DECLARATION OF KELLEY ANN LYNCH
I, KELLEY
ANN LYNCH, declare:
1. I
am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los
Angeles, California. I am over the age of 18 years. I have personal
knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called
upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the
facts stated herein
2.
This declaration supplements the document submitted to Tax Court on October 18,
2015 with respect to the ongoing harassment and situation with Stephen Gianelli. This individual has been relentlessly advised
to cease and desist. He has been advised
to cease and desist by me, both of my sons, my sister’s attorney, Eric Salter,
and many others. People have gone to law
enforcement to file complaints about his conduct. Gianelli most definitely appears to be
representing Leonard Cohen’s legal interests and is obsessed with matters
related to Phil Spector. The two
situations are intertwined and the reason for that appears to be Leonard
Cohen’s alignment with former DA Steve Cooley and the City Attorney of Los
Angeles. During my 2012 trial, the City
Attorney of Los Angeles lied extensively about federal tax and corporate
matters. They attempted to blame Leonard
Cohen’s own conduct on my “intent” to annoy him. Evidently, my reporting Cohen to IRS
“annoyed” him. A fraudulent restraining
order has been used to discredit and prevent me from requesting IRS required
tax and corporate information. Cohen’s
lawyer wrote that I should have used LA Superior Court’s “discovery” process to
obtain that information. Robert Kory
wrote IRS that the transmittal of a corporate tax document was harassment. Michelle Rice wrote and testified that
providing me with the IRS required tax and corporate information would violate
the fraudulent restraining orders. The
City Attorney informed my jurors that I was in receipt of this IRS required tax
and corporate information. I am not and
neither is IRS or FTB. The City Attorney
also informed the Court that there was an “IRS holding” re. Cohen’s fraudulent
default judgment. There is no evidence
to support that statement. There is a
fraudulent domestic violence order that LA Superior Court refuses to
vacate. LA Superior Court refuses to
address the fraud and perjury in Case No. BC338322 and with respect to the
blatant failure to serve me the summons & complaint. My alleged trial appears to have been a
showcase with which certain political actors, together with Leonard Cohen and
his paid witness lawyers, attempted to sabotage IRS and discredit me. The appearance of the District Attorney in
that matter led my lawyer to conclude that the DA did not want the Spector
verdict overturned. These are the
matters I have been relentlessly harassed and targeted over. That seems to have been designed. I have attached hereto many of the harassing
emails I have received from Stephen Gianelli since filing my declaration in mid-October
2015. The harassment continues and involves
Stephen Gianelli sending many emails to IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office, IRS,
FBI, and DOJ. He routinely lies to these
entities. Some of the emails involve the
Tax Court Petition and Word Press blog, taxpetition.wordpress.com, used to submit
evidence to this court. My Petition included the login information for
this evidence blog as I was unable to upload my document under seal. On or about September 9, 2015, without giving
thought to the login information, I uploaded my Petition to Scribd. Stephen Gianelli obsessively follows my blog
posts on riverdeepbook.blogpost.com and documents I’ve uploaded to Scribd. In fact, Gianelli harasses me with emails
advising me that certain documents related to Leonard Cohen should be uploaded
to my Scribd account. Gianelli uses his
Scribd account to post documents related to Leonard Cohen and Phil
Spector. He is currently completely
obsessed with the Spector case and writing to inform me that a “source” of his
has now read Phil Spector a slanderous article Gianelli posted online and is
now sending to third parties. The man’s
activity is relentless, psychotic, and obsessively frightening. See Exhibit A: Stephen Gianelli emails.
Kelley
Lynch Tax Court Petition – Scribd:
Stephen
Gianelli’s Scribd Account:
3. Stephen Gianelli has previously targeted
my email accounts and blogs. In fact, he
worked with Phil Spector’s former assistant, Michelle Blaine, in having my
email accounts and blog taken down for fraudulent reasons. Blaine, who stole approximately $1 million
from Phil Spector, decided to retaliate against him by going on a slanderous
rampage on the internet. Michelle Blaine
is the female Leonard Cohen. He has now
stolen from me; appears to have defrauded the U.S. government extensively; and believes
his salacious, slanderous narratives are a defense. Blaine and Gianelli, who frequently posted as
Blogonaut (the name of his law blog), would post on one another’s blogs
regarding Spector and Leonard Cohen.
Both individuals have horrendously slandered me although I know neither
of them. Michelle Blaine, whose blog was
called mControl, publicly thanked Blogonaut (Stephen Gianelli) for “initiating
the pull.” The blog they had removed was
called philspectorandkelleylynch.blogpost.com and was dedicated to Phil
Spector, his legal filings, and his innocence.
Stephen Gianelli has also worked in tandem with Leonard Cohen’s fan,
Susanne Walsh, who may be a jihadist sympathizer with connections to Bashy
Quraishy. Gianelli and Walsh, as I have
previously informed this Court, relentlessly targeted my sons, sister, elderly
parents, friends, witnesses, and others.
Gianelli is dead set on intimidating witnesses and isolating me. He appears furious with Paulette Brandt who
he has now criminally harassed for approximately three straight years. Susanne Walsh,
who targeted me and members of my family for years, also targeted a Phil
Spector is Innocence Facebook page and would frequently copy Leonard Cohen’s
lawyers, Kory & Rice, on her harassing and slanderous emails. Both Gianelli and Walsh routinely lie to IRS,
FBI, and DOJ about me. Both of these
individuals have repeatedly emailed the City Attorney and District Attorney of
Los Angeles lying about me. They have
repeated lies and slander to these agencies and copied my sons, sister, and
friends on their harassing emails. In
November 2012, Stephen Gianelli began emailing my prosecutor, Sandra Jo
Streeter, slandering me. I refuted the
slander and repeatedly advised both of these individuals that the conduct
should immediately cease and desist. I
phoned the City Attorney’s office about this situation numerous times. Instead of addressing the situation, or
taking a formal complaint, the City Attorney used it as an opportunity to
retaliate against me. The prosecutor
during my 2012 trial lied about everything.
She successfully blamed Leonard Cohen’s own conduct on me. She was the individual who elicited testimony
about Phil Spector. Streeter is the
individual who lied about federal tax matters.
She informed the jurors that the tax controversy was a ruse and lied
when she stated repeatedly that I am in receipt of IRS required tax and
corporate information from Leonard Cohen.
I am not and neither Cohen nor his related entities have transmitted a
1099 or K-1s to IRS or FTB for the years 2004 and 2005. Leonard Cohen also refuses to rescind K-1s
his wholly owned entity, LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to IRS indicating
that I am a partner on that corporation.
I am not. Leonard Cohen
steadfastly refuses to provide me with this information and has now taken the
position that the May 2006 fraudulent default judgment, in a lawsuit I was not
served, somehow subverts IRS reporting and filing requirements. The judgment is not retroactive, Cohen was
required to provide me with this information well before the default judgment
was entered, and the situation remains unconscionable. I have been advised by LAPD’s Threat
Management Unit that the fraudulent restraining orders prevent me from
requesting the tax information from Leonard Cohen and Cohen’s lawyers have
taken the position that the fraudulent restraining orders prohibit them from
transmitting this information to me. IRS
and FTB have repeatedly advised me to contact Leonard Cohen to request this
information. IRS and FTB have also
advised me to contact Cohen and ask him to rescind the K-1s his wholly owned
entity, LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to IRS for the years 2004 and 2005,
and ask that they be rescinded.
mControl Blogs [Michelle Blaine’s Blog]
http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/
Updates
Something
kinda interesting... Henry Lee does NOT list the Spector case in his 'Famous Cases' listing.
Updated! Kelley Lynch Blog Is GONE! Blogger finally listened and has pulled the
flagged blog. Thanks to all who flagged and especially to Blogonaut for
initiating the pull.
Blog
has been removed
Sorry, the blog at philspectorandkelleylynch.blogspot.com has been removed.
This address is not available for new blogs.
June
21, 2009 3:16 PM
DING
DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2009/06/ding-dong-witch-is-dead.htm
We have confirmed that the spam/hate blog of the person currently living in
Boulder, Colorado, has been removed by Google.
We consider this the end of the matter, and unless and until there are actual
additional criminal or civil court filings related to this matter, we will not
be reporting further on this sadly demented person.
June
22, 2009 3:05 PM
Well
I am pleased that this saga is finally put to bed. Now we can all get a bit of
rest from her constant diatribes and rants.
Peace be with her...
June
22, 2009 5:29 PM
New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator.
About
mControl
Some
days, I fall off the face of the planet and forget to brush my teeth and, more
importantly, even forget to tell my kids to brush their teeth, because holy
shit there are people inside my computer that are calling for me day and night,
longing for me to write, thinking, sometimes mistakenly, that I am witty and
funny! I can’t let them down! So here I am, neglecting my real life, one
blog at a time.
Wanna get in touch?
Don't have a comment? Want to comment in private? Just want
to reach out and say hello? If you want to email me, you can! Right
Here!
I personally respond to all of my messages... So take a moment and drop a line
to say hello!
From Where They Come
|
 *Live Traffic Feed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer
mControl
Blog Disclaimer (ya know - the legal mumbo jumbo)
This is
a personal weblog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those
of any other people, unless otherwise noted. This is a blog. That fact means
nothing. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, a final archive of my writing, a
sponsored publication, or the product of gatekeeping and editing. That does
mean something…it means that while the ideas and thoughts are often vital and
the product of a long gestational period, the writing itself is not. It is
essentially as it came from the keyboard: spontaneous, unproofed, unrevised,
and corrected afterward only when necessary to address mistakes that grossly
effect the intent.
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes
only. Michelle Blaine and mControlblogs.blogspot.com makes no representations
as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any
information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or
delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from
its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis.
Feel free to challenge me, disagree with me, or tell me I’m completely nuts
in the comments section of each blog entry, but I reserve the right to delete
any comment for any reason whatsoever (abusive, profane, rude, or anonymous
comments) - so keep it polite, please.
Just in case. If I say something stupid in the future, it’s better to be able
to point out that the stupidity is mine, and mine alone. My stupidity! You
can’t have it! :)
Thank you,
Michelle B. (blog master)
|
February 6, 2007 10:56
Phil
Spector to receive $900,000 settlement
Legendary producer’s former assistant has to
pay up
4.
I remain personally convinced that Stephen Gianelli is an unofficial member of
Leonard Cohen’s legal team. He continuously argues Leonard Cohen’s legal
positions and defenses. Gianelli also appears to be affiliated with the
Phil Spector prosecution and argues Spector prosecution theories online. His
latest emails are dedicated to eliciting information about Phil Spector while
harassing me over my planned RICO suits against Cohen, City of Los Angeles, and
County of Los Angeles and this Tax Court case.
Gianelli continues to advise me that Tax Court has no jurisdiction over
my Petition and has confirmed that he is attempting to “dissuade” me. The
Ninth Circuit holds to the view that the application of the fraud on the court
doctrine in the context of Tax Court cases is the same as applied in Article
III courts.
5.
On October 18, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that “Tax Court is not a forum
for Kelley Lynch to express her wide-ranging grievances.” I have not used
Tax Court as a forum to express my alleged grievances. Leonard Cohen intentionally concealed
information from this Court (Docket No. 7024-02), fraudulently informed IRS and
the Court itself that the $1 million was income to him, failed to information
IRS and the Court itself that the $1 million belongs to Traditional Holdings,
LLC, fraudulently alleged that the $1 million was a loan to him in 1999, and
failed to address the fact that the assets belong to Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc. This was clearly not done out of
any sort of negligence on the part of Leonard Cohen and his lawyers. Leonard Cohen has a background in business,
commerce, and law. He is an extremely
literate individual who has an utter disdain for “ordinary income taxes” and
paying his representatives. Cohen has
simply come up with yet another one of his famous fabricated narratives. He prefers to be unopposed and is extremely
vindictive when challenged or exposed.
He is also a chronic liar and fabulist.
He and his lawyers have an explanation and excuse for everything. However, their version of events is
fraudulent and relatively incoherent.
They feel protected with respect to their fraud, perjury, and litigation
misconduct. These are not mere personal
grievances on my part. It is also my
firm conviction that Leonard Cohen and his representatives planned this
“defense” in 2002 when IRS inquired about the inadvertent 1099. I personally believe my grievances address
ongoing criminal conduct on the part of Leonard Cohen, Kory & Rice, Stephen
Gianelli and others. That conduct now extends to someone, most likely
Gianelli, illegally accessing the Tax Petition evidence blog, altering the
material on that blog, tampering with the evidence, removing and destroying the
evidence, and attempting to change my password and delete the blog
itself. It also extends to someone, most likely Gianelli, creating a
Gravatar.com account using my email address in order to upload an image to the
Tax Petition blog. The image is one Gianelli has sent me countless
times. Gianelli has now written that he uses TOR and, even if he was the
“culprit,” I could never prove it. He has previously informed me that he
is immune from prosecution because, while a U.S. citizen, he resides in Greece.
The evidence that appeared on my Word Press blog, and was submitted to this
Court, has now been deleted and destroyed.
I view that as a very serious legal matter.
6.
I am submitting many of the emails I have received from Stephen Gianelli since
mid-October 2015. I think it’s important for this Court to understand the
extent of this harassment and the issues Gianelli continuously raises. I
would like to remind the Court that this man’s conduct made my younger son
physically ill but that did not deter Gianelli.
This individual is most definitely an agent provocateur, infiltrator,
and someone who attempts to elicit information while interfering with various
matters. On October 18, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote to harass me over
the fraudulent restraining orders Leonard Cohen has used to discredit and
entrap me. That would include the 2008 Boulder, Colorado order issued
without findings and the May 2011 California fraudulent “domestic violence
order.” LA Superior Court, via the fraudulent registration of a sister
state order, has merely assigned me a “dating” relationship with Leonard
Cohen. I was not served or notified of
this newly created order. Cohen and I
were not in a “dating” or “engagement” relationship which is required by
statute. I was prosecuted by the City
Attorney’s “domestic violence unit.”
They worked with a domestic violence quack who evidently reviewed five
alleged emails I sent although I have not seen that evidence. There appears to be extensive VAWA funding
fraud involved. LA Superior Court
sentenced me for violating a fraudulent domestic violence order, demanded that
I participate in domestic violence programs, and attempted to extort monies
from me with respect to domestic violence fines and/or fees. There was and remains no “domestic
violence.” It is outrageous that certain
Los Angeles government actors would merely assign me a “dating relationship”
with someone who engaged in egregious misconduct when I worked with him. This situation led the prosecutor to conclude
that I should be “drugged” and “committed” for letters I sent to Bruce Cutler
which she deemed too “chatty” and concluded, although I do not know this woman,
that I believe I know Bruce Cutler. I do not believe I know Bruce Cutler. I know for a fact that I know Phil
Spector. I personally believe Phil
Spector had a legal right to know that the District Attorney and City Attorney
of Los Angeles were publicly aligned with Leonard Cohen and elicited testimony
about Spector and a gun during my trial.
As my public defender astutely noted:
the City Attorney attempted to sabotage IRS; wanted to discredit me; and
the District Attorney did not want the Spector verdict overturned. The lies about federal tax matters before LA
Superior Court, including during my trial, are extensive and unconscionable. The prosecutor seemed obsessed with proving
that I am Cohen’s ex-lover, who had no legitimate reason for contacting him,
and was not in need of IRS required tax and corporate information. The corporations themselves do not have
injunctions. The prosecutor repeatedly
raised corporate K-1s as an issue throughout my trial. I cannot even imagine where the City Attorney
of Los Angeles obtained its jurisdiction to argue federal tax matters; elicit
information about federal tax matters; falsely accuse me of matters related to
federal tax issues; or where LA Superior Court itself obtained jurisdiction to
hear a federal tax case. My appellate
attorney, Francisco Suarez, was harassed by Gianelli for over a year. He wrote to advise me that he views my trial
as a federal tax case related to Leonard Cohen that demands an IRS
investigation. I did not discover the
details related to the fraudulent domestic violence order until April 2014 but Los
Angeles Superior Court has now advised me that I had an opportunity to “litigate”
this matter during my 2012 trial. That trial occurred nearly a year
following the fraudulent registration of the “domestic violence order” and the
Court did not have jurisdiction over the “domestic violence order.” The
matter is now under appeal. All matters heard by Judge Robert Hess with
respect to my motion to vacate the fraudulent default judgment are now under
appeal. That would include his sealing corporate documents, documents I
purchased on Pacer, documents available through the Southern District of New
York, documents available on the State of Kentucky’s website, and my personal
K-1s and other tax documents. Los
Angeles Superior Court authorized Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, based on a
writ of possession that did not name these items or parties, to seize corporate
property, tax information, and property belonging to me, Phil Spector, Machat
& Machat, and others. Los Angeles
Superior Court does not have jurisdiction over me, the corporate entities, or anything
else from what I can tell. There are no
remedies with respect to the egregious fraud and perjury before that
Court. It is almost impossible to
believe that this is an actual justice system.
7.
On October 18, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that “tax court does not even
know what to do with your filings, they are so contrary to tax court
procedure.” I personally believe that Tax Court does indeed know what to
do with my filings and the attendant criminal conduct I am addressing.
Gianelli is engaged, as a proxy operative, in blatant criminal witness
tampering and witness intimidation tactics.
I am asking this Court to refer the matter with respect to the Word
Press blog to federal law enforcement for an investigation. Stephen Gianelli has repeatedly attempted to
interfere with this Tax Court case and his emails to Mr. Fabian, slandering me,
defending Leonard Cohen, raising issues related to Phil Spector, and lying
about federal tax matters are outrageous.
Gianelli seems to enjoy his outlandish conduct. He recently wrote to advise me to tell the
FBI “Merry Christmas.” This is precisely
what former DA Steve Cooley’s investigator advised me to pass along to the
Denver FBI. I have never witnessed such
unprofessional conduct in my entire life.
In September 2009, I attempted to address similar matters, including
Gianelli’s ongoing harassment, with Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson. This letter was hand delivered by
Investigator William Frayeh to former DA Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, and
DDA Truc Do. In 2006, I filed a
Complaint with the DA’s Major Fraud Unit about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud and
theft from me. During my 2012 trial, the
prosecutor publicly stated that the DA elected not to prosecute Leonard Cohen. In Gianelli’s December 13, 2015 email, he
advised me that he will be traveling for a number of months and therefore will
not begin harassing me until approximately March 1, 2016 of next year.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2013/03/kelley-lynchs-letter-to-phil-spector.html
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:20 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com
Ms.
Lynch,
I
am going to be away from a computer and traveling until approximately March 1
of next year.
Upon
my return to the land of the internet connected, we’ll see whether your excuse
for not shutting up (alleged harassment by me in “conspiracy” with Leonard
Cohen) holds up.
We
will also see how your threatened “federal RICO suit” that I have
explained in detail would be utterly and completely without merit, with case
and statute citations, (if any) is faring.
Tell
the FBI merry Christmas for me.
Stephen
Gianelli
Crete,
Greece
8.
In an email I received from Gianelli on October 18, 2015, he informed me that
Leonard Cohen’s fraudulent 2006 default judgment binds me and not the
IRS. Gianelli wants to be certain I quote him properly. The default
judgment Cohen obtained goes to motive. The entire lawsuit is nothing
other than Cohen’s defense to the allegations that he committed criminal tax
fraud. He also appeared to use the
lawsuit to confront the allegations in Natural Wealth lawsuit. It is nothing other than retaliation for my
reporting the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS and
other tax authorities. Rather than
addressing my attempts to advise him and his lawyers that I wasn’t served the
summons and Complaint, Cohen filed his tax returns with IRS, amended others,
and applied for/received fraudulent tax refunds based on the fabricated
narrative in his Complaint. Therefore, by December 2005, Cohen was
convinced that the default judgment was a sure thing. This activity took place approximately six
months before the default judgment was entered.
Cohen’s narrative is not supported by the evidence he is now desperately
attempting to conceal and suppress.
9.
On October 19, 2015, Gianelli advised me that my declaration regarding his
conduct will not “confer jurisdiction on the tax court where none
exists.” He then gratuitously inserted slanderous materials into his
email. The reason Gianelli inserts slanderous and extraneous materials
into these harassing emails is because he (and others) seem to believe they
will be used in a court of law and excuse their criminal conduct. The
information is being used as a ruse to obfuscate the facts and truth. I
have not sent any obscene or harassing emails. I, on the other hand, have
received obscene emails and that would include the horrifying “bloody stump”
email. Stephen Gianelli uses monikers and
assumed names to engage in his criminal conduct. I believe he has used the following assumed
names online and as email account names:
Kelly Green, Joff Belark, Mongochili, Coin Guy, 14th
Sheepdog, and 17th Sheepdog.
As early as 2007, “Kelly Green” was posting online about the Phil
Spector case and apparently hates his former trial attorney, Bruce Cutler.
Kellygreen said
The evidence will show, the evidence
will show Cutler is a fucking pig, a fucking pig!
The man really loves to repeat himself.
So much of Cutler’s OS makes me
angry–but I find it truly disgusting that he never refers to Lana Clarkson by
name, he always refers to her as the decedent–he is a fucking pig, a fucking
pig.
https://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/ca-vs-spector-revisiting-opening-statements-bruce-cutler/
10. I have continuously advised Gianelli and
others to cease and desist. This situation is beyond frustrating and at
times overwhelming. While Leonard Cohen,
a celebrity, was able to summon LAPD’s Threat Management Unit to a meeting at
his lawyers’ offices, I and many LA residents are unable to find anything that
even remotely resembles an appropriate response from the government actors that
are all over this situation. I, and
others, have repeatedly contacted the City Attorney, District Attorney, LAPD’s
Threat Management Unit, and others with respect to this ongoing criminal conduct. I have also brought this situation to the
attention of LA Superior Court. Pursuant
to my appellate attorney’s advice, I forward all of the harassing emails to
IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
11. Another reason Cohen obtained the
fraudulent default judgment, after failing to serve me, is obviously due to the fact that he intends
to use arguments related to res judicata with respect to any claims I may have
“enjoyed’ against him arising out of our former business relationship and my
ownership interest in numerous corporate entities. A default judgment
does not entitle Leonard Cohen to steal from me. That would be an
improper use of a default judgment. That
is true whether or not I was served which I was not. Leonard Cohen
has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent me from properly addressing these
matters. That would include by willfully
bankrupting me, withholding commissions due me, stealing from me, and
destroying my reputation. He would now
like to prevent me from filing legal pleadings.
My ownership interest in suspended corporations was transferred to
Leonard Cohen via the default judgment in May 2006. I was not served the lawsuit and did not read
the handful of legal documents Gianelli posted them online in or around April
2010. And, while Cohen has provided LA
Superior Court with no evidence that a “Jane Doe” was served by substitute
service, the Court remains persuaded that a “Jane Doe” was served. Egregious lies, fraud, and perjury work well
before LA Superior Court. Cohen has
falsely argued that I was the “Jane Doe.”
The Court did not permit any of my witnesses to testify. Cohen recently renewed this judgment; has
attempted to extort millions in additional fraudulent financial interest from
me, and the corporations remain suspended.
His lawyer advised LA Superior Court that the reason the suspended
corporations are irrelevant is due to Judge Lewis Babcock’s 2008 Colorado order
in the Natural Wealth case. Judge Lewis
Babcock relied on the fraudulent default judgment and the fraud upon the
district court in Denver, Colorado is egregious. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers come up with
one fabricated narrative after another; one lie follows another; and they appear
to believe that fraud and perjury are protected conduct in California. Michelle Rice, Cohen’s lawyer, informed LA
Superior Court that “the assets
were sort of out there.”
She is evidently referring to corporate assets although which
corporation she was referring to is unclear.
Where the “assets” have gone is a mystery. Cohen steadfastly refuses to provide me with
any information. Michelle Rice also
confirmed for LA Superior Court that I wrote Judge Babcock, in the Natural
Wealth case, to advise that I refused to participate in what I believed was tax
fraud or an attempt to cover up tax fraud.
There were no issues related to service because my friend, Clea
Surkhang, obtained a copy of the Complaint and sent it to me. The corporations, including Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc. and Traditional Holdings, LLC, were not named as parties to the
Colorado matter or the Los Angeles Superior Court case (BC338322). The Courts failed to obtain jurisdiction over
these entities which were suspended at the time and have not been revived. Nevertheless, the District Court transferred
corporate assets to Leonard Cohen personally.
Leonard Cohen and his
representatives handled all corporate, tax, accounting, financial, and legal
matters related to these entities. Rice
feels I have attempted to assert “some type of claim to Traditional Holdings”
but fails to explain why Cohen and his representatives included me as a partner
on federal tax returns, issued K-1s to me from this entity, provided me with an
Indemnity Agreement, or why I paid taxes based on the K-1s transmitted with the
federal tax returns to Internal Revenue Service. Cohen refuses to provide me with any details
regarding the “mistake” he and his personal tax/corporate lawyer, Richard
Westin, “rectified” with respect to my ownership interest in Traditional
Holdings, LLC – in hindsight and secretly during what appear to have been
fraudulent mediations. Michelle Rice
also failed to explain the corporate books and records, non-revocable
assignments of intellectual property, and all agreements Leonard Cohen
personally signed. Cohen and his lawyers
clearly have come to the mistaken conclusion that a fabricated narrative, meant
to defend Cohen against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud,
should replace this evidence. Cohen and
his lawyers continue to argue that Leonard Cohen is the alter ego of the
corporate entities; engaged in self-dealing; committed tax fraud (including by
transmitting federal tax returns indicating that I am a partner on Traditional
Holdings, LLC); and is entitled to engage in money laundering, embezzlement,
and theft with respect to the corporations themselves. Cohen and his representatives also appear to
mistakenly believe that corporations can be used as mere shell entities in an
attempt to evade personal income taxation.
As Cohen’s attorney of record, Michelle Rice fraudulently advised the Denver
District Court to serve me c/o Phil Spector and provided the Court with an
email account that was targeted by Gianelli, Blaine, and others. The Denver District Court did not decide any
issues with respect to the suspended corporations and relied on the fraudulent
Los Angeles Superior Court default judgment.
Judge Babcock’s September 5, 2008 order can be viewed at this link:
The fact that the corporations were in “bad standing,” suspended, at the
time the default judgment was entered and remained suspended as of July 2015
(when Cohen renewed the default judgment) is not irrelevant. It is unlawful and this issue was not before
Judge Lewis Babcock. This is an excerpt
of Michelle Rice’s statements to LA Superior Court on October 6, 2015.
MS. RICE: So Ms. Lynch was a
defendant also in that case, and she was also served in that case.· And
she wrote to District Judge Babcock saying she refused to participate in tax
fraud, but the judge there ruled that Mr. Cohen was the owner of the remainder
of the funds in Traditional Holdings.
And so Ms. Lynch points that these entities had to be named as parties,
or they had to be in good standing.
Traditional Holdings was also not a party to the District of Colorado
litigation, and Ms. Lynch is well aware of that. That judgment was entered in September of
2008.·It was not appealed by Ms. Lynch, and so she's now attempting to make --
assert some type of claim to the Traditional Holdings which, that matter, it
seems to me, the judgment in Colorado District, the court would block or bar
Ms. Lynch's claims to Traditional Holdings in this proceeding as well. I mean
-- so it's sort of a collateral estoppel, res judicata idea where she sat on
her rights in Colorado and didn't object to the interpleaded action. And I was the attorney of record in that case
for Mr. Cohen, and the judge ordered summary judgment to Mr. Cohen for
Traditional Holdings. So again, I mean, to the extent Ms. Lynch is arguing
Traditional Holdings is in bad standing, it's irrelevant to this proceeding
because that's already been decided in the District of Colorado.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/292976824/Cohen-v-Lynch-Transcript-of-10-6-2015-hearing-on-motions-pdf
12. Stephen Gianelli believes my “attempts to
go back in time and unwind the 2003 stipulated disposition in Cohen’s 2001 tax
court case through” my “2015 petition suffers from unrelated but equally fatal
disabilities including a lack of jurisdiction for tax court to even consider
it.” He is clearly familiar with the issues my Petition addressed and has
continuously harassed me over the content of my Petition. The Tax
Court matter, Docket No. 7024-02, pre-dates the entry of the default judgment
and is immaterial to the default judgment.
The stipulated decision was obtained through fraud, concealment, and
obfuscation. Clearly, Tax Court has the authority to vacate a decision
that was obtained through the use of fraud upon the court. As of the winter of 2005, Cohen’s lawyers
were afraid to even contact IRS for a copy of the Traditional Holdings, LLC tax
returns in the event it alerted IRS to certain irregularities. Evidently,
after meeting with IRS Agent Luis Tejeda, and presenting arguments based on the
fabricated Complaint narrative, Cohen and his lawyers felt more confident and
became emboldened. Leonard Cohen testified that rather than provide me
with IRS required tax and corporate information, he brought the emails to the
attention of LAPD.
Excerpt
from 2012 Trial:
Public Defender: Okay. I’m asking you if you were – and if you could
just try to limit your answer to the question – there was information – there
were requests in those emails for tax information, correct? Leonard Cohen: Yes, Sir.
PD: What did you do since you got those emails to give those documents to Ms.
Lynch? I’m asking what you did. Cohen:
I – I brought those emails to the attention of my lawyer and,
eventually, to the police. PD: Okay.
Did you ever bring that attention to whoever handled your taxes? Cohen:
Yes, Sir. And it was determined
by two courts of this country and the IRS that – PD: Objection, Your Honor, non-responsive. Cohen:
No. It was determined, Sir, that
I had no tax responsibility in regard to Ms. Lynch.
LAPD does
not have the jurisdiction to investigate federal tax matters – let alone
conclude, without any supporting evidence, that Cohen provided me with IRS
required tax and corporation information.
LAPD has also taken the position that the fraudulent restraining orders
prevent me from requesting the IRS required tax and corporation information
from Leonard Cohen. LAPD’s report
confirmed that my alleged emails were generally requests for tax information
but forwarded the matter to the City Attorney for prosecution. I have been unable to determine if District
Attorney Steve Cooley was involved in the situation with LAPD’s TMU but the
City Attorney publicly stated that the DA’s office contacted them about
me. I have submitted FOIA requests to
the DA’s office but as of this date have been unable to determine why and no
evidence was presented to my lawyers during my trial. As stated above, both IRS and FTB have
repeatedly confirmed that Leonard Cohen is required to provide me with the 1099
and K-1s I have requested. Both agencies
have also advised me to contact Leonard Cohen to ask him to rescind the illegal
K-1s his wholly owned entity, LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to IRS for the
years 2004 and 2005. Those K-1s indicate
that I am a partner on that entity. I am
not and Cohen’s declaration before LA Superior Court confirms that he owns this
entity 100%. The K-1s confirm that I
received $0 income for the years 2004 and 2005 but the fraudulent expense
ledger, used to support Cohen’s default judgment, indicates that there was income. Cohen also testified as follows: “But,
more significantly, the IRS accepted the results of the default judgment and
awarded me a tax refund, so Ms. Lynch had no cause to ask me for any taxation
information. The forensic report on
which the default judgments were made were very specific and Ms. Lynch has read
them.” By December 2005, based on
documents submitted to LA Superior Court, Leonard Cohen filed his 2005 returns,
amended others, and applied for and received tax refunds from IRS and FTB. The default judgment was not entered until
May 2006 and there is no evidence whatsoever supporting Cohen’s position that
IRS “accepted the results of the default judgment.”
LAPD report confirming that my
emails were generally requests for tax information can be viewed at this link:
Please
note that the comments about the alleged voice mail messages, that were not
date/time stamped, are highly inaccurate.
The transcripts the City Attorney submitted to the jurors were
inaccurate and incoherent. The so-called
uncontrolled “rant” relates to a song lyric that someone in the background was
discussing with me.
Leonard
Cohen’s declaration, submitted in support of the fraudulent default judgment,
confirms that he is the sole owner of LC Investments, LLC.
Excerpt
of Declaration of Leonard Cohen (in support of the default judgment):
Clause 5
of Cohen’s almost entirely perjured declaration states that he was to be
provided with “annuity income” for the remainder of his life. Cohen failed to state that he personally
borrowed or caused to be expended approximately $6.7 million of the “income”
that was to be used to make the annuity payments. The annuity obligation was for the
approximately amount of $4.7 million.
Beyond that, Leonard Cohen failed to address the fact that his personal
tax and corporate lawyer, working solely on his behalf, extinguished the
annuity obligation from the 2003 federal tax returns and moved that obligation
to the partners’ capital accounts.
Leonard Cohen micro-managed his business affairs regardless of his
preposterous statements about being “creative.”
