Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Subject: Re:
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
FBI,
Your website does clearly state that parents should be concerned. But the City Attorney thinks Cohen should be annoyed that a potential sexual predator, and definite criminal, targeted my then minor son. This is sick conduct on the part of the government. They are absolutely running a deranged celebrity justice program. They will not be assigning me a dating relationship since THEY have the expectation of affection re. Cohen - not I. Only a sick narcissist or fraud liar would believe that I'm interested in this thief. See Phil Spector and Steven Machat since Cohen stole from them also.
Kelley
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Feuer,
Rutger and Paulette also continue to be criminally harassed and are beyond "annoyed." I think jurors should hear that my minor son was targeted and your insane prosecutor believes Cohen should be annoyed because I do not know the criminal targeting my then minor son. He could be a sexual predator for all I know. Your conduct shocks the conscience.Kelley Lynch
NOTE: COHEN'S RETALIATORY SANCTIONS MOTION WAS DENIED.IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
Here are the Criminal Proxy Stalker's harassing emails for the past week or so. The Cover Your Ass Op with Cohen/Kory/Rice is in full force and effect. The judge denied Cohen's retaliatory sanctions motion. Gianelli probably knows that but he is attempting to elicit information and doesn't want it to appear obvious. He remains obsessed with me, my witnesses and family members, and - of course, Phil Spector's former assistant and girlfriend, Paulette Brandt. Do keep in mind that former DA Steve Cooley and Cohen were publicly aligned during my show trial that was nothing other than an IRS/federal tax matter with testimony about Phil Spector thrown in for good measure.I will note that people, including the individual who witnessed it, are astounded to hear that Rice - a crass, truck driving sycophant - screamed BITCH at me in the hallway of LA Superior Court. That is perfect for Leonard Cohen. And, he has lawyers willing to lie to courts, in declarations, and to IRS. They are, as the Criminal Proxy Stalker, noted getting "RICH."The federal tax matters have not been litigated and my RICO suit, which will address them, will be filed within the month. We'll see what Tax Court does. I haven't filed a motion but requested leave to do so. Tax Court has jurisdiction when there's fraud upon the court and the 9th Circuit follows Hazel-Atlas. There is also fraud, related to the matter, upon IRS and IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office.KelleyFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:03 AM
Subject: PS
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.comMs. Lynch,You do wee the irony don’t you?Aside from the fact that Michelle Rice is living in the $2M house that under different circumstances would have been your house, is getting “rich” off of royalty income that you claim an entitlement to, occupies the seat on Cohen’s private jet that otherwise would have been your seat, and otherwise has taken your place at the Cohen banquet (literally and figuratively) –-have you considered the fact that if it weren’t for you and your dogged pursuit of Cohen Michelle Rice would not even have a legal career?You ARE her legal career!Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor!
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:50 AM
Subject: What no blog post? No press release?
To: BlindDistribution@gmail.comWhat, no blog post telling the world that your two motions (along with your motion to vacate the California registration of the Colorado protection order) were DENIED?You like to give your motions maximum publicity – but when it comes time to tell the world how the court actually ruled on the motions NOT A WORD.Come on, Ms. Lynch, where’s your press release that says MOTIONS DENIED.And that Leonard Cohen’s sanctions motion was GRANTED, because your motions have been found to be FRIVOLOUS AND IN BAD FAITH!Loser.From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:53 AM
Subject: The $14M judgment + $1.4M in additonal accruing annual interest is here to stay through at least 2025
