. I will also let Tax Court know that these witnesses were all criminally harassed, stalked, targeted, intimidated, threatened, and insulted by Gianelli. I will also submit Paulette Brandt's declarations so the Court can take a look and draw its own conclusions. Paulette Brandt provided further details. She and Palden Ronge attended the January 2014 hearing and were not provided an opportunity to testify.
All the best,
Kelley
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@
Ms. Lynch,
I write to point out that the “original”, court-filed “declaration” of your son John Rutger Penick cut and pasted into the body of the above email was (as you later admitted in signed pleadings) signed by your hand and thus has no evidentiary force as testimony by Mr. Penick. (See Code of Civil Pro. § 2015.5 [a declaration must be “subscribed” by the person making it]; People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 59, fn. 5 [à"Subscribe" means "to sign with one's own hand."].)
[MESSAGE TRUNCATED]
The Proxy Stalker Lies to Paulmikell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@
Ms. Lynch,
I write to point out that the “original”, court-filed “declaration” of your son John Rutger Penick cut and pasted into the body of the above email was (as you later admitted in signed pleadings) signed by your hand and thus has no evidentiary force as testimony by Mr. Penick. (See Code of Civil Pro. § 2015.5 [a declaration must be “subscribed” by the person making it]; People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 59, fn. 5 [à"Subscribe" means "to sign with one's own hand."].)
Regarding your roommate Paulette Brandt’s 2015 declaration, Ms. Brandt materially changed her testimony on the subject of your 2006 service with Leonard Cohen’s civil suit from that of her 2013 declaration, and in any event Brandt’s testimony was evidentially rejected by the court when it denied your 2013 and 2015 motions to set aside the $14 MILLION embezzlement based judgment against you. The court also (apparently) rejected Ms. Brandt’s testimony about an alleged conspiracy of harassment between me and Los Angeles prosecutors because it found you in violation of the terms of your 2012 probation at the January 22, 2014 hearing in which Ms. Brandt testified and remanded you to serve an additional 6-months in jail for additional email harassment.
Nor can the substance of Rutger Penick’s “declaration” be reconciled with his June 14, 2013 email to me stating that you are sick and need help and thanking me for my emails.
Nor is any of this likely to aid you in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss your tax court petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
Kelley Lynch Cease & Desist Letter
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Subject: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.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
Stephen Gianelli,
I am addressing your ongoing harassment over Leonard Cohen legal matters, my countless cease and desist letters, your false and slanderous accusations (made to government agencies and others), the harassment of my sons and others, your attempts to threaten and intimidate witnesses, your attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit information, your provocations, and your communication with Mr. Fabian of the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office. Given the fact that you have repeatedly harassed me with docket information from the Tax Court and actually emailed me documents you downloaded from Tax Court (re. my Petition), it is obvious that you did not actually contact Mr. Fabian for copies of documents which would be an inappropriate request in any event. I have addressed this situation with Tax Court, Mr. Fabian, and advised you to cease and desist.
As for vile and obscene emails, I remain convinced that you sent the “bloody stump” email and other emails using the moniker 14th Sheepdog which you created and used on your entirely slanderous blog.
I, and others, have maintained the harassing emails you have sent since hearing from Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, in May 2009. You are a chronic pathological liar so your self-serving characterizations will not replace the actual evidence. That evidence has been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
I have not accused you of being a pedophile. You attempted to (and did) lure my then minor son into privately communicating with you. I have stated – very clearly – that any adult stranger who attempts to communicate with a minor should be viewed as a potential sexual predator. I have no idea who you are and neither do either of my sons who have addressed this ongoing criminal harassment (and other issues) in their declarations submitted to numerous courts. Ray was quite clear when he informed you, Walsh, and Lawrence that your emails made him physically ill (and noted that Michelle Rice had been copied in) and Rutger was equally clear when he advised you to “shut up” and then addressed your copying him in on an email to the City Attorney by noting that you and Walsh appear to be two “fruitcakes” who stay up all night conjuring up insane accusations.