I did not engage anyone on Cohen’s behalf. He personally engaged all of his
representatives and had retainer agreements with many of them. Leonard Cohen’s declaration blatantly
attempts to conceal my rightful ownership interest in numerous corporations and
instead argues that I received overpayments with respect to my fees for
services rendered as his personal manager.
I never worked as Cohen’s business manager but appear to have been
assigned that relationship in hindsight as well. There was no LC Family trust bank account
that I was aware of. Leonard Cohen
simply decided to lie about the management agreement although he was in
possession of Westin’s March 6, 2002 letter explaining the payment of $240,000
per year to me in addition to the $20,000.
These are just some of the perjured statements contained in Cohen’s
declaration. I never advised Cohen to
sell any assets and his declaration in the CAK bond litigation matter confirms
that he is the individual who pursued the intellectual property deals, made the
decisions, and was fully aware of the negotiations and terms. He was also aware that I was his personal
manager. Clause 4 of this document
confirms that Cohen is well aware that he is the sole owner of LC Investments,
LLC but nevertheless transmitted K-1s from that entity to IRS indicating that I
am a partner for the years 2004 and 2005.
A K-1 was also transmitted to the State of Kentucky for the year 2003
indicating that I am a partner. Leonard
Cohen goes from one courtroom to another and changes his testimony. He has now testified that I never stole from
him – just his peace of mind – and we were in a purely business
relationship.
13. This Tax Court matter predates Leonard
Cohen’s retaliatory lawsuit and fraudulent default judgment. The lawsuit
and judgment are therefore wholly immaterial and irrelevant to this
matter. What is relevant and material is the fact that, since
approximately 2002, Leonard Cohen has taken the position that income belonging
to corporate entities is his personal property and has therefore decided to
willfully disregard the entities themselves.
Evidently, Gianelli believes that my Tax Court Petition “seeks to
undermine the factual underpinnings of the 2006 civil judgment.” My Tax
Court Petition addresses the facts that were fraudulently presented to Tax
Court and IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office in connection with the 2003 stipulated
decision in relation to Docket 7024-02.
I have asked Tax Court to grant me leave to file a motion addressing the
fraud upon the court. I have provided
the court with information and evidence that should assist in determining
whether or not I should be granted leave to file such a motion. Hazel-Atlas
related to a 10 year old judgment, fraud upon the court, and fraud upon another
government agency. The nearly identical
set of circumstances exists in this case.
The 9th Circuit Court has continuously confirmed that Tax
Court has jurisdiction to address fraud upon the court. There are no factual underpinnings with
respect to the Los Angeles Superior Court fraudulent default judgment and that
judgment is not the judgment I have asked this Court to address although it
most certainly informs this situation. There is nothing other than fraud,
perjury, theft, embezzlement, extortion, and fraudulent financial interest
underpinning the default judgment. The Complaint is Leonard Cohen’s
defense to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud and not
supported by the evidence. Stephen Gianelli,
a lawyer who continues to represent Leonard Cohen’s legal interests and appears
to have communicated extensively with Kory & Rice, understands that I am
powerless to take “any effective legal action of any kind” and remain exposed
to this ongoing criminal conduct. Leonard Cohen willfully bankrupted me
and I would assume this was one of his reasons for doing so. I am also not a celebrity in Los Angeles and
therefore am unable to summon LAPD’s Threat Management Unit and lie to them as
Cohen has done. The City Attorney is uninterested in the ongoing criminal
harassment, stalking, and so forth with respect to many Los Angeles
residents. Gianelli believes that he “pretty much” owns me. I
completely disagree.
14.
In a separate October 19, 2015 email, Gianelli expressed his ongoing obsession
with my son, John Rutger Penick. My son speaks for himself and his
declaration, signed by him personally, expressed precisely how he feels about
this situation and what he has witnessed. Both of my sons have received
countless emails horrendously slandering me and they have addressed the fact
that this caused tremendous confusion for them. That would include, but
is not limited to, the harassing emails Gianelli sent to the City Attorney of
Los Angeles. This situation has made my younger
son physically ill. I don’t have substance abuse problems and never
have. These false accusations are simply meant to discredit me and have
been used to distress my sons and others.
15.
On October 19, 2015, Gianelli continued to harass me over Michelle Rice’s
incoherent arguments during the three motion hearings before Los Angeles
Superior Court. The three motions before the Court related to my motion
to tax costs, the renewal of the fraudulent default judgment, and Cohen’s
retaliatory Motion for Sanctions that sought to terminate my fee waiver and
prevent me from filing further legal pleadings.
I addressed most of what I had to say in the pleadings I filed with the
Court. Gianelli inserted an entirely separate and unrelated matter before
Boulder Combined Court into his email.
That was a thoroughly shameless situation that involved my witnessing a
man who I believe had his penis out in front of a child. Pedophilia is evidently a very serious
problem in Boulder, Colorado. I did
indeed represent myself in that matter that involved outrageous conduct on the
part of the Boulder Police Department. The jurors did not believe Boulder
Police Department and, with respect to the stacked “trespassing” charge (added
eight months after the incident and two days prior to the first hearing), the
Court refused to answer the jurors question about when that “trespassing” charge
was brought which was eight months after the incident and two days before the
trial. The Boulder City Attorney
informed me that I should have run out on the bill after I went outside to find
Boulder PD and returned to pay my bill and finally demanded that the manager
phone the police. Stephen Gianelli
simply inserts extraneous and slanderous materials into his emails to undermine
my credibility and discredit me.
16.
On October 20, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that I “had a number of viable
issues available to argue on 10/6 … but the corporate status of some of the
Cohen related entities referenced in the Complaint and the default judgment in
BC338322 wasn’t one of them.” I beg to differ. The property of a
corporation cannot be transferred while the entity is suspended. Leonard Cohen has now had 10 years to revive
the corporations but has failed to do so and refuses to provide me with any of
the corporate tax information I have continuously requested. This situation does make one wonder why we
have laws at all. That would include
with respect to perjury, fraud, theft, embezzlement, extortion, money
laundering, criminal harassment, and suspended corporations. It also makes one wonder why there are any
laws with respect to corporations, federal or state tax matters, or why
corporate governance is an important issue.
When Los Angeles Superior Court entered the judgment against me, Blue
Mist Touring Company, Inc. was suspended and unable to do business in the State
of California. I discovered this fact in or around October 14, 2015 after
contacting the California Secretary of State’s Office. After receiving the following email, I phoned
the Secretary of State who informed me of the dates Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc. was suspended.
From: Statementofinformation@sos.ca.gov <StatementOfInformation@sos.ca.gov>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.,
Suspended Corporation
To: Kelley Lynch
<kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
The
Secretary of State is not a regulatory agency if you wish to file a corporation
fraud complaint you can contact the Attorney General Department of
Justice. That office can be reached at 1 800 952-5225 or on their website oag.ca.gov.
Thank
you,
Statement
of Information-UCC
Business Programs Division
(916)657-5448
rrh
To
Whom It May Concern,
I
am writing with respect to suspended corporation Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc. I am an owner of 15% of that entity. It owns extremely
valuable intellectual property. If you would like, I will send my stock
certificates and other information proving my ownership interest.
My
question is two-fold. First of all, this entity is suspended
in California. It is a Delaware entity. My former business
partner, Leonard Cohen, controls the books and records and refuses to provide
me with copies. His lawyer and accountant prepared the corporate tax
returns. I handled none of the corporate or tax matters. Cohen has
attempted to transfer this corporation to himself via a default judgment.
I was not served the lawsuit and am challenging the service issues. The
judgment includes the suspended corporation. It is my understanding that
this corporation can not participate in legal proceedings until it is
revived. I have constantly requested the information I require (including
all royalty statements re. income) to submit the appropriate tax returns.
My former partner refuses to provide this information to me. My hands are
tied. I am about to file a lawsuit over this matter which I find beyond
outrageous. My question: is there anything that can be done about
my former partner and his lawyers attempting to transfer assets of a suspended
corporation during a suspension? Do you have a complaint process? I
believe my former business partner personally is now collecting the royalty
income that is generated by the corporate assets.
My
second question relates to the Court itself. Why is the Court permitted
to transfer corporate assets to an individual, who is arguing alter ego and
self-dealing I might note, when the corporation is suspended? Is there
any complaint process with respect to that issue?
I
personally take grave offense at all of this. The FTB, who I have
contacted as well, suspended corporations and the California Supreme Court has
concluded that the reason for a corporation's inability to participate in legal
proceedings is to encourage tax compliance. What is going on promotes
theft, alter ego, self-dealing, money laundering, and fraud.
I
would appreciate a response.
Thank
you.
Kelley
Lynch
Data is updated to the California
Business Search on Wednesday and Saturday mornings. Results reflect work
processed through Tuesday, September 29, 2015. Please refer to Processing Times for the received dates of
filings currently being processed. The data provided is not a complete or
certified record of an entity.
|
Entity
Name:
|
BLUE
MIST TOURING COMPANY, INC.
|
|
Entity
Number:
|
C1854203
|
|
Date
Filed:
|
03/18/1993
|
|
Status:
|
SOS/FTB
FORFEITED
|
|
Jurisdiction:
|
DELAWARE
|
|
Entity
Address:
|
419
N LARCHMONT BLVD STE 91
|
|
Entity City,
State, Zip:
|
LOS
ANGELES CA 90004
|
|
Agent
for Service of Process:
|
KELLEY
LYNCH
|
|
Agent
Address:
|
1044
S KENISTON AVE
|
|
Agent City,
State, Zip:
|
LOS
ANGELES CA 90019
|
When the
default judgment was originally entered against me, Traditional Holdings, LLC
was administratively dissolved and never registered to do business in
California. These entities could not be inserted into the judgment and
the corporate property, or my ownership interest in that property, was
unlawfully transferred to Cohen personally during the periods of
suspension. Neither corporation has been revived. Final tax returns
do not appear to have been filed. It is my personal belief that these
entities have been used as mere shells to further Leonard Cohen’s goal of
evading ordinary income taxes. Leonard Cohen is adamant that he is the
alter ego of these entities who engaged in self-dealing, money laundering, and
co-mingled assets. The default judgment is also evidence of embezzlement
on Cohen’s part with respect to the royalty income he and LC Investments, LLC
collect with respect to assets owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.
Gianelli goes onto address Cohen’s legal theory, that a suspended corporation
may not prosecute litigation (or transfer property), only applies to the named
parties. This explains the intentional failure to name Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc .and Traditional Holdings, LLC and Los Angeles Superior Court’s
failure to obtain jurisdiction over these entities and other unnamed entities,
including Old Ideas, LLC, vaguely included in the judgment language. The
corporate plaintiff, LC Investments, LLC, has nothing whatsoever to do with the
other entities and has merely been used to embezzle royalty income related to
the Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. assets. There is no information with
respect to how the “damages” and “interest” were divided between plaintiff,
Leonard Cohen or LC Investments, LLC or what their relationship to the
corporations in the default judgment actually is. LC Investments, LLC also appears to be an
alter ego of Leonard Cohen. I did not default by failing to waive any
objections to the default. I was not served the lawsuit in this case and
Los Angeles Superior Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over me. Los
Angeles Superior Court has a very serious problem with service of process and
jurisdiction in all matters related to me. I have seen evidence that
service issues before LA Superior Court are extensive in other cases as
well. I have asserted my objections.
I was not afforded the opportunity to confront my accuser, Leonard Cohen, or
the so-called evidence (a fabricated narrative and fraudulent expense ledger)
submitted to the Court. I most certainly did not ignore service but
rather immediately and diligently attempted to address Cohen’s failure to serve
me with his legal representatives who refused to speak to or serve me.
Cohen used this situation as an opportunity to obtain his first fraudulent restraining
order which appears, based on Greenberg’s June 2005 allegations, to have been
pre-meditated in an attempt to discredit me as a witness. Actually, every
lawyer I’ve spoken with views the default judgment as illegal and evidence of
theft. They have also informed me that they personally believe this judgment
could have been vacated based on Los Angeles Superior Court’s equitable powers. I most certainly moved diligently in filing
my motion to vacate the fraudulent default judgment. I did not reside in Los Angeles from 2006
through June 2013 apart from a six month period in 2010 when I stayed with my
son. I did not discover the Complaint
online until April 2010 just prior to relocating to Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida. I therefore filed my motion to
vacate almost immediately after relocating to Los Angeles in June 2013.
17.
On October 21, 2015, Gianelli wrote to explain that “instead of arguing valid
procedural points – like the fact that Judge Hess did not address the merits of
your lack-of-service claim … because your declaration was unsigned and because
of your lack of diligence and that no final, binding or appealable order
arising out of the January 14, 2014 hearing was ever signed or entered (thereby
calling into question the basis for Hess’ ruling on June 23, 2015, which ruling
also avoided the merits of the lack-of-service claim), as well as pointing out
that the court held your 2013 motion to vacate to be untimely, whereas your
motion to set aside the renewal of the judgment, as long as it was filed within
30 days of mailing of the notice of renewal, was timely and not subject to due
diligence arguments that were available in opposition to your earlier motions
to vacate – you simply repeated the claim “I was never served” over and
over again, banging against that closed door.” The May 2006 default
judgment is void for lack of personal service. I moved diligently.
Cohen’s representatives failed to file a signed order (January 14, 2014 hearing)
and these matters were addressed ad nauseum. I was not served and that
fact will never change. I wasn’t actually engaged in oral argument with
Los Angeles Superior Court because it is impossible to speak to the Court without
an aggressive response. Nothing has been
litigated and my declaration was signed.
18.
On October 23, 2015, Gianelli wrote that I am “capable of cogent thought at
this point – unlike an earlier time and for whatever reason.” I do not
know this psychopath, an absolute stranger, and he has no idea who I am or what
I am capable of. His arrogance is astounding. I have never been
incapable of “cogent thought” and this individual wouldn’t know a “cogent
thought” if he fell over one. I do realize that these legal pleadings
have gone nowhere. I also now realize that Los Angeles Superior Court is
uninterested in jurisdiction, actual facts, the truth, and condones fraud,
perjury, obstruction of justice, theft, extortion, prosecutorial misconduct,
Brady violations, and litigation misconduct. Given the fact that the 9th Circuit
Court appears to be alarmed by some of these issues, I feel I am not alone in
the disdain I feel for this system. Stephen Gianelli also continues with
his attempts to discredit Paulette Brandt. The reasons for that are
entirely obvious and no doubt relate to the Phil Spector case and the fact that
Paulette Brandt is a witness and has submitted declarations with LA Superior
Court related to my cases with Leonard Cohen. Gianelli appears desperate
with respect to Phil Spector’s case because the appeal is before the 9th Circuit
Court and there is a very real possibility that Mr. Spector will prevail. If
that were the outcome, there would be a third trial and it is entirely possible
that Ms. Brandt would be called as a witness. She has known Mr. Spector
since she was a teenager; dated him for years; worked for him for years (the
last time from approximately 1991 through 2002); and actually worked inside his
Pasadena home where certain incidents allegedly occurred. Paulette Brandt
was also quite close with certain witnesses who testified during the Phil
Spector trial. She has never witnessed
the alleged demonized Phil Spector certain witnesses conjured up during his
trial. Paulette Brandt has never seen Phil Spector with a gun – in his
home, the recording studio, or elsewhere.
She is firmly convinced of his innocence and has been public about that
fact. Paulette Brandt does not have an expectation of my winning
big. This is just an attempt to slander her. Leonard Cohen stole from me and owes me a
tremendous amount of money. I turned down Cohen’s offer of 50% community
property. Cohen also offered to pay me
the commissions he withheld and the value of my share of these entities and the
intellectual property. I refused to
entertain any type of settlement negotiations due to the fact that I was
convinced Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, were attempting to obtain false
testimony from me. Leonard Cohen now
evidently feels that I would be “winning” the commissions due me or the value
of my share of intellectual property and/or the corporate entities.
Leonard Cohen’s greed consumes him. He also has a habit of not paying his
representatives. That would now include
me, Machat & Machat, and Peter Lopez.
Leonard Cohen has not “won” anything. His conduct with respect to
me and my family is malicious and deviant. He has used a fabricated
narrative to destroy my life and reputation. He has targeted my sons and
elderly parents. His conduct is utterly shameless. However, the
stakes are high, Cohen is a fabulist with motive, and his lawyers will do
whatever it takes to further his sinister goals. Leonard Cohen has
obtained a fraudulent default judgment and three dime a dozen fraudulent
restraining orders that have been used to gain a litigation advantage and
discredit me. I am completely unaware of the basis for the original 2005
restraining order and am unaware of many matters before LA Superior Court. I have been obtaining this information for
approximately 10 years piecemeal. Anyone
willing to lie on the stand or under the oath of perjury could conceivably
prevail using these tactics – particularly if one fails to serve another party
intentionally. In that event, one’s success is a near given.
However, that is not the definition of an actual legal system where one is afforded
certain constitutional rights which include the right to a fair adversarial
proceeding and due process.
19.
On October 25, 2015, Gianelli was concerned about Leonard Cohen’s documents
which are corporate property and not Cohen’s personal property. Leonard
Cohen clearly sees no separation between himself and the corporate
entities. He views the entities as a mere extension of himself and the
assets as his own piggy bank. I have a rightful legal ownership interest
in Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas,
LLC. I am therefore entitled to maintain
copies of the corporate records. I also wasn’t
served the Complaint in the related case (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BC341120). Judge Ken Freeman’s court reporter informed me, in or around
April 2010, that there was a related case. Therefore, it would have been
impossible for me to comply with a court order and that order does not extend
to the corporate entities which were not named in the writ of possession.
It is hardly nonsense to address the fact that Leonard Cohen and his daughter,
Lorca Cohen, had the audacity to go into my personal management offices and
remove my business files and personal property. Nor is it nonsense to
address the fact that I stored boxes of old business documents for Cohen as a
courtesy which he then abandoned until he understood I planned to ship the
corporate evidence to Internal Revenue Service in Washington, DC.
Gianelli’s defense of Leonard Cohen and questions with respect to legal matters
related to Cohen prove that he is indeed an unofficial member of Leonard
Cohen’s legal team.
20.
Gianelli has taken the legal position that I have no standing to “challenge”
another taxpayer’s refund claims. I most certainly have standing to
“challenge” fraudulent tax refunds based on Cohen’s fraudulent and fabricated
narrative about me and a non-existent “theft loss.” I have challenged
these refunds as fraudulent and contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee about
the fact that these refunds, which were based on fraudulent information
transmitted to IRS (in the form of the fraudulent Complaint Leonard Cohen filed
with LA Superior Court), were issued to Leonard Cohen and I was not provided
with notice or an opportunity to challenge or contest the refunds. I also have standing to address the
fraudulent complaint, perjured declarations, and ledger (which is evidence of
financial fraud) used to obtain these refunds with Internal Revenue Service and
Franchise Tax Board. Leonard Cohen’s arguments now rely on three
essential components: res judicata, claim preclusion, and intentionally
running statute of limitations. This was his intended goal and it goes to
motive. Gianelli, who is evidently an experienced trial lawyer,
continuously informs me that courts have nothing but disdain for
self-represented litigants and hold them to a higher standard, in terms of
reviewing their pleadings when they are submitted with fee waivers, than
attorneys who routinely engage in litigation misconduct, lie and mislead triers
of fact, and elicit perjured testimony. That conduct apparently does not
waste resources and is protected.
21. On October 26, 2015 Gianelli wrote to
discuss “issue preclusion” and “statute of limitations issues” with respect to
“Cohen’s alleged acts and omissions … as well as Cohen’s tax treatments of
those matters.” Gianelli suggested that
I would do well to “bone up on the relatively new burden on a federal court plaintiff
to not only tick the element boxes when pleading her claim but also to plead
specific facts that give rise to an inference of plausibility.” According to my Stalker, there “appears to be
a sliding scale of judicial skepticism for various types of claims” that
includes pro se v. represented individuals.
Evidently this plausibility, as applied to a plaintiff who has a long
litigation history with the defendant (Leonard Cohen) invites a district court
judge to view all of this through the prism of “experience and common
sense.” It would seem more than obvious
that a district court judge should understand that there has not been a history
of litigation between me and Leonard Cohen.
That was and remains intentional on Cohen’s part. Nothing whatsoever has been litigated and LA
Superior Court has failed to obtain jurisdiction, has no remedies available and/or
elected not to exercise its inherent authority.
Stephen Gianelli goes onto to recommend that I read and digest “Justice
Posner’s decision in Cooney v. Rossiter” and, in particular, his
references to “paranoid pro se litigation” which Gianelli believes “neatly
encapsulates” my “theories against Leonard Cohen.” Judge Posner is a Circuit Judge in the 7th
Circuit. The case Gianelli advised me to
read and digest relates to one Deborah Cooney who lost custody of her two sons
after an Illinois state court found that she suffered from ‘Munchausen
syndrome’ by proxy.” The mother sued the
state court judge (Judge Norquist) and others charging constitutional
violations. The district court dismissed
the suit. Judge Norquist was, of course,
absolutely immune from suit since he was acting in his judicial capacity in
ruling that Cooney was not entitled to custody.
Apparently, Cooney’s complaint alleged that a court order was
“orchestrated” appointing an individual as the child’s psychiatrist which began
a “witch hunt” against Cooney. Evidently
the psychiatrist compiled a report concluding that Cooney was indeed exhibiting
“Munchausen syndrome by proxy.” Cooney
apparently attempted to have doctors diagnose her older son with various
illness or injuries. Judge Nordquist
granted a petition for an emergency order of protection stating that Cooney was
“armed and suicidal.” He transferred
custody of the children to her ex-husband, their father. Allegations that the children’s therapist
made “false statements” to the Department of Children and Family Services led
to a finding of child abuse by Cooney.
According to Judge Posner, guardians ad litem and court appointed
experts, including psychiatrists, are entitled to absolute immunity and are
absolutely immune from liability for damages when they act at the court’s
direction. They are “arms of the court”
who will serve the best issues of a child in a custody proceeding and need
absolute immunity in order to fulfill their obligations. Cooney, on the other hand, felt that these
arms of the court were “part of an illegal conspiracy to deprive her of custody
of the children” and the conclusions in the report were “false.” The Court felt that the appeal presented a
second issue: the lawyer and therapist,
being private persons, could be brought within the reach of Section 1983 only
by charging that they had agreed with a state officer to deprive her of
constitutional rights. The judge relied
on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal in
concluding that “a bare allegation of conspiracy was not enough to survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Evidently, pro se litigants, being held to a
higher standard than attorneys in federal court, must argue their cases through
to verdict in the complaint. Gianelli
highlighted the following: “In other
words, the height of the pleading requirement is relative to circumstances …
This case is not a complex litigation … But it may be paranoid pro se
litigation, arising out of a bitter custody fight and alleging, as it does, a
vast encompassing conspiracy.” I
personally do not see a vast conspiracy in this opinion. It appears to be a relatively routine and
vicious custody battle with extreme allegations on both sides. I have no idea what a disease “by proxy”
means. I find it rather mind-boggling
that a judge wouldn’t understand that custody battles are filled with false
accusations, perjury and fraud. My
friend was Director of Child Services and personally informed me that they are
the “Gestapo” who could make a case against anyone in the telephone book. I am aware that the opinion confirms that
this particular judge appears to exhibit disdain for the pro se litigant and,
although she is a mother who has lost custody of her children, concluded that
she is paranoid. I remain unconvinced
that the majority of U.S. citizens would agree that pro se litigants are
“paranoid.” In fact, many citizens have
concluded that the justice system is corrupt.
In any event, the case has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal
issues between me and Leonard Cohen. We
were not in a dating or engagement relationship; most certainly never had
children; and were not a married couple.
I have no conspiracy theories and that would include with respect to the
SWAT/King Drew situation. Cohen, not I,
has the long history of psychiatric problems, drugs abuse, and alcoholism. He also has a habit of falsely accusing his
representatives of ripping him off to breach contracts and has engaged in
blatant acts of theft on more than one occasion. I am aware that there are heightened pleading
standards in federal court but have read many opinions that also prove judges
themselves are confused about issues such as RICO so I am not convinced that
arrogance is the appropriate response or reaction. As for my own custody matter, Los Angeles
Superior Court destroyed my sons’ lives based on a fraudulent “default
judgment” and without a fair adversarial proceeding. As for Judge Posner, I do not believe his utter
lack of compassion towards the mother, even were the allegations regarding the
proxy illness in fact true, is appropriate.
22. On October 27, 2015, my Stalker wrote to
inform me that the Michelle Rice emails he quotes from were “not sent in aid of
attempting to argue that the [Rice, Kory and Gianelli] have not engaged in any
type of potentially unlawful conduct with respect to Kelley Lynch …” Based on this position, I therefore will
assume that the emails were sent to argue that these individuals have engaged
in unlawful conduct towards me. Gianelli,
an individual I do not know, believes he is in some sort of dialogue with me
and further argues that he has not broken the law or acted in concert with
Kory, Rice – let alone in respect to a “racketeer influenced crime corrupted
enterprise.” This accusation, from the
Stalker’s point of view, is implausible, preposterous and untrue as to be
laughable although it is in fact true and overwhelmingly blatant. Gianelli is attempting to elicit information
with respect to my RICO suits and other matters. His defense to this blatant and ongoing legal
conspiracy is that he has forwarded me emails “because they reveal much about
Ms. Rice and (to say the least) the emails do not paint her in the best
light.” As I have repeatedly stated,
this is one of the more moronic cover your ass operations known to
mankind. Rice and Gianelli have decided
to accuse one another of being greedy sycophants and “star fuckers” in an
attempt to prove that they are not engaged in a coordinated attempt to
discredit and isolate me while using my sons and others as weapons who they
believe can be intimidated and threatened.
Stephen Gianelli has repeatedly emailed me a photograph of an individual
wearing a “tin foil” hat to advance his absurd and devious arguments. This is the identical photograph that was
uploaded to the Tax Petition evidence blog.
In order to upload that image, the person who illegally accessed and
altered the blog illegally opened a Gravatar.com account using my email address. Stephen Gianelli also falsely accuses me of
being a “5150” case and the Gravatar account was opened using that term:
https://en.gravatar.com/kelleylynch5150
23. In another email my Stalker sent on
October 27, 2015, he admonishes me that he has not been contacting (let alone
“harassing”) my sons. This particular
statement proves unequivocally that Stephen Gianelli is an absolute psychopath
and chronic liar. According to Gianelli,
his targeting of my sons for nearly 7 straight years is merely my “manufactured
drama that will be used to convince a new judicial forum not yet familiar with
my history to allow me to ‘relitigate’ my entire life since Cohen allegedly fired
me in 2004.” My sons have submitted
declarations to numerous courts confirming that they have been harassed by
Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and others. Gianelli is quite clear that I
have been “shut down” by Los Angeles Superior Court with respect to the
Colorado order issued without findings, fraudulent registration of that order
as a “domestic violence order” in California, and the absolute lack of due
process and severe constitutional rights violations that are at the heart of
all Los Angeles Superior Court proceedings that involve me, so to speak. Gianelli concludes by arguing that my federal
RICO actions are preposterous for multiple reasons. The reason he gives is Rutger’s inquiry into
his email advising him that the City of Attorney planned to falsely arrest me
for a second time. That email merely
proves that the City of Los Angeles conspired with Stephen Gianelli to
retaliate against me.
24. On October 27, 2015, Gianelli again wrote
about my RICO suit. Gianelli, who clearly
believes these emails will be presented to a court of law, is actually
addressing the court itself and encouraging the court to prejudicially view me
as a “paranoid pro se” litigant. As many
individuals in this country believe there is a two-tiered justice system (one
for the wealthy and another for less fortunate individuals), I do not
particularly understand why a court would view a self-represented litigant as
necessarily paranoid. Gianelli again
quotes Judge Posner in Cooney v. Rossiter. As part of Gianelli’s argument he uses the
SWAT/Killer King situation as an example.
I personally do not believe when a woman is in her home alone, and her
son appears to be in serious jeopardy (surrounded by armed men), that she is
paranoid when she concludes that the incident was dangerous, reckless, and
unconscionable. A custody matter was
indeed coordinated using the SWAT incident where LAPD concluded that my dog was
the hostage. At the heart of the custody
matter was the “King Drew” incident. The
entire King Drew report is fraudulent and does not relate to me. Gianelli goes onto describe the tactics that
have been used against me: a coordinated
SWAT incident, coordinated custody matter, several fraudulent restraining
orders meant to discredit and undermine me as a witness, a fraudulent default
judgment in a case where I wasn’t served, and unconscionable and corrupt
government actors targeting me for a celebrity who may have been engaged in
some type of quid pro quo scenario with former District Attorney Steve Cooley
related to Phil Spector and a gun story.
These government actors also lied extensively about federal and state
tax matters. This situation should not
lead one to question the pro se litigant.
On the contrary, it should cause one to question what type of corruption
is taking place in Los Angeles and why the stakes are so high. Gianelli’s job, as he clearly understands, is
to provide a plausible explanation for his emails and characterize my statements
as lies, misrepresentations, and fallacious legal theories. Gianelli has been quite clear that his emails
are also an attempt to “dissuade” me from pursuing legal remedies. This is very similar to his use of reasonable
doubt arguments online with respect to Phil Spector. Gianelli sets up the argument and Spector
haters descend and rip them apart, slander Mr. Spector further, and attack
anyone who has the audacity to defend him.
The situation is highly coordinated.
Gianelli’s argument for sending these endless harassing emails, targeting
my sons, threatening and intimidating witnesses, and sowing the seeds of
slander about me into the public domain is merely excused away by his implausible
explanation that he is responding to my “false, defamatory, and accusatory lies
and false legal theories.” Unfortunately
for this criminal, I am telling the truth and he and many others are engaged in
egregious criminal conduct.
25. On October 31, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that I really don’t want to go “stumbling blindly into federal court
without a solid, fresh, viable cause of action well supported by case law and
fact and not barred by easily asserted defenses all known to any federal
judge.” I suppose I could do what
Leonard Cohen has: fabricate a
narrative; falsify and conceal evidence; lie relentlessly to the court; and
engage in misconduct. This seems to
ensure that one will prevail before the judicial system. The judicial system, according to Gianelli,
is especially rough and intolerant with pro se litigants. The federal court is not laid back or
tolerant when it comes to pro se plaintiffs.
California’s absolute judicial immunity applies to federal statutory
causes of action filed in the 9th Circuit. It is rather disturbing to understand that
this system is not only utterly bankrupt but refuses to hold anyone accountable
for their own actions. Apparently,
according to the logic of the courts themselves, if you fail to hold someone
accountable they will be more inclined to act ethically and less likely to
lie.
26. On October 28, 2015, Stephen Gianelli,
who spends 24/7 targeting people for Leonard Cohen and with respect to Phil
Spector, advised me that I have copied him with abusive and accusatory emails
for six years. Gianelli is a
professional liar and criminal. He is
the individual who publicly stated that Spector prosecutor, Pat Dixon, fears
for his life over Eminem’s song “Puke” and actually believes Eminem’s lyric
about “dry humping” was dedicated to Dixon.
The default judgment and renewal are both blatantly illegal and evidence
of theft and extortion. The court has
not set them aside so this is clearly irrelevant to the court. I am not an “adjudicated harasser.” Leonard Cohen has potentially spent hundreds
of thousands of dollars obtaining dime a dozen restraining orders and a default
judgment. The key to successful criminal
conduct, within the legal system, is failing to serve an individual. This permits the victor to successfully move directly
to default judgment. It remains unclear
to me how a default judgment actually relates to embezzlement apart from the
fact that Leonard Cohen has engaged in theft and embezzlement via default
judgment. A default judgment merely
means that the individual has not participated in the adversarial system. In any event, this was Gianelli’s defense to
my position that he is engaged in criminal witness tampering. Gianelli has also blatantly lied about my
sons signatures on their declarations. They were both personally signed by my
sons. This thread of emails, and
Gianelli’s aggressive accusations, arose due to the fact that Rutger wrote to
advise Gianelli to stop emailing him.
Gianelli, who (according to his own public statements) worked with the
City Attorney to have me falsely arrested on two occasions, decided to copy
Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan on his email. He feels quite comfortable with Ms. Swanigan
whose declaration in the probation retaliation matter is nothing other than an
entirely perjured document. The extent
of the lies and deception related to this situation is inconceivably vulgar. Stephen Gianelli, and others, have used my
sons as weapons to provoke, harass, alarm, and distress me. On October 27, 2015, Rutger once again
advised Gianelli to stop emailing him and confirmed that based on Gianelli’s extraordinary
obsession one must conclude that this ongoing harassment is his “job and not a
hobby.”
Stop CC'ing my email Mr. Gianelli. One would think
with all of this effort you're putting into this, it's a job and not a
hobby.
