Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS, FBI & DOJ Re. the Criminal Stalker's Ongoing Harassment & Legal Defense of Leonard Cohen's Theft, Litigation Misconduct, Perjured Testimony, Tax Fraud, & Federal Tax Matters That Will Be Litigated, Etc.

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:33 AM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated Dec 1, 2015 at 12:49 PM
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, ": Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, mike.feuer@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <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, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, Fabian Paulmikell A <Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov>

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Gianelli has sent me another harassing email in response to my cease and desist letter.  Kory & Rice were copied in.  It is completely illogical for Gianelli to argue that he doesn't represent Cohen when that is precisely what he is doing.  Rice specifically instructed Gianelli to continue to harass and provoke me.  I would assume she felt that way when my sons were being targeted with Rice copied in.  Gianelli speaks for Cohen and represents his interests in all matters he has harassed me over since May 2009.  The man is a chronic liar with motive.  I understand that Cohen would prefer to remain unopposed.  That permits him to lie extensively in every court he has appeared before.  He also appeared to prefer it when he felt I was properly silenced.  

The federal district court will address any fee waiver issues vis a vis my RICO complaint.  I will also submit Gianelli's emails to the federal court with that Complaint so the Court is clear about Cohen's arguments.  I also want the Court to be clear that Cohen intentionally bankrupted me, stole my share of IP, testified that I never stole from him, and appears to be in bed with half the local government in Los Angeles who are all over a federal tax controversy.

Gianelli wrote about Kory's memorandum being privileged.  That's the privilege this criminal wrote about.  I have no "privilege" with Robert Kory.  Cohen's clear that litigation misconduct is absolutely privileged in California.  Are those my claims?  How would Gianelli know?  I haven't filed my RICO suit.  Perhaps he's merely attempting to elicit information for Cohen, Kory, Rice, et al.  The judgment doesn't have anything to do with "tax treatments" or federal tax matters.  LA Superior Court doesn't have jurisdiction.  That would include with respect to the fraudulent tax refunds using the fabricated complaint six months prior to the entry of the illegal default that is evidence of theft.

These are not the Criminal's views alone.  They're Leonard Cohen's legal positions.  The man is an unofficial member of Cohen's legal team and appears to be affiliated with Spector's prosecutors.  That would also explain why he has assisted someone in defrauding Paulette Brandt, slandered her, and continues to criminally harass her while arguing Spector prosecution theories online.  The system works beautifully for the criminals.

Kelley

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>Date: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated Dec 1, 2015 at 12:49 PM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Cc: rkory@koryrice.com, mrice@koryrice.com

Ms. Lynch,

I don’t know why you are writing to Robert Kory/Michelle Rice regarding the below email. I do not represent Leonard Cohen and I do not work for Kory or Rice; they have no power to affect my behavior or my emailed responses to your mass emails (such as the two in my inbox from you right now). I know that it suits your delusional world view to impute my communications to Kory/Rice/Cohen, but nothing could be further from the truth. I speak for myself and myself alone – as someone you have been harassing via email since April of 2009 and has now taken an active interest in correcting the legal and factual errors that commonly riddle your mass emails and blog posts as you attempt to try your various disputes in the court of public opinion (cc to the IRS/FBI/CIA/DOJ/FTB/Russian Security Service/Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/and the Media).

In any event, you misunderstand my point about the attached sample form that the federal district court for the Central District of California uses to issue orders following fee order applications (called “applications to proceed in forma pauperis” or “IFP”).

The Central District court evaluates all new complaints to ascertain at the time the fee waiver application is made whether a facially viable claim is pleaded.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss the Complaint (and deny IFP status) if the complaint “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The standards to evaluate a plaintiff’s claim  for IFP status are the same as the standards to evaluate a compliant following a motion to dismiss.

“The language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),” and so the Court applies the same standard to both. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); see, e.g., Rogers v. Giurbino, No. 13-55527, 2015 WL 5091827, at *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015). Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed if it “(1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. Conclusory allegations are insufficient. Id. at 678-79. Although a complaint need not set forth detailed factual allegations, “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,” and the factual allegations of the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, supra, following Twombly, adds that assessing the plausibility of a claim is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." (Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951.) This means that some types of claims – especially pro se claims – receive more scrutiny for plausibility than others.  (See e.g., Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (2008) [applying a heightened standard of plausibility to a pro se RICO complaint arising out of an acrimonious litigation history with the defendants].)

As the attach sample form order also attests (and as the above standards provide), the Central District court is likely to review a complaint alleging litigation abuses, including “fraud” and “perjury” for the facial application of any applicable LITIGATION  PRIVILEGE to ascertain if the claim is not barred by “immunity”.

That is the “privilege” to which I referred, not attorney-client “privileged correspondence”.