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Rutger Penick wrote [in response to Gianelli/Walsh’s communications with the City Attorney – copying him in]:
Wow, you guys are ridiculous. What did you do last night? Thinking of things to write? Bravo fruitcakes. Suzanne [Walsh]and Gianelli are meant for each other, thunder buddies?
Sincerely,
Rutger Penick
IT Support Specialist
I have never accused Leonard Cohen or ripping Rutger’s fingers off. He and the City Attorney, who elicited that obscene and vile testimony, are the individuals that made this false statement. I am well aware of the criminal negligence in the Whole Foods matter and repeatedly contacted the District Attorney’s office requesting that they investigate and prosecute the responsible parties. This is also a very serious public health issue.
Actually, Leonard Cohen is the individual who sexually harassed me, forced me to read business/legal documents to him while he soaked in bubble baths, and exposed his penis to me.
I have stated that you appear amused by your repulsive conduct and seem to get off on it. I am aware that Pat Dixon views Eminem’s song “Puke” and his statements about “dry humping” as a threat to him. I am also aware that Alan Jackson views Eminem’s song “Love the Way You Lie” as being about him. I am a friend of Phil Spector’s and remain utterly loyal to him. I have made that abundantly clear since the incident at his home whereby Clarkson shot herself and endangered his life.
I have no idea if Judge Ken Freeman is corrupt or not. LA Superior Court entered a judgment against me, wrongfully converted my property to Cohen, and failed to obtain jurisdiction over me. I know a judge in the Bay Area asked if Freeman was senile or old and his clerk simply had him sign a highly questionable judgment that inserted corporations – not named as parties to the suit – into it.
A jury heard the Boulder PD matter and did not believe Boulder PD. I’m not certain why anyone involved in the matter would brag about that fact. I have stated, and Rutger’s declaration confirms this, that LAPD informed my son that they would shoot me and my dog. They also informed my son that they were there because my dog was my alleged hostage and they were taking precautions. I don’t believe LAPD was at my house for a friendly visit. I can assure you of that and believe they endangered the life of my son who they willfully disregarded.
My letters, including this one, have advised you to cease and desist and addressed your ongoing criminal harassment, stalking, threats, false accusations, slanderous and defamatory statements, blatant lies, witness intimidation, and so forth. You most certainly appear to be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team.
Kelley Lynch
P.S. Leonard Cohen retaliated against me after hearing that I intended to report his tax fraud to IRS. I was advised that the “informant” actually advised Cohen that I wrote the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office on July 25, 2004. Cohen personally addressed these matters with me in the fall of 2004. Given the fact that you were not involved with either Cohen or myself for the 20 years I worked with him, you are not in a position to address his retaliation, theft, tax fraud, or conduct with respect to me. Cohen has a pattern of falsely accusing others, using operatives, and lying.
From: Helvetia Hornwaller <simitheseventeenth
DELETED BLOODY STUMP EMAIL
Your friend,
Simi The Seventeenth Shi-Tzu
DECLARATION OF ANNE JULIA MCLEAN
DELETED
Kelley Lynch
419 N. Larchmont Blvd., Suite 91
Los Angeles, California 90004
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
Small Business/Self Employed Division Counsel
3018 Federal Building
300 N. Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Re: Leonard Cohen vs. Commissioner (Docket No. 7024-02)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing with respect to the above referenced Trial Court case and related matters. I am Leonard Cohen’s personal manager and have an ownership interest in three entities with him. Those entities are Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC. These three entities either own or sold intellectual property.
For the year 1999, Sony Music issued a 1099 to Leonard Cohen in the sum of $1 million. On January 8, 2002, IRS issued Letter No. 3219 (SC/CG) to Leonard Cohen for the year ending December 31, 1999 showing a deficiency in connection with tax form 1040. This situation was initially handled by Leonard Cohen’s personal tax and corporate attorney, Richard Westin, who then referred Cohen to Hochman Rettig.