Sincerely,
Rutger Penick
[Email bcc’d to Rutger Penick from Stephen Gianelli]: On Sep 22, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Stephen R.
Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:
Clearly,
Ms. Lynch, your obsessive desire to “prove” a “conspiracy” to “harass” you is
more important to you than defeating the 10-year renewal of the 2006 judgment
on October 6.
Nor
do you have anything to say about THESE FACTS, emailed to you hours ago:
|
You did
not “raise the FACT that the order was not filed.” And the point isn’t even
entirely that an order was never filed. The point is that an order denying
the 2013 motion to vacate was NEITHER signed NOR
filed, AND THAT THE MINUTE ORDER DIRECTS THAT A WRITTEN
ORDER BE PREPARED. Those things TAKEN TOGETHER have the legal significance of
meaning that NO FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER WAS ENTERED AND – THEREFORE, RES
JUDICATA (SOMETIMES CALLED “ISSUE PRECLUSION) DOES NOT APPLY.
Here is what you said at the hearing per the transcript:
“I
still don’t know if your order was entered. […] He said he would
serve me; I never received anything. I don’t even know if an order was filed. It’s not on L.A. Superior
Court’s website. And he refused to serve me anything, which is pretty
fascinating.” (TR 6/23/2015, p. 8, lines 2-11, emphasis added.)
I have
now solved the mystery for you. There is no “If” or “maybe”. Korn (or
more probably Rice, since she was doing all the work and Korn was attorney of
record in name only) attached the proposed order to a “Notice of Lodging”
(the proposed order) and then filed that with the court, instead of transmitting
a proposed order directly to Judge Hess or his clerk and then following up
every week or so to make sure that the order was signed AND filed. As a
consequence of this professional negligence, NO ORDER SETTING FORTH THE
COURT’S RULING ON JANUARY 17, 2014 WAS EVER FILED. And it has the legal
significance that I stated in my emails.
If you knew all of that you would have said “No, Judge Hess, no order was ever signed or filed,
and under In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th
1406, 1410, there is no final, appealable order – so no, Judge I did not have
the choice of appealing the order or letting it go as you say and in addition
judge, the lack of a final, appealable order also means that there never was
a final, binding determination that I was served in a manner authorized by
statute. Nor did your January 17, 2014 ruling rest on the fact of service
judge, because my declaration was unsigned and you relied on procedural
grounds and the lack of due diligence in denying the motion. You never made a
factual finding that I was served with process in August of 2005.”
But you said NONE of that at the June 23, 2015 hearing.
So I
assume that you DID NOT know those things.
And,
you’re welcome BTW.
|
And
you honestly believe that MICHELLE RICE would be a part of bringing these (and
other) facts and authorities to your attention on the eve of a hearing to
decide whether or not her celebrity client Leonard Cohen’s $14M judgment goes
poof and disappears) per your pending motion? And that she would risk
that to rebut a “conspiracy” that you cannot prove and that isn’t even before
the court?
Why
Rutger thinks you are “smart” is a mystery. Because for a “smart” person you
are the most obtuse person I have ever encountered. You don’t even see a point
when you trip over it.
Very
truly yours,
Stephen
R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law
(ret.)
Crete,
Greece
27. On October 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that an individual “may not sue witness, party or attorney in 9th
Circuit under federal statute for testimony or litigation conduct.” California’s “absolute judicial immunity
applies to federal statute cause of action filed in the 9th
Circuit. Franklin v. Terr.” Gianelli has decided, without any basis in
reality, that my RICO suit will present predicate acts related to litigation misconduct
before Los Angeles Superior Court. All
matters before LA Superior Court are now under appeal. That would include, but is not limited to,
the decisions with respect to the fraudulent domestic violence order; Cohen’s
renewal of the fraudulent default judgment (and attempt to extort additional
fraudulent financial interest from me); the documents that were wrongfully
sealed; and, my motion re. fraud upon the court which has been incorrectly mischaracterized
as a motion to reconsider.
28. On November 3, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
(who does not know Phil Spector or Dennis Riordan) wrote to inform me that
“Dennis Riordan is being paid to appeal the order [Spector’s] issued by the
Central District of California denying Phil Spector’s habeas petition to the 9th
Circuit Court of appeals.” Gianelli
wanted me to understand that Mr. Riordan has “not been retained to track which
Spector fan websites like or don’t like Mrs. Spector (or for that matter Mr.
Spector). “ Stephen Gianelli would actually like to know if I am communicating
with Phil Spector, Rachelle Spector, or Dennis Riordan. When he says “Your emails to Riordan are
never read nor are they forwarded to anyone” this is merely meant to provoke a
response and elicit information.
Gianelli is evidently angry that I, an absolute stranger to him, would
write Dennis Riordan, another absolute stranger to him. He ends by asking “Why do you think you don’t
have Rachelle Spector’s contact information?
She has avoided you like the plague.”
Stephen Gianelli does not know me or Rachelle Spector. He has some form of relationship with
Spector’s stepsons, Gary and Louis Spector, and has no idea if anyone is
avoiding me like the plague. Gianelli is
using this email, and these tactics, in an ongoing attempt to infiltrate Phil
Spector’s legal team. He has used the
identical tactics with IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, State of Kentucky, and
others.
29. On November 4, 2015, Gianelli continued
with his tirade about Denis Riordan and wrote to advise me that “Dennis Riordan
is not reading your emails” and to inform me that he does not want
“details.” I, who happen to be a close
friend of Phil Spector, am “the last person on Earth who could supply those
details.” I also happen to live with
Phillip’s former girlfriend and personal assistant who is convinced of his
innocence. Gianelli goes onto to argue
that “everything knowable about Phil Spector’s pending 9th Circuit
appeal is available online.” What is unknown
to Gianelli, and Spector’s prosecutors, is who would handle a third trial
(should the case be remanded); what the legal arguments would be; what evidence
has been uncovered post-trial; and what witnesses would be called to the
stand. Gianelli tends to end his deranged
emails with gratuitous insults – such as “moron” – when he is desperately
attempting to obtain information and believes that will provoke the individual
to respond. Stephen Gianelli has used
this tactic on witnesses who have provided me with declarations. My friend, Dan Meade, wrote the following
response to one of Gianelli’s more deranged attempts to insult and intimidate
Mr. Meade. Gianelli has written and
attempted to intimidate other witnesses such as Palden Ronge. The following emails are merely a few
examples of the types of emails Gianelli uses to harass, insult, slander,
intimidate, and dissuade witnesses. Dan
Meade and Palden Ronge provided declarations to LA Superior Court. They, and other declarations, can be found at
this link:
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/05/kelley-lynchs-motion-for-terminating.html
Mr. Gianelli,
I have never trolled you on my own or at Kelley's
request.
Was the word idiot your way of signing your letter
to me or just calling me a name like a high school girl?
I have no wish to communicate with you ever!
In my opinion you need some kind of psychological
help or a kind friend or at least some one to coach you in basic human manners.
I hope you feel better some day.
Dan Meade
Daniel
Meade,
You
asked me not to email you, now you are trolling my Facebook page at Kelley
Lynch’s request (because I blocked her as well)?
You
really are a piece of work.
Idiot.
All you had to do was ask, Mr. Meade.
Mr. Gianelli,
Would you please stop sending me emails? OK?
It’s getting a bit boring and you are becoming a nuisance to me.
I see no reason why you want or should provide me
with your info.
You have your info and she has hers.
It is none of my business at any level.
Period.
Understand?
Thanks for your cooperation on this matter
Dan Meade
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:06 PM
Subject:
To: Palden Ronge mediamessenger@gmail.com
Mr.
Ronge,
Kelley
Lynch at all times WANTED to be served with a copy of Lenard Cohen’s lawsuit so
she could study the allegations?
Interesting
testimony under oath I must say in view of the attached email she sent to
plaintiff’s counsel THREATENING TO SUE if he tried to serve her “one more time”
(apparently Ms. Lynch believed, incorrectly, that if she refused to give her
name to the server service was ineffective).
From
your declaration:
“I am aware of the
fact that Kelley was home throughout the summer and fall of 2005. I
frequently visited, understood she had no transportation or money, and when I
rang the bell, she would simply open the door. It didn’t appear that she
was attempting to evade anyone. She informed me repeatedly that
she wanted to be served Cohen’s lawsuit and
review the specific allegations in the Complaint.
30. On November 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
inform me that if Mr. Riordan “waived” at him once, which Gianelli publicly
stated some time ago, that would be “one more time than he waived” to me. This is merely an ongoing desperate attempt
to elicit information.
31. Phil Spector was most certainly on
Stephen Gianelli’s mind on November 4, 2015.
He wrote to advise that all he needs to know about Phil Spector is that
he is “quite ill, that he can no longer speak and is unresponsive and, in the
meantime, his motion to the 9th Circuit filed August 27 for a
certificate of appealability (without which the appeal cannot further proceed)
is still pending.” According to Gianelli, “that is all anyone knows or can know
about the 9th Circuit proceeds as of today, even Dennis
Riordan.” Gianelli, who does not know
Mr. or Mrs. Spector, decided to inform me that all he knows “about Mrs. Spector
is that she will have nothing to do with you.”
Stephen Gianelli is attempting to determine what my (or Paulette’s)
relationship with Phil and Rachelle Spector is at this moment in time. Gianelli also appears rather obsessed with Bruce
Cutler which has been an ongoing issue since approximately 2009 when Gianelli
phoned Bruce Cutler, used me as a pretext to do so, and proceeded to ask if
Bruce Cutler still represented Phil Spector.
What Gianelli actually wants to know is whether or not I have spoken
with Bruce Cutler and what is really on his mind. Stephen Gianelli is waiting for an
opportunity to use me to phone Cutler.
I’ve suggested he call and ask him to marry him since Gianelli’s
obsession with Cutler is inconceivably bizarre.
32. On November 6, 2015, Gianelli’s obsession
with obtaining information about Bruce Cutler continued. He wrote with respect to my “silly emails
implying Cutler will represent” me. No
such email exists. Gianelli is
attempting to determine if Bruce Cutler might play should there be a third Phil
Spector trial. Bruce Cutler will be part
of my RICO suit against the City and County of Los Angeles with respect to the
fraudulent domestic violence order and “dating relationship” the local
government has simply decided to assign me.
Cutler, who did not request a fraudulent domestic violence related
order, was granted one at the request of prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter. She evidently believed my three letters to
Bruce Cutler were harassing and concluded that my style of writing was simply
too chatty for her personal taste and therefore I, based on her lies and
deception, should be drugged and committed.
The prosecutor lied in this Sentencing Memorandum when she informed the
Court that Cohen and I were in a “dating” or “engagement” relationship. We were not.
Leonard Cohen sexually harassed me for years. He exposed his penis to me. He looked at people defecating on one another
online in front of me. He demanded sex
and would threaten my job with that demand.
The situation became intolerable and I informed many parties that I did
not want to be in Cohen’s presence alone.
Apparently the City Attorney believes that Leonard Cohen’s own conduct
is my intent to annoy him. The actual
sentencing hearing was astounding for a number of reasons. That would include Leonard Cohen’s lies about
Internal Revenue Service and me during his so-called Victim Impact
Statement. Judge Robert Vanderet literally
sabotaged my defense by refusing to permit IRS Agent Luis Tejeda or my son,
John Rutger Penick, to take the stand. Judge
Vanderet’s comment that a person shouldn’t be “targeted” is positively farcical
in light of what has unfolded. All
information in my alleged emails, which were not authenticated, was and remains
legitimate. That would include the
extraneous information operatives such as Stephen Gianelli and Susanne Walsh
inserted into the matters I am addressing.
There is nothing ‘far fetched” about any matter related to Phil Spector
including the fact that the forensic science does not support the fabricated
narrative. What is farfetched, however,
is that Judge Vanderet permitted the City Attorney to elicit information about
Phil Spector and a gun using an email that Leonard Cohen was not copied on
although he testified that he was.
Another farfetched issue has to do with Judge Vanderet hearing federal
tax matters. It was also rather
farfetched of Judge Vanderet and the City Attorney to permit Leonard Cohen to
perjure himself on the witness stand, confess to perjury, and permit him to go
unprosecuted.
Bruce
Cutler advised Los Angeles Superior Court that he destroyed the alleged voice
mail messages and his letter is nothing other than hearsay. The Court had no jurisdiction over Cutler,
this matter, and nothing was submitted under the oath of perjury. The evidence that was submitted to the Court,
in the form of the three letters written about the outrageous situation between
Leonard Cohen and former DA Steve Cooley (with respect to my “restraining
order” matter and testimony about Phil Spector and a gun incident), will most
definitely be addressed in my RICO. I
will also attempt to subpoena all evidence with respect to any and all
communications Bruce Cutler has had with Spector prosecutor Pat Dixon about
me. Stephen Gianelli previously wrote
that Pat Dixon was behind an astounding situation that involved Boulder Police
Department, me, and Deneuve Construction.
The Denver FBI advised me to ask the Boulder DA to investigate this
matter. At one point the Denver FBI
advised me to contact the Attorney General of Colorado about this
incident. I have done so and have been
greeted by a wall of silence. Stephen
Gianelli is merely lying in his letter that I believe Cutler will represent
me. Bruce Cutler does not represent
me. This is merely Gianelli’s attempt to
infiltrate the Spector case precisely as he has done with Internal Revenue
Service matters related to Leonard Cohen.
33. On November 7, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that “Hootnick is
in correspondence with Mrs. Spector.
Therefore, you only confirm the impression that the Spectors’ already
have of you as being totally crazy.” Alan
Hootnick is an individual who believes that Phil Spector is innocent. Gianelli has begun communicating with Alan
Hootnick. He transmits slanderous
statements about me and now copies Alan Hootnick on emails harassing me. Stephen Gianelli does not know me or the Mr.
and Mrs. Spector. I am not certain how
the fact that Alan Hootnick may correspond with Rachelle Spector would lead
Gianelli to conclude that Phil Spector and his wife view me as being “totally
crazy.” Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Spector
would find it “totally crazy” that Gianelli targeted my email accounts and
blogs with Michelle Blaine; relentlessly defends Leonard Cohen who now has
three versions of his bullshit gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior
Court; and is relentlessly targeting and slandering me and Paulette Brandt
while terrorizing my family. This email
is another attempt to elicit information about Phil Spector, Rachelle Spector,
and – of course – Bruce Cutler. It is
quite clear that certain parties are under the impression that Phil Spector may
prevail before the 9th Circuit and his case could be remanded. It is also clear that Phil Spector will
pursue this matter to the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, it is my personal opinion that
Stephen Gianelli, and others, are desperately attempting to discover any and
all information that may exist with respect to a potential third trial. I have not “under these circumstances”
suggested that “Cutler might represent” me in “civil RICO litigation.” Dennis Riordan is also mentioned in this
particular email. Gianelli, using
slanderous statements and false accusations, is attempting to elicit information
about Phil Spector’s appellate attorney and appeal itself.
34. On November 7, 2015, Gianelli continued
with his attempts to elicit information about Bruce Cutler. Gianelli continues to obsess over my blog posts
and believes he has a legal right to relentlessly harass me over them. He therefore decided to harass me over my
email post dated November 7, 2015 at 11.06 AM.
Gianelli is actually responding to my emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ about
this ongoing situation. He is using my
emails as a means to infiltrate Phil Spector’s legal team and elicit
information about many other matters.
That includes, but is not limited to, this Tax Court case. I did write that “Bruce Cutler’s letter to
the court was utter rubbish and hearsay” because that is precisely what it
was. However, Gianelli wants to know if
I actually left voice mails for Bruce Cutler or personally spoke to him. He wants to know what type of evidence I
faxed Cutler. Gianelli would like to
know if I am actually waiting for Bruce Cutler to represent me. The answer is unequivocally “no.” I most certainly believe that Phil Spector
and his legal team should take this entire situation extremely seriously and
investigate the extent of Gianelli’s relationship with his prosecutors,
Michelle Blaine, Leonard Cohen, Spector’s sons, and so forth. Gianelli wants to know why “a busy NYC lawyer
who does not know” me would “take the time to send a letter to” my sentencing
judge. He should ask Cutler that
question directly.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
The Criminal
Stalker Writes, Lies About My Emails & Bruce Cutler, And Attempts to Gather
Information About Phil Spector
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: your silly emails implying Cutler will represent you
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
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I haven't sent any emails implying that Bruce
Cutler will represent me. The only issue outstanding re. Cutler involves
a fraudulent "domestic violence related order" that will be at issue
in my RICO suit against the City and County of Los Angeles. VAWA funding
fraud and extortion (re. fraudulent domestic violence fines), wire fraud (re.
the registration of the Colorado order issued without findings), mail fraud (re.
the fraudulent domestic violence related orders), etc. will also be at issue.
The only thing that matters re. RICO at this time
is what a federal court thinks but that's not why Gianelli, a criminal stalker,
is writing. This is an attempt to elicit information about Phil Spector
and other matters.
Bruce Cutler's letter to the court was utter
rubbish and hearsay. He wrote that he destroyed "evidence" so
the three letters I sent with respect to the fact that the DA publicly aligned
himself with Cohen (who then testified about Spector and a gun leading to his
mind-bogglingly deranged three versions of Cohen's good rock 'n roll stories
about Spector before LA Superior Court) [will be a matter before a federal
court]. I will subpoena the Grand Jury transcripts/testimony and do
believe Mick Brown reviewed the Grand Jury transcript and so shall I.
Cutler's law partner spoke to my public defender. That's what I know
about Cutler's law partner. My lawyer phoned Cutler and concluded:
the City Attorney is attempting to sabotage IRS, discredit you, the DA
doesn't want the Spector verdict overturned, and there may be a jury
plant. In any event, this is old news but Gianelli probably wants to call
Cutler and infiltrate possible issues related to any good news with the 9th
Circuit [re. Phil Spector].
I will subpoena information related to "Pat
Dixon" particularly as Gianelli publicly stated that Dixon (who fears
Eminem's lyric to "Puke") was behind the deranged Boulder PD roll by
at Deneuve Construction.
Kelley
35. On November 8, 2015, Gianelli decided to
harass me over the email to the FBI and Department of Justice posted on my
blog. Gianelli defends his criminal
conduct using false accusations, lies, slander, and a fabricated narrative. I have personally advised this individual
countless times to cease and desist.
That would include with respect to the ongoing targeting of my sons and
friends. Paulette Brandt continues to be
harassed by this individual as well.
Gianelli has taken the position that if I copy people on my emails that
gives him the legal right to relentlessly harass, stalk, intimidate, and
threaten them. He specifically names my
sister, sons, ex-husband Douglas Penick, and ex-brother-in-law. Gianelli, who writes constantly about
Spector’s prosecutors (Cooley, Dixon, Jackson) informed me that “There is no
Phil Spector prosecution team” for him to work with because they have all left
government service. Stephen Gianelli’s
obsession with Phil Spector seriously betrays his insane emails about Mr.
Spector, his legal issues, and legal team.
36. Stephen Gianelli has decided to copy Alan
Hootnick, an individual who resides in Chile and believes Phil Spector is
innocent, on his harassing emails to me.
He seems to believe it is completely acceptable to slander, libel, and defame
me to third parties who he believes may be “foolish” enough to believe my
version of events. Gianelli therefore,
although he has never met me and does not know me, falsely informs people that
I am mentally unstable, have substance abuse issues, abused my sons, and stole
from Leonard Cohen. On November 8, 2015,
Gianelli wrote to “discuss” Ron Burkle.
I have no idea who Gianelli is but he writes with a familiarity about my
sons that is chilling. On this particular
date, Gianelli expressed an interest in Ron Burkle, an individual he does not
know but has slandered me to. I
personally know Ron Burkle. However,
Gianelli’s email is more complex than one might think. He is actually writing about my “parody
email” with respect to former DA Steve Cooley.
Gianelli would like to know what Ron Burkle thinks of that email and the
situation with respect to me, Phil Spector, and Leonard Cohen. He therefore uses intentional insults in an
attempt to provoke me and elicit information when he accuses me of “throwing”
myself “at a wealthy divorcing parent of a child at your child’s school that
you barely knew, by sharing intimidate knowledge of gossip about his divorce
while concurrently trying to blackmail Cohen with a threat to go to the tax
authorities.” Of course, I have never
thrown myself at Ron Burkle; the details of his divorce were public knowledge;
I do know Ron Burkle; and I never attempted to “blackmail” Leonard Cohen with
a “threat to go to the tax authorities”
about his lawsuit. I reported the allegations
that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud on April 15, 2005. Cohen retaliated with a lawsuit used to
defend himself in August 2005. This
lawsuit was brought after Cohen and his legal representatives spent months
attempting to force me into an illegal deal that I personally believe involved
falsely accusing Cohen’s representatives of, among other things, defrauding
him. Gianelli’s email also mentions
Bruce Cutler once again. For some
reason, Gianelli and local government actors in Los Angeles believe that by inserting
extraneous information into my situation, the issues will become confused and
obscured. This is precisely what was
done throughout my 2012 trial when the City Attorney of Los Angeles attempted
to cover up Leonard Cohen’s criminal and illicit conduct by falsely accusing me
of intending to “annoy” him for no legitimate reason and lying about nearly every
issue raised including federal and state tax matters. Actually, I did not read Cohen’s lawsuit
until approximately April 2010 but I know what the issues being discussed with
my lawyers were and I understand that the assets Cohen and LCI wrongfully
converted via default judgment belong to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. I also know that I have a legitimate 15%
ownership interest in that entity and the intellectual property it owns. The default judgment is evidence of nothing
other than theft, embezzlement, and extortion.
Gianelli concludes by confirming that Cohen’s lawsuit had “an alleged
tax avoidance purpose.” The lawsuit is
nothing other than an attempt to obstruct justice; cover up criminal tax fraud;
and blame Cohen’s wrongdoing on others.
Leonard Cohen’s operative is also attempting to spin this situation by
arguing that I attempted to “blackmail” Leonard Cohen by going to the authorities. Natural Wealth’s June 2005 lawsuit details
what essentially unfolded between me and Cohen, as well as Cohen and Kory’s
tactics, and the suit raised very serious allegations related to extortion,
bribery, blackmail, witness tampering, and witness intimidation tactics on the
part of Cohen and Kory. Leonard Cohen is
the individual who retaliated against me for going to IRS and other tax
authorities. By the spring of 2005, he
and his lawyer were well aware that I had reported the allegations that he
committed criminal tax fraud to IRS Agent Bill Betzer. I do believe Leonard Cohen would have a
difficult time on the witness stand explaining his offer of 50% community
property. I have that offer, as
discussed with my lawyers and accountant, in writing. My accountant, Dale Burgess, asked me to
contact IRS and U.S. Treasury, after I met with the Treasury agents, to advise
them that he was present for this offer.
Dale Burgess also informed me personally that he believes CID should be
involved in this situation and I should be in the witness protection program
due to the tactics used against me.
Cohen’s former lawyer, Ed Dean, advised me that he felt IRS Commissioner
would or should come in after Cohen and his representatives. He noted that this would depend on whether or
not IRS Commissioner believed there was fraud and not negligence involved. I think a willful failure to declare $8
million in income to IRS is clearly not mere negligence. Extinguishing the promissory note and annuity
obligation was clearly not mere negligence.
Applying for and receiving fraudulent tax refunds was not mere
negligence on Leonard Cohen’s part. He
simply uses one fabricated narrative and lie after another to explain away his
wrongdoing.
37. On November 10, 2015, Gianelli decided to
focus on Leonard Cohen’s three versions of the Spector good rock ‘n roll story
before Los Angeles Superior Court. Those
stories now involve various contradictory components. Depending on what version one believes, Phil
Spector evidently held an automatic, semi-automatic, or crossbow to Cohen’s
head, neck, or chest. There may or may
not have been a bottle of wine involved.
Like most of Cohen’s fabricated narratives, this one continues to
evolve. For instance, Cohen has now
personally testified before LA Superior Court that I never stole from him –
just his “peace of mind” – and we were in a purely business relationship
although he has argued “misappropriation” and obtained a fraudulent domestic
violence order. It’s hard to keep up with
Leonard Cohen’s fabricated narratives.
That would include, but is not limited to, his stories about his role in
CIA’s MKULTRA, his role as reconnaissance during Bay of Pigs (where Cohen was
evidently arrested and interrogated by Castro’s forces who thought he was a
member of the first CIA landing party), and his plan to join the Israeli
military during the Yom Kippur War without any military experience
whatsoever. Stephen Gianelli
gratuitously noted that “everyone who recorded with him has one, apparently.” Everyone who recorded with Phil Spector does
not have a gun story and this is a blatant lie that again betrays Gianelli’s
attempts to obfuscate his true role. Hal
Blaine, who worked with Spector in the studio for 37 years, informed the
detectives he spoke with that he never once saw Phil Spector in the studio with
a gun. I have been in the studio with
Phil Spector (including on the Celine Dion project) and never saw him with a
gun. Paulette Brandt is the individual
who invited Phil Spector to record at the Record Plant which resulted in John
Lennon and Beatles recordings. She has
never, in over 30 years, seen Phil Spector with a gun – in the studio or
elsewhere. And, while Cohen has told the
news media that Phil Spector took the master tapes home under gunpoint,
Paulette has never seen any master tapes – including John Lennon’s – handled by
Spector in this manner. Gianelli wants
to know “who cares” about Leonard Cohen’s gun stories about Phil Spector. I can unequivocally state that Phil Spector cares. He has tolerated these malicious,
self-serving fabricated stories ever since he decided he could no longer
tolerate working with Leonard Cohen. The
first major interview Cohen gave to Rolling Stones following his project with
Spector fails to mention the now infamous and ever-fluctuating good rock ‘n
roll gun story. One party who cared
about Cohen’s good rock ‘n roll gun story about Spector was the District
Attorney. On February 17, 2005, the
prosecution filed a Motion in Limine asking the court to admit evidence of
other crimes. One version of Leonard
Cohen’s good rock ‘n roll gun story about Spector was raised in that
motion. In that version, Spector held a
semi-automatic to Cohen’s chest. During
my trial, Leonard Cohen personally testified that it was an automatic to his
head. In an email Cohen wrote to my
alleged prosecutor, Cohen informed the City Attorney that Spector held a gun to
his neck. Mick Brown, UK Telegraph,
wrote and confirmed that he reviewed the Spector Grand Jury transcripts and
Cohen’s testimony or statements were presented to the Grand Jury. Clearly, this issue was of importance to the
Spector prosecutors. That’s who cares. Cohen’s email to the prosecutor was further
embellished with his comments that “except for the real possibility of an
accident, I never at any moment thought that Phil meant to do me harm.” I believe the DA may not have elected to
prosecute Leonard Cohen, following my complaint to their Major Fraud Unit, due
to a possible quid pro quo that led to this testimony during my 2012
trial. I intend to pursue that
matter. The City Attorney elicited
perjured testimony from Cohen when the prosecutor asked Cohen, during my trial,
to review the email she intended to question him over and confirm that he was a
recipient. Cohen testified that he
was. The prosecutor then used that email
to elicit testimony about Phil Spector and a gun. Cohen was not a recipient on that email which
I sent to Dennis Riordan informing him that Cohen advised me for 20 years that
Spector never held a gun on him and these were good rock ‘n roll stories. The prosecutor, using the excuse that she
“misspoke,” then proceeded to conceal the portions of that email thread to IRS
Commissioner’s Staff and about legitimate federal tax matters. That’s one reason that the requests for tax
information were “hidden” and it appeared to be intentional, knowing, and
willful. I do believe the prosecutor,
who said the DA contacted them about me, could have asked the District Attorney
if they presented Cohen’s statements to the Grand Jury or if he personally
testified. The Grand Jury transcripts
were unsealed and this would have been Brady material.
PD:
Now, I want to talk to you about what you mean by threatened. You
actually -- you were telling us about Phil Spector. You were testifying
about talking to the LAPD. Cohen:
Yes, Sir.
PD: And you talked to the LAPD with your attorney, correct? Cohen: With an attorney present, yes,
Sir. PD: And that’s when you asked
that – or your attorney – someone asked that Ms. Lynch leave? Cohen:
The attorney asked that Ms. Lynch leave.
PD: So when Ms. Lynch left, you
started talking about an interview or story about Phil Spector, correct? Cohen: Correct. PD: And how he would oftentimes have
guns when you were producing an album, correct? He would have guns in the
studio when he was producing an album with you?
Cohen: That’s correct. PD:
And, in fact, one time you told the detective that, quote – Well, before
I go there, was Mr. Spector -- was he drunk at the time when he had these
guns? Cohen: I don’t remember,
Sir. PD: Was he hostile at the
time? Cohen: Not to me. PD:
Okay. But he actually put a gun to
your head? Is that correct?
Cohen: That’s correct. PD: It was a revolver? Cohen: No, it wasn’t a revolver.
It was an automatic. PD: But
you weren’t actually -- you didn’t feel threatened when he put a gun to your
head? Cohen: No, Sir. RT
308-309
Excerpt of Prosecutor Sandra Jo
Streeter Email to Leonard Cohen
April 5, 2012 at 2:20 PM
7. Did you know Phil Spector? If so, how? Did you testify in
front of the grand jury?
Phil Spector produced a record of songs we wrote together in 1977. I have
not seen or spoken to him since. I did not testify before a grand jury.
Leonard Cohen Email to Sandra Jo
Streeter
April 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Dear Ms. Streeter,
This is a short note I prepared for a biographer last year. I know you’ve
been burdened with an enormous heap of material, but this rounds off the
question you asked about Phil Spector.
Sincerely
L
PHIL SPECTOR
Shortly after t death of Lana Clarkson, I was visited in my home by two
detectives from the Homicide Bureau of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department,
Detective Paul Fornier, and Detective Richard Tomlin.
Kelley Lynch thought it would be a good idea to have a lawyer present, so she
arranged for attorney Steven M. Cron to be there for the interview. Mr.
Cron asked Kelley Lynch to excuse herself, and she left the room.
Apparently the detectives had come across some old interviews I did in 1978 or
1979 in which I spoke of the difficulties of recording Death Of A Lady’s Man
with Phil Spector: the brandishing of guns, armed bodyguards,
drunkenness, and Phil’s famous megalomania. Even though Phil put his arm
around my shoulder and pressed an automatic into my neck, except for the real
possibility of an accident, I never at any moment thought that Phil meant to do
me harm. In ever felt seriously threatened. I conveyed this to the
detectives. I said the incident was repeated in the press over the years,
with exaggerations, but it was basically just a good rock ‘n roll story.
Then they asked me when I had last seen Phil Spector. I said it’s been over 20 years. They
were very surprised. They said they were under the impression we were
close friends. I said no. Hearing this they thanked me for my time,
finished their coffees, and left. It was clear that I was not to be
considered a valuable witness.
I was never approached again by anyone concerned with the case. Needless
to say, I did not testify before a Grand Jury.
From: Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:18
AM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch Trial -
Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Kelley,
I have looked for the documents I
was sent in connection with the Grand Jury and been unable to find them. They
were sent to me by my friend the journalist and author Carlton Smith, who
unfortunately has since passed away. However, I'm sure you would be able to
access them from the same source as Carlton did. My understanding is they
were/are on the public record.
I do not recall ever saying to
you that Cohen himself had testified. If I did, it was my mistake. My
recollection is that the statement from Leonard Cohen was the same statement
that had already appeared in media interviews, pertaining to the incident in
the studio during the recording of 'Death Of A Ladies Man'. My recollection is
that it was on a single sheet of paper. I have no idea whether Leonard Cohen
personally made this statement to the DA, or whether - and I suspect this is
the case - that quote had simply been taken from previously published
interviews
There was no mention of any
statement attributed to Cohen in either of the two subsequent trials.
Mick
38. Stephen Gianelli falsely accuses me of
attempting to “lay Phil Spector’s indictment on murder charges and subsequent
conviction … at Cohen’s feet” although “Cohen had absolutely nothing to do with
either the indictment or the conviction for second degree murder.” This is blatantly false. If Cohen’s statements were presented to the
Grand Jury, or he personally testified, then Cohen would have been part of the
indictment. Furthermore, Leonard Cohen’s
good rock n’ roll gun stories about Phil Spector have appeared in nearly every
article ever published about Phil Spector and Cohen himself. He has used these stories to advance his
career, address what Cohen felt was a grotesque recording, explain away the
fact that Spector refused to mix the album, and tantalize journalists who
relentlessly inquired about “what it was like to work with Phil Spector” –
infuriating Cohen who cannot tolerate being in the shadow of anyone. I personally believe Leonard Cohen’s stories
have gone a long way to destroying Phil Spector’s reputation. As I have not seen the Grand Jury transcripts,
I am not in a position to address whether or not Cohen’s statements or
testimony were in fact presented. Gianelli,
however, has more to say on this topic.
