Date: Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:23 PM
Subject:
To: Dan Bergman <dbergman@bergman-law.com>, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.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>, 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>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, 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@ice.dhs.gov, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov, AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov
Daniel Bergman and Michelle Rice,
The slander continues. I was not served Cohen's lawsuit and the perjury and fraud with respect to service, and now other matters Plaintiffs introduced, continue to mount. I could care less about Cohen personally. That's a delusional, narcissistic fantasy. There are very serious federal tax and corporate issues at issue. Cohen is not going to get away with lying about me, defrauding me, and using his inane fabricated narrative to obtain fraudulent tax refunds and defend himself with IRS. This case is headed to federal court where it belongs. The Court also failed to obtain jurisdiction over numerous corporations - many sham entities - that have or had no minimal ties to California and were not named as parties to the lawsuit.
If I wanted to cut anyone in on money, which is farcical, I would have taken his offer of 50% community property, etc. and lied about his representatives. I will remind you that there were witnesses present for that offer. One of those witnesses was my accountant who was not fired but rather completed the work I hired him to do. He asked me to advise IRS/Treasury that he witnessed that offer and other matters. I see Cohen still views paying people what he owes them (me, Machat & Machat) as "theft." That speaks volumes about Cohen.
Paulette Brandt was present at the first hearing, as was Palden Ronge, and willing to testify. Plaintiffs introduced further perjured statements, fabricated narratives, etc.
I most certainly did not file a motion for reconsideration. I filed a motion addressing fraud upon the court with respect to the response documents filed in response to my Motion to Vacate. My declaration was not signed by Paulette Brandt and I have been targeted by what appears to be escapees from a criminal mental asylum. The proxy lawyer and organized campaign of harassment will be at issue in my federal lawsuit.
Paulette Brandt didn't change her testimony. This is merely an attack on her character. Perhaps Judge Hess should have permitted my witnesses to testify at the first hearing since they were there. Give some thought to how someone might keep in touch with me when even the LA Times knew my phone was shut down.
As for the other attempts to elicit information, you will be served my Reply in a timely manner. I will remind you that I have challenged Cohen's refunds with IRS and FTB as fraudulent. Therefore, the Complaint used to file Cohen's 2005 returns and amend his 2003 and 2004 returns is nothing other than perjury submitted to tax authorities. All sealed evidence, include the evidence available on PACER, has been submitted to IRS. Therefore, the seal itself is now a federal matter.
I would strongly admonish both of you to stop lying about matters in legal documents.
Kelley Lynch
P.S. I am sitting here with Robert Kory's emails, memorandums, etc. What about Cohen's corporate loans/expenditures re. TH? They total approximately $6.7 million and were due within three years with interest. Kory notes, among other things, that Cohen's loans and the phantom income shifted to me but not distributed to me is a problem. I think they're serious problems. I also think the fact that the annuity obligation was extinguished from the federal tax returns in 2003 - before the fraud retaliatory lawsuit was filed - is a huge issue. That will be addressed in federal court re. the fraud tax refunds - obtained using perjured statements about me and the entities themselves. The Complaint is an entirely perjured document submitted to IRS - well in advance of the May 2006 default. That doesn't mean I'm obsessed with Leonard Cohen. That means I am litigating the issues. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to send a team of lawyers to come up with tactics, further fabrications, and destroy people's lives.
-
AnonymousJune 12, 2015 at 10:15 AMKelley Lynch's obsessive hatred with Leonard Cohen has overridden all prudent judgment (assuming an embezzler of $5M could be said to have had "prudent judgment" at all). But what is Paulette Brandt's story? Lynch promised to cut her in on the "millions" she thinks she will one day receive from Cohen, okay, fine. There is a sucker born every minute I guess. But why would she risk a perjury prosecution for changing her testimony from "was in touch with Kelley Lynch in the summer and fall of 2005" (as stated in her 2013 declaration supporting Lynch's motion to vacate) to testify under oath that she was PRESENT, AT LYNCH'S HOME - not only during the month of August '05, but on the very morning that the process server claims to have served a member of the household, and no one knocked on the door (as now testified to in Brandt's 2015 declaration? Like that wouldn't have been important to mention in the first declaration attacking the validity of service or it slipped Brandt's mind until 2015?Reply
And assisting Lynch in signing other people's names to declarations?
Setting aside the fact that Lynch has zero chance of setting Cohen’s 10-year old judgment aside at this point - let alone successfully suing Cohen on 10+ year old stale claims after that, all the money in the world can only buy you so many candy bars in the prison commissary.
What a bunch of idiots. -
MongochilliJune 13, 2015 at 1:02 AMLynch just posted on her blog the claim that "Gianelli is fishing for information about my Reply." Ha!Reply
According to the legal brief filed by Cohen's attorneys and published by Lynch on-line, the problems with Lynch's pending motion to vacate are insurmountable.
The motion is the second motion asking that the 2006 judgment be set aside. Successive motions asking for the same relief are prohibited under California procedure absent new evidence that could not have been presented in support of the earlier motion or a change in the law. All of the alleged grounds for the new motion relate to events taking place more than two years ago, in some cases over 8 or more years ago. For that reason alone the motion is dead on arrival. But there is more.
The signatures on four of the declarations filed in support of the motion appear to be signed by Kelley Lynch and not the witness giving the declaration, rendering those declarations useless as evidence.
Lynch has admitted in a letter to the IRS, posted on her blog on May 27, that the Kelley Lynch supporting declaration was signed by Paulette Brandt, not Kelley Lynch - rendering that declaration worthless as evidence.
That leaves the Paulette Brandt declaration. But Brandt changed her testimony from her declaration given to support the first motion to vacate filed in 2013 from "I was in touch with Kelley Lynch" during the summer and fall of 2005 (when the suit was served) to (in her 2015 declaration) I was present at Kelley Lynch's house at 9:00 am the morning that Cohen's process server claims to have served a female occupant, and no one came to the door at all. And Paulette now claims for the first time that Kelley Lynch did not have blond hair with dark roots (as the process server described the female served) because Brandt (she now claims) PERSONALLY died Kelley Lynch's hair a dark brown. None of this was in Brandt's 2013 declaration on the subject of service of the suit and Lynch's hair color!
Additionally, Lynch seeks to vacate the judgment based on alleged perjury in the declarations supporting the amount of damages in the request to enter default filed in 2006. But California law does not allow judgments to be set aside for alleged "perjury" after the time to appeal has expired! And this rule is set forth in the very appellate decisions that Lynch herself cites in her motion!
For all of these reasons (and more) NOTHING Lynch could possibly say in her reply ask - could cure these fatal defects in her motion.
Ergo, no one cares what Lynch is planning in her reply, let alone enough to "fish for information" on that subject. Not to mention Lynch is required to serve Cohen with her reply on the 16th of May anyway.
Kelley Lynch has to be one of the dumbest criminals who ever walked the face of the earth!