I became particularly concerned with respect to the conduct of Leonard Cohen and his representatives in January and February 2002. The reason for this is due to hysteria that arose in connection with the “inadvertent” 1099s Sony issued to Leonard Cohen personally in the amounts of $1 million and $7 million respectively. Leonard Cohen’s tax accountant wrote and advised him that he shuddered to think of the penalties and interest due. Leonard Cohen called his tax accountant after receiving his letter to discuss the matter. This matter was then discussed, both telephonically and in emails, with Leonard Cohen, Richard Westin, and Neal Greenberg (Cohen’s financial adviser and investor). These 1099s related to a deal that Sony pursued which closed in 2001.
What concerns me specifically is the fact that the Sony deal was done with Traditional Holdings, LLC and not Leonard Cohen. The $1 million non-refundable prepayment should have either been paid to Traditional Holdings, LLC or transferred to Traditional Holdings, LLC. To complicate matters even further, the assets that were sold to Sony belong to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and were not assigned to Traditional Holdings, LLC. The reason for this is due to the fact that, while Sony initially pursued this deal with Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. (and began their due diligence with that entity), Cohen’s accountant and tax lawyer raised issues related to collapsible corporations. Richard Westin represents Leonard Cohen. He does not represent me or the entities themselves. I did provide Westin with a very limited power of attorney authorizing him to prepare and file the Traditional Holdings, LLC formation documents with the State of Kentucky. I also agreed, after Cohen instructed him to do so, to permit Richard Westin to prepare my Indemnity Agreement with respect to my investment in Traditional Holdings, LLC via a promissory note. I do not understand how an individual invests in a company via a promissory note and, at the same time, receives distributions with which to the payments. I am enclosing Richard Westin’s March 6, 2002 letter summarizing this matter. I specifically requested that he write this letter to avoid any future confusion between me and Leonard Cohen. According to the corporate records, I receive $20,000 and $24,000 which pays the promissory note and taxes. I also receive $240,000 year (from profits) to pay whatever taxes Westin advises are due with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC. Richard Westin handles the Traditional Holdings, LLC tax returns and prepares the K-1s. While I am to receive 100% of the profit (and this was the agreed upon amount Cohen and Westin arrived at), I am unable to obtain financial statements and/or profit and loss statements from Neal Greenberg. And, while Richard Westin and Neal Greenberg are supposed to handle all loan documentation (Greenberg would have those details), most of Leonard Cohen’s loans (totaling millions) from Traditional Holdings, LLC remain undocumented. I would also like to note that Neal Greenberg’s financial statements are incoherent and originally co-mingled Leonard Cohen’s personal accounts; his charitable remainder trusts; and the Traditional Holdings, LLC accounts on one statement prepared for Leonard Cohen personally. Greenberg also provides a courtesy monthly email that includes the loans which he and Westin have repeatedly confirmed are assets of Traditional Holdings, LLC. I am alarmed by the complete lack of attention to corporate governance. I also enclose herewith Neal Greenberg’s January and June 2004 letters to Leonard Cohen raising “IRS warnings” and dangers. I’ve reviewed these letters with Leonard Cohen and he advised me not to inform Neal Greenberg of any future income. That would include the studio album that will be delivered; his plans to tour behind that album; and the third intellectual property deal we are pursuing. That deal is also complicated because Leonard Cohen is once again demanding unattractive stock deals. Leonard Cohen continually advises me that he does not want to pay ordinary income taxes. I find these comments alarming in light of some of the other activity.
I have no expertise in IRS or tax matters and find a great deal of the discussions about tax matters thoroughly confusing if not downright deranged. Some of the information I receive is incoherent. I do not handle IRS, tax, accounting, financial, investing, legal or inadvertent 1099 matters. I also do not handle financial statements, financial reports, loan documents, or promissory notes. Leonard Cohen has a team of professional representatives handling those matters. I am enclosing an email dated February 12, 2002 between me, Leonard Cohen, and Richard Westin that is self-explanatory and addresses some of my concerns.
