Kelley Lynch & Paulette Brandt's Upcoming Discussion About Phil Spector & Leonard Cohen

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:34 PM
Subject: Re:
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Feedback <feedback@calbar.ca.gov>, "USLawEnforcement@google.com" <USLawEnforcement@google.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, sedelman <sedelman@gibsondunn.com>, JFeuer <JFeuer@gibsondunn.com>, "kevin.prins" <kevin.prins@ryan.com>, rwest0@gmx.com, Sherab Posel <poselaw@gmail.com>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>

Hello IRS,

I feel comfortable discussing the fact that I reported the allegations of Cohen's criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005.  He has now provided two courts with evidence supporting this fact.  Hopefully, we'll have an opportunity to discuss how extensive Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter's lies were and the retaliation over an email to the DOJ and FBI.  I also think it would be interesting to discuss some of what we've witnessed at LA Superior Court.  That would include the conduct of judges and the fact that they actually lie on the bench.  

We'll send you the link once the interview is online.

All the best,

Kelley

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mr. Riordan,

Paulette and I, as you know, are participating in an internet radio interview.  We intend to discuss the situations with both Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector.  It's a small program but it seems like the right place to begin a public discussion of what we feel has actually occurred.

I've let the interviewer know that I have a "stalker" who criminally harasses me, my family, Paulette, and others over Leonard Cohen.

Since we're discussing Phillip and some of the witnesses, we'll send you a link to the program.

All the best,

Kelley

Leonard Cohen's Testimony That Kelley Lynch Never "Stole" From Him

This must truly confuse LA Superior Court.  Furthermore, Cohen testified that he hadn't seen Lynch since 2004 so his testimony (and comments to LAPD's celebrity unit) that she might want to attend his "concert" are truly narcissistic and deranged.  Leonard Cohen and the prosecutor, a certifiable liar, really cannot control themselves or their speech.  But, Cohen cannot stop lying and testified that Lynch failed to file her tax returns.  This is a bald-faced lie and the IRS can prove this together with many issues Cohen and his paid lawyers/witnesses conjured up.  In any event, this doesn't explain Cohen's loans totaling approximately $6.7 million from his alleged retirement account.  These loans, as Cohen understood, had to be repaid with interest.  I suppose that's why this information was concealed from LA Superior Court.

PUBLIC DEFENDER:  HAS SHE VANDALIZED ANY OF.YOUR PROPERTY DURING

THAT TIME?

A NO.

O OR STOLEN ANYTHING

A JUST MY PEACE OE MIND

http://www.scribd.com/doc/253267991

Kelley Lynch's Email To Leonard Cohen's Lawyer Re. Ambiguous Judgment, Federal & Corporate Tax Matters, IP Asset Valuations

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:55 PM
Subject: BC338322
To: Jeffrey Korn cc:  IRS, FBI, DOJ, FTB, Multiple Recipients

Jeffrey,

I am finalizing the motion I will be filing with Judge Hess asking that he refer Cohen (and certain legal representatives) for a perjury prosecution and disciplinary action.

Your client, based on the testimony he gave at my 2012 trial, has concluded that the default judgment in this case permits him to subvert IRS reporting requirements.  I cannot see where the judgment advises Cohen that these corporate entities are not required to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information particularly for the years 2004 and 2005.  The judgment does not indicate that it is retroactive.  Would it be possible for you to clarify what your client is referring to.  If not, I will ask the court to clarify this ambiguity.

I would also like to know what the mistake is that Westin clarified as that clearly indicates that there are serious issues related to fraud in the inducement with respect to all agreements, etc. I was asked and/or instructed to sign.  I would assume that any such mistake indicates that your client intentionally filed fraudulent federal and state tax returns.

Finally, do you have asset valuations for the IP wrongfully converted to Cohen?  Clearly, the judgment transferred millions in IP property to Cohen - well in excess of the judgment amount.  I would appreciate any IP valuations you have for assets that are owned (or should be) by BMT and Old Ideas, LLC.  I also need this information for my tax returns.

Kelley Lynch

The Supreme Court has recognized the authority to remand for clarification judgments that suffer from ambiguity, particularly when the ambiguity implicates jurisdictional concerns. See, e.g., Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 78 (2000) (remanding because there was “’considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision[]’” from which the appeal was taken (quoting Minnesota v. Nat’l Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 555 (1940))); see also Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Panduit Corp., 475 U.S. 809, 811 (1986) (remanding for clarification due to the “lack [of] an adequate explanation of the basis for the Court of Appeals’ judgment”). The Courts of Appeals in general and our court in particular have recognized that a remand for clarification is appropriate where a judgment is ambiguous.