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: paulettebrandt8@gmail.comMs. Lynch,As I informed you and your enabler in June of 2013:Any and all civil claims that you may have had that arise out of or relate in any way to your former agency relationship with Leonard Cohen are procedurally barred for multiple reasons, including but not limited to the running of applicable statutes of limitation and issue preclusion by the 2006 default judgment against you for $14M in monetary damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. That includes, without limitation, claims to fractional ownership interests in any Cohen related entities like Blue Mist or Traditional Holdings, and any claim to past or future commissions, royalties, and intellectual property.Your efforts to set aside the 2006 default judgment at this late stage of the game will be (and proved to be) futile. In fact, you have made three successive attempts to attack the service of process underlying the default judgment in BC338322 which were denied, respectively, on January 17, 2014, June 23, 2015, and October 6, 2015.Your motion to vacate the July, 2015 renewal of the (now) $14M judgment against you through the year 2025 was the among the last of your motions to be denied on October 6 along with your motion to tax $7M of costs in the form of statutory interest that has now been added to the judgment. As a result of this, the judgment in BC338322 is now increasing at the rate of $1.4M per annum – meaning the judgment will double to $28M by 2025, at which point (if you are still alive) the corporate defendant may renew the judgment for another 10-years. (You won’t live long enough to pay Cohen even one year’s worth of accruing interest going forward.)All of this means that not only will you never recover ten cents from Leonard Cohen or any entity in any way related to Leonard Cohen for the rest of your life, you will you ever inherit money, own real property, have a bank account, publish a book, or copyright intellectual property (at least you won’t own the rights for long).It is standard practice in the publishing business to perform a lien check before issuing a book advance or entering into a publishing deal, so you won’t be selling or profiting from your story either.And that is the way it will be until the day you die.In the meantime, you have essentially been replaced as Leonard Cohen’s trusted servant with Michelle Rice. She, and not you, is the one that (according to her) is now living in the $2M Los Angeles area home and she (not you) is making the big money. (I believe her email said that you have made her “fucking rich”, and that she is riding around with Cohen on private jets – which sure sounds like she is doing well; certainly better than your doing. What was your income last year? $2,400 on your food stamp program card?)Funny how live works out, isn’t it?Michelle Rice thinks I should put my “big boy pants on” and shake off your false, public statements that I am a child molesting, justice obstructing felon.But this is much more fun.Be sure to give her my best next time you see her.Very truly yours,Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, GreeceFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:18 AM
Subject: I TOLD YOU SO. (You too Paulette.)
To: BlindDistribution@gmail.com06/23/2015 at 08:33 am in Department 24, Robert L. Hess, Presiding
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions - Granted10/06/2015 at 08:33 am in department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion Hearing (defendant’s motions to tax costs; vacate) – DeniedFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:02 PM
Subject: Your latest blog post - publicly posting a copy of your "objection" to the IRS motion to dismiss
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.comMs. Lynch,Your “objection” to the IRS motion to dismiss your tax court petition addresses the merits of your assertion that a tax court decision may be vacated if fraudulently obtained, but you fail to address the basis of the tax court’s jurisdiction over your petition NOW – more than a decade after the stipulated judgment in question was entered.You also characterize “Rule 162” as follows:“Under Rule 162, unless the Court shall otherwise permit, a motion to vacate must be filed within 30 days after a decision has been entered, and sections 7481(a)(1) and 7483 provide that a Tax Court decision becomes final 90 days after entry if no party files a notice of appeal.” (Bold italics mine.)But you have not filed a “motion to vacate” in the tax court proceeding wherein the stipulated decision you complain about was issued, nor are you a party to that original tax court proceeding, nor was your tax court petition (even if it could be deemed a “motion”) filed within the time limit specified by “Rule 162” as you characterize it.You have no apparent basis for standing, your filing is untimely, and you fail to explain the statutory basis for tax court jurisdiction over your petition.Game over.Very truly yours,Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, GreeceFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:28 AM
Subject: It's realy very simple - there is no jurisdiction. You bear the burden of affirmatively showing jurisdiction and have failed to do so.