On January 17, 2003, Hochman Rettig wrote David R. Jojola of the Los Angeles Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. This matter was handled by Steve Blanq at Hochman Rettig. I had concerns about Traditional Holdings, LLC and the private annuity agreement. I am enclosing many of the corporate records for these entities; the Annuity Agreement; and my Indemnity Agreement. I am also enclosing the stock certificates, non-revocable assignments, and other documentation related to my ownership interest in Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC which was formed in June 2004 in Delaware (by Richard Westin) and owns the intellectual property associated with Cohen’s forthcoming studio album.
After I addressed my concerns with Steve Blanq, I sent him some of the Traditional Holdings, LLC documents and the Annuity Agreement. I then mentioned to Richard Westin that I spoke to Steve Blanq about these matters. I received a phone call from Steve Blanq advising me that he spoke to Richard Westin who informed him that I do not have attorney/client privilege and therefore Steve Blanq may not discuss these matters with me. Given the fact that I have an ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC, I find that statement alarming. Leonard Cohen personally wrote Richard Westin and Neal Greenberg wrapping them in attorney/client privilege and excluding me.
Hochman Rettig’s letter addressed the factual and legal analysis of the Cohen v. Commisioner matter (Docket No. 7024-02) as follows: “Leonard Cohen, through his representatives, began negotiations in 1999 with Sony Music International ("SMI") for a buyout of his SMI master recordings catalog. In an effort to secure that SMI was serious about the buyout and to secure future performance, Mr. Cohen demanded a deposit of $1,000,000. Ultimately, SMI agreed to this request and on November 5, 1999, wired Mr. Cohen $1,000,000. Accompanying the wire transfer was a Ietter dated November 5, 1999 which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The letter from Paul Gilbert of SMI provides: ‘This amount is deemed a partial prepayment against the proposed $8 million buy-out of Leonard's future royalty interests in his master recordings and compositions under all of his agreements with Sony Music and Sony/ATV.’ The factual basis for treatment as a deposit is further supported by Mr. Gilbert's letter dated April 1, 2002 (attached hereto as Exhibit B) which provides: ‘. . . this letter is to confirm that the $ 1,000,000 paid to you by Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. (“SMEI") in November of 1999 was a deposit towards a possible royalty buyout …’”
This is not my understanding with respect to the $1 million prepayment. I would like to keep this letter confidential because I am convinced that I would lose my job if Leonard Cohen, or his representatives, were to find out that I contacted IRS. There has been so much paranoia and hysteria on the part of Leonard Cohen and his representatives over this matter that I can conclude nothing other than some type of egregious tax fraud has occurred.
The history of this deal, and specifically the $1 million non-refundable prepayment, actually began when Leonard Cohen actively began pursuing intellectual property deals. He closed the first deal, with Stranger Music, Inc., in 1996. He then actively began pursuing other intellectual property which included a possible bond securitization deal. As of November 1999, Leonard Cohen planned to close a bond securitization deal with CAK. In order to pursue that deal, Cohen formed LC Investments, LLC. CAK demanded a bankruptcy proof entity. However, SOCAN (the Canadian performing rights society) refused to pay writer share of royalties to a company not owned 100% by the writer, Leonard Cohen. Therefore, it was decided and agreed (by Cohen and his representatives) that LC Investments, LLC would collect the SOCAN royalties. These assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. which is true for all intellectual property excluding the forthcoming the intellectual property related to the forthcoming studio album that will be delivered to Sony in the near future. I am enclosing Leonard Cohen’s declaration in the CAK litigation that ensued and IRS can review the CAK litigation documents that were filed in the Southern District of New York (Docket No. 1:00-cv-01068-CBM).