He explains that the “prosecution theory was that Spector has a habit and
history of pulling guns on women who refuse his advances. Alleged instances wherein Spector pulled a
gun on males tend to rebut the prosecution’s theory of the case, not enhance
it.” These statements do not explain why
the Spector prosecutors would therefore include Leonard Cohen’s gun story in a
motion in limine as a prior bad act but this is clearly a blatant attempt to
explain away Leonard Cohen’s gun stories and diminish their materiality. Evidently, and the DA’s investigator was
present throughout my 2012 trial, the Phil Spector matter was exceedingly
important to Leonard Cohen, City Attorney, and District Attorney of Los
Angeles. That is why it was featured in
my trial. Gianelli apparently does
believe that Cohen’s “gun story” about Phil Spector is a “central, pivotal
fact” and there may very well have been a “quid pro quo” which included my
prosecution for violating a fraudulent domestic violence order and intending to
annoy Leonard Cohen over his own conduct (although not for “embezzlement” as
the evidence does not support that charge but proves that Leonard Cohen has
embezzled and stolen corporate assets, stole from me personally, withheld
commissions due me, and committed tax fraud).
Apparently Leonard Cohen sought a prosecution for embezzlement although
I have no further details about that issue.
A quid pro quo for what? asks my stalker. It is my personal belief that
Cohen was on the stand testifying about Phil Spector and a gun while Deputy DA
Alan Jackson and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich ran for the office of District
Attorney. This testimony also followed
David Mamet’s extremely public statements that he personally believed, having
looked at the actual forensic evidence rather than the salacious narrative,
that Phil Spector was railroaded and planned to release a film starring Al
Pacino and Helen Mirren. The forensic
evidence in the Phil Spector case actually proves that he is innocent but was
convicted based on a fabricated narrative.
It actually calls into question why charges were ever brought against
Mr. Spector. Phil Spector actually
appeared on the Los Angeles voter ballot as a credential for Spector prosecutor
Alan Jackson who was also repeatedly raised, with former DA Steve Cooley, as an
issue through my trial.
39. On November 10, 2015, Gianelli decided to
harass me over a blog posted email to Alan Hootnick dated November 10, 2015 at
8:45 AM. Gianelli has concluded that he
is entitled to criminally harass me because the City Attorney falsely arrested
and imprisoned me on two occasions. He
then inserts extraneous and slanderous material into his email. I did not violate probation through email
harassment of my so-called prosecutor, Sandra Jo Streeter. In November 2012, Gianelli began emailing
this woman and falsely accused me of many things. He would copy in my sons, sister, and
friends. I therefore elected to confront
and defend myself while registering grievances with the City Attorney. Sandra Jo Streeter evidently found these
emails helpful and ultimately used them to retaliate against me. However, this email is really another
opportunity for Gianelli to write about Phil Spector. Gianelli is defending the City Attorney’s
decision to elicit testimony about Phil Spector and a gun during my trial. This was done by eliciting perjured
testimony. The prosecutor asked Leonard
Cohen to review my April 18, 2011 email and confirm that he was a
recipient. He confirmed that he was. She then proceeded to question Cohen about
Phil Spector and guns. Of course, as it
turned out, Leonard Cohen was not a recipient on this email and the prosecutor
concealed the portion of that email thread addressed to the IRS Commissioner’s
Staff and with respect to extremely legitimate tax matters. According to Gianelli, the only reason the
City Attorney elicited this testimony was due to the fact that in my emails
(including the April 18, 2011 email evidently) I “accused Leonard Cohen of
being responsible for Spector’s indictment and subsequent conviction for murder
charges” and were not “introduced for the truth of the matter.” I have never written that Leonard Cohen was
responsible for Spector’s indictment and subsequent conviction for murder
charges so this is clearly not the reason that Cohen’s gun stories were
introduced into my trial. The gun
incident was most definitely an issue in my criminal trial. Gianelli then explains that “the only issues
were did you send emails to Cohen in violation of restraining order that were
on a subject other than ‘tax information.’”
I find it beyond bizarre that California’s definition of “legitimate”
communications is limited to federal tax matters. What appears to be legitimate in California
is the prosecutor, Cohen, and his paid lawyer witnesses lying about federal tax
matters during my trial. Cohen’s own
conduct was being concealed and obfuscated, explained away, during my
trial. That might explain Streeter’s
question to me about whether or not Cohen exposing himself to me was meant to
annoy him. I didn’t accuse Cohen of
lying about the Spector gun incident.
Leonard Cohen personally advised me for approximately 20 years that his
gun stories about Phil Spector were nothing other than good rock ‘n roll gun
stories. However, it is very clear to me
that I was prosecuted for conveying this information to Dennis Riordan, IRS,
FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others. The jury
advised my lawyer during debriefing that they wanted to hear from IRS so
clearly the defining issue for the jurors related to the federal and state tax
matters the City Attorney lied about. One
juror relied on the prosecutor’s lies about assets belonging to a corporate
entity – not Leonard Cohen. Gianelli’s
email goes onto argue that “the truth of Leonard Cohen’s Phil Spector gun story
is completely irrelevant to” my guilt or innocence at the 2012 trial. I personally believe that Leonard Cohen’s
perjured testimony on a number of topics, including misappropriation and the
“dating” relationship is highly material and relevant. On March 23, 2012 Cohen personally testified
that I never stole from him and we were in a purely business relationship. Apparently LA Superior Court feels it is
appropriate for an individual to change his testimony, contradict himself, from
one courtroom to the next. I violated
no restraining order. The Boulder Combined
Court informed me, and others, since approximately January 2010 that the
permanent order, issued without findings, expired on February 15, 2009. I was unaware of the fraudulently registered
domestic violence order registered with Los Angeles Superior Court on May 25,
2011. Gianelli believes it is too late
to claim that I never embezzled from Cohen and that the August 2005 Complaint
is based on a false narrative. I
disagree and will address Cohen’s use of the Complaint to file his tax returns,
obtain fraudulent tax refunds, and defend himself with IRS against the
allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud in my RICO suits. I was not served this lawsuit and Los Angeles
Superior Court’s guesswork on the topic will never change that fact. I have waived no argument or defense. Like it or not, Gianelli has informed me that
as long as I choose to speak publicly about these issues he will continue with
his criminal conduct towards me and others.
His job evidently includes setting the record straight for Leonard Cohen
and local government actors in Los Angeles.
34. On November 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote
about my “penchant” for sending emails using the epithet “faggot.” I do not have a “penchant” for sending emails
using any epithet including the word “faggot.”
I have recently publicly addressed a declaration I am preparing for the
California Franchise Tax Board’s Fraud Unit.
I have informed FTB’s fraud unit that Leonard Cohen obtained fraudulent
tax refunds using the fabricated narrative in his Complaint. At this time, FTB continues to request that I
file my 2004 and 2005 tax returns.
However, Leonard Cohen steadfastly refuses to provide me with IRS
required tax and corporation information for the years 2004 and 2005. I have no other information available that
would permit me to file these returns.
ETC – LEDGER. Therefore, I have
decided to provide FTB’s Fraud Unit with a declaration explaining that I do not
owe taxes for these periods and they should have the burden of proving
otherwise. FTB has now wrongfully seized
property (cash) the State of California was refunding me based on interest
payments I made in 2004 and 2005.
Interest payments, as FTB itself has confirmed, are not evidence of
income. Stephen Gianelli has repeatedly
attempted to discuss my personal tax information, and other matters, with
representatives of IRS, FTB, and State of Kentucky. This is illegal conduct and I have not
authorized IRS, FTB, or representatives of the State of Kentucky to speak to a
third party stranger (engaged in criminal conduct) about any tax or business
matter that involves me in any way whatsoever.
Gianelli is interested in the fact that Doug Davis, Franchise Tax Board,
has been copied on my emails. However,
what I personally have to say to Doug Davis and/or FTB is not Gianelli’s
business. Gianelli has previously
requested that an individual by the name of Ray Lawrence falsely advise Doug
Davis that I failed to pay taxes. This
is blatantly false and illegal conduct.
I have referred to individuals, including former DA Steve Cooley, as “faggots.” I have also publicly stated that this was
inappropriate, as I did not mean to insult the LGBT community, and it would
have been more accurate if I referred to them as “dangerous clowns” because
that is precisely what I believe they are.
41. By November 14, 2015, Gianelli has moved
onto my Tax Court Petition. His email
cc’d his blind distribution list which is used to slander, defame, libel, and
falsely accuse me of many things. He is
setting the record straight for certain local Los Angeles government actors and
Leonard Cohen. Gianelli informed me that
“Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction
only as expressly provided by statute.”
Gianelli clearly wants me to understand that the “Tax Court’s
jurisdiction is defined and limited by Title 26 and it may not use general
equitable powers to expand it jurisdictional grant beyond this limited
Congressional authorization.” Gianelli
informed me that Tax Court is a “court of limited jurisdiction and lacks
general equitable powers.” One role
Gianelli plays is to mislead me with his legal arguments. Tax Court has the authority to address fraud
upon the court. QUOTE. Gianelli’s email explains that the burden is
on me to show that Tax Court has jurisdiction over my July 2015 petition by
citing the title and section number of a statute enacted by the United States
Congress providing for jurisdiction in cases like yours. My Petition provided this Court with enough
facts, and evidence, to permit me to request Tax Court to grant me leave to
file a motion for fraud upon the court specifically related to the matters
raised in the Petition. I am aware that
Tax Court’s jurisdiction is predicated upon the issuance of a deficiency or
notice of determination which has been referred to as the taxpayer’s “ticket to
the Tax Court.” I am also aware of the
fact that Leonard Cohen and his representatives failed to inform IRS Chief
Trial Counsel’s Office and Tax Court that the $1 million prepayment against the
2001 Traditional Holdings/Sony deal was not income to Leonard Cohen. I am also aware of the fact that Leonard
Cohen and his representatives concealed the fact that Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc. owned the assets which Traditional Holdings, LLC sold to Sony in
2001. It is my personal opinion that as
of 2002, when Sony issued the inadvertent 1099 to Cohen and IRS inquired about
the matter, that the cover up which is currently playing out began. The IRS did move to dismiss my Petition. The Court then inquired about any potential
whistle blower claim I may have filed with IRS.
IRS and I have both confirmed that no whistle blower claim with respect
to me and these issues has ever been filed.
Gianelli is very clear in this email that my Petition does not “even try
to meet” my “burden to provide the tax court with a statutory basis for
jurisdiction, by citing the title and section number of any jurisdictional
statute OR by setting forth facts giving rise to statutory jurisdiction.” Gianelli clearly had to read and review my
Petition in order to make that assessment and to conclude that I instead ramble
on about “the tax court’s (alleged) general, inherent, equitable power to set
aside a prior decision when procured by fraud in a matter over which it ALREADY
has jurisdiction (e.g., Cohen’s 2001 tax court matter) BUT YOU DO NOT say what
statutory jurisdiction exists to ENTERTAIN YOUR JULY, 2015 PETITION seeking to
address that alleged “fraud” (sa in title and section number of a federal
statute specifically authorizing jurisdiction).” I have asked this Court to permit me to file
a motion addressing fraud upon the court.
Adoption
of Fraud Upon the Court as an Exception to Section 7481
A threshold
question is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to vitiate its former
decision long after it has become final under the terms of section 7481 of the
Code. Ordinarily, the granting or denial of a motion under Rule 19( f) is a discretionary matter,
cf. Commissioner v. Meldrum
Fewsmith, Inc., 230 F.2d 283 (C.A. 6, 1956), affirming 20 T.C. 790; but under the circumstances here
present the exercise of that discretion may depend on other issues. There
appears to be some conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this point. In Kenner v.Commissioner, 387
F.2d 689 (1968),
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Tax Court does have
the power to inquire into the integrity of its own decision even when such
decision has become final but only in the extreme situation where such decision
was produced by "fraud upon the court." But see Jefferson Loan Co. v. Commissioner, 249 F.2d 364 (C.A. 8, 1957), which holds that the Tax
Court has no equitable jurisdiction to set aside a decision after it has become
final even where fraud has been demonstrated. It should be pointed out,
however, that no "fraud on the court," as we understand the meaning
of the phrase and as explained later in our opinion, was involved in the Jefferson Loan Co. case. There,
the petitioner-corporation's president and accountant had falsified income in
order to conceal losses and financial weaknesses of the corporate taxpayer and
the petitioner's income tax liability and personal holding company tax
liability determined in the Tax Court decision (under written stipulation) were
based on these false income figures.
In the
light of this uncertainty it seems prudent to at least examine the substantive
question involved in the motion to vacate before we decide whether to grant the
motion for special leave to file out of time. *297297 In doing so we must first understand the
limitations of the phrase "fraud on the court." Some guidelines are
at hand.
The court
in the Kenner case carefully defined "fraud on
the court" as embracing "only that species of fraud which does, or
attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of
the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its
impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication."
The court cites 7 Moore's, Federal Practice, sec. 60.33, p. 512 (2d ed.), for this
definition. To this definition, the text in Moore's adds the following
qualification: "Fraud inter
partes, without more, should
not be a fraud upon the Court * * *."
An
illustration of the type or degree of fraud contemplated by the phrase
"fraud on the court" appears in Hazel-Atlas
Glass Co. v. Hartford
Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). In that case Hartford had
defrauded the Patent Office by helping along its application for a patent through
the use of an article written and caused to be published by certain of its
attorneys and officials under the name of an ostensibly disinterested expert.
Later, in a patent infringement action against Hazel-Atlas, Hartford defrauded
the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit through the use of this spurious
article and obtained a favorable judgment. In 1941 Hazel-Atlas commenced an
action in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to set aside the judgment
entered against it in 1932 on the ground that such judgment had been obtained
by fraud. The Supreme Court held that the earlier judgment against Hazel-Atlas
had been fraudulently obtained and should be set aside, stating in part as
follows:
This is not
simply a case of a judgment obtained with the aid of a witness who, on the
basis of after-discovered evidence, is believed possibly to have been guilty of
perjury. Here * * * we find a deliberately planned and carefully executed
scheme to defraud not only the Patent Office but the Circuit Court of Appeals.2 *298
Gianelli,
who is not a judicial officer with Tax Court, has concluded that my Petition
has not met the “burden to show a stator basis for tax court jurisdiction” and
therefore “tax court has no choice but to grant the motion to dismiss.” Gianelli would like to know “Is any of this
sinking in?” or will I spend the rest of my life “ignoring the procedural rules
that govern your access to relief in court?”
42. On November 19, 2015, Gianelli wrote me
an email addressing the illegal tampering with the blog I created for this Tax
Court case. I used that blog to present
evidence to this Court. I personally
believe that Stephen Gianelli, who clearly read my Petition to Tax Court, is
the individual who illegally accessed my blog; tampered with and deleted the
evidence I uploaded for this Court; inserted a photograph he previously sent
me; and wrote the defamatory comments that he has relentlessly emailed me and
others. I also believe Stephen Gianelli
is the individual who used my email address to illegally open a Gravatar.com
account with which to upload some of the information used to deface and alter
the Word Press blog. Stephen Gianelli’s
email is his defense which essentially argues that he was unaware of this blog;
the blog was not publicly indexed; he wouldn’t know how to hack into someone’s
blog; and my allegations are devoid of the important ingredient of proof.” Gianelli then relies on a third party’s
statements about Leonard Cohen’s own position that he participated in CIA’s
MKULTRA program which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Tax Court Petition
or the blog I used to submit evidence to this court. Gianelli relies on slander
and defamatory extraneous material to argue his causes and defend himself. He then falsely accuses me of deleting the
blog myself in aid of more “self-manufactured drama.” The blog, however, was not deleted. A third party attempt to change the password
and delete the blog were made. As with
Gianelli’s legal argument that he is immune from prosecution, due to the fact
that he resides in Greece, he believes that the lack of proof that he engaged
in criminal conduct with respect to this blog is sufficient. I personally believe that there is
overwhelming circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to
conclude that Gianelli had both the motive and ability to tamper with my
blog. The login information was clearly
part of my Petition which stated that the blog was specifically created for Tax
Court. The Petition did not authorize
anyone, other than the parties involved in this case, to access that blog:
Petition
and Motion addressing fraud upon the court with respect to the April 1, 2003
stipulated
decision.
I have uploaded evidence to that site which can be accessed using the following
login
information:
odzerchenma (must be lower case); password: tsimar2012. The evidence referred
to
below is
on this private blog. The most relevant fraud upon the court relates to the
following three
facts: 1)
Traditional Holdings, LLC entered into an agreement with Sony and that deal
closed on or
around
April 18, 2001; 2) Leonard Cohen personally received the $1 million prepayment
and failed
to transfer
that amount to Traditional Holdings, LLC (or account to Blue Mist Touring
Company,
Inc.);
and, 3) the prepayment was a non-refundable payment against the $8 million
price Sony agreed
See also
Exhibits A and B attached hereto and made a part hereof.”
43. On November 19, 2015, Gianelli continued
with his argument that he did not access and delete the evidence on my Word
Press blog. He copied FBI, DOJ, and Alan
Hootnick on his email that advised me that the photograph inserted onto the
blog was a “photograph” available from “several places on the internet if one
does an image search for crazy conspiracy lady.” This is the precise image that Gianelli has
routinely and continuously sent me and his argument is neither plausible nor
credible. The individual attempted to
change the password to include my name and the numbers “5150.” Gianelli routinely and continuously accuses
me of being a “5150” case and wrote that an FBI agent in Oakland, California
concluded that this defamatory description – “cop talk for crazy” - fits
me. Gianelli, who finds his own conduct
amusing, sarcastically suggested that perhaps the “MKULTRA/CIA/Leonard Cohen
conspiracy did it.” I believe absolutely
nothing Stephen Gianelli, who appears to be nothing other than a common
criminal has to say.
44. On November 20, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote to inform me that his “point” is and was simply this: “Your posted blog comment indicated your
agreement with the theory that Leonard Cohen is in a conspiracy with the CIA as
a graduate of MKLUTRA program to manipulate (“socially engineer”) society through Cohen’s published and
performed song lyrics.” I have indicated
no such thing. Leonard Cohen personally
informed me, and others, that he participated in CIA’s MKULTRA Program. He has also insinuated that he was the first
member of CIA’s landing party during the Bay of Pigs. Leonard Cohen personally has informed the
news media for years that he was arrested by Castro’s forces, interrogated, and
released just prior to the Bay of Pigs.
Leonard Cohen has a pattern and practice of fabricating tales and
narratives. He is a fabulist who would
like the world to view him as a daring revolutionary. In fact, he has gone so far as to advise the
news media that he planned to join the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur
War although Leonard Cohen has no military training whatsoever. These stories have gone largely unchallenged
throughout the years but are extremely material and relevant. I cannot even imagine what CIA would be
attempting to manipulate or engineer by promoting Leonard Cohen’s “published
and performed song lyrics.” The mere notion
sounds positively insane. Gianelli then
takes the position that my “comment offered up additional alleged corroboration
for the premise that Cohen’s entire career has been in secret service of the
CIA and his goal has been not to entertain but to manipulate an unsuspecting
public through mind control techniques cleverly hidden in his lyrics.” I have seen no evidence that would indicate
that Cohen was ever in “secret service of the CIA.” I have heard Cohen’s statements that he
studied hypnotism and once used his powers to hypnotize the family
maid
into removing her clothes for him.
Leonard Cohen has in fact manipulated the public into believing that he
is an enlightened religious sage, possible CIA operative, and revolutionary
when in fact he is a thoroughly ordinary individual consumed with revenge
fantasies and greed. This is not
particularly well hidden in his lyrics.
A cursory review of the lyric to “My Secret Life” will reveal that
Leonard Cohen understands his nature all too well when he confirms that he
cheats, lies, and will do whatever it takes to get by. Truer words have rarely been spoken. I did not participate in Ann Diamond’s
interviews with either Truth Sentinel or Rigorous Intuition and my comment
confirming that I was mentioned on Rigorous Intuition does not “sing a
different tune” with respect to that fact.
45. On November 21, 2015, Tax Court was still
on Gianelli’s mind when he wrote “One more thing before awaiting the dismissal
of your tax case (which should be any day).
Before the federal court even gets what you frame as the central
question in your threatened RICO suit (the effect of alleged perjury in prior
state court proceedings against you) you are going to have to run a gauntlet of
threshold issues, including whether you have properly pleaded a claim for which
relief may be granted, whether your complaint is timely, whether the conduct
you complain of is privileged, and the res judicata effect of Leonard Cohen’s
2006 $14 million judgment for damages and declaratory relief on your
claims.” I have never stated publicly
that my RICO suit will frame the central question of the effect of the alleged
perjury in prior state court proceedings against me. Therefore, Gianelli has simply made this up
in an attempt to elicit information about my planned RICO suits.
46. On November 23, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
inform me that I “once again fail to understand the proper jurisdiction of the
tax court.” I believe I do understand
the proper jurisdiction of Tax Court. I
also believe that Gianelli is intentionally attempting to mislead me legally
and dissuade me from pursuing appropriate legal remedies with respect to the
ongoing situation between me and Leonard Cohen.
Gianelli also informed me that “Tax Court is not a law enforcement organization”
and “does not refer third parties for criminal investigation pertaining to the
alleged hacking of weblogs maintained by private persons.” This blog was specifically created for Tax
Court, used to submit evidence to Tax Court, and made a part of my
Petition. Gianelli is actually
responding to my statements that I planned to ask this Court to refer this
matter to federal law enforcement for investigation. Gianelli does note that I should personally
ask the FBI to investigate it so he seems to believe that the appropriate
federal agency who would investigate criminal evidence tampering and computer
crimes, related to a tax controversy and Tax Court case, would be FBI. FBI has not informed me that they declined to
investigate the matter.
47. On November 23, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote and inquired: “You do know that
Alan Hootnick is ex-CIA, don’t you?” I
am aware that Alan Hootnick has an intelligence background and is familiar with
MKULTRA. I have no idea if Alan Hootnick
is ex-CIA. He has never personally
informed me of such.
48. On November 25, 2015, Gianelli forwarded
me an email he received from Alan Hootnick with his own comment “And that is
the wacky conspiracy claim.” Alan
Hootnick wrote Gianelli that he made a good point when he wrote that “Cohen
never said his music was being used by MKLUTRA.” I have never heard Cohen personally claim
that CIA was using his music to engage in social engineering and continue to
find that notion positively farcical.
49. On November 26, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
inform me that I may or may not have a constitutional right to use
“profanity.” Gianelli was referring to
an email I sent him, after being relentlessly harassed for over six straight
years, advising him to “fuck off.” I
personally do not believe the word was used in any type of profane manner and
was and remains an appropriate use of an intentionally harsh word.
50. On November 9, 2015, Gianelli responded
to an email I posted on my blog requesting an interview with Spector prosecutor
Truc Do. I am writing a book about this
situation and felt Ms. Do might clarify which version of Leonard Cohen’s good
rock ‘n roll gun story the government actually believes since the version
Spector prosecutors used was contradicted by Cohen’s testimony during my 2012
trial. I do think this question begs an
answer. I never harassed anyone at the
Los Angeles County District Attorney Major Crimes Unit from 2007 through the
present. Gianelli is evidently impressed
that Truc Do has landed a job with one of the most prestigious law firms in the
world. I’m not. I find it mind boggling.
51. On November 11, 2015, Gianelli informed
me that I “still don’t get it. Everyone
on the cc list of this email to which I now reply by bcc concluded that you are
utterly without credibility years ago.”
My credibility is a very serious issue, in terms of undermining it, for
Leonard Cohen, his representatives, the City Attorney of Los Angeles, and
Stephen Gianelli.
52. On November 10, 2015, after receiving
forwarded emails from Alan Hootnick, I responded to Gianelli’s absolutely
insane communications with an alleged email correspondent by the name of
“Nestor Hobson.” The name is clearly a
fake monitor and Gianelli has been known to create monikers such as the 14th
Sheepdog which he has used to slander and harass me with. Nestor Hobson is an individual used to
slander me.
53. On November 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote that
despite all appearances, I am convinced that he is “Nestor Hobson.” I am also convinced that there is a very real
probability that Gianelli is Mongochili, Kelly Green, and the 17th
Shitzu who wrote and transmitted the “bloody stump” email to me. Once again, Gianelli – who apparently uses
TOR – informed me that I will never be able to prove that.
54. On November 12, 2015, Gianelli informed
me that when I “file a request to proceed in forma pauperis in the Central
District of California the magistrate reviews” the complaint for sufficiency
and failure to set forth a plausible claim is grounds for denial of a request
for fee waiver under the FRCP.” I’m not
certain I understand what one’s financial situation has to do with the
plausibility of a claim. I also do not
understand why Gianelli believes he has the right to harass me over this issue
or due to the fact that I do not have the financial ability to hire an attorney
at this time. Gianelli attached the
following case to this particular email:
Jessie
Braham v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing (Central District of California Case No.
2:15-cv-8422-MWF (GJSx)
Order re.
Request to Proceed in Former Pauperis
HOLDS PRO
SE LITIGANTS, WHO APPLY IN FORMA PAUPERIS, TO HIGHER STANDARDS OF REVIEW THAN
ATTORNEYS – BASED ON THEIR FINANCIAL RESOURCES
55. On November 15, 2015, Gianelli informed
me that the “only money referenced in Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit is the proceeds
from the sale to Sony Music of Leonard Cohen’s music catalogue. You were paid your 15% commission on the
deal, so there is no doubt it was Cohen’s money involved.” This is actually the only money referenced in
Cohen’s Complaint which means that the monies Cohen owes me have not actually
been litigated. Gianelli disingenuously
states that he now understands I claim “that Cohen withdrew the funds” I
removed from “Traditional Holdings, LLC using Cohen’s POA.” Leonard Cohen’s loans from this entity,
including his personal transaction fees, are Leonard Cohen’s loans which he
understood needed to be repaid within three years with interest. He has evidently embezzled these monies and
therefore these monies are nothing other than disguised income. The reason I did not make this argument in
2005 is due to the fact that Cohen failed to serve me the summons and
complaint. This has not been established
as a matter of law as the Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over me. I can assure this Court that I did not “spend
the money” that Cohen used to purchase
homes for his girlfriend and son; pay his personal taxes with; settle his personal
litigation matters with; or any other monies he personally spent or caused to
be expended. Leonard Cohen is not an
extension of this entity or me.
56. On November 15, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
inform me that “Paulette will never see the money” I promised her. I have never promised Paulette any money
apart from promising to pay her rent for the time I have resided with her. Stephen Gianelli has also spent an inordinate
time slandering and disparaging Paulette Brandt. He went so far as to serve as legal counsel
for her former roommate and assisted that individual in defrauding Ms. Brandt
of approximately $6,700 in rental arrears after the individual contacted
Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory.
57. On November 15, 2015, Gianelli wrote that
he has never been arrested, accused of a crime, or convicted of a crime. Gianelli has most definitely been accused of
committing criminal activity and that would include by the individuals who have
reported his conduct to law enforcement or government agencies throughout this
country. Leonard Cohen owes me millions
of dollars and it is my personal opinion that he should pay me what he
owes. I haven’t spent a decade scamming
rent, money, and/or booze. Gianelli,
like Cohen, is a chronic liar and misogynist. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers
have also attempted to discredit Paulette Brandt.
58. On November 16, 2015 Gianelli decided to
harass me over a Proposed Order I submitted to Los Angeles Superior Court with
respect to the Court’s denial of Leonard Cohen’s entirely retaliatory Sanctions
Motion. Gianelli believes the situation
with respect to the Proposed Order was transformed into a mini-soap opera and
believes his language would have been more appropriate. Gianelli felt he had to weigh in on the
language of the Proposed Order because “someone has to say it in response to”
my “self-deluded views publicly expressed in the court of public opinion
through the referenced internet posting.”
This is clearly not a viable defense for the ongoing harassment,
stalking, and other criminal conduct this man is engaged in with respect to me
and others.
59. On November 18, 2015, Gianelli wrote
regarding my “blog post of 11/18.” This
email informed me that “IRS has over 9,000 employees, most of them working in
its headquarters in Washington DC and a huge, crushing workload.” Gianelli used this email to advise me that
the IRS could care less about my blog posts and that individuals from IRS were
simply on my blog and had determined that the issues were irrelevant or of no
interest to IRS.
60. On November 20, 2015, Gianelli wrote with
respect to the illegal tampering with my Tax Petition evidence blog. He believes we “previously discussed” that
“your tax court was not preceded by a notice of determination by the IRS that
was transmitted to you at any time, let alone within 90 days of the filing of
your petition. For that reason the IRS,
Office of the Chief Counsel has moved to dismiss your tax court petition for
lack of jurisdiction. You had filed an
objection to the motion to dismiss, which awaits decision.” I think this is self-evident and do not need
to be reminded of what has occurred by this stalker. Gianelli concluded that “Since the tax court
lacks jurisdiction over your petition (which relates to alleged events taking
place from 1999 through 2003), the court is not going to allow you to engage in
third party discovery (let alone about alleged “harassment” you have suffered by
third parties in 2015” and therefore “there will be no subpoena issued.” Gianelli is engaged in blatant witness
tampering, witness intimidation, and may have engaged in computer crimes and
destruction of evidence. It is my
personal opinion that the Court itself should refer this matter to federal law
enforcement for an investigation and potential prosecution. In a separate email dated November 20, 2015,
Gianelli goes into further details about a federal subpoena in connection with
the tax court matter.
Ms. Lynch, The “equation” as you
put it is simpler than you think. Tax court petition + no notice of
determination from the IRS = no jurisdiction. This is not a judgment call by
the tax court. That is the law. You seem to be under the impression that if you
can create a compelling enough argument that Leonard Cohen mislead the IRS in
2003 when it entered into a stipulated disposition concerning Cohen’s tax court
contest of the letter he received from the IRS concerning a spurious 1099 from
Sony 16 years ago that the tax court will overlook the limits on its
jurisdiction to act imposed by Congress. However, any consideration by the tax
court of your petition without a statutory basis for jurisdiction over your
matter would be a legal nullity. Your tax court petition will be dismissed
because the court has no choice but to do so. One does not even need to get
into the bigger picture – the absurdity of your thinking that you can waltz
into tax court in 2015 and ask it to set aside a settlement agreement entered
in 2003 that you were not even a party to. Very truly yours, Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.) Crete, Greece
61. On November 21, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
inform me that “In 30 days, 90 days, a year from now, and a decade from now
there will be NOTHING you receive from the tax court except an order DISMISSING
your case (which will be issued shortly).
62. On November 22, 2015 Gianelli wrote with
respect to “The fantasy that Lynch will ever publish a book.” This letter related to what is ostensibly
Leonard Cohen’s legal position that because he has a large judgment against me,
the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department could serve a request for
garnishment with respect to any possible book I write. This would also permit the Sheriff’s
Department, as was apparently done with OJ Simpson, to seize the book rights
and manuscript. This email was written
in response to my request submitted to CIA with respect to an email regarding
Leonard Cohen’s claims that he participated in MKULTRA and was reconnaissance
during the Bay of Pigs incident. I do
believe that Leonard Cohen renewed the judgment, in part, to threaten me over
any potential book I write. I have in
fact been offered at least one publishing deal.
Gianelli is also using this email in an attempt to elicit information
about any potential publishing deal I have been offered.
63. On November 23, 2015, Gianelli copied me
on an email to Ann Diamond regarding her “declaration provided to Kelley Lynch
repeating an allegation about Lorca Cohen.”
The email accuses Ann Diamond of libel with respect to this
situation. Ann Diamond has truthfully
recounted what unfolded around Lorca Cohen’s public statements that her father
molested her. Gianelli has now decided
that the “litigation privilege” does not apply to libel which would mean that
every single false statement Cohen and his lawyers uttered with respect to all
matters before all California courts are not covered by the “litigation
privilege” since they are all entirely false and evidence of fraud and
perjury. The only “logical connection”
these statements have with respect to me is Leonard Cohen’s attempt to blame
his wrongdoing, and issues related to tax fraud, on me through a fabricated
complaint narrative. Leonard Cohen,
including through his proxy lawyer, likes to threaten women who he understands
are not in a position to hire lawyers to stop him in his tracks.
64. On November 24, 2015, Gianelli responded
to my statement that I have informed IRS, FBI, and DOJ that Gianelli personally
belongs in prison. Gianelli, who is
endlessly amused by his own psychotic conduct, decided to use this statement as
a further moment to harass me. It is
quite clear that this individual is a professional criminal who has no sense of
boundary and could care less that his conduct is blatantly criminal.