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.comThe tax court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively and, as the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, petitioner bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.268, 270 (2000), aff’d, 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001).Ms. Lynch, you have not cited a federal statute that you contend gives the tax court jurisdiction to hear your petition – concerning as it does a prior, separate tax court matter to which you were not a party and which was concluded more than ten years ago - let alone demonstrated how your petition comes within that jurisdictional statue.That is because the tax court DOES NOT IN FACT HAVE JURISDICTION over the matters you seek to raise.It is pretty clear what is going on.Judge Hess has barred you from coming into the front door to attack the 2006 judgment in BC338322, so you are trying to enter through the kitchen window by – in effect – collaterally attacking the underpinnings of the 2006 judgment through your 2015 tax court petition.Not going to happen.There is no jurisdiction to hear your petition, you have cited no federal statute that provides jurisdiction for this court of limited jurisdiction, and the tax court has no choice but to dismiss.Game over.From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:55 AM
Subject: 10/6/2015 hearing in BC338322
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.comMs. Lynch,Tomorrow is your LAST civil court appearance in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (After tomorrow, you will need leave of court from the presiding judge to even file anything in BC338322.)You had a narrow procedural opportunity to have the RENEWAL (not the judgment, the renewal of the judgment) set aside based on alleged lack of service, but squandered it. (Not to mention the truth of the matter” you really were served, just not in a manner that you believed “legal” at the time, but which was nevertheless valid service.)You did so by crying wolf one too many times, by abusing your pro se filing privileges, by making preposterous factual claims over a period of years, by sacrificing your credibility with harassing filings and nonsense conspiracy allegations, and by diluting your procedurally meritorious arguments with the same tired, ridiculous claims that has gotten you nothing but up against a judicial brick wall.And given the standard of review, deference by the court of appeal to the trial court, and your lack of appellate skill, the orders following Judge Hess rulings tomorrow (which will all be against you) are going to be the end of the line for you in this court.Your pending tax court petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction shortly after your deadline to file an objection to the motion to dismiss October 22, 2015.That leaves your pending appeals and your anticipated appeals from the orders issued tomorrow in BC3383222.Every single order you appeal will be affirmed, albeit some time in 2016 (the wheels of appellate justice move slowly).Don’t say I didn’t tell you so. Because I DID. With respect to all 13 matters (Not including the pending appeals, which makes 15. More if you appeal judge Hess’ orders of tomorrow.)Very truly yours,Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, GreecePS: Those “millions” you promised to share with Paulette Brandt are just never going to happen. In fact, you will never recover ten cents from anyone in a civil court of law. Sorry Paulette.From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:00 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>As judge Hess remarked on June 23, you are a moving target. And not in a good way.Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:10 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>The State Bar doesn't care about your bogus allegations of "misconduct".The tax court will be dismissing at the end of the month.Your appeals are going nowhere.Any federal court suit will last about 60 days.It's over, loser.Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>We both know why you never subpoenaed Chad or the process server, don't we?Oh, and Rutger (as with the last three times - ha!) really wanted to come to court on 10/6 but is "too busy" right?Talk about a "fraud"!You are only lying to yourself. No one else believes you, not even Paulette - who is only backing you up for the hope to get money.Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 12:23 AM
Subject: Christine Holloway
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: christinehllwy@yahoo.comMs. Lynch,If you bother to check Christine Holloway’s profile before spewing your usual nonsense, you would have seen that she created her YouTube profile in 2006 – three years longer than I knew you existed. https://www.youtube.com/user/yesfreak73/about Therefore, it is literally impossible that we are the same people.This does illustrate one of your primary weaknesses/disabilities though.You lack even a rudimentary ability to objectively assess data and draw inferences. You literally take everything you see/here as “confirmation” of your own preconceived world view.Secondarily, you believe that you are so obviously “correct” in your warped views that there could not possibly be two people in the world who disagree with you. They MUST all be the same person! Therefore, (you fallaciously “reason”) I must be Kelley Green, Linda Motley, Christine Holloway, “Mongochli”, and everyone else who publicly expresses a different point of view.The above inability to objectively analyze data (together with your propensity to attribute most of what you complain about to an illegal “conspiracy” thereby instantly turning all judges against you in the first impression) is way you will never succeed in court – as you will AGAIN see (but not grasp or “learn”) on October 6, when your two pending motions in BC338322 are denied, and Leonard Cohen’s pending motion in that matter is granted. All of this is true regardless of your ability to sound “cogent” to a layperson (until you begin to “explain” your belief system).Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, GreeceFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:53 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.comMs. Lynch,Does this look remotely like someone I would associate with – let alone “work in tandem with”? I think not.PHOTOGRAPH OF CHRISTINE HOLLOWAY ENCLOSED