What concerns me about the letter Hochman Rettig wrote is this paragraph: The legal authority is derived from the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U-S. 203, I 10 S. Ct. 589 (1990). The Court created a distinction between the taxation of advance payments and the taxation of refundable deposits, although the Court confirmed that advance payments are generally taxable and defined "advance payment" as a non-refundable payment. The Court, however, held that deposits are not taxable. The Court defined "deposits" as refundable payments that are made to secure the payor's performance of its legal obligations under the contract. Please note that the Court also found that a deposit is not taxable even if the payor elects to apply the deposit against amounts owed to the payee. Thus, if the payor fulfills its obligations under the contract, the deposit is refunded. That is the exact scenario presented in this matter. This analysis is also consistent with the United States Tax Court's longstanding treatment of real estate lease deposits where the Court has distinguished between a sum designated as a prepayment of rent (taxable upon receipt) and a sum deposited to secure the tenant's performance of a lease agreement. J & E Enterprises, Inc, v. Commissioner.”
The reason this paragraph concerns me is that Sony personally contacted me about pursuing the 2001 intellectual property deal with Leonard Cohen. Stuart Bondell, Sony Music Business Affairs, explained to me that Sony did not want Leonard Cohen pursuing a bond securitization deal. Evidently they had concerns about establishing artist precedent for these types of deal and were specifically concerned about not having the ability to pay artist record advances. As Stuart Bondell explained, advances are the currency of the music industry and permit Sony (and others) to encourage artists to submit their contractually obligated albums. I phoned Leonard Cohen and explained that Sony wanted to pursue the intellectual property deal with him. Cohen was somewhat worried that Sony was making an offer and could later change their minds. Therefore, he advised me that he would be willing to forfeit the CAK bond securitization deal if Sony paid him a substantial non-refundable prepayment against the $8 million deal price. The contractual details had to be resolved and negotiated. I phoned Stuart Bondell back and passed along Cohen’s message and Sony agreed to pay the $1 million non-refundable prepayment Cohen requested. Therefore, from my perspective, Cohen received $1 million in income from Sony in 1999. However, the assets were owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. at the time. As of 2001, Richard Westin had formed Traditional Holdings, LLC who ultimately pursued the stock deal Leonard Cohen personally demanded.
Your October 8, 2002 letter to Richard Westin requests all documents related to the $1 million payment including correspondence, contracts, agreements, royalty obligations, loan documents, emails, letters, and checks. While I am enclosing a substantial amount of evidence, IRS would literally have to make arrangements to come into my management offices and go through the files. They are voluminous and include the corporate files and corporate books and records. While I am not involved with this IRS and/or Tax Court matter at all, I do believe that information is being concealed from the IRS and that makes me extremely uncomfortable.
It was my understanding that Richard Westin and Ken Cleveland, Cohen’s accountant, decided to handle the $1 million as a loan on Cohen’s personal tax return. I was not involved in that discussion but was on a conference call when they two of them confirmed this and asked me to call Leonard Cohen to see if he agreed. I then phoned Leonard Cohen personally; he confirmed that he wanted the $1 million handled as a loan; and I called Westin and Cleveland back and confirmed this with them.
This essentially sums up my concerns about the $1 million prepayment; $7 million inadvertent 1099s; and the fact that the assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. Initially, after the non-revocable assignments were executed by Cohen and me, Richard Westin advised us to begin depositing all royalty income to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. At a later date, he advised me (and some of this is in writing) that those deposits should be explained as inadvertent. This situation also causes me concern because the income was deposited to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Westin determined that Leonard Cohen personally should issue the 1099s. Richard Westin also advised me to rip up the SOCAN and writer share assignments with respect to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. I took copies home and enclose copies herewith.
Another ongoing issue relates to where the offices for these entities are. There are no offices. I have continuously advised Richard Westin that my personal management offices are not the corporate entities’ offices. These entities use my P.O. Box for their corporate office addresses. Traditional Holdings, LLC’s corporate office is listed as Richard Westin’s home address in Kentucky. Most of these entities are Delaware entities. I do not know why Leonard Cohen and his representatives decided to form Traditional Holdings, LLC in Kentucky. I am enclosing letters Richard Westin prepared for Leonard Cohen and me with respect to the initial proposals with respect to the use of an annuity. Leonard Cohen rejected the first proposal and did not want his adult children involved in any entity he has an ownership interest in.
Please see evidence enclosed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and, if I uncover additional information, I will submit that to Internal Revenue Service as well.
