From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:51 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your third supplemental tax court filing dated 12/23
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>
Date: Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:51 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your third supplemental tax court filing dated 12/23
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>
Mr. Fabian,
Stephen Gianelli continues to argue Leonard Cohen's legal position. I suppose his three month vacation had to be put on hold so he could continue to defend his client. If you have any questions about the documents I've filed, please let me know. I would like to remind you that I continue to represent myself and Gianelli is not a formal party to this matter but is clearly a party at interest.
Merry Christmas!
All the best,
Kelley
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 6:09 AM
Subject: Your third supplemental tax court filing dated 12/23
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 6:09 AM
Subject: Your third supplemental tax court filing dated 12/23
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Because a lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction may not be waived, even by estoppel, no amount of "supplemental" filings or status reports in the tax court are going to change the fundamental fact that no notice of determination preceded your July petition, and therefore the pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be granted.
See e.g., 13 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3522 (3d ed. 2008):
"The parties cannot confer on a federal court jurisdiction that has not been vested in that court by the Constitution and Congress. This means that the parties cannot waive lack of subject matter jurisdiction by express consent, or by conduct, or even by estoppel. The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is too fundamental a concern to be left to the whims and tactical concerns of the litigants . . . ."