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Proper credit in the renewed judgment amount for the "policy limit" settlement contribution on behalf of defendant Richard Westin; BC338322
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.comMs. Lynch,You are entitled to a “credit” against the judgment amount for the amounts contributed by Richard Westin’s insurance carrier toward Plaintiff’s damages, and amount that Michelle Rice has characterized in writing as a “policy limit” settlement. (See attached email.)There is case law holding that the judgment debtor is entitled to object to the renewal of a judgment on this basis (i.e. that the renewed judgment amount does not reflect proper credits due). However, given your attitude I am not inclined to spend the time finding the citation for you.Very truly yours,Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, GreeceATTACHED: MICHELLE RICE EMAIL RE. LLOYD’S INSURANCE FRAUDFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:03 PM
Subject: How to lose all credibity with the trial courts and court of appeal - this sounds very much like YOU
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.comThe minute a litigant – even a lawyer – starts alleging that “the judge lied” or that he will have prosecutors or opposing counsel “prosecuted” he/she loses all credibility:PATRICK ALEXANDRE MISSUD [#219614], 47, of San Francisco, was disbarred April 17, 2015 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.A State Bar Court hearing court judge found Missud culpable of misconduct that included moral turpitude and failing to obey a court order and recommended he be disbarred. Missud appealed, claiming the judge “lied” and “ignored all facts and laws to railroad” him. The State Bar Court Review Department upheld the disbarment recommendation.Missud’s misdeeds began in 2004 when he purchased a home in Nevada through a company called D. R. Horton Inc. Missud and his wife had the option of purchasing through the company’s preferred lender, but only if the house was going to be their primary residence. Because the company thought the couple was going to use the home as a rental, it required them to use a different lender.“Missud believed himself wronged by this and other aspects of the purchase process and began a crusade first against Horton, and later, the judiciary,” a three-judge review panel wrote in its opinion. Missud repeatedly and unsuccessfully sued Horton, the lender and six of Horton’s officers and employees. Between 2005 and 2011, Missud filed eight lawsuits in various courts alleging a conspiracy between Horton and numerous state and federal judges, private neutral parties, public officials, government agencies and opposing counsel.More than two years into the litigation in Nevada state court, a judge issued a protective order and Missud agreed to remove facts from his various websites and stop making attacks on Horton. But he soon violated the order and admitted to making threatening communications to witnesses and counsel. As a result, the court found Missud in contempt, ordered him to pay $48,691.97 in fees and costs and dismissed the case. As of the date of the Review Department’s decision, he had not paid any portion of the fees.In addition, a federal court judge declared Missud a vexatious litigant finding, among other things, that his claims against Horton “lacked any credible factual basis,” and that he planned to continue harassing Horton and its employees regardless of judicial rulings against him.Missud also behaved disrespectfully during the disciplinary proceedings against him, proclaiming during his opening statement at trial: “There is no doubt that criminality runs rampant throughout the judiciary and that this Bar Court trial is being railroaded to lift my license.” During the five-day trial he spent hours railing against Horton, accusing judges and other public officials of corruption and four witnesses of lying, demanding the State Bar investigate them. He also threatened to have one of the State Bar prosecutors and State Bar Court judges criminally prosecuted.From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:42 PM
Subject: 11 years ago is a very long time
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.comThis news article appeared more than 10-years ago.When are you going to stop reliving 2004 – 2005 and move on?
gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com“On July 23, 2015, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination was issued to petitioner for taxable year 1999. On September 16, 2015, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, wherein respondent asserts that there is no record of respondent having issued any whistle blower determination under section 7623 to petitioner.”TRANSLATION:Your tax court petition complains of matters that occurred with reference to taxable year 1999. But the IRS claims that no notice of determination was ever issued to you by the IRS for that tax year. Therefore, unless the IRS is wrong about that, or unless you filed a form 211 to the IRS whistleblower office, which may provide an alternative basis for jurisdiction, your petition will be dismissed.Based on the foregoing, the tax court is providing you with an opportunity to file an objection to the IRS motion to dismiss, as supplemented, on or before October 22. In the meantime, the court will reserve ruling on your motion to supplement the record, because if the motion to dismiss is granted the motion to supplement the record will be moot.WHAT WEILL HAPPEN NEXT:You have already said in an email copied to me that you have never filed a whistleblower complaint with the IRS. And it is evident that even if a notice of determination was mailed to you by the IRS concerning tax year 1999 (which the IRS DENIES) that you failed to file your petition within 60 days of the date of mailing of that notice.In other words, GAME OVER.ATTACHED: TAX COURT ORDERFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:38 AM
Subject: Have I been wrong yet?
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.comThese were/are my advance predated litigation outcomes. Predictions 1-8 have already come to pass. That is a 100% accuracy rate to date.Items 9-11 will come to pass very shortly (8, 9 and 10 on the 6th of October; #12 by the end of the month.Do you see a pattern here at all?