The point here (one you studiously avoid facing) is that your claims against Cohen fall into two three main categories: a. unpaid commissions and intellectual property arising out of a business relationship terminated over 10- years ago which are facially time barred and precluded by the 2006 judgment in BC338322 b. Cohen’s alleged “tax treatment” of the same prior relationship (alleged illegal k-1’s; alleged illegal refunds; alleged refusal to provide forms 1099) which claims are also facially time barred by the 4-year RICO limitations period) and c. alleged “fraud” and “perjury” in respect to various civil and criminal legal proceedings, which claims are subject to California’s “litigation privilege” and are therefore immunized.  

That is the “privilege” I referenced I my email.

As a consequence of the above, if you do file a pro se RICO suit that incorporates the claims that you have been frequently referencing in your mass-emails and blog posts, as soon as you file your application to proceed IFP with the district court, it will undertake a sua sponte review of the complaint for compliance with the above pleading standards, and not only deny your application for fee waiver, but (because the standards are the same) issue an order dismissing the complaint.

As I said, and have frequently said, these are my views alone, and are not expressed on behalf of any other person, lawyer, or on behalf of any party.

Stephen Gianelli

Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 7:13 PM
To: mike.feuer@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti; Stephen Gianelli; Michelle Rice; Robert Kory
Cc: *irs. commissioner; 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; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Fabian Paulmikell A; alan hootnick
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch email dated Dec 1, 2015 at 12:49 PM

Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory,

I am once again advising the three of you to cease and desist.  

Kelley Lynch

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike Feuer and Mayor Garcetti,

Stephen Gianelli, who clearly represents Leonard Cohen's interests, continues to criminally harass me and other Los Angeles residents.

I don't have any privileged documents from Robert Kory.  I don't know the man and find his perjured testimony deeply disturbing.  That would include, but is not limited to, his lies about providing me with IRS required tax and corporate information.  I am specifically referring to 1099s and K-1s.  Kory also testified that he understood I was asking Cohen to rescind the illegal K-1s from LCI that were transmitted to IRS and prove the fraudulent expense ledger is nothing other than evidence of financial and accounting fraud.  It's fascinating that the fraudulent ledger, submitted months before the fraud judgment, would take the position that corporate ownership interests should be willfully disregarded.  Leonard Cohen has merely argued alter ego, self-dealing, money laundering, co-mingling, and theft.  As for your office's opinion that corporate assets (including those owned by suspended corporations) are Leonard Cohen's assets, I would suggest that you take a look at the corporate books and records.  Also, the agreements Cohen personally signed.  As Steven Machat has publicly stated:  Cohen uses corporations to evade taxes and blames his representatives for ripping him off to breach contracts.  I personally believe the man is consumed with greed.  The lies of your office, including with respect to the fraud DMV order, have exposed me to further harassment by individuals such as "Stephen Gianelli."

There was and remains no case no. BC338322.  Cohen willfully failed to serve me the lawsuit and his fraud and perjured statements are extensive.  Perhaps you personally would like to explain his own testimony that I never stole from him - just his peace of mind - and we were in a purely business relationship.  Obviously, your prosecutor heard those statements but elected to conceal and obfuscated them.

This Criminal Stalker has not seen my RICO suit which he continues to harass me over.  This man is obviously arguing Leonard Cohen's legal issues, defending him, and is engaged in one of the more moronic cover-your-ass ops I have ever seen in my life.  

I take great offense at the fact that Cohen can merely summon LAPD's TMU and lie to them.  I have yet to find anything in the Constitution that permits this area of celebrity justice.  If you would like a list of the LA residents who continue to be criminally harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, slandered, etc. please let me know.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:31 PM

Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Dec 1, 2015 at 12:49 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com

1. The memorandum to which you refer was intended as an agenda or list of potential issues  for settlement discussions, and not a statement of facts. As such it is privileged and inadmissible.

2. How do I know what the federal court will do with your threatened RICO suit? I have reviewed recent (from this year) orders issued by the district court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles following fee waiver applications. I attach a sample in PDF.  As is apparent from the court form currently in use, at the time you make your fee waiver application, which will of necessity be when you file your complaint, the district court will evaluate your complaint to ascertain whether it states a claim for relief - said failure being a ground to deny the fee waiver application. (See the attached.)

3. Your claims, as discussed ad nauseam in mass emails and on your blog, are necessarily premised on key facts already established against you in the 2006 judgment entered in Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. BC338322 and are therefore subject to claim preclusion under res judicata principles. Your claims arise out of your former business relationship with Cohen that ended in 2004 and are therefore time barred. Your claims also rest of litigation conduct by the defendants and are  bared by privilege.  Your conspiracy and RICO claims do not meet the “plausibility” pleading standards for such claims when measured by the district court and Ninth Circuit precedents.

4. Therefore, one does not need a crystal ball to know what the district court will do with your threatened suit if filed. It sill dismiss.