65. On November 23, 2015, Gianelli was back
to the topic of Phil Spector and wrote that he wants the conviction reversed,
not because he is innocent, but because Gianelli is convinced Phil Spector did
not get a fair trial. Gianelli
understands that Phil Spector is in poor health and it could take 2-3 years for
the 9th Circuit appeal process and even longer should the matter
ultimately be pursued to the U.S. Supreme Court which I imagine it will. Gianelli wrote that it is a real possibility
that Mr. Spector is going to die before the appellate process has run its
course. This is merely a vicious attempt
on this man’s part to elicit information about the actual state of Mr.
Spector’s health. Stephen Gianelli has
evidently consulted with Phil Spector’s adopted sons about their father’s
estate. As the saying goes, “Where
there’s a Will, there’s a relative.” In
this case, it’s rather disturbing given the fact that all three of Mr.
Spector’s adopted sons have conducted themselves abominably and, regardless of
the forensic evidence, have openly acknowledged that they personally believe
their father is guilty. As adult men,
they continue to blame their father for their personal problems, neuroses, and
absolute lack of morals or ethics.
Gianelli would like me to believe that no one is “worried” about a third
Spector trial. I find that statement
positively laughable.
66. On November 26, 2015, using my email
advising Gianelli to “fuck off” he attempts to once again discuss Bruce Cutler.
67. On November 27, 2015, Gianelli wrote with
respect to the claim letters I sent the City and County of Los Angeles
notifying them that I intended to file federal RICO suits naming them as
parties and to inform me that litigation misconduct is absolutely privileged in
California. The system certainly works
beautifully for criminals. In fact, it
appears to have been designed specifically for them.
68. On November 21, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote a rather long-winded harassing email copying in Alan Hootnick. This email was Gianelli’s defense to my belief
that he is the individual who tampered with my blog and destroyed
evidence. This email informed me:
“Even if I was the culprit (I am not) you could never prove it, because
(among other reasons) I connect through the internet through the Tor network
for reasons of anonymity and security, and for the last 30 years (due to
security concerns arising from my former felony defense of people
who hurt people for a living) the title to my homes and my utility accounts
have always been registered through the names of trusts or individuals that
have no relation to my first or last name. That includes (and has
always included) any and all ISP accounts.”
69. On
November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote and copied in Paulmikell Fabian, IRS
Chief Trial Counsel’s Office. Gianelli
argued that Hazel-Atlas is a 71 year old Supreme Court case that has been
superseded and limited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Gianelli evidently wanted Mr. Fabian and me
to understand that there are “three takeaways here – all three of them fatal to
what you are trying to do.” The first
fatal takeaway has to do with the fact that I, the Tax Matters Partner for
Traditional Holdings, LLC, was not a “party” to Leonard Cohen’s stipulated tax
court decision and therefore I do not qualify for relief. The second fatal takeaway has to do with the
fact that Leonard Cohen was not my “opposing party” in the original Tax Court
matter and I do not qualify for relief from the alleged fraud. And, the third fatal flaw is due to the fact
that, because 13 years has passed since the stipulated tax court decision was
entered on April 1, 2003 in Docket No. 007024-02, my request is evidently
neither reasonably timed, nor was it made within the 1-year outside time limit
to ask a federal court to set aside a prior judgment or other order based on
“fraud upon the court.” Gianelli has
evidently already noted that “tax court does not have general equitable power
to act. It’s jurisdiction can only come
from Title 26 – which requires that a tax court petition be proceeded by a
notice of determination mailed to the petition [which, according to Gianelli,
would be me] prior to the petition being filed.
As I have evidently “conceded that no such notice of determination was
ever mailed to me … the tax court has no choice but to dismiss” my pending
Petition for “lack of jurisdiction.”
According to Gianeli, it’s really quite that simple. This situation has nothing whatsoever to do with
a disgruntled former employee. This
situation involves egregious tax fraud, theft, the use of corporate entities as
shell corporations to launder money and evade taxes, and local Los Angeles
government actors who have lied about federal tax matters. If the legal system actually held someone
accountable, fraud, perjury, litigation misconduct, and fraud upon the court
might not be as rampant as it is.
70. On
November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli continued to harass me over the Tax Court
case. He copied Paulmikell Fabian and
Alan Hootnick, an individual I met through his interest in the Phil Spector
case and someone with an intelligence background. Gianelli evidently feels that Alan Hootnick
is interested in federal tax controversies.
In this particular email, Gianelli advised me that I may wish to read
the 9th Circuit Opinion in Toscano vs. CIR and concluded that
“Assuming the separate issue of jurisdiction to even entertain your petition is
resolved in your favor (and the tax court even has jurisdiction to consider
your motion in the first instance), it appears to support the argument that a
motion to vacate a final tax court decision may be made on the grounds of
alleged fraud – even years later.” Of
course, according to the Criminal Stalker, “the tax court must first find it
has jurisdiction to even allow your tax court petition to remain pending. And the attached decision does not speak to
whether your motion for leave to move to vacate (if any) sets forth a prima
face case for ‘fraud on the court.’” I
personally do not believe that I must establish a “prima facie case for fraud
on the court’ in order to request leave to file such a motion. I have provided this Court with specific
facts and evidence, which has now been intentionally destroyed, to support this
request.
71. On
November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli again wrote and copied in Paulmikell
Fabian. Gianelli “respectfully,” while
criminally harassing me over this situation, directed my attention to “Tax
Court Rule 162.” I believe, and did
refer to Rule 162 previously, that I am able to read this sentence: “Any motion to vacate or revise a
decision, with or without a new or further trial, shall be filed within 30 days
after the decision has been entered, unless the Court shall otherwise
permit.” Gianelli evidently wanted me,
and Mr. Fabian, to understand: “Of
course, before any additional motions can be heard and determined
(including any motion to set aside Leonard Cohen’s 2003 stipulated decision in
another matter) you will need to service the pending motion to dismiss on
jurisdictional grounds, since you were not mailed a notice of determination by
the IRS relating to tax year 1999 prior to filing your petition.” Stephen Gianelli has no idea what notices, or
anything else, IRS has or has not sent me and this email is simply an attempt
to illegally elicit information.
72. On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
decided to write me about “Man of La Mancha.”
Again on November 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote about the “lyrics from Man
FROM La Mancha” noting that this referenced a literary character and not my
“alleged relationship status” with Leonard Cohen. The reference, according to Gianelli, was a
reference to my “futile 10+ year obsession with bringing Cohen down through tax
fraud allegations, mass emails, blog posts, and (more recently) my failed legal
proceedings.” Or, as Gianelli put it,
“tilting at windmills.” This reference
was evidently “too subtle” for me and/or I “have a literary/cultural IQ of
about a 2” since I didn’t engage in the abject insanity with respect to “Man of
La Mancha” with a Criminal Stalker attempting to interfere with a federal Tax
Court case. Gianelli ends this email by
advising me as follows: “The views that I have
expressed about your tax court (and other) matters are mine alone. Indeed, I
don’t even know if Cohen knows about your tax court petition, let alone what
his views of it are. It will be dismissed soon for lack of jurisdiction anyway,
so it really doesn’t matter, does it?”
Clearly, Gianelli sees a connection between “Man of La Mancha” and the
matter before Tax Court.
73. On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote in
response to my letter to Vogue Magazine and Conde Nast which was published on
my riverdeepbook.blogspot.com blog. That
letter asked this organization to retract certain slanderous, defamatory, and
libelous statements in the following article about Leonard Cohen’s
birthday. The journalist was evidently
sobbing that Cohen was left penniless although he was not. Perhaps the journalist was sobbing for one of
the corporate entities? Gianelli had a
“NEWSFLASH” to convey: “He’s up, not
down. It’s you that is down, way down.”
74. On December 1, 2015, copying in Alan
Hootnick, Gianelli wrote to ask how Leonard Cohen brought himself down. Gianelli’s position, and he does appear to be
an unofficial member of Cohen’s legal team is as follows: “Financially? A net worth going from near zero in 2004 to
more than $50 MILLION today is up, not down.
Record sales? He has sold more records since 2004 than he did before you
left his employ. Critically? Let’s see
now. 2006 inducted into the Canadian
Songwriter’s Hall of Fame. 2007 received a Grammy for Album of the Year. 2008 inducted into
the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
2010 received a Grammy Lifetime
Achievement Award. 2010 Cohen was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. No, I
don’t think that is what one would call a downward career trend – by any
measure. Okay, perhaps you meant
legally? Let’s see. Kelley Lynch has been threatening to sue Leonard Cohen in
federal and state court since 2004, but has never even filed suit, let alone won a judgment against
him. Kelley Lynch reported Cohen to the IRS Criminal Division in 2006, but was
cleared in 2007 (or so his attorneys claim, but it is a matter of record that
a. no criminal charges were ever
filed against him and b. the statute of limitation for tax fraud is
six years and has run). No, Cohen was not brought down in a legal sense. One can only conclude, Ms. Lynch, that you
are not residing what most people would call ‘reality.” I intend to file a federal RICO suit against
Leonard Cohen within the next month.
Leonard Cohen prefers being unopposed.
This has permitted him to obtain a fraudulent default judgment,
fraudulent restraining orders, and fraudulent tax refunds. I have seen no evidence proving IRS Criminal
Division cleared Cohen of criminal charges with respect to the alleged tax
fraud. I reported the allegations that
Cohen committed tax fraud to IRS on April1 15, 2005 and at other times. Gianelli has conveniently written “2006.” I suppose he doesn’t want it to appear that
Cohen retaliated against me which is precisely what has occurred.
75. On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote
quoting a statement from my blog: “but will be filing a federal RICO suit in the
very near future” and noting “I hope you don’t wait eleven more years to file! Ha!”
76. On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote,
copying in Alan Hootnick, to advise me that he has “read everything!” What Gianelli actually wanted to address is
my statement that I do not believe criminal tax fraud necessarily has a “6-year
statute of limitations.” Gianelli then
quoted from the United States Department of Justice Criminal Tax Manual,
section 7 as follows:
“Section
6531 of Title 26 controls the statute of limitations periods for most
criminal tax offenses.
This statute provides:
No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of
the various offenses arising under
the internal revenue laws unless the indictment is found or the
information instituted within 3 years next after the commission of the
offense, except that the period of limitations shall
be 6 years --
(1) for offenses involving the defrauding or attempting to
defraud the United States or any agency thereof, whether by
conspiracy or not, and in any manner;
(2) for the offense of willfully attempting in any manner
to evade or defeat any tax or the payment thereof; (3)
for the offense of willfully aiding or assisting in,
or procuring, counseling, or
advising, the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with
any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a false or
fraudulent return, affidavit, claim,
or document (whether or not such
falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or
required to present such return,
affidavit, claim or document);
(4) for the offense of willfully failing to pay any tax, or
make any return (other than a return required under
authority of part III of subchapter A
of chapter 61) at the time or times required by law
or regulations;
(5) for offenses described in sections 7206(1) and 7207 (relating
to false statements and fraudulent documents);
(6) for the offense described in section 7212(a) (relating
to intimidation of officers and
employees of the United States);
(7) for offenses described in section 7214(a) committed by
officers and employees of the United
States; and (8) for
offenses arising under section 371 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, where the object
of the conspiracy is to attempt in
any manner to evade or defeat any tax
or the payment thereof. Thus, under section 6531, the general rule is that a
three-year statute of limitations exists for Title 26 offenses.
However, a six-year period applies to certain excepted offenses.
Section 6531 switches back and forth between enumerating the exception by
specific Code reference and by a description of the offense. For
example, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7206(1), 7202, 7212(a) and 7214(a), and 18 U.S.C. §
371 (conspiracy to evade taxes), are all specifically designated by code
section as falling within the six-year exception. Failure to file
an income tax return and failure to pay a tax, 26 U.S.C. § 7203, however,
are designated by description rather than code section. Generally, the
statute of limitations begins to run when an offense is completed.
Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970).”
77. Gianelli concluded by informing me that I
am “so full of nonsense it staggers the mind.
What else? Oh, you will be suing
Leonard Cohen ‘shortly?’ Ha! You have
been saying that since 2009! Ha! Don’t you think that waiting eleven years
(going on 12 years) from the date your business relationship ended to sue Cohen
for moneys you claim you are owed under that relationship – when you didn’t
even have a written contract with him, and in the meantime he has obtained a
$14 MILLION judgment against YOU – was a bit too long?” Leonard Cohen has intentionally run statute
of limitations and not serving me the complaint has permitted him to take this
legal position. By December 2005, when
Cohen applied for and received his fraudulent tax refunds, he was quite certain
the “default judgment” would be entered against me. Gianelli ends on an insulting note. Leonard Cohen clearly believes he was
entitled to litigate matters against me unopposed and seems indignant that I
would have the audacity to seek appropriate legal remedies. In fact, because I have sought such remedies,
I have been exposed to further harassment, stalking, threats, intimidation
tactics, slander, and retaliation. There
are indeed written agreements, corporate records, stock certificates, and
federal tax returns related to the corporate entities themselves.
78. On December 1, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote that I would need to have a pending trial to subpoena Agent Tejeda who I
did subpoena during my trial. However,
Judge Vanderet was not inclined to wait two hours for Agent Tejeda to meet with
DOJ or IRS attorneys even though he was hearing what appears to be a federal
tax case. Stephen Gianelli has
relentlessly argued Leonard Cohen’s legal issue and targeted me, my sons, and
many others for six and a half straight years now. It defies logic that this man has simply
decided to insert himself into every legal issue I have with Leonard Cohen
without being a party at interest. I
have no idea what Agent Tejeda would testify to or about. I would like to ask Agent Tejeda to explain
these specific statements in the January 2005 memorandum Leonard Cohen’s
lawyer, Robert Kory, transmitted to my lawyers.
If there was no tax fraud by Leonard Cohen why am I in possession of a
memorandum that clearly states that Traditional Holdings, LLC failed to report
$8 million in gross income to Internal Revenue Service in 2001? And, if my ownership interest was a mistake
that was rectified secretly and in hindsight, by Cohen and his personal and
corporate tax lawyer, why was I included as a partner on the 2001 through 2003
tax returns and why was phantom income shifted to me but not distributed? Given the fact that there was no delta of $5
million, it would seem rather obvious that the $8 million in gross income could
not be consumed in fees paid to third parties.
Furthermore, these third party fees were not deducted from the 2001
Traditional Holdings, LLC corporate returns due to the fact that the third
party fees were Leonard Cohen’s personal expenses and transaction fees. I suppose if Agent Tejeda were asked these questions,
I could “wind up looking like the dumbass” that I am, to quote Cohen’s
operative, Stephen Gianelli.
“Impact
on all parties of Traditional Holdings failure to report sale to Sony, or
manner in which sale treated (delta of $5 million basis and $8 million sale
price may be consumed in fees paid to third parties).”
“Impact
of phantom income to Lynch from profit allocations without distributions from
Traditional Holdings.”
This
Memorandum is being uploaded in its entirety with the exhibit document that
should be attached hereto and made a part hereof.
79. Stephen Gianelli harasses me using a
number of my email accounts. He is
presently harassing me at both kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com and kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com.
I will now address the emails sent to the latter account. On November 7, 2015, Gianelli wrote about the
“silly emails implying Cutler will represent you.” As I have stated above, I never sent any such
email. This is merely a tactic Gianelli
uses to elicit information. Gianelli has
increasingly begun copying Alan Hootnick on his emails to me. Alan Hootnick is an individual who believes
Phil Spector is innocent. He resides in
Chile, works with military prisoners there, and has an intelligence
background. Gianelli wrote to inform me
that Alan Hootnick is in “correspondence with Mrs. Spector,” addressed the
letter Cutler wrote to my “sentencing judge,” falsely accuses me of suggesting
that “Cutler might represent” me in “civil RICO litigation,” advises me that Dennis Riordan (a man he
doesn’t know) is being harassed, and asks me how I think “the Spector’s feel
about” my “relentlessly imposing” myself on their attorneys. Gianelli believes that is like trying to help
oneself to “Spector’s rare wine collection or his bank account.” Gianelli does not know me, Phil Spector,
Rachelle Spector, Dennis Riordan, or Bruce Cutler. His obsession with these matters
overwhelmingly indicates that he personally is a “party at interest.”
80. On November 8, 2015, I wrote Spector’s
prosecutor, former DDA Truc Do, to request an interview. I am working on a book and will confront
Cohen in court if he attempts to place any type of lien on anything having to do
with me. Leonard Cohen clearly believes
theft and extortion is acceptable conduct.
I posted my email to Do on my riverdeepbook.blogspot.com blog. I have interviewed a number of people for my
book. That would include, but is not
limited to, Detective Mark Lillenfeld (LA Sheriff’s Department and investigator
on the Spector case) and Ed Lozzi (Clarkson publicist). I am presently interviewing Paulette Brandt
extensively. I have also asked Phil
Spector personally for an interview. At
this time, Paulette Brandt and I believe a mutual book would be of
interest. Paulette Brandt has a
fascinating background; is a very interesting and creative woman; and has
friendships with many high profile individuals.
That would include Roman Polanski who Paulette Brandt dated around the
time he was sentenced to a “psychiatric evaluation” at Chino. In any event, this is a project we are
currently working on. Paulette also has
many interesting and historical documents related to her relationships with
people. I asked Do if she would consider
commenting on her statement during closing that Spector played “Russian
Roulette” with women and wondered what evidence she has to support those
assertions. I have never heard anyone
say that Phil Spector played “Russian Roulette” with women and Paulette Brandt,
who was Spector’s girlfriend (in the 70s, again in the mid-80s, and lived with
him at his Beverly Hills home), assured me that he did not. I asked Do to comment on the District
Attorney’s decision not to prosecute Leonard Cohen. I have no further details about that matter
but the City Attorney was quite clear during my trial that the DA elected not
to prosecute Cohen. I also asked Do
which of the three versions of Leonard Cohen gun stories about Phil Spector
(before LA Superior Court) she believes is true. After all, the version the prosecution used
during Spector’s trial (in motions submitted to the court) is contradicted by
Cohen’s personal testimony during my trial.
I feel that the answers to these questions would be enlightening. Gianelli, who appears to have information
about Spector’s prosecutors, wrote in response to my request to Do. He falsely accused me of harassing the DA’s
Major Crimes Unit. The DA, based on an
anonymous tip placed to that office about my friendship with Phil Spector,
rolled by my home and dragged me into situation. Investigator John Thompson, DA’s office,
informed me that I was “probably a witness.”
I never harassed the District Attorney’s office but I can assure this
Court that I have been threatened by members of that office; asked to tell the
Denver FBI “Merry Christmas” by the former DA’s personal investigator; and was
retaliated against by Cooley himself.
Steve Cooley has a history of retaliation and that has been documented
for the Central District Court in California.
It seems that former DA Steve Cooley didn’t like the fact that Leonard
Cohen told me for 20 years that Spector never held a gun on him. He evidently also didn’t like my September
2009 letter or the fact that I informed Detective Brian Bennett that Cohen lies
about Spector and was attempting to blackmail me. Perhaps Cooley didn’t like the fact that the
Attorney General of the State of California and City Attorney advised me to
contact his office with respect to the King Drew and SWAT incidents. He may also have found my requests that his
office investigate the criminal negligence in Rutger’s Whole Foods matter
disturbing. I viewed that situation as a
serious public safety threat. It’s hard
to say right now what specifically disturbed former DA Steve Cooley or why he
aligned himself publicly with Leonard Cohen in targeting me. This is an issue I intend to pursue in
federal court.
81. On November 9, 2015, Gianelli wrote in
response to my email (posted on my blog) to FBI and DOJ. He gratuitously noted that I had sent him
numerous emails. Those emails advised this
man to cease and desist. Gianelli
clearly believes these emails will end up in a court of law and wants to plead
his case while slandering me, eliciting information, interfering with legal
matters, and infesting a variety of matters with “extraneous material.” However, Gianelli wanted to elicit
information about “billionaire businessman Ron Burkle.” It was actually my mother who thought, given
the fact that Ron is single, we would make a nice couple. My mother thinks Ron Burkle is a wonderful
father and knows his son quite well. Gianelli has no idea what my relationship
with Ron Burkle is so when he states that “you knew Ron Burkle to say hello to
when you both had small children in the same school a decade ago” he is
attempting to elicit information about the nature of Ron and my relationship at
the present time. Gianelli uses
statements like “Burkle certainly has had no relationship with you at all” to
provoke a response and elicit information.
Stephen Gianelli has harassed Ron Burkle. Ron Burkle has been copied on my emails
documenting what has unfolded since reporting Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to
Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005.
82. On November 9, 2015 Gianelli wrote again
about my emails to FBI and DOJ. These
were posted on my blog. Gianelli
referred to an October 5, 2005 email to the managing partner of Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher which Ron Burkle was copied on.
Ron Burkle’s divorce was high profile so I did not indiscreetly
reference anything. Ron Burkle attempted
to have his personal financial details sealed but the State of California
refused. That email referenced Blue Mist
Touring Company, Inc. and LC Investments, LLC.
Gianelli was also attempting to argue that referencing those entities
gave a “clear indication that as of October 5, 2005” I had read Cohen’s lawsuit. I did not read Cohen’s lawsuit until Gianelli
posted it online in April 2010. I was
however aware of the issues my lawyers had discussed with Cohen’s
representatives. As of October 2005, I
was aware that Leonard Cohen and LC Investments, LLC were plaintiffs. By this time, I was well aware of early
versions of the fraudulent expense ledger that included Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc, LC Investments, LLC, and Traditional Holdings, LLC. I was also well aware of the fact that as of
November 2004 Cohen had taken the position, in response to my lawyer’s October
27, 2004 letter, that I had received “overpayments” with respect to my
commissions as his personal manager.
That’s a blatant lie. I did
mention years ago that I was interested in working with Bruce Cutler as an
attorney but that issue is no longer relevant.
It is to Gianelli because he is desperately attempting to elicit
information about Phil Spector and infiltrate his legal team and/or
matters. Gianelli has no idea if Cutler
ever “replied” to any of my alleged messages or emails. He wants to know if Bruce Cutler
replied. His reason for pointing this
out is because this man, who does not know me, doesn’t believe my “denial of
service with Cohen’s lawsuit.” I don’t
understood who would ever believe Cohen served me or a Jane Doe. Gianelli is clearly representing Leonard
Cohen’s legal interests.
83. On November 11, 2015, Gianelli
wrote in response to a post on my blog.
In response to Gianelli’s emails attempting to elicit information and
interfere with certain legal matters, I wrote Cohen’s lawyers at Kory &
Rice to advise them that if they, the attorneys of record, would like to
discuss the issues Gianelli was harassing me over, they should hit reply
all. I believe the email reflects
Leonard Cohen’s legal theories. Stephen Gianelli
lies extensively so I can assure this Court that I will not take his word for
anything.
84. On or about November 11, 2015, Alan
Hootnick forwarded emails Gianelli sent him privately. They related to Gianelli’s alleged
discussions about me with someone called “Nestor Hobson.” I do not believe this individual exists. I believe that Cohen and Steve Lindsey have
passed along slanderous and fabricated stories about me to Stephen
Gianelli. Gianelli continued to harass
me, at this point, over a rabbit that was attacked by one of my dogs when I was
not home. The children brought the
rabbit out that we took care of over one summer. They wanted to say goodbye and were apparently
unaware that one of my Akitas was nearby.
That was a tragic accident and didn’t involve me as I was there when the
incident occurred. Nestor Hobson also
appears to be Stephen Gianelli.
85. On November 11, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wanted to elicit information about the Franchise Tax Board. Doug Davis is a Tax Advocate who works with
FTB. He removed a wage garnishment based
on a guesstimate of income based on 2003 income/standard deductions and
mortgage interest payments. My 2004 and
2005 income and expenses are not similar to the year 2003. Gianelli, who doesn’t know me, has opinions
about who I should or shouldn’t write.
The reason for this is because he uses this tactic to elicit
information. As of this date, Gianelli
appeared interested in a declaration I am preparing to submit to the Franchise
Tax Board’s Fraud Unit. Leonard Cohen
refuses to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information (1099,
K-1s, corporate accountings and financial statements, corporate profit and loss
statements and so forth) and Franchise Tax Board would like that information
and my 2004 and 2005 returns. Cohen is
intentionally obstructing me from obtaining this information. I have no idea what Doug Davis wrote Gianelli
after he contacted him about me. I know
that the FTB has assured me many times that they are not permitted to discuss
third parties with strangers or individuals who do not have powers of
attorney. What I have or haven’t called
anyone is not Gianelli’s business. I was
incredibly pissed off that Gianelli was contacting the FTB about me at
all. Gianelli didn’t bother including
the actual email but prefers his selective and absurd narrative. I have called former DA Steve Cooley a
“faggot.” I believe, so as not to insult
the LGBT community, I should have called him a “dangerous clown.” I can assure this Court that the government
actors in Los Angeles could care less if my son’s fingers were ripped off. They even lied about that incident. Gianelli also seems interested in discussing
“Steve Cooley.” I only feel comfortable
discussing “Steve Cooley” with IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
86. On November 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me to obtain a subpoena for the Google gmail account “Nestor
Hobson.” Anyone can open up a Gmail
account in any name. I will not be
apologizing to Stephen Gianelli, a common criminal, on my knees. The man who criminally harassed, stalked, and
terrorized my sons for over six straight years sadistically believes I should
get down on my knees. Gianelli is a very
twisted, sadistic, and sick individual.
87. On
November 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote to address the fact that I will be filing my
RICO suit in federal court in “forma pauperis.”
The reason for this is due to the fact that Leonard Cohen willfully
bankrupted me; withheld commissions due for services rendered; and then used
the fraudulent default judgment as an opportunity to steal from me. This has provided Leonard Cohen with a
serious litigation advantage. Gianelli
is convinced this will be used against me in the Central District of California
where the magistrate reviews the complaint for sufficiency and “failure to set
forth a plausible claim is grounds for denial of a request for fee waiver.” According to Gianelli, a self-represented
litigant is viewed by this Court with utter disdain and held to higher
standards than an attorney. Gianelli
attacked an example of a complaint (Braham v. SonyCase No. 2:15-cv-8422-MWF [GJSx])
where a complaint was dismissed on the court’s own motion upon review of the
application for a fee waiver. Gianelli
closed this email by advising me that “Any RICO suit by you that is accompanied
by a request for fee waiver will never survive that initial review.” Gianelli has been clear in recent emails that
he is attempting to “dissuade” me from pursuing legal remedies and clearly
believes his harassment will silence and deter me.
88. On
November 14, 2015, Gianelli wrote regarding my “pending Tax Court
petition.” Gianelli again advised me
that “Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and my exercise jurisdiction
only as expressly provided by statute” and it “may not use general equitable
powers to expand its jurisdictional grant beyond this limited Congressional
authorization.” Gianelli informed me
that this applies to my general arguments based on fraud upon the court. Gianelli had other points to make. The second point is that the “burden” is on
my, as the taxpayer, to show that the Tax Court has jurisdiction over my July 2015
petition. I have asked the Court to
grant me leave to file a motion addressing the fraud upon the court with
respect to Docket No. 7024-02. I have
provided the Court with a general overview of the situation, specific facts,
and certain pieces of relevant and material evidence. The reason for doing this is because I
personally felt that in order to make a decision with respect to my request,
the Court would need at least rudimentary information rather than reading my
mind and guessing. I’ll address the
burden with this Court personally. The
third point my stalker wanted to make is that “Tax Court’s jurisdiction is
always predicated upon both the issuance of a notice of deficiency or other
notice of determine.” I have addressed
this issue with the Court. The IRS
issued a proper notice of deficiency based on an inadvertent $1 million 1099
that Sony withdrew in 1999 and replaced with a $0 1099.” There is no issue with respect to the
deficiency notice. The issue that I am
addressing arose when Leonard Cohen availed himself of this Court’s
jurisdiction and fraudulently argued that the $1 million was income to him in
2001. I have been clear that I
personally was asked by Cohen to advise Sony that he was demanding a
non-refundable $1 million down payment against what became the 2001 Traditional
Holdings, LLC transaction. Westin wrote
that the November 1999 transmittal letter from Sony proves that the $1 million
was not a loan. Furthermore, by the time
Cohen submitted his Petition to Tax Court in 2002, the Traditional Holdings,
LLC transaction had closed. The $1
million belongs to Traditional Holdings.
The assets however are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. who
should have been reimbursed as well.
This matter involves fraud upon the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office and
Tax Court. It also involves theft from
corporate entities. And, it appears to
involve egregious tax fraud. Hazel
Atlas, which is a case acknowledged by the 9th Circuit, addressed a
10 year old judgment obtained by fraud upon the court and related to fraud upon
a federal government agency. The
circumstances are nearly identical although it does not relate to the Patent
Office. It relates to the Internal
Revenue Service. There also exists theft
of intellectual property. My Petition
addressed the fact that, while I was “appointed” Tax Matters partner for the
years 2001 through 2003, the notice of determination was not issued to
Traditional Holdings, LLC. I believe I
have met my burden in support of my request that this Court grant me leave to
file a motion addressing the fraud upon the court.
89. On
November 15, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote regarding Ray Lawrence. I never promised to pay off Ray Lawrence’s
mortgage. I promised to pay off the
precise amount I owe Ray Lawrence for rent from October 2012 through June
2013. Once I find a job, which is very
difficult due to the fact that Cohen destroyed my reputation over his wrong
doing, I intend to begin making payments to Ray Lawrence. That was our agreement. The agreement doesn’t involve Gianelli. The email Gianelli attached confirmed that my
appellate attorney, who was harassed for over a year by Gianelli, advised me to
send a formal cease and desist letter and maintain all evidence. Francisco Suarez also instructed me to
forward all harassing emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
90. On November 15, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote that the “only money referenced in Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit is the
proceeds from the sale to Sony Music of Leonard Cohen’s music catalogue.” Gianelli, who defends Leonard Cohen’s legal
interests, falsely advised me that “You were paid your 15% commission on the
deal, so there is no doubt it was Cohen’s money involved.” I have no idea what Gianelli is talking about. That also includes with respect to whether or
not I was paid a “commission.” Gianelli
understands that I now “claim that Cohen withdrew the funds” I “removed from
Traditional Holdings, LLC using Cohen’s POA.”
I didn’t withdraw Cohen’s $3.3 million in personal transaction
fees. Cohen personally signed a fax,
that was sent to Neal Greenberg, authorizing the payment of his personal
transaction fees. The approximately $2.7
million deposited directly into Leonard Cohen’s personal bank account were authorized
by Leonard Cohen. Cohen has now testified
that he bought homes for his girlfriend and son and used assets from the
Traditional Holdings, LLC account. While
Gianelli argues, on Cohen’s behalf, that I could have made this argument in
2005, that is blatantly false. Cohen
failed to serve me and I diligently and continuously attempted to address this
issue. It’s evidently very important to
Cohen that the default judgment establish certain facts as a “matter of
law.” That goes to his motive.
91. On November 15, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that his “point is that Paulette will never see the money” I promised
her. Stephen Gianelli doesn’t know me or
Paulette Brandt. The only agreement or
promise I have with Paulette Brandt is to repay her for the rent that would
have accrued during the period of time I have stayed with her. This agreement does not involve our stalker.
92. On November 15, 2015, Stphen Gianelli
wrote that he has never been arrested or accused of a crime. That is a blatant lie. The Court should feel free to verify that
with IRS, FBI, DOJ, or Treasury. I
haven’t used anything to scam “rent, money, and booze” for a decade. My agreement with Ray Lawrence was in
writing. He wasn’t scammed. Paulette Brandt did not confide in “Karina
Von Watteville” that I promised her a share of my “millions.” I am aware, and Boies Schiller confirmed this
fact after reviewing three huge boxes of evidence, that Leonard Cohen owes me
millions of dollars. The theft of
millions of dollars is perfectly acceptable in certain circles.
93. On November 15, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
ask “Do you think you had the right to hijack MY BLOG in April 2009 while I was
away in Greece?” Gianelli’s blog wasn’t
hijacked but my Tax Petition evidence blog was illegally altered and tampered
with. Gianelli would like to obfuscate
issues. I never hijacked his blog. I posted in response to slanderous statements
about Phil Spector. I didn’t post
thousands of disparaging posts. I also
sent the blog articles and posts to IRS and other authorities. Gianelli approached me, using the fake
moniker “Joff Belark,” to advise me that he was a journalist interested in
details related to my situation with Leonard Cohen. I bcc’d the IRS and other authorities on my
responses to “Gianelli.” He then
proceeded to write an entirely slanderous hit piece about me while defending
Leonard Cohen. This occurred shortly
after he publicly announced that he heard from Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle
Rice, in May 2009. I didn’t send
Gianelli “abusive emails.” I attempted
to address his slander, false accusations, and ultimately the targeting of my
sons and others.
94. On November 16, 2015, Gianelli sent me
the LA Times article “Leonard Cohen’s former business manager jailed for
harassment” in violation of “protective orders.” I have addressed the situation with respect
to the use of fraudulent restraining orders to discredit and silence me. They have also been used to prevent me from
requesting IRS required tax and corporate information from Leonard Cohen. Vanderet was correct that I showed remorse
but lied publicly when he stated that I engaged in a “long, unrelenting barrage
of harassing behavior.” His statement
that “No person should be subject to that kind of targeting by anyone” is
laughable and obscene. I didn’t blame
the prosecutors for carrying out a “vicious attack” on me. I stated that the prosecutors carried out a
“vicious attack” on me. The “anger
management requirement” arose due to the fraudulent domestic violence
order. It’s evidently a statutory
requirement. There was and remains no
“domestic violence” and the domestic violence order is fraudulent. I had no intent to annoy Leonard Cohen and
the prosecutor argued that Cohen was annoyed.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that annoyance statutes are
unconstitutional. Many states have
modified their statutes to reflect this fact.
California has not. They
evidently cannot even define a “dating relationship” as evidenced by the case Oriola v. Thaler (2000)
84 Cal. App. 4th 397. I suppose that’s
irrelevant since LA Superior Court simply assigned me a “dating relationship”
and the statutory language is obviously irrelevant in any event. The following bill analysis addressed the
fact that the government in California needed a bill that defined “dating
relationship” that can be used to “determine whether in fact the alleged victim
and perpetrator are in a dating relationship.”
Cohen and I were not and he literally confessed to perjury on the
witness stand over this issue. During my
2012 trial, the prosecutor played voice mail messages that were altered and
tampered with. They also were not date
or time stamped. The transcripts provided
the jurors, as I have stated above, were incoherent and some of that seemed
intentional. The thick binders contained
the same email printed out over and over and over again. I don’t think addressing the fact that Cohen
exposed his “penis” to me is a “sexual reference.” I think it’s a criminal act that the City
Attorney attempted to victimize the victim over. This happened repeatedly. The allegations related to criminal tax fraud
were brought to the attention of Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005 and
thereafter. Leonard Cohen has a long and
publicly documented history of drug use.
My prosecutor doesn’t like that; Cohen testified that I assailed his
reputation; and, at nearly the same time, Cohen provided his biographer with
details about his extensive use of meth, LSD, and mandrax. When Cohen testified that he “fired” me in
2004, he was perjuring himself. I
refused to meet with Cohen and his personal corporate and tax lawyer to unravel
their handiwork. I refused to privately
hand over the corporate books and records and elected to have my lawyers
formally transmit them to Greenberg, Glusker who were representing Cohen at the
time. I didn’t begin calling and
emailing Cohen shortly after we parted ways.
I was represented by DiMascio & Berardo who were dealing directly
with Robert Kory. I have addressed why I
feel rhetorically that Cohen should be “taken down and shot.” That’s a manner of speech unless one is
attempting to set someone up and falsely accuse them. I did acknowledge that I may have engaged in
“excessive and unauthorized rambling.”
Evidently, Barry Bonds did as well.
Dennis Riordan used this phrase to address his client’s response to a
question before a Grand Jury. The fact
that I am barred from owning, possessing or using a firearm for 10 years is a
legal issue that will be addressed with federal court. The Colorado Court felt that I was exempt
from the Brady Handgun statute. This
changed when Leonard Cohen fraudulently registered the Colorado order, issued
without findings, in California as a “domestic violence” order. That matter also involves wire fraud with
respect to the entry of this information into databases. The domestic violence statutes require
individuals to undergo anger management classes, psychological training, and
alcohol education sessions. I wasn’t
required to under a “mental health evaluation.”
And that was addressed by Judge Vanderet and Judge Barela. I do think certain parties however should be
required to submit to mental health evaluations with respect to their targeting
of me. Leonard Cohen is a liar who said
he feared I would contact him as soon as I was released from custody. It’s now been approximately 4 years and Cohen
shouldn’t hold his breath. This is
probably just wishful thinking.” I think
it gave Cohen pleasure to see his “onetime friend” shackled. That’s why he took the stand and perjured
himself excessively. My attorneys did
argue that my “messages” contained legitimate requests for tax documents. Cohen and his attorneys argued that I have
“long been in possession of documents she requested.” That is a bald faced lie and can be verified
with IRS or FTB. Leonard Cohen did
fraudulently file a Complaint accusing me of “stealing $5 million from his
personal accounts and investments while he lived for several years at a Zen
center near Los Angeles.” And a judge
did fraudulent grant Cohen “a default judgment in that case.” I have no details regarding the $9.5 million
judgment that was referred to in a March 2006 Billboard article. Cohen evidently leaked this information to
the press. I was advised by a journalist
that Cohen issued a press release to the Hollywood Reporter that was then
picked up by the AP with respect to his fraudulent default judgment. The actual judgment entered against me in May
2006 related to $5 million in “damages” and an extortion amount of
approximately $2 million that relates to fraudulent financial interest. Leonard Cohen does not know when to quit. However, as Paulette Brandt continues to
note, his lies have worked well before LA Superior Court.
95. On November 16, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
harass me over a blog post dated “November 15, 2015.” That blog post related to a proposed order I
submitted to Judge Robert Hess in connection with his denial of Cohen’s
retaliatory and wholly fraudulent Motion for Sanctions. Gianelli informed me that only I “could
manage to parlay what should have been the routine exchange of a proposed order
following hearing on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions into a mini soap opera.” Gianelli then proceeded to advise me how the
proposed order should have been transmitted – with a postage paid return
envelope and a cover letter.” Department
24 advised me to drop the order off with a prepaid envelope. I have now done that. I have no idea if the proposed order meets
with Judge Hess’ approval. It can be
viewed at this link. Michelle Rice was
actually required to inform me why she disagreed with the proposed order
language. She failed to do that and
refused to communicate with me. That’s
one of Kory & Rice’s tactics. She
prefers to communicate with Stephen Gianelli.
Michelle Rice screamed at me in the halls of LA Superior Court. She called me a “bitch” in front of a
witness. This woman is entirely
unprofessional and has spent 10 years getting “rich” by targeting and lying about
me. I may be unaccustomed to routine
“housekeeping” matters but it is Leonard Cohen and his representatives who
routinely lie to court, perjure themelves, make fraudulent misrepresentations
throughout legal documents, and engage in litigation misconduct. They have concluded that this conduct is
privileged in California. I am not
attempting to become an attorney. If I
was interested in becoming an attorney, I would have attended law school. My grandfather was a magistrate and I was
planning to attend Wharton to obtain a dual degree in business and law. However, the conduct of certain attorneys
turned me off completely. Gianelli has
to say this to me because he is defending Leonard Cohen’s legal interests and
Kory & Rice’s unprofessional conduct.
96. On November 17, 2015, Stephen Gianelli,
who has spent over six straight years targeting me and my sons, wrote about
“Anosognosia – why a large percentage of those with mental illness are
incapable of realizing it. This email
was an attempt to determine if I have ever received a diagnosis of “mental
illness.” Gianelli seems to have “King
Drew” on his mind these days. That file
does not relate to me. It is not the
spelling of my name (an ongoing problem with LA Superior Court, the government
of Los Angeles, and others). It is not
my date of birth, place of birth, religion, social security number, medical
number, or my medical file. I hardly
view myself as the “same youthful woman” that I was in my early 1990s. However, having said that, the following
photographs show what my hair looks like blonde vs. the color brown I dyed my
hair in August 2005. No process server
would assume that I had blonde hair. It
doesn’t matter how old the photographs are.
I am referring specifically to the hair color. Paulette Brandt submitted a declaration to LA
Superior Court confirming that she dyed my hair a very dark shade of brown in
the summer of 2005. In fact, she dyed my
hair the morning of August 24, 2005 when the process served alleges he served a
Jane Doe with blonde hair. Cohen
submitted photographs of me, as a blonde, to the Court in support of his
arguments that I was served. I didn’t
resemble the individual that Cohen evidently described for the process
server. He hadn’t seen me in
approximately one year and apparently didn’t realize I was wearing my hair
almost black at that time. My son and I
didn’t have a female co-occupant. We had
a male co-occupant, Chad Knaak, and no one would confuse him for a female. No female visited that day other than Paulette
Brandt who doesn’t resemble the Jane Doe either.
Throughout the summer of 2005, I brought very dark, nearly
black dye and helped Kelley color her hair. I would also help cut
it. She wore it quite short at that period of time. At some point,
I personally felt the dark hair made Kelley look harsh and commented on
this.
91. On November 18, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
sent me an email advising that “IRS has over 9,000 employees, most of them
working in its headquarters in Washington DC and a huge, crushing
workload.” This was Gianelli’s argument
with respect to the fact that IRS in Washington, DC visited my riverdeepbook
blog. I don’t believe IRS is like my
next door neighbor. I know for a fact I
reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS on
April 15, 2005 and at other times and I believe, based on what has unfolded,
that this was naïve. I don’t know if the
IRS “could not care less” about tax fraud, failure to report millions in
income, or anything else for that matter.
It sounds rather preposterous.
97. On November 19, 2015, Gianelli wrote in
response to my public comment that “the stakes must be very high and lows
remain inconceivably vile.” Gianelli
wants to know “What stakes exactly.”
Gianelli uses the “CIA experiment in mind control” to argue that my
“claims” have not gained traction either in court or in the court of public
opinion. Leonard Cohen is the individual
who claimed he participated in CIA’s MK ULTRA program. Cohen is the individual who has told countless
versions of his tales about the Bay of Pigs and Yom Kippur War. Cohen is the individual who wrote that he is
our “most important spy.” I have no idea
how Gianelli knows if IRS, FBI, CIA, DOJ, LAPD, Berkeley PD, Houston PD,
Governor of California, or State Bar “stopped listening.” He previously advised me, and provided evidence
to support his statements, that IRS blocked his emails as harassing. I do not believe for one moment that this man
dislikes Cohen. He relentlessly argues
Cohen’s legal position, defends Cohen, and targets people in matters related to
Leonard Cohen. That would include, but
is not limited to, me, my sons, and witnesses who have submitted declarations
in Cohen related cases.
98. On November 20, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
responded to an email I sent Alan Hootnick with respect to the Tax Petition Word
Press evidence blog. Gianelli copied in
the Washington Field Office of FBI, IRS Commissioner’s Staff, and Criminal
Division of DOJ. I asked where on my to
IRS, FBI, and DOJ Alan Hootnick was copied in.
Gianelli accused me of lying and forwarded an email I privately sent
Alan Hootnick. The email I sent to Stephen Gianelli with IRS, FBI, and DOJ
copied in stated that I believed he illegally accessed my blog for Tax Court,
changed my password, added the photograph he’s sent me countless times, and
then deleted the account. It was
actually an attempt to delete the account and an attempt to change the account
password. Alan Hootnick was not copied
on that email. Gianelli lies and
obfuscates matters.
99. On November 20, 2015, Gianelli wrote that
I wrote directly to Hootnick and he forwarded my email to Gianelli. Gianelli began copying Alan Hootnick on many
emails to me and I asked “what does Alan Hootnick” have to do with this. That doesn’t me a “conniving little liar”
because I didn’t copy Alan Hootnick on the email to Gianelli with a cc to IRS,
FBI, DOJ, and DOJ’s Criminal Division.
100. On November 20, 2015, Stephen Gianelli,
copying in DOJ’s Criminal Division, wrote that his point was simply “Your
posted blog comment indicated your agreement indicated your agreement with the
theory that Leonard Cohen is in a conspiracy with the CIA as a graduate of the
MK ULTRA program to manipulate (“socially engineer”) society through Cohen’s
published and performed son lyrics.”
Gianelli, who stalks me online and slanders me throughout the internet,
descended on Rigorous Intuition’s blog.
That site is devoted to a discussion about MK ULTRA and Leonard Cohen’s
possible participation in that program.
Ann Diamond was interviewed by the blog owner, referred to me, and
posted my review of her book on Cohen.
Other individuals located Ann Diamond’s article and posted that noting
that I appeared to have been targeted by a “criminal enterprise.” Stephen Gianelli located the blog poster’s site
and posted slanderous and fraudulent comments about me. This is one of his jobs and it has happened
repeatedly for years now. I posted a
note to Jasun Horsley in September 2015.
By November 2015, Gianelli began slandering me on that blog. My post did not indicate that I believe
Leonard Cohen participated in CIA’s MK ULTRA program. This is what Leonard Cohen told me. I also didn’t indicate that I believe the CIA
was attempting to manipulate people by promoting Leonard Cohen’s lyrics and
have never heard anything so ridiculous in my entire life. The Court should feel free to confirm this
information. I didn’t offer up
additional evidence. I simply referred
Jasun Horsley to information Cohen personally has provided to the news media or
included in his lyrics. That would
include his lyric stating that he is our “most important spy.” That remark did not indicate that Cohen “has
been in secret service of the CIA and his goal has been not to entertain but to
manipulate an unsuspecting public through mind control techniques cleverly
hidden in his lyrics.” Why would the CIA
want to promote Leonard Cohen’s lyrics?
I do believe Cohen is a highly manipulative individual who communicates
with his fans through his lyrics. A
number of them appear to believe he is a spy who worked with CIA or possibly
Israeli intelligence. I suppose that’s
the message he wanted to communicate.
Since radio promo people have a hard time promoting Cohen’s music to
radio, I tend to doubt CIA has found some secret way to promote his work
globally. That requires working and
touring behind studio albums. I wrote
thanking Jasun Horsley for including me in his article. Gianelli wrote that I posted “Thank you for
interviewing me for your story.” There is nothing this man won’t lie about. I didn’t participate in the Truth Sentinel
segment, with Ann Diamond, on Cohen and CIA’s MK ULTRA program. The reason for that is due to the fact that I
am unfamiliar with this program; believe it has been blown out of proportion;
and do not believe Leonard Cohen participated in it. Of course, I am speculating so I don’t think
people that believe he participated should be looked down upon. Leonard Cohen likes to allude to his roles in
various revolutions. That would include
the “Bay of Pigs.” I don’t have
conspiracy theories. I believe there are
blatant “legal conspiracies” related to this situation. That’s very different from a conspiracy
theory that involves “Leonard Cohen and the CIA” attempting “control people’s
thoughts.” Leonard Cohen cannot control
his own thoughts and I do not believe CIA would be able to help him out with
that. Gianelli then sneaks in a
reference to my Tax Petition evidence blog in an attempt to explain it away as
a conspiracy theory. It is not. This situation occurred and the person or
parties involved should be prosecuted.
The Blog was not confidential. It
was a private blog but I uploaded the Petition to Scribd in September
2015. Gianelli is obsessed with my
blogs, Scribd account, emails, etc. He
therefore conceivably had access to that account. The blog was not hacked. The login information was contained in the
Petition. And for the record, I wrote
the review of Cohen’s book personally.
Gianelli doesn’t believe, although he doesn’t know me, that I am capable
of cogent thought. I believe he is capable
of, and engaged in, criminal conduct.
Jason, I want to thank you for including me in your
article on Leonard Cohen. You have absolutely addressed the crucial point with
Cohen – his public persona and how that differs from who he really is. Leonard
Cohen is chilling and I personally feel he verges on pure evil. Cohen has
hinted at his relationship with CIA and intelligence for years and years now.
In his lyric “Field Commander Cohen” he notes that he is our most “important
spy.” His tales of revolutions he’s been involved with (including possible
reconnaissance) re. the Bay of Pigs cannot be overlooked. I would also like to
add that Ann Diamond is a wonderful individual who was in a relationship with
Cohen years ago. I never once, in the 17 years I worked as Cohen’s personal
manager, heard a mean comment about her from Cohen – until she was questioned
about comments his daughter made while attending Concordia University. After
that, Ann was demonized and referred to as a stalker, someone who harassed
Cohen, and a disgruntled ex. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a
pure disinformation campaign and the same tactics were used against me. Cohen
also didn’t want to pay what he owed me. He has a pattern of that as well. I
will give you a head’s up. I have a “stalker” who is also targeting Ann
Diamond. His name is Stephen Gianelli and he appears to be an unofficial member
of Leonard Cohen’s legal team. He appears to spend 24/7 on this campaign so the
stakes are high and the lows are inconceivably vile. Cohen uses operatives to target
others. I’ve witnessed it for years. Thank you again. Kelley
You’re welcome Kelley, and happy that you read the
piece and were inspired to comment. Thanks for the heads up also.
Kelley Lynch reviews The Man Next Door
Goodreads
Search My Books
Odzer Chenma rated a book 5 of 5 stars
22 days ago
The Man Next Door by Ann Diamond
The Man Next Door
by Ann Diamond (Goodreads Author)
Read
Read in October 2015
The Man Next Door immediately throws one into the late 1960s – poetry readings,
student uprisings, Bistros and Montreal bars, the tragic deaths of Janis Joplin
and Jimi Hentrix, and Canadian armed forces occupying Montreal triggered by the
kidnappings of a provincial cabinet minister and a British diplomat by members
of the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ). Magic was indeed afoot! This is the
historical moment Ann Diamond’s book immediately propels one into. The Montreal
Bistros and bars were hangouts for intellectuals, artists, journalists and
drunks. Leonard Cohen and Pierre Trudeau were regulars. In the summer of 1977,
Montreal was in the midst of rather shocking revelations about doctors,
psychiatric patients and classified experiments, some of which were attributed
to CIA’s MKULTRA Program, in articles appearing in the local press. The
brilliant and flamboyant Tibetan Buddhist teacher, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche,
was also part of this dynamic landscape.
Ann’s first fleeting encounter with Leonard Cohen occurred one night in the
midst of these radical and romantic times. She describes Cohen as a mythical
figure in her youthful revolutionary dreams. His books were sacred texts. The
encounter left Ann feeling as though she was floating above her “occupied city
like Kateri Tekakwitha, at one with all the Mohawks and other disembodied
saints.” She prophetically sensed that she might run into Leonard Cohen again.
A number of years later, Ann Diamond would find herself sitting at Leonard
Cohen’s kitchen table asking if he recalled their first fleeting encounter. By
that time, Cohen was a celebrated international figure who had just released an
album produced by Phil Spector.
Cohen rang Ann up and introduced himself in typically witty fashion: “Hello
Ann? This is Leonard Cohen. We have to stop meeting like this.” Ann’s first
evening with Leonard Cohen left her dazed and delirious. A mutual friend had
provided Cohen with her phone number. I immediately recognized the familiar
phrases used by Leonard Cohen and could literally visualize him jumping in the
air and asking “The girl with the bicycle? How tall is she?”
Having spent nearly 20 years working as Cohen’s personal manager, I had grown
quite familiar with his speech, phraseology, and frequently eccentric behavior.
I also know Cohen’s taste in women and understood why he found the youthful,
spirited, and adventurous Ann Diamond so compelling. Over the years, I had come
to know of Ann through Leonard Cohen. I understood her to be an old girlfriend
who had remained friends with him throughout the years. The descriptions of
Cohen’s home, encounters with his Montreal crowd, the Swiss bank book tucked
away in a drawer, Joshu Sasaki Roshi, smoked meat, gifts, poetry books, Persian
rugs, trinkets, religious chatchka, personal notes, Hydra, tales about CIA and
the MKULTRA program, meth and LSD experimentation, mental hospitals and
suicides also resonated.
While most biographies devoted to Leonard Cohen consist of impersonal or
sanitized third party accounts that are dripping with awe and admiration, Ann’s
biography is personal, revealing, and touches upon Cohen’s darker side which a
friend of hers described when he cautioned her: “Be very careful of that guy.
He's totally ruthless when it comes to women.” Leonard Cohen’s ruthlessness is
invisible to anyone who bases their perceptions of him on the description of a sage-like
individual whose speech is littered with profound expressions and cleverly
crafted quotes. It is nevertheless an essential component of his private
persona. Ann herself could not connect her friend’s remark to the man who
appeared to be an “eccentric saint,” devoted son, and exceptional artist who
associated with a rather odd assortment of neurotic friends. Cohen’s personal
life is tortured and up close resembles a controlled disaster area. Leonard
Cohen also understands his own nature. When Ann asks “But are you trustworthy?”
he responds “No.”
Cohen’s public persona has a cultivated Europeanized air to it that leads one
to conclude that he is humble, wise, calm, dignified, deeply spiritual, and in
possession of courtly manners. Privately, Cohen is lonely and bitter as he
confessed to Ann. This too resonated because I recall Cohen’s seething anger
and resentment. (The book’s mention of the arrest of Suzanne Elrod made me
wonder if Leonard Cohen was personally involved. For years, he had told me that
his housekeeper’s husband, then Chief of Police on Hydra, had arrested Suzanne
over a minor marijuana incident. It was hard to imagine Evangalia and Coulis
being involved in something that extreme without Cohen’s permission.)
Ann’s relationship with Leonard Cohen would eventually land her on the Isle of
Hydra where Cohen mingled with Greek peasants, millionaires, tourists, and had
experimented with LSD and meth. I frequently heard Cohen’s stories about these
experiences, drunken binges, CIA agents and other spies at Bill’s Bar, and how
he wrote “Beautiful Losers” on LSD while visiting Hydra. In 1979 Ann had
received a small writing grant from the Canada Council and decided to extend
her trip to Greece, partly due to Cohen’s imminent arrival. Cohen was viewed as
a God on Hydra while in Montreal his reputation was one of an eccentric
failure. In the United States, Cohen was largely unknown although his work with
Phil Spector led to numerous mentions of him in articles and news media
accounts.
Ann’s book intimately recounts Cohen’s relationship with the muses and women in
his life as well as his relationship with his young children, Lorca and Adam.
Ann also had an opportunity to accompany Leonard Cohen on his 1979 UK tour and
experienced the sordid world of alcohol-filled performances and an intense cult
following. Ultimately, Ann’s experiences with Cohen led her to question her own
sanity and emotions. She wondered if she was “entering a schizophrenic’s world
where nothing was stable or straightforward, and where ordinary reality
constantly erupted with subconscious material from who-knows-what source.” Five
cities and six concerts later, Ann concluded that “Leonard was schizophrenic.”
Ann Diamond was a naïve, young woman in love with Leonard Cohen and felt that
she could save him from himself. A sense his other, illicit relationships comes
across. By the end of their relationship, Leonard Cohen would use his toolkit
of tactics to attack, silence, frighten, and discredit Ann. It was clear that
Cohen had exposed her to his personal world, which is both seductive and
disturbing, and when he felt she questioned his conduct, he set out to destroy
her.
This is not the type of biography fans of Leonard Cohen’s will readily embrace.
It is far too naked and poignant. Ann Diamond is a very brave woman who has
experienced and tangled with the man who wrestles with the angel and the beast.
I applaud her courage and honesty.
Kelley Lynch
Unlike Comment Like: 1 Comment: 1
Ann Diamond With Justin Trudeau now sitting as Prime Minister, like the
re-enactment of his famous father, this review seems very timely. Are we doomed
to repeat the sixties, follow leaders, stumble blindly on? Or will we wake from
our engineered dream?
Big thanks to Kelley Lynch for reading and responding to The Man Next Door!
Cohen's lawyer and harassment agent Peter Stephen Gianelli just posted at my blog; interesting that
it happened immediately after I was asking about Kelley Lynch here (the blog
post being two months old).
101. On November 20, 2015, Gianelli wrote
copying in FBI and Alan Hootnick. He
informed me that “we have previously discussed, your tax court was not preceded
by a notice of determination by the IRS that was transmitted to you at any
time, let alone within 90 days of the filing of your petition. For that reason the
IRS, Office of the Chief Counsel has moved to dismiss your tax court petition
for lack of jurisdiction. You had filed an objection to the motion to dismiss,
which awaits decision. In the meantime,
everything else in your tax court case is being held in abeyance pending a
disposition of the motion to dismiss. Since the tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition (which relates
to alleged events taking place from 1999 through 2003), the court
is not going to allow you to engage in third party discovery (let alone about
alleged "harassment" you have suffered by third parties in 2015). There will be no
subpoena issued. What will be issued
shortly is a motion to dismiss.” I have
no idea why Gianelli copied in FBI or Alan Hootnick. I had publicly stated that I wanted to ask
Tax Court to grant a subpoena with respect to the IP information related to all
parties who accessed the Tax Petition evidence blog. However, since Gianelli has advised me that
he uses TOR and I could never prove that it was him in any event, I believe the
Court should refer this matter to federal law enforcement for an investigation. I personally believe that the criminal
harassment over my Tax Court Petition is a very serious matter. In fact, I believe the harassment over all of
these issues is a very serious matter and criminal in nature. Nevertheless, Gianelli has concluded that Tax
Court will not issue a subpoena. What
Tax Court will issue shortly is a “motion to dismiss.” I don’t believe Tax Court will ever issue a
“motion to dismiss.” Perhaps Tax Court
will issue a decision regarding dismissal but I do not believe Tax Court will
be submitting motions in this matter.
102. On
November 21, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote about my “litigation threats of
today.” He had one more thing to say to
me and that is as follows “Before the federal court even gets what you frame as
the central question in your threatened RICO suit (the effect of alleged
perjury in prior state court proceedings against you) you are going to have to
run a gauntlet of threshold issues, including whether you properly pleaded a
claim for which relief may be granted, whether your complaint is timely,
whether the conduct you complain of is privileged, and the res judicata effect
of Leonard Cohen’s 2006 $14 million judgment for damages and declaratory relief
on your claims.” It is important to note
that I have not publicly addressed what my RICO suit will “allege.” I have sent IRS, FBI, and DOJ a copy of a
very rough draft of my RICO Complaint against Leonard Cohen. This is how Gianelli attempts to elicit
information. He wants me to confirm
whether or not what he has alleged will be the central question in my RICO
suit. Gianelli goes onto state that my
“RICO threat is as empty as your threats over the last 6-years to issue
subpoenas” and states that “no one takes your threats seriously.” First of all, a RICO suit is not a
threat. It is a legal Complaint. Beyond that, people do take me seriously or
Gianelli wouldn’t be engaged in such excessive criminal conduct and Leonard
Cohen wouldn’t have gone to the lengths he has gone to target and destroy my
life.
103. On November 22, 2015, Gianelli
wrote me copying in Ann Diamond. The
subject of this particular harassing email was “The fantasy that Lynch will
ever publish a book.” Gianelli wrote about
OJ’s book and the fact that LA Superior Court issued a “writ of execution” that
permitted the Sheriff’s Department to request a “garnishment request” by a
lawyer for plaintiff permitting the seizure of the manuscript and books rights.
Gianelli is clearly representing Leonard Cohen’s
interests in this matter. When LA
Superior Court issues another fraudulent “writ” related to me, I will ask that
it be removed to federal court where I will be addressing federal tax matters
and other related issues. LA Superior
Court has exposed me to this ongoing insanity and yet the Court has no
jurisdiction over me. It is my personal
belief that the judges are now literally lying from the bench about matters
related to me and Leonard Cohen. I find
that deeply disturbing. I also find
their demeanor appalling.
104. On November 23, 2015, Gianelli wrote an
email to Ann Diamond copying me in. The
email related to her “declaration provided to Kelley Lynch repeating an
allegation about Lorca Cohen.” This is
an attempt on Gianelli’s part to threaten and intimidate Ann Diamond. There is nothing libelous in the declaration
Ann Diamond provided me which was submitted to LA Superior Court. Libel requires false statements. I am aware of what unfolded with respect to
Lorca Cohen’s statements that her father molested her. I have emails from Leonard Cohen about this
matter. I also have a letter from my
brother-in-law, Van Penick, an attorney in Canada about this issue. This evidence will be submitted to federal
court with my RICO suit against Cohen.
Gianelli has relentlessly argued that Cohen, who has lied extensively,
has a litigation privilege but Ann Diamond evidently does not. His rationale for this is that the litigation
privilege applies when statements are (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to
achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) they have some connection or
logical relation to the action. At a
preliminary hearing on April 6, 2012, the prosecutor fraudulently argued that I
accused Cohen of being a “child molester.”
This statement was made in open court with the LA Times present. I didn’t accuse Cohen of being a child
molester. Lorca Cohen did at
Concordia. This information was then
repeated by the mother of one of Lorca Cohen’s classmates to Ann Diamond. I worked with Leonard Cohen and Van Penick to
have these comments removed. However, I
have now been falsely accused of making these accusations by the City Attorney
of Los Angeles. I have yet to see the
findings of their investigation into this matter. The Court, who read the charges publicly,
addressed the fact that the order I allegedly violated was a domestic violence
order. Leonard Cohen’s own conduct
annoys him and I personally do not believe that is an element of the “intent to
annoy” statute. When I filed my motion
to vacate the fraudulent domestic violence order, I addressed some of the
issues raised during my trial. The two
matters are related. I was not served or
notified of the newly created domestic violence order. I was not aware of how there could be a
domestic violence order until LA Superior Court asked me in the Spring of 2013
“Is Leonard Cohen your boyfriend” and explained that based upon the case number
it was a domestic violence order. It
took me over a year, until April 2014, to confirm with Boulder Combined Court
that the order Cohen obtained in 2008 was not a domestic violence order. Therefore, the Court’s position that I did not
file my motion to vacate in a timely matter is unconscionable. I don’t have a crystal ball and have
diligently investigated this matter without having all necessary legal
pleadings and evidence. Ann Diamond’s
declaration is covered by the litigation privilege. Cohen’s lies and perjured statements are
not. They are slanderous, defamatory,
and libelous.
Excerpt
of Trial Transcript
April 6,
2012
Prosecutor (Sandra Jo Streeter): Yes, so as – just to reiterate, the People
view virtually all of the comments made by Ms. Lynch as nothing more than
unsubstantiated allegations, but, nevertheless, some of the things that Ms.
Lynch has said have been incredibly troubling to Mr. Cohen in particular, for
example, the accusation that he is a child molester, things of that
nature. And so the – and then, you know,
just the fact of – while the charge is only – the People don’t want to say
“only” – is a court order violation, annoying phone calls, this is something
the People are going to make an offer of proof the Court as to, that has been
going on since 2005, and Mr. Cohen is very, very unsettled by this, it has just
completely up-ended his life … and as the People mentioned previously when you
put Leonard Cohen in a Google search, his name comes up first, and there are
loads of pictures as to Mr. Cohen. The
People are loath as to why there must be a picture of Mr. Cohen in this
particular setting. RT 3-4 [LA Times Motion – unable to obtain from
Public Defender’s Office]
Court reads charges: RT 19-20:
violations of domestic violence order & annoying phone calls and
other electronic communications to Leonard Cohen.
105. On November 23, 2015, Gianelli wrote an
email with the subject “Read before you make assumptions and draw
judgments.” Evidently, Gianelli wanted
me to know that he is “among those who want Phil Spector’s murder convictions
to be reversed, not because I think he is necessarily innocent, but because I
have been convinced from day-one that he did not get a fair trial.” If this were true, why did Gianelli post on
Truth Sentinel that Clarkson’s DNA was not on the ammunition and the gun was
Spector’s? Because he is arguing on
behalf of the Spector prosecution.
Gianelli has confirmed that he personally spent hundreds of hours
blogging about this case. Gianelli then
wrote, although he does not know Phil Spector at all, that “given Spector’s
health and the 2-3 years that it is going to take the 9th Circuit to
do his thing, then another expected appeal from there to the U.S. Supreme Court
– delaying the finality of whatever the 9th Circuit does –we have to
face the real possibility that Spector is going to die before the appellate
process has run its course.” This is a
blatant attempt to elicit information about Phil Spector’s health, what he
plans to do legally, and whether or not his estate will pursue the case to the
U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
Gianelli then states that “No one is worried about a third Spector
trial.” I find it impossible to believe
that the Spector prosecution, and government officials in Los Angeles, do not
have any concerns about a possible remand and third trial. They have spent
millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars prosecuting Spector. It is irrelevant if Cooley, Dixon, Jackson,
Do, etc. have all “left government service for bigger and better things and
will be completely unaffected by any reversal.”
I personally believe DOJ and FBI should investigate this case. It is overwhelmingly clear that the
fabricated narrative and theories are not supported by the forensic
science. It also defies logic that five
of the greatest forensic scientists in this country would all lie for Phil
Spector. For some reason, Gianelli then
decides to argue that he is “not slandering Ann Diamond.” He is merely forwarding her email to him from
January 2014 with respect to my motion to vacate Cohen’s default judgment. Who cares if Ann Diamond believes or doesn’t
believe that I was served? Ann Diamond
and I did not know each other until 2008.
The default judgment was entered in 2006. Cohen failed to serve me in 2005. The situation is a very serious legal matter
that does not involve hearsay or guesswork on the part of unrelated
individuals. Gianelli concludes by
informing me that my claims – while amusing – are all barred by the passage of
time and the res judicata effect of the 2006 default judgment in Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC338322. Stephen Gianelli is arguing Leonard Cohen’s
legal positions while attempting to elicit information about Phil Spector. Ann Diamond personally wrote to confirm that
she now believes, after hearing my side, that I was not served. Stephen Gianelli obviously does not speak for
Ann Diamond. He stalks, harasses,
threatens, intimidates, and slanders Ann Diamond. That benefits Leonard Cohen as well.
From: Ann Diamond <anndiamond2011@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Subject: FW Re: FYI - Read
before you make assumptions and draw judgments
To: Kelley Lynch
<kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Back then
I didn’t. Now I've heard your side, I believe you.
106. On November 23, 2015, Gianelli continued
with his argument that “If Ann Diamond testified that you were never served
with Cohen’s suit, which I very much doubt, then she perjured herself.” I have no idea what this man is talking
about. Ann Diamond has never testified
about any matter related to me, Leonard Cohen, or service. She isn’t in a position to do so as she did
not know me until approximately two years after the fraudulent default judgment
was entered. If Ann Diamond was clear in
her email to Gianelli, she was equally clear in the email submitted with this
declaration that clearly states that she believes I was not served. Ann Diamond was confused about the situation
where Gianelli literally wrote me while I was in Lynwood. I filed a Complaint with LASD about that
incident and spoke to LAPD detectives about the situation with Gianelli. Gianelli never visited me in jail. He wrote me although I do not know this man. Stephen Gianelli is an extremely twisted
individual.
107. On November 23, 2015, Gianelli again wrote
to advise me that “Diamond’s declaration does not even discuss the service of
the suit on you” but rather covers events that occurred decades ago. Gianelli is lying when he states that none of
the events in Ann Diamond’s declaration involve me. I was falsely accused, by the City Attorney
of Los Angeles, of accusing Cohen of molesting his daughter. Ann Diamond was involved in that situation
and so was I. The City Attorney had an
obligation to investigate its witness and the allegations themselves. Instead, the prosecutor simply informed LA
Superior Court that my statements were “unsubstantiated allegations.” How could anyone make that statement without
an investigation into the allegations themselves? I personally believe Ann Diamond’s statements
about Leonard Cohen’s character are both admissible and material. The alleged hearsay about Lorca Cohen is
confirmed in Van Penick’s letter to me.
The facts, as Cohen presented them, were addressed. For Gianelli to say that a false accusation
made against me by the City Attorney of Los Angeles, in an attempt to convict
me over Leonard Cohen’s own conduct, is outrageous. The City Attorney not only set out to
discredit me but also has exposed me to the relentless harassment by people
functioning as Cohen’s legal representatives, operatives, proxies, and Cohen
himself. He uses legal documents to lie
about and slander me. It doesn’t seem as
thought that conduct is protected but a federal court can decide for
itself.
“Streeter: Yes,
so as – just to reiterate, the People view virtually all of the comments made
by Ms. Lynch as nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations.”
108. On November 23, 2015, Gianelli felt it was necessary to advise
me, although he is not the federal court or Tax Court, that no one is going to
“take the witness stand” because any suit I initiate will be dismissed well
before the testimony stage on procedural grounds.
109. On
November 24, 2015 Gianelli wrote with respect to my blog posted email to Ann
Diamond, FBI, DOJ, and others. He copied
Ann Diamond, DOJ’s Criminal Division, and FBI on the email. Gianelli is arguing Leonard Cohen’s legal
issues with IRS, FBI, DOJ and others.
Gianelli begins by arguing that he did not threaten me or Ann
Diamond. He was simply “pointing out”
that the allegations in Ann Diamond’s declaration were not even remotely
germane to the issues before the court when it was filed. The issues were and remain germane. All issues raised during my trial relate
specifically to the fraudulent domestic violence order. Gianelli then attempts to obfuscate issues by
writing that the issue before the court was whether I was properly served with
Cohen’s August 2005 lawsuit. Ann
Diamond’s declaration is privileged.
Leonard Cohen’s slanderous, libelous, and defamatory declarations that
contain fraudulent misrepresentations and perjured statements are not
privileged. Stephen Gianelli is Leonard
Cohen’s operative. Ann Diamond’s
declaration confirms that Leonard Cohen uses operatives to target people and
that is highly material and relevant. It
is entirely probable that Lorca Cohen would lie in order to protect her father. The situation would have to be thoroughly
investigated by appropriate authorities.
I can testify to the truth of these accusations. What is a given, and I have the evidence to
support this fact, is that Freda Guttman advised Ann Diamond that her daughter
was present at Concordia when Lorca Cohen alleged that her father molested
her. Van Penick’s letter does not state
that I made these accusations because I did not. Lorca Cohen was willing to go into my
management office and remove my personal business files on behalf of her
father. Lorca Cohen evidently made the
statements that an “informant” advised her father that he could never
retire. That individual evidently
analyzed corporate books and records, financial statements, and other relevant
materials. However, no “casual employee”
of mine was in a position to do that type of analysis and probably wouldn’t
know who owned the corporate entities.
This is blatant criminal witness tampering with respect to me and Ann
Diamond. This is another one of
Gianelli’s roles. Stephen Gianelli,
being a chronic and blatant liar, goes onto state that he did not “target” my
son Ray Lindsey. He most certainly did
and that began when Ray was a minor. His
father evidently felt it was acceptable for strangers, who are adults with
motive, to target my son. He didn’t
subsequently write Gianelli. After
Gianelli criminally harassed both of my sons, Ray wrote Gianelli, Walsh, and
Lawrence to advise them that their emails made him physically ill. These people belong in prison over this
situation. The evidence of the targeting
of my sons was apparently irrelevant to the City Attorney because I wrote the
City Attorney years ago documenting this situation. I also wrote LAPD because my sons were LAPD
residents and Ray was a minor. IRS, FBI,
DOJ, Treasury, and others were copied on those emails. I want to assure this
Court that I don’t want my sons involved in any discussions about Phil
Spector’s case or the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax
fraud – including with operatives like Stephen Gianelli and Susanne Walsh, an
individual who may have connections to a jihadist sympathizer and also
attempted to lure my son into communicating with her privately. LA Superior Court, who destroyed my sons’
lives based on fraud and perjury, ordered Steve Lindsey to have my son call me
every other night. The Court ordered
Lindsey’s lawyer, Daniel Bergman, to communicate with me. Both Lindsey and Bergman were in contempt of
court continuously for approximately five years. Leonard Cohen then hired Daniel Bergman, the
custody lawyer who lied relentlessly about me and my sons, to represent him in
the Motion for Terminating Sanctions matter.
That matter addressed egregious fraud upon the court. Ray said what he had to say in his
declaration. That would include the fact
that the slanderous emails, which Cohen’s lawyer was frequently cc’d on,
confused him. Rutger confirmed that they
confused him as well. I am not mentally
ill or an alcoholic. And this will not
be Leonard Cohen’s defense to anything.
Ray wasn’t present for the SWAT incident. He was dropped off at the bottom of the hill
and was not a witness to what unfolded.
Rutger was and addressed that situation in his declaration. My mother addressed certain facts as
well.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-charles-lindsey-kelley-lynchs-son.html
Stephen
Gianelli is indeed Leonard Cohen’s operative.
He is a proxy. Leonard Cohen is
not my “Daddy.” I don’t want “Daddy’s”
attention. I want to address the merits
of the issue and submit actual evidence to a court of law. I want the IRS required tax and corporate
information. And, I believe people
should be held accountable for their actions.
Gianelli’s emails speak for themselves and they are evidence that he is
representing Leonard Cohen’s legal issues and functioning as his legal
representative. The reason Gianelli ends
by noting that I continue to cc Doug Davis of the Franchise Tax Board is
because he is attempting to elicit information about the declaration I am preparing
for the FTB’s Fraud Unit re. Cohen’s willful and knowing refusal to provide me
with required tax and corporate information (1099 and K-1s). Doug Davis is an adult male, who works for
FTB, and can personally speak for himself.
I most certainly will not rely on the statements made by someone I view
as a common criminal.
110. On November 24, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote that he “couldn’t care less what” my declaration filed with the Franchise
Tax Board says. Gianelli attempts to
explain away his harassing emails over FTB by complaining about my emails to
Doug Davis. They have nothing whatsoever
to do with Gianelli and Doug Davis can and should speak for himself. My emails to Doug Davis were not “obscene.” When Gianelli writes that I have shredded my
credibility with that agency, he is attempting to provoke me into providing him
with any information re. conversations I’ve had with FTB. Nothing I could say to IRS or FTB regarding
the events of 1999 through 2005 could possibly change a thing. Perhaps IRS and FTB would like to explain the
following statements included in Robert Kory’s 2005 memorandum. This statement confirms that Traditional
Holdings, LLC failed to report $8 million in income. Leonard Cohen hired the individuals who
handled all accounting, corporate, and tax matters. His representative, Richard Westin, prepared
the 2001 through 2003 federal tax returns.
He worked solely for Leonard Cohen and I did not oversee or approve his
work. I was instructed to sign the
returns and mail them. I didn’t review
them and it was not until the fall of 2004 that my lawyers and accountant
advised me that Cohen failed to report the income from the Sony sale on the
2001 return; my promissory note was extinguished from the 2002 return (using a
separate tax ID number); and the annuity obligation itself was extinguished
from the 2003 return and the amount of $4.7 million was moved to the partners’
capital accounts. This all sounds highly
illegal and I believe IRS and FTB are capable of reviewing the tax
returns. Cohen’s Complaint, in connection
with the fraudulent default judgment, confirms that Cohen and his
representatives failed to file state corporate tax returns. I didn’t handle IRS or tax matters so the
blame for these issues cannot be shifted to me.
Cohen’s Objection document, served on me but not filed with LA Superior
Court, confirms that he and his representatives do not even believe I have the
right to speak about tax matters. My
February 2002 email to Cohen and Westin confirms that I did not handle IRS,
tax, accounting, corporate, legal, or financial matters.
“Impact
on all parties of Traditional Holdings failure to report sale to Sony, or
manner in which sale treated (delta of $5 million basis and $8 million sale
price may be consumed in fees paid to third parties).” Robert Kory January 14, 2005 memorandum.
111. On November 25, 2015, Gianelli wrote that I “omitted” my
forwarded email from the message string posted on my blog. He copied FBI, DOJ’s Criminal Division,
Ottawa IRS Attach, and Alan Hootnick on his email. He evidently wanted these parties to
understand that I wrote, in an email with the subject matter “Is Cooley coming
after me with a parody email” give it up DC.
I quoted Eminem from his Concert for Valor in Washington, DC. Gianelli is not IRS, FBI, CIA, FTB or FSB and
my emails to those parties are not addressed to Gianelli. The man has simply concluded that when I post
on my blog, he has the right to criminal harass, stalk, slander, threaten,
intimidate, and insult me.
112. On November 25, 2015, Gianelli wrote, copying in Alan Hootnick,
that it is not “Leonard Cohen who claims that Cohen’s music is a MK ULTRA plot
to control people’s minds through song lyrics.”
Evidently that is Ann Diamond and her Canadian pals who are discussing
this on various blogs. Gianelli falsely
states that these are discussions in which I am participating. I have never said anywhere that Cohen claimed
his music is a MK ULTRA or CIA plot to control people’s minds through song
lyrics. I have no idea if this is being
discussed and could care less. Leonard
Cohen is the individual who claimed to have participated in CIA’s MK ULTRA
program. What Ann Diamond and her
Canadian pals discuss is their business and I most certainly am not part of
that discussion. I thanked Jasun Horsley
for mentioning me in an article and addressed Gianelli’s slanderous comments on
his blog.
113. On November 25, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote again copying in
FBI, DOJ’s Criminal Division, and Alan Hootnick. This email related to an email
I sent IRS, FBI and DOJ. Gianelli has
lied to IRS, FBI, and DOJ that I stole $7 million from Cohen; was an abusive,
neglectful, and horrible mother; and someone who has turned on everyone while
engaged in a decade-long campaign of vicious harassment against dozens of
unnamed people although Gianelli states that he is one of them. I have engaged in no such campaign. Leonard Cohen is the individual who has spent
approximately 10 years slandering me, lying in numerous courts, submitting
perjured statements, and fraudulently misrepresenting facts. Stephen Gianelli has relentlessly targeted
me, my sons, elderly parents, sister, brother-in-law, friends, my appellate
attorney, and Paulette Brandt. My
emails to IRS, FBI, DOJ, ICE, CIA, NSA, and others are not profanity and
epithet laced. I have at times used
strong language because this situation is unconscionable, outrageous, and
inconceivably vicious. I did not violate
any restraining order. As of January
2010, Boulder Combined Court advised me and others that Cohen’s permanent order
expired on February 15, 2009. I was
unaware of the fraudulent domestic violence order. Leonard Cohen, his representatives,
operatives, and local Los Angeles government actors are the individuals who
have lied and cemented my reputation as the “crazy woman who stole Leonard
Cohen’s retirement savings and was arrested for stalking him.” I think that was the plan and this was most
definitely pre-meditated. Cohen
evidently believes that if he merely lies about these matters, and conceals
evidence, his loans/expenditures from corporate entities (including
approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC) will simply
dissolve. He has come up with a
fraudulent and fabricated narrative that has worked beautifully with LA
Superior Court.
114. On November 26, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote to ask if I felt my
April 23, 2015 email was “profane?” No,
it was not profane. It expressed
precisely what I intended to express:
“Fuck off psychopath.” This is an
individual who has relentlessly targeted my sons, elderly parents, and nearly
everyone in my life. I think that
statement is precise. However, Stephen
Gianelli remains undeterred. He is
convinced he is immune. In any event,
there is nothing profane about the word “fuck” which has become part of our
vernacular. As for profane and obscene
emails, I remain convinced that Stephen Gianelli (who uses monikers he creates)
wrote the “bloody stump” email that clearly states that I should be raped,
murdered, or commit suicide. As I have
said, the stakes are high and the lows are inconceivably vile. This is the individual the City Attorney
instructed to harass and pass along an official message from their office to
me. And this email makes it abundantly
clear that certain parties have it out for Oliver Stone.
Kelley,
you are diseased scum and the essence of evil. In another time you, like all
alcoholic, drug addicted witches and whores, would have been burned
at the stake for your horrible crimes and insanity. The best we
can hope for now is that you are raped and murdered in jail after you are
sent back shortly. Or maybe you will die of a brain tumor or lung cancer.
However you die, it is important that you burn in Hell for all
eternity. How you ever escaped jail for abuse of your children is a
mystery. Not only did you abuse them emotionally and neglect their basic
material needs, nutrition, and safety, but you abused them sexually too,
and allowed your depraved Hollywood friends to abuse them sexually. Really
Kelley, making Rutger and Ray snort coke off the head of Oliver Stone's cock at
your infamous parties. That is just beyond evil, not to mention a severe
violation of Miss Manner's etiquette. Rutger and Ray still to this
day cry themselves to sleep reliving the horrible abuse you dished out to them.
That's why Rutger's hand is now a DISGUSTING BLOODY STUMP. He
was overwrought with grief for his mentally ill, alcoholic mother, so grief
stricken that he couldn't pay attention at the slicing machine and got his
fingers lopped off. You like to say it was Leonard Cohen's fault but it
actually was your fault, Kelley, entirely your fault. I guess that's why
Rapunzel's second cousin told everyone how you wanted to be fist fucked
with RUTGER'S BLOODY STUMP. Go to the stump, Kelley, go to
the stump. And maybe you could coat it with LSD, for a long time your
drug of choice, before he shoves it up your foul, diseased cooze and
wipes off his BLOODY STUMP on your saggy, wrinkled tits. I'm
sure you'll let out several howls and dozens of your infamously foul
vaginal blood farts after he consummates the act. Alex The Rat and
Libby The Lush would approve and so would Dorcas Dooglemeyer. Nor to mention
Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector. Don't bother forwarding this email to the FBI, IRS,
DOJ, ATF, FTB, LAPD, Vivienne, Dennis, Doug, Ann, Kelly, Robert, Michelle,
Bruce, Anderson, or any of your other regulars. They blocked you long
ago. Your emails to them go into the ether. Thank God you and your flea bitten
attorney, Francisco the Fuckup Feeb, are too incompetent to file a proper legal
motion. Criminal appeal denied. Writ denied. Motion to vacate the seven year
old default judgment will soon be denied. Soon you will have your
probation hearing and will be sent back to jail for a very long
time. You could always commit suicide, Kelley. I think that would be your
best option, actually. Do the world a favor, you drunken old
hag.
Your
friend,
Simi The
Seventeenth Shi-Tzu
115. On November 26, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that I may or
may not have a constitutional right to use profanity (depending on the context)
but felt he has a legal right to address my emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ. Gianelli, of course, is simply attempting to
elicit information.
116. On November 26, 2015, Gianelli wrote in
response to my position that the City Attorney or LAPD’s Threat Management Unit
should arrest Justin Bieber’s fans for their use of the “F” word in posts about
Leonard Cohen. This was in response to
an email I posted on my blog that related to Justin Bieber’s fans. Gianelli wanted to advise me that I was not
“arrested for using profanity in a tweet or a blog post.” I was evidently arrested, tried, convicted,
and sentenced for “unapologetically sending obscene, threatening, and abusive
emails to Leonard Cohen in violation of a “2008 Colorado restraining order”
that Boulder Combined Court advised me, and others, expired on February 15,
2009. However, I was arrested for
violating the fraudulent domestic violence order and the prosecutor was quite
clear about that fact during my bail hearing where Cohen testified that I never
stole from him – just his peace of mind – and we were in a purely business
relationship. That must have been fairly
disturbing to the prosecutor from the City Attorney’s “domestic violence
unit.” Obviously, Leonard Cohen wasn’t
properly coached for that hearing.
The
jurors in debriefing informed my lawyer that they wanted to hear from IRS and
one juror relied on Streeter’s fraudulent and false statements about
Traditional Holdings, LLC’s assets although the judge advised the jurors not to
rely on attorney statements as they were not evidence. I have no idea what Judge Silverman, in the motion
to vacate the fraudulent domestic violence order, agreed or disagreed
with. I disagree with Judge
Silverman. I didn’t have an opportunity
to litigate this matter because I wasn’t served or notified of the fraudulent
order and didn’t have the information necessary to confront the fraudulent
order until April 2014. I suppose I
could have been and arrested for violating the Colorado order but I
wasn’t. I was arrested and prosecuted
for violating the fraudulent California newly created domestic violence
order.
117. On November 27, 2015, Gianelli wrote
regarding my blog post of November 26.
Apparently Gianelli wanted to know why I bothered to transmit to the
City and County of Los Angeles government claims in 2014 if it is your
contention that the Government Claims Act is inapplicable to my federal claims
against the City and County. I put the
City and County of Los Angeles on formal notice. My claims relate to two false arrests, an
order issued without findings in Colorado, a fraudulent domestic violence
order, and VAWA funding fraud. Gianelli
is now arguing that the lies, fraud, perjury, slander, and false accusations on
the part of the City Attorney’s office are protected by the litigation
privilege. Gianelli doesn’t know my
litigation position so it would be impossible for him to state that there is
“no logical response.” He is attempting
to elicit information and did inform me that he worked with the City Attorney
on two occasions to have me falsely arrested.
I will evidently be held to higher standards than an attorney before the
Central District of California’s Court due to the fact that Leonard Cohen
willfully bankrupted me, stole from me, and I will apparently apply for a fee
waiver. My letter to the City and County
of Los Angeles addressed some of the issues that will be raised in my RICO
suit. I, of course, have not received a
response.
Kelley Lynch
c/o Paulette Brandt
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California
90028
31
July 2014
Thonas
Wong Jessica
Rivas
Chief
Investigator Associate
County Counsel
City of
Los Angeles General
Litigation Division
City Hall
East 648
Kenneth Hahn Hall
200 N.
Main Street 500
W. Temple Street
Room 800 Los
Angeles, California 90012
Los
Angeles, CA 90012
Executive
Offices of the Board of Supervisors
Room
383 Hall of Administration
500
West Temple Street
Los
Angeles, California 90012
Re: City of Los Angeles Claim No. C15-0063
County of Los Angeles Claim No.
14-1115711*001
Thomas
Wong, Jessica Rivas, and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,
Thank you
for your letters dated July 8, 2014 (LA County), July 21, 2014 (LA County), and
July 25, 2014 (City of Los Angeles).
There
seems to be some confusion with respect to the various dates and time frames
addressed in my original claims. I would
like to reiterate the following: These claims arise from a prolonged and
sustained course of conduct that involves both the City and County of Los
Angeles City.
.
The
course of conduct culminated with my
false arrest and imprisonment on January
22, 2014 (Case No. 2CA0459) and LA Superior Court’s refusal to vacate a
fraudulently obtained default judgment on January
17, 2014 (Case No. BC338322).
This
course of conduct also relates to the fraudulent registration of a foreign
restraining order with Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC033717). The City and County of Los Angeles failed to
verify the nature of the foreign order.
It is not a domestic violence order and I received written confirmation
of this fact from the Boulder Combined Court on April 10, 2014.
On June 17, 2014, after diligently
pursuing the matter for nearly two years, I finally located the Court Reporter
from the March 23, 2012 bail hearing (Case No. 2CA0459). I and others have repeatedly been advised,
for a variety of reasons, that this transcript was unavailable. The Court Reporter is currently on vacation
and will provide me with a transcript of that hearing when she returns. That transcript should successfully prove
that Leonard Cohen testified (accurately, I might note) that we were in a
purely business relationship and I never stole from him. His perjury with respect to the “dating
relationship” was addressed during my 2012 trial in connection with the
violation of the domestic violence order.
When confronted, Leonard Cohen admitted changing his testimony from one
hearing to the next. He was not
prosecuted for perjury and DCA Streeter’s attempt to rehabilitate him was
farcical.
The
governments of the City and County of Los Angeles have simply assigned me a
“brief intimate dating relationship” with Leonard Cohen. The fraudulently registered foreign order
remains in full force and effect. That
order prevents me from requesting information I require to file and/or amend
federal and state tax returns and payment for work I’ve done and assets I
own. Additional problems have arisen due
to the fact that Internal Revenue Service views me as a partner on entities LA
Superior Court has concluded is the sole property of Leonard Cohen.
The
California Tort Claims Act mandates that all claims for money or damages
against a public entity must be presented in writing to the entity prior to
filing suit. My claims were presented in
writing and were filed in a timely manner.
Both the City and County of Los Angeles have acknowledged receipt of my
tort claims. Federal civil rights
violation claims are not subject to California’s tort claim requirements
because such would violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Williams
v. Horvath, 16 Cal.3d 834, 842 (1976).
Pursuant
to government codes and regulations, the claims must be in writing and signed
by the claimant. The claim must
contain: information to be a sufficient
claim; claimant’s name and mailing address; date, place, and circumstances of
the claim; description of the injury, damage, or loss for which recovery is
sought; name of any public employees causing the loss if known and an
indication as to whether the claim would be made in limited jurisdiction court
or not. My original claims satisfied
these elements. The descriptions need
not provide evidentiary detail and I have outlined the prolonged and sustained
course of conduct in relatively great detail.
My original claims were detailed enough to allow the City and County of
Los Angeles to investigate and consider them.
Furthermore, I am available to answer any questions with respect to
complexities that may appear “vague.” It
is my personal opinion that neither the City nor County of Los Angeles have
provided an adequate explanation for the denial or insufficiency of my
claims. The City and County of Los
Angeles have also not explained precisely what dates they believe do not fall
within the legal claim periods.
I look
forward to your response.
Very
truly yours,
Kelley
Lynch
118. On November 29, 2015, Gianelli had this Tax
Court matter on his mind and wrote with respect to standing vs.
jurisdiction: “There is a big difference between
the issue of who has the right to file a case, e.g. ‘standing’ as a tax partner
to litigate on behalf of a partnership and the tax court's power to hear the
case, i.e. ‘jurisdiction.’ One has
nothing to do with the other. No notice
of determination + timely filing thereafter = no jurisdiction, i.e., petition
DISMISSED.”
114. On November 27, 2015, Gianelli wrote in
response to my blog posted emails to Word Press, FBI, IRS, and others. Gianelli decided he would simply falsely
accuse me of being the “culprit” who tampered with and altered the evidence
blog submitted as evidence to Tax Court.
People in the general public were indeed aware of this blog and the
Petition was posted to Scribd in September 2015. The login information was contained in the
Petition. Gianelli has a lie and excuse
for everything. I wrote Word Press and
they responded to my request for information on who to address a subpoena
to. Gianelli decided to argue that
matter using FRCP Rule 45. Given the
fact that Gianelli has now advised me that he uses TOR, and even if he was the
“culprit” I could never prove it, I am asking this Court to refer this matter
to federal law enforcement for an investigation. Gianelli clearly has problems with reading
comprehension since he cannot comprehend the fact that my Word Press blog was
created specifically for Tax Court and used to submit evidence to this
Court. Therefore, this matter involves
criminal evidence tampering. The FBI has
personally advised me that they investigate federal matters that relate to
criminal evidence and witness tampering.
The evidence blog relates to a case where I am “seeking to set aside a
private agreement that Leonard Cohen reached with the IRS in 2003, regarding a
form 1099 that Sony Music sent to Leonard Cohen in error in 2001 reporting
$1M in consideration paid in connection with the sale of” intellectual
property. Gianelli, who continues to
represent Leonard Cohen’s legal interests, believes the intellectual property
that was owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. is “Leonard Cohen’s”
intellectual property. Corporate assets
are not Leonard Cohen’s personal property.
Gianelli concluded his email by quoting “Man of La Mancha.” Evidently, he feels I am a “scorned woman”
although Leonard Cohen and I were not in a “dating” or “engagement”
relationship. Leonard Cohen should be forced to
undergo psychiatric evaluations if he believes sexual harassment, indecent
exposure, and other unconscionable conduct towards a female colleague is a
“dating” relationship. Perhaps this too
relates to Cohen’s inconceivable sense of entitlement.
119. On November 29, 2015 Gianelli wrote about
an email I sent to Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office, at 11.36
AM. This email was posted on my blog and
Gianelli was not a recipient.
Nevertheless, he personally responded and copied Mr. Fabian. I have never heard of anyone lying so
extensively to IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and others but the stakes are
clearly high. Gianelli’s email to me was
clearly meant for IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office. He wanted the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s
office to know that 1) he does not represent Leonard Cohen; 2) he did not
tamper with the evidence blog I submitted to Tax Court; 3) Tax Court has
limited jurisdiction which is defined by Title 26 of the United States Code
(and Gianelli, who is clearly researching these matters legally, provided case
citations) and Tax Court may NOT invoke general equitable principles; 4) Title
26 requires that the IRS make a final determination and notify a party of that
determination as a prerequisite to the tax court taking jurisdiction; 5)
setting all of that aside, what I am trying to do “flies in the face of common
sense. Our tax and legal system above
all else rely on transparency, predictability and (above all else)
finality.” The justice system is not a
venue where individuals should feel confident engaging in fraud, perjury,
litigation misconduct, theft, embezzlement, and obstruction of justice. Gianelli uses an example of a “disgruntled
former employee or partner who was never made a party to a tax proceeding” that
suddenly comes forward, out of the blue, and validly seeks to set aside a
stipulated decision in a tax court case.
The reason for this is due to the fact that businesses and individuals,
who have engaged in fraud and criminal conduct, could not “plan their affairs,
and lenders and investors could not assess risk. The entire financial system would
collapse.” I personally do not believe
that the entire financial system would collapse if Tax Court permitted me to
file a motion addressing the egregious fraud upon the court. I also do not believe Tax Court would be
overwhelmed because this situation is unconscionable and the fraud is egregious
and may very well date back to when Leonard Cohen first obtained his first
green card in 1970 and funneled income off-shore. Gianelli’s sixth and final point relates to
my position that he has inserted himself into this Tax Court case. I am not attempting to litigate this Tax
Court case in public and am unaware of a gag order related to this case. Leonard Cohen, and others, believe I should
be silenced while they relentlessly lie about these matters and slander
me. I have indeed filed documents with
Tax Court addressing this ongoing criminal harassment. These are not personal grievances and most certainly
not my “self-manufactured drama.” I also
do not flood Mr. Fabian with “unnecessary correspondence daily.” I am being relentlessly targeted due to the
fact that I reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax
fraud and he decided to retaliate over that fact while further benefiting from
his wrong doing. Why don’t I give them
all a break? Why doesn’t this criminal
cease and desist? Why doesn’t Leonard
Cohen stop lying in court? Why did LA
Superior Court permit Leonard Cohen to steal via default judgment? Why did the City Attorney lie about federal
tax matters and blame Leonard Cohen’s conduct on me? Why did Leonard Cohen fail to advise IRS
Chief Trial Counsel’s Office and Tax Court that the $1 million was a down
payment against the Traditional Holdings, LLC deal and belongs to Traditional
Holdings, LLC? Why is Leonard Cohen
arguing that he is the alter ego of numerous corporate entities who is entitled
to engage in self-dealing, embezzlement, and money laundering? Why did Cohen and his representatives fail to
report $8 million in income to IRS? Why
was phantom income shifted to me but not distributed? Why did I pay taxes to IRS based on K-1s Leonard
Cohen’s personal tax and corporate lawyer prepared on behalf of Traditional
Holdings, LLC and attached to the federal tax returns? There are countless questions one could ask
but “Why don’t I give them all a break” is not a valid question from my
perspective. To quote Gerald Shargel in
the John Gotti trial: “Give me a break.”
120. On November 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote once
again copying in Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office. Gianelli responded to an email I sent IRS
which was posted on my blog. Gianelli
had certain points he evidently wanted to make to the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s
office. One point Gianelli wanted to
communicate is his belief that Hazel-Atlas has been superseded and limited by
FRCP 60(b). The three “takeaways” Gianelli
presented are all “fatal” to what I am trying to do. First, I was not a “party” to Leonard Cohen’s
stipulated tax court decision and do not qualify for relief; Second, because
Leonard Cohen was not my “opposing party” in that matter, I do not qualify for
relief from the alleged fraud; and, Third, because 13-years has passed since
the stipulated tax court decision was entered on April 1, 2003 in Docket No.
7024-02, my request is neither reasonably timed, nor was it made within the
1-year outside time limit to ask a federal court to set aside a prior order
based on “fraud” (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic). Gianelli is defending Leonard Cohen with IRS
Chief Trial Counsel’s office in this email.
I completely disagree with Gianelli’s interpretation of FRCP 60(b). Gianelli remains convinced that “Tax Court
does not have general equitable power to act.
Its jurisdiction can only come from Title 26 – which requires that a Tax
Court petition be preceded by a notice of determination mailed to the
petitioner. I have, according to
Gianelli, conceded that no such notice of determination was ever mailed to
me. Therefore, Tax Court must dismiss my
pending petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Perhaps Tax Court, using this logic, should dismiss Cohen’s Petition for
lack of jurisdiction and address the fraud upon the court. I am not a disgruntled former employer. I was retaliated against for numerous reasons
including the fact that on April 15, 2005 and at other times I reported the
allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS.
121. On November 29, 2015, Gianelli sent me a
criminally harassing email with the subject line “Public Comment – Your
11/29/2015 blog posted humorous photograph.”
Gianelli is well aware of the fact that my blog does not accept
comments. He simply feels entitled to
harass me over my blog posts. He views
that as his legal right. Gianelli felt
an image I posted on my blog was “funny” and wanted to use the email as an
opportunity to insult and slander me.
122. On November 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote again copying
Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsels’ office.
My attention was “respectfully directed” to Tax Court rule 162: “Any motion to vacate or revise a decision,
with or without a new or further trial, shall be filed within 30 days after the
decision has been entered, unless the Court shall otherwise permit.”
123. On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote supplementing his response and copying in Mr. Fabian and Alan
Hootnick. Gianelli suggested that I read
the attached opinion of the 9th Circuit in Toscano v. C.I.R. According to Gianelli, it appears to “support
the argument that a motion to vacate a final tax court decision may be made on
the grounds of alleged fraud – even years later.” Of course, according to Gianelli, Tax Court
“must first find it has jurisdiction to even allow” my Tax Court Petition to
remain pending. Toscano, according to
Gianelli, does not speak to whether my motion for leave to move to vacate sets
forth a prima facie case for “fraud on the court.” Stephen Gianelli continues with his attempts
to elicit information.
124. On November 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that the lyrics he sent me were from a Broadway play and he’s quite
sure Leonard Cohen had nothing to do with writing the musical score. I, on the other hand, am quite sure that this
man is a criminal who is amused with his own conduct and positively
deranged.
125. On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote to harass me over the lyrics from “Man of La Mancha.” He didn’t send the lyrics to me to address
Cohen and my “relationship status” but rather to address the literary character
“Don Quixote.” Gianelli must have
thought long and hard about this insane theory.
The reference, according to Gianelli, is an “allusion” to my futile 10
year obsession with “bringing Cohen down.”
Actually Boies Schiller, who reviewed three huge boxes of evidence, felt
a lawyer might enjoy “taking down another Hollywood fraud.” They were speaking about Leonard Cohen. Leonard Cohen has brought himself down
through his conduct with respect to the evasion of taxes. Gianelli’s deranged reference was too
“subtle” for me because I have a “literary/cultural IQ of about a 2” although
his criminal does not know me at all. I
won’t dignify this insanity by advising this Court if I immediately wrote IRS,
FBI, and DOJ that the lyric related to “Don Quixote” and “Man of La Mancha” but
feel free to guess. Gianelli ends this
email with the disclaimer that the views he has expressed about this Tax Court
case are his alone. He evidently doesn’t
even know if Cohen knows about the Tax Court Petition. I can assure this Court that Cohen and his
lawyers are aware of my Tax Court Petition since it was addressed with Judge
Hess when Cohen’s lawyers were present.
Gianelli is a chronic, pathological liar so I do not believe a word he
utters. It is my firm conviction that
Stephen Gianelli represents Leonard Cohen’s legal interests and is probably
moonlighting for the Spector prosecution.
126. On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote and
copied Alan Hootnick on his email.
Gianelli wants to address Cohen’s success since we parted ways. He has evidently amassed a “$50 million net
worth.” Part of the reason for this is
Cohen finally delivered a studio album, toured behind that album, and granted
interviews where he maliciously maligned and slandered me. I personally do not believe “criminal tax
fraud” has a six year statute of limitations but that is not something I would
need to argue legally since I am not IRS or DOJ. The Kentucky Fraud Unit advised me that IRS
would go back and audit Cohen from the moment he obtained his first green card
in 1970 and noted that the cumulative penalties and interest would be astounding. I personally believe the Kentucky Fraud Unit
knows what they were speaking about.
Gianelli quoted Section 6531 of Title 26 which evidently controls the
statute of limitation periods for most criminal offenses. Gianelli wants to know why I am not reading
the United States Department of Justice’s Criminal Tax Manual because he
evidently is. The offenses Gianelli
mentions are defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States, willfully
attempting to evade or defeat taxes; willfully aiding or assisting in, or
procuring .. a false or fraudulent return, affidavit, claim or document; 4)
willfully failing to pay any tax, or make any return; 5) making false
statements and fraudulent documents; 6) intimidating officers or employees of
the United States; or 6) engaging in a conspiracy to evade or defeat
taxes. Gianelli argues that I am so full
of “nonsense it staggers the mind.”
127. Stephen Gianelli, on behalf of Leonard
Cohen, publicly states that IRS Agent Luis Tejeda exonerated Leonard
Cohen. On December 1, 2015 Gianelli
wrote to me copying in Alan Hootnick. In
order to subpoena Agent Tejeda, I need to have a pending trial. This is not likely, according to Gianelli,
because any federal suit will be dismissed long before trial, before Cohen
needs to file an answer, as soon as the court rules on, and denies my fee
waiver. According to Gianelli, Agent
Tejeda “would only testify that in 2007 he concluded that there was no tax
fraud by Cohen and closed the file.”
Therefore, I will “wind up looking like the dumbass” that I am – only more
so. I did subpoena Agent Tejeda. Judge Vanderet refused to wait two hours for
my lawyers to contact Agent Tejeda who was meeting with attorneys from IRS/DOJ. The jurors ultimately informed my lawyer that
they wanted to hear from “IRS.” I
personally believe that is a very serious matter particularly as my appellate
attorney believed my trial was a federal tax case related to Cohen would should
be investigated by IRS and my public defender concluded that the City Attorney
was attempting to sabotage IRS; discredit me; the DA didn’t want the Spector
verdict overturned; and there may have been a juror plant on the jury.
128. On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote that 1)
the memorandum I referred to [Robert Kory’s January 14, 2005 memorandum) 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. I
refused to entertain any type of settlement discussion with Cohen or his
representatives. They spent over 7 months
attempting to coerce me into a deal that appeared to involve providing false
testimony about Cohen’s representatives.
The memorandum is not privileged or inadmissible. I am enclosing that memorandum herewith. I have mocked the memorandum up with my
comments in red due to the fact that Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory used false
accusations in their attempts to force or coerce me into a settlement agreement
that involved testifying against Cohen’s representatives in secret mediations. The memorandum raises very serious issues and
one of those issues is the fact that Ira Reiner, former District Attorney of
Los Angeles is copied in. Another is the
fact that Kevin Prins, Cohen’s so-called forensic accountant, was copied in on
a memorandum that confirms that Cohen and his representatives failed to report
$8 million in income; this was a “mediation” point; and, income was shifted to
me without being distributed. I have no
type of privilege with Kory & Rice.
I do however have my attorney notes from my trial where my attorney
concluded that Kory’s motive involves the fact that he personally may have
engaged in criminal conduct. I will
submit that document to the federal court with my RICO suit. Gianelli then goes onto address why my RICO
suit will be dismissed. He has been
clear in emails that he is attempting to “dissuade” me. Gianelli continues to argue Leonard Cohen’s
legal positions with respect to claim preclusion.
129. On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote
(copying in Cohen’s lawyers at Kory & Rice) that he doesn’t know why I am
writing to Robert Kory/Michelle Rice regarding his email. Gianelli would like me to believe that he
does “not represent Leonard Cohen” and does not “work for Kory or Rice; they
have no power to affect my behavior or my emailed responses to your mass
emails.” I will believe this when hell
freezes over. Gianelli is merely taking an “active interest in correct the
legal and factual errors that commonly riddle” my blog posts. Gianelli then gets into a rather lengthy
legal argument, on behalf of Leonard Cohen, with respect to my RICO suit. Gianelli believes my claims against Cohen
fall into the following main categories:
unpaid commissions and intellectual property arising out of a business
relationship; Cohen’s alleged “tax treatment” of the same prior relationship
(“alleged illegal K-1s; alleged illegal refunds; alleged refusal to provide
form 1099”) which claims are, according to this psychopath, “time barred by the
4-year RICO limitations period;” and Cohen’s alleged “tax various civil and
criminal legal proceedings” which claims are subject to California’s
“litigation privilege” and are therefore immunized. I, of course, being self-represented, will be
held to higher standards than a federal court practitioner and the Court will
look upon me with absolute disdain. I
will evidently be forced to argue through to verdict in my Complaint. The standard my pleadings will be held to is
inconceivably high as I will be forced to apply for a fee waiver.
130. On December 2, 2015, Gianelli wrote coying
in Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office. He asked if Kory and Rice were writing me and
answered his question with “I don’t think so.”
I believe a lawyer representing Leonard Cohen’s legal issues and
defending him is writing me.
131. On December 2, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that he is not arguing Cohen’s case.
He is “pointing out the obvious legal obstacles that will lead to the
dismissal of the claims” Iintend to file against Cohen, the City and County and
others.
132. On December 3, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying
in Alan Hootnick and Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan. This is the Deputy City Attorney who
instructed Gianelli to harass me with additional emails and communicate an official
message for that office to me. This
email merely confirms how extensive Gianelli’s obsession with these matters
is.
133. On December 3, 2015, Gianelli wrote that
the “City of Los Angeles does not need a defense in respect to its handling of”
my alleged “criminal case.” I beg to
differ. According to Gianelli,
“prosecutors were presented with a facially valid protection order and clear
written and recorded oral evidence that you egregiously violated that order on
multiple occasions.” The fraudulently
registered domestic violence order is not a valid protection order. I was not aware of the fraudulent domestic
violence order and Boulder Combined Court advised me that this permanent order
expired on February 15, 2009. The
“legitimate business purpose” will be a legal issue as the City Attorney of Los
Angeles appears to believe that the only “legitimate business purpose” in
California relates to federal tax matters and, on top of that, they lied
extensively about federal tax matters. I
didn’t “berate” Leonard Cohen’s penis size.
I addressed the fact that this man sexually harassed me and exposed his
penis to me. I didn’t accuse Cohen of
molesting his daughter. His daughter
did. According to Gianelli, the only
legitimate issue would relate to a 1099.
Leonard Cohen has willfully refused to provide me with a 1099 or K-1s
for the years 2004 and 2005. The City
Attorney lied about this issue extensively.
Cohen and his representatives testified that they provided me with this
information. The prosecutor elicited
perjured testimony about Phil Spector and a gun while concealing legitimate
requests for tax information and an email to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff. She was quick in her attempts to conceal this
information by stating that she “misspoke.”
There were no grounds whatsoever to file charges. Furthermore, there appears to be blatant
evidence of legal “entrapment.” I didn’t
violate probation. The prosecutor
permitted a man who has criminally harassed me, my sons, sister,
brother-in-law, elderly parents and others to email her while slandering me and
used this to retaliate. We shall see if
the City has “absolute immunity in connection” with my criminal
prosecution. Gianelli is defending the
interests of the City. This is highly
relevant based on his statements that he worked with them on two occasions to
have me falsely arrested; the fact that the City Attorney permitted this man to
criminally harass me while lying to that office for over a year; and, due to
the emails between the City Attorney’s office and this individual.
134. On December 3, 2015 Gianelli continued to
harass me over “proceedings in forma pauperis.”
According to Gianelli, “any suit” against “the City in federal court
will be dismissed as soon as the district court rules on” my request for fee
waiver. It is of interest to note that
Gianelli is not mentioning “the County.”
135. On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote with
respect to an “impermissible” collateral attack on a state court judgment in
federal court. Gianelli has no idea what
my RICO suit will argue but has taken the position that it will be an attack on
the California Superior Court’s determination.
This is merely a further attempt to elicit information.
136. On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
harass me over RICO and what a plaintiff must allege in order to state a
claim. He quoted 9th Circuit
Court cases. Gianelli believes my RICO
suit will address “theft” regarding my “alleged intellectual property and/or
partnership interests” through default and has concluded that there are no
economic damages.
137. On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote that
“Personal harm or injury does not give rise to standing to sue for an alleged
RICO violation” and copied Alan Hootnick on his email. Although he has no idea what my RICO suit
against Cohen will address Gianelli wrote that I have overlooked another point
related to the economic injury suffered through the “alleged theft of
intellectual property rights, lost commission income, the loss of your alleged
corporate shares and/or partnership interests.”
According to Gianelli, this occurred no later than May 2006 – when the
Los Angeles Superior Court entered a $7 million judgment in favor of
Cohen. The alleged “illegal tax refunds”
– regardless of when I discovered them – could not be considered damages that I
sustained even if “fraudulent” because the injury was suffered by the United
States Treasury, not Kelley Lynch. The
injuries to my liberty (false arrest, wrongful convictions and incarcerations)
in connection with the 2012 trial resulting from the fraudulent domestic
violence order are in the nature of personal injuries and are not “business or
property” in nature. The same is true
with respect to any “reputational damage that” I suffered in connection
therewith. RICO, according to my
stalker, was “created to combat the anticompetitive invasion of legitimate
business interests by organized crime.” “Emotional
distress” does not give rise to standing under Section 1964. The principles, as set forth by Gianelli who
continues to represent Leonard Cohen’s legal interests, provide yet another
basis for dismissal of any federal RICO suit.
Gianelli is attempting to elicit information while attempting to
dissuade me from pursuing legal remedies.
138. On December 4, 2015 Gianelli wrote copying
in Alan Hootnick and Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan to advise me that
he is not representing any of the people or entities that I mention formally or
informally. I think his actions lead one
to conclude otherwise. Gianelli has
concluded that my RICO suit is fatally flawed although he has no idea what will
be addressed in my RICO suits.
139. On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that “Sandra Jo Streeter was simply a civil servant doing her
job. It wasn’t personal. And aside from that she won the trial against
you and obtained an 18-month jail sentence.”
This simply goes to show that lying about everything in order to convict
someone will lead to a false conviction.
Gianelli asks “Why would she retaliate?
Retaliate for what exactly?”
Sandra Jo Streeter will have to read my RICO suit and analyze the answer
for herself. I didn’t realize that a
civil servant’s job was lying about people; lying about federal tax matters;
and eliciting perjured testimony while concealing relevant and material
evidence. I suppose I’ve been naïve but
now I am very clear about the so-called job of this so-called civil
servant.
140. On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote about
the “ongoing overlapping legal conspiracies.”
Alan Hootnick was copied on this email.
Gianelli wants me to make sure I mention the “overlapping legal
conspiracies related to Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector.” He finds this “amusing” and believes
“lithium” will clear those “conspiracies” right up
141. On December 5, 2015, Gianelli wrote that
“there is no way in hell that the outcome of your 2012 criminal trial and/or
related appeal could have affected the habeas petition filed in the Spector
matter or the outcome of Spector’s earlier direct appeal from his murder
conviction. Lynch has never taken the
absurd position that her trial could have any effect on Spector’s direct appeal
or habeas petition. This is simply Gianelli’s
attempt to elicit information. He does
this constantly by lying, insulting Lynch, and attempting to provoke a response
or refutation. Lynch will address the
“overlapping, ongoing conspiracy” with a federal court. Lynch doesn’t believe “little green men
beamed into court and tampered with the verdict that convicted” her. She knows for a fact that the prosecutor,
Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, and Michelle Rice lied extensively throughout her
trial. It was her public defender that
informed Lynch that he personally believed there may have been a “jury plant”
on her jurors. Lynch does not understand
why this wasn’t brought to the attention of the Court but perhaps her public
defender understood that all of these parties are colleagues with the same
employers. I am not mentally ill and
there is no evidence to support Gianelli’s slanderous statement. The City Attorney felt Lynch had mental
health problems when her prosecutor, who worked with a “domestic violence”
quack, concluded that Lynch’s letters to Bruce Cutler were too chatty and
familiar. This issue will be featured in
Lynch’s RICO suit against the City and County due to the fact that the
prosecutor attempted to have Lynch drugged and committed. Lynch’s three letters to Cutler will also be
submitted to federal court. Lynch would
like to address with that court the fact that her prosecutor had a hard time
speaking English and believes lying excessively to jurors is not a sign of
mental instability or deviant conduct.
142. On December 5, 2015, Gianelli wrote that
“the big picture re your criminal trial is that there was a restraining order
THAT YOU AGREED TO that prevented you from contacting Leonard Cohen. Lynch has addressed what the “big picture”
actually is and that includes a fraudulent domestic violence order, VAWA
funding fraud, attempts to extort fines/fees for domestic violence from Lynch,
sentencing Lynch for domestic violence and forcing her into domestic violence
programs that include anger management, AA, and so forth. These programs relate to the domestic
violence statutes. There was and remains
no “domestic violence.” Due to the fact
that the Colorado order, issued without findings, was fraudulent registered in
California as a “domestic violence” order (which the Colorado order was not),
these are now federal issues which will be addressed in the appropriate venue –
federal court. Boulder Combined Court
advised Lynch, and others, that the permanent Colorado order expired on
February 15, 2009. I think if Agent
Tejeda testified, and he was issued a subpoena, some of the issues would have
been clarified. The jurors wanted to
hear from IRS so Gianelli’s gratuitous statement that the “entire IRS criminal
division could have testified and it would not have made any difference” is a
ridiculous statement. Evidently the
jurors felt they were hearing a federal tax case. The “gun incidents” came up because the
prosecutor elicited perjured testimony from Cohen who, after reviewing Lynch’s
April 18, 2011 email to Dennis Riordan, perjured himself when he confirmed that
he was a recipient on that email. He was
not and confirmed that fact during cross-examination. The prosecutor intentionally concealed the
elements of the email thread requesting legitimate tax information and
addressed to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.
She covered this up by stating that she “misspoke.” That tends to prove that her concealment of
evidence was willful and knowing. Lynch
has no idea which of Cohen’s three versions of the Spector gun story the local
Los Angeles government believes is true.
She knows that Cohen testified that Spector held an automatic to his
head and the DA’s, in their motions in the Spector case, used a version that
involves Spector holding a semi-automatic to Cohen’s chest. At the outset of Lynch’s trial, in response
to the prosecutor’s emails, Cohen wrote the City Attorney that Cohen held a gun
to his neck. Lynch doesn’t believe any
of these versions because Cohen told her for approximately 20 years that
Spector never held a gun on him and these stories were merely good rock ‘n roll
stories. Lynch believes that is
precisely why Cohen and the City Attorney elected to submit her email to Dennis
Riordan, not copied to Cohen, into evidence.
It permitted Cohen to take the stand and address the fact that he told
Lynch for 20 years that Phil Spector never held a gun on him. Lynch has never stated anywhere that she
believes she was “essentially framed on criminal charges because the
prosecution was afraid of the Phil Spector murder verdict being reversed. The DA was publicly aligned with Cohen during
Lynch’s trial, had an investigator in the courtroom, and the City Attorney
elicited testimony about Phil Spector and a gun during the election campaign
for the office of District Attorney.
Spector’s prosecutor, Deputy DA Alan Jackson, and the City Attorney,
Carmen Trutanich, were both running for that office. Lynch’s public defender concluded that the
City Attorney was attempting to sabotage IRS, discredit Lynch, and the DA
didn’t want the verdict overturned.
Lynch has never stated anywhere that convicting her had any “effect on
Spector’s pending appeal.” Stephen
Gianelli is merely attempting to elicit information and obfuscated these
matters.
143. On December 5, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying
in Alan Hootnick. Gianelli had the
following points to make: 1) I attended
the Boulder, Colorado hearing; 2) I did not testify at my 2012 criminal trial
that I phoned the Colorado court and was told the order expired. I actually testified that I believed it was
expired and was not the attorney questioning me. I was told that Judge Vanderet refused to
permit us to attack the Colorado order.
3) Paulette and I do not “claim”
we called the Colorado order and were told the permanent expired. We called the Colorado court and were told,
numerous times, that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009. Paulette Brandt testified about this fact
approximately 4 months prior to Boulder Combined Court providing Lynch with a
print-out of their data based. 4. This is irrelevant, according to my stalker,
to my state of mind at the time. I
testified that I believed the order expired.
Berkeley PD and I could not figure out how a court had
jurisdiction. 5. The emails at my trial came up because they
were selected by certain parties and a great deal of information was concealed. 6. Did
I speak to any of my jurors? My public
defender did. He informed me that they
wanted to hear from IRS; one juror relied on Streeter’s lies about Traditional
Holdings, LLC’s assets; and the public defender felt there may have been a jury
plant on the jury. These matters will be
addressed in federal court – not with the Appellate Division. 7. I
have addressed the fact that there are blatant legal conspiracies and that
would include with respect to Leonard Cohen’s blatant retaliation over the fact
that I reported the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to
IRS. I did indeed make this statement
about Stephen Gianelli in an email that was posted to my blog: "You attempt to infiltrate matters, elicit
information, threaten and intimidate witnesses, and are engaged in an
ongoing campaign of harassment that involves overlapping legal conspiracies
related to Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector."
144. On December 5, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote
and copied Alan Hootnick. Gianelli has taken the position, with respect
to the Colorado order, that “no findings were required” because I agreed to the
issuance of the Colorado order. I did
not agree to the entry of any order based on fraud and/or perjury. The Court advised me, when I raised this issue,
that she could not give me legal advice.
I will submit the transcript of that hearing to federal court. I did not discover Leonard Cohen’s entirely
perjured declaration until after the hearing.
An order, issued without findings, does not meet VAWA requirements. Cohen then proceeded to register the
non-domestic violence order in California as a domestic violence order. This created a new order and Lynch was not
served or notified of that order.
145. On December 5, 2015, Gianelli continued to
harass me with Alan Hootnick copied in.
He raised points addressed in my blog posts of the same date. Gianelli has now written that he spoke to my
public defender or a “source” close to my public defender. That is a very serious legal matter. Gianelli publicly confirmed that he attempted
to elicit information about my witnesses (Rutger Penick, Steven Machat, and
Agent Luis Tejeda) and what they confirmed for my lawyers. My lawyer advised me that he felt there may have
been a juror plant on the jury. It was
not addressed in a motion for new trial.
I have no explanation for this situation. The City Attorney, Cohen, and Cohen’s lawyers
lied extensively about federal tax matters.
They informed the jurors that I was in possession of IRS required tax
and corporate information. I have never
said that the outcome of my trial would have any effect on Spector’s appeal
from his 2009 murder conviction and find Gianelli’s statements ominous and
deplorable. My appellate attorney wrote
about Gianelli and confirmed that he personally viewed my trial as an “IRS tax
fraud case” (related to Cohen). There is
no reason why Francisco Suarez should address a federal tax issues with the
Appellate Division. Lynch will submit
that letter to federal court. I
absolutely waived no objections whatsoever during the Colorado hearing. In any event, I’ve addressed this matter ad
nauseum. The Colorado order, issued
without findings, and the fraudulent domestic violence order, will be addressed
in my RICO suit. I have asked DOJ and Senate Judiciary to investigate the VAWA
funding fraud and LA Superior Court’s attempts to extort domestic violence
fines and fees from me. Stephen Gianelli
is attempting, through this email, to elicit information about my RICO
suits. Gianelli has sent me countless
emails attempting to “dissuade” me from pursuing legal remedies. I am well aware of that fact.
146. On December 6, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote
that “Federal district court is not a venue where one cobbles together every
grievance one has accumulated over the last decade, includes as many facts and
exhibits as possible, calls it a RICO suit and waits for a check at the end of
the process. Gianelli has no idea what
my RICO suits will address but is desperately trying to elicit
information. I am aware that there are
rules of pleading, jurisdiction, plausibility, timeliness, and so forth. I didn’t begin my “hate emails campaign” ever
and wasn’t targeted by Gianelli until after he heard from Michelle Rice in May
2009.
147. On December 6, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote
“The food bank. Wow.” This refers to the fact that Paulette Brandt
and I stopped by a Church to see a woman she knows and is assisting with a
particular issue. This email is evidence
that Stephen Gianelli has operatives spying on Lynch and Brandt. In this case, it is overwhelmingly obvious
that the operative is Karina Von Watteville, Gianelli’s former client who he
assisted in defrauding of approximately $6,700 in rental arrears from Paulette
Brandt. Von Watteville is the individual
who attends the Church’s food bank and evidently contacted Gianelli with
information about Lynch and Brandt.
148. On December 6, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
inform me that I “know exactly” what this stalker is talking about. Gianelli believes calling Paulette Brandt my
“partner” is a term of disparagement.
Paulette Brandt and I are roommates and old friends. Gianelli then gratuitously wrote the
following comment: “Not exactly the restaurant at Neiman
Marcus Beverly Hills where you used to lunch with Betsy Superfon after dropping
six figures on shoes or jewelry or the Ivy is it?” Betsy Superfon is a friend of Steve
Lindsey’s. We had a friendship for a
spell. She is the individual to whom
Robert Kory confirmed that the deal he and Cohen had in mind was not the type
of deal one could fax through. Superfon
and I concluded that it was therefore an illegal deal. Superfon and I never had lunch at any
restaurant in Neiman Marcus or the Ivy.
I never dropped six figures on shows or jewelry anywhere. This is just part of Leonard Cohen’s
narrative to obfuscate issues and slander Lynch in an attempt to defend himself
against the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud. Leonard Cohen will never be able to support
these slanderous statements.
149. On December 6, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote
copying in Alan Hootnick. He highlighted
a portion of the Boulder Colorado hearing transcript but concealed the
statement the judge made, with respect to my question about fraud and perjury,
when she informed me that she could not provide me with legal advice. It would be completely inappropriate for a
judge, in any event, to advise me that I could not attack an order based on
fraud and perjury. I raised the
Confrontation Clause in matters before Judge Hess. The fraudulent allegations of
“misappropriation” are quasi-criminal in nature and were used against me by the
City Attorney of Los Angeles. Therefore,
I had a right to confront my accuser, Leonard Cohen, with respect to his
fabricated Complaint narrative. Leonard
Cohen didn’t bother showing up for the Colorado hearing. Gianelli ends this letter by confirming that
he has tried to dissuade me from filing federal RICO suits. This is part of Gianelli’s goal and that
includes with respect to this Tax Court case and federal tax
controversies. Gianelli is obviously
Leonard Cohen’s operative; argues Cohen’s legal positions and defends him; and
appears to be moonlighting for the Spector prosecution.
150. On December 6, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying
in Alan Hootnick. He was responding to
my email advising him to cease and desist and the IRS, FBI, and DOJ confirming
that Gianelli uses monikers, such as the 14th Sheepdog, and I
personally believe he is “Kelly Green.”
Kelly Green was posting online as early as 2007, on a Spector hate site,
that she hates Bruce Cutler. Gianelli’s
response to this opinion was to advise me to “shut up and give it a rest.” I believe nothing out of this man’s mouth,
for the most part, and do not believe that Kelly Green is a “female paramedic
in the middle United States.” Green
thinks Spector should come home in a “body bag” and once questioned Lynch
online about Spector’s forensic scientists, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael
Baden. Kelly Green always reminds me of
Phil Spector’s prosecutor Alan Jackson.
The situation demands an investigation and no one should rely on
statements made by the inveterate liar known as Stephen Gianelli.
151. Gianelli continued to write about Kelly
Green and seemed to be in a dialogue with himself. It is my personal opinion,
and I have studied this man carefully, that one of his roles is to set up
reasonable doubt theories about Spector (online and in his emails) that can be
attacked and refuted. This seemed to be
the purpose of Gianelli’s so-called Law Blog where Michelle Blaine and Sprocket
were posting with “Kelly Green” who may be one of Gianelli’s more abusive
personalities. Gianelli wrote “You never
did get along with Kelly Green, did you?”
Gianelli thinks I ought to know what someone on “drugs/alcohol
writes/talks like.” I do because I
worked with Leonard Cohen for approximately 17 years and he has a long and
publicly documented history of illicit drug use and alcohol abuse. In fact, Cohen has publicly stated that he
wrote “Beautiful Losers” while high on LSD and/or meth. I don’t hang out at any food bank. I stopped by one time. Gianelli’s former client, Karina Von
Watteville, hangs out at the food bank on a regular basis. I don’t know a woman called “Debbie the
dominatrix.” I don’t really know Linda
Carol. She lived with Paulette Brandt,
while I was staying there, but was essentially holed up in her room making
videos such as the one that can be found at this link. Karina Von Watteville referred Linda Carol to
Paulette Brandt. I didn’t call the cops
to have Linda Carol evicted. Linda Carol
gave Paulette Brandt 30 days notice that she was moving out. She asked for a few additional days and
appeared to be in the middle of a serious meltdown. She has since written
Paulette Brandt to explain that she was not on her medications and apologized
to us for her behavior LAPD was here on
numerous occasions about Linda Carol.
Linda Carol called LAPD when she was afraid someone was under her bed;
the City or County was poisoning the water (based on a notice posted outside);
and so forth. She asked LAPD and the
paramedics to take her to the hospital.
I don’t know if Linda Carol is crazy or not. Stephen Gianelli began contacting Linda Carol
who, in turn, forwarded many of his harassing emails to me. At one point, Linda Carol inexplicably sent
me the address of “Michelle Rice.” This permitted Gianelli to argue publicly
that Rice then feared for welfare. I
would like to remind this Court that Michelle Rice has made partner targeting
and lying about me. She has lied
repeatedly during hearings before LA Superior Court. She apparently wrote Leonard Cohen’s
fabricated narrative and is the individual who decided to defraud Richard
Westin’s insurance company using false allegations about me during secret
mediations. Gianelli sent me an email
about that matter and I contacted Lloyd’s of London. I have no further details about these secret
mediations at this time. Michelle Rice
has also written Gianelli that his harassment of me is making her “rich.” That would go to motive on the part of
Rice. Karina Von Watteville resided with
Paulette Brandt for over a year. She
infested her apartment with cock roaches and has evidently done this to others
as well. These “accusations” say
absolutely nothing about Paulette Brandt who is not my “partner.” She didn’t really know Karina Von
Watteville. Her former roommate, from
years ago in New York, asked Paulette Brandt to help this woman at a time when
she was facing homelessness. The woman
promised to repay Paulette Brandt her rent payments when she received a lump
sum social security check. In the
alternative, she and Gianelli worked together to defraud Paulette Brandt of
$6,700 in rental arrears after contacting Robert Kory of Kory & Rice. I personally don’t believe Leonard Cohen
could stoop much lower than he has but we shall see what unfolds in federal
court.
152. On December 7, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying
in Alan Hootnick. His focus was once
again on “Kelly Green.” However,
Gianelli was interested in discussing Ann Diamond and her writer buddies who
are on an MK ULTRA conspiracy kick according to my stalker. Leonard Cohen is the individual who has claimed
he was in this program. He has also told
extremely suspect stories about his role as reconnaissance during Bay of Pigs
and his desire to join the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War. Leonard Cohen evidently enjoys being viewed
as “our most important spy,” as he wrote in “Field Commander Cohen,” and a
revolutionary. I thanked Jasum Horsley
for including me in his article. I then
refuted Gianelli’s slanderous comments on his blog. Horsley concluded that Gianelli was Cohen’s
lawyer and harassment agent. I have
nothing further to say about Cohen’s alleged participation in CIA’s MK ULTRA
program.
153. On December 8, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that he believes I meant “Sybil” when I wrote IRS, FBI, and DOJ
(posting that email online) that Gianelli’s monikers are similar to the
multiple personalities, or alter egos, in the film Sybil.
154. On December 8, 2015, copying in Alan
Hootnick, Gianelli wrote transmitting an alleged email from “linda XXXX a/k/a
Sydney.” This individual who also posts
online with Gianelli may in fact be one of Gianelli’s alter egos or multiple
personalities used to engage in dialogues with himself.
155. On December 8, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying
in Alan Hootnick. This email addressed
“traditional bases for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).”
156. On December 8, 2015, Gianelli wrote that he
was doing his best to “educate” me regarding some of the many ways in which my
“threatened” lawsuit against Leonard Cohen an d others would at this point be
“subject to dismissal based on your complaint alone.” Gianelli, who is obsessed with me, my family,
and friends, believes I have spent too much time on these matters. He mentioned a motion I drafted that was 15
pages but attached substantial evidence that Leonard Cohen has desperately
attempted to conceal. That evidence
thoroughly undermines that default judgment.
Gianelli believes I could have “reinvented” myself after LAPD arrested
me, I lost custody of Ray, and suffered a fraudulent $7 million judgment that
is evidence of theft, extortion, embezzlement, self-dealing, and money
laundering. I have no reason to reinvent
myself over the fact that Leonard Cohen, his representatives, Steve Lindsey,
Stephen Gianelli, and others have decided to slander me relentlessly. I have no idea why “Robert Downey” would come
to mind. I don’t have a drug or any
substance abuse issues. Leonard Cohen
and Steve Lindsey did. I think it is
clear that it is nearly impossible for me to find work based on the lengths
Cohen and others have gone to slander me, falsely accuse me of many matters,
and relentlessly lie in court and to the news media about me. Stephen Gianelli has no idea who I am. He is a stalker, engaged in egregious
harassment, and someone who attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit
information. I don’t have a “harassment
campaign” with respect to Leonard Cohen.
Leonard Cohen has a slander campaign with respect to me. Pursuing legal remedies is not
“harassment.” I don’t know if people
“worldwide know about about” me and believe I am a “crazy thieving stalker who
has not changed one bit.” If that’s what
they believe it is due to the extraordinary lengths Leonard Cohen and others,
including his operative Gianelli, have gone to discredit me and destroy my
reputation. I didn’t harass my so-called
prosecutor. Sandra Jo Streeter lied
about me relentlessly; evidently provided Gianelli with her email address;
permitted him to harass and slander me to her; and then used it as an
opportunity to retaliate. I never stole
from Leonard Cohen. Leonard Cohen has
now stolen from corporate entities; stolen from me, Machat & Machat, and
probably Phil Spector; and believes he is entitled to extort millions in
fraudulent financial interest from me. I
have a fraudulent domestic violence order “hanging around” my neck which will
be addressed in federal court and that will include the use of fraud restraining
orders to prevent me from requesting IRS required tax and corporate
information.
157. On December 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote Alan
Hootnick copying me in. Gianelli
believes he has a “savant like recall of prior statements, correspondence, and
documents.” I believe Gianelli is sloppy
and cannot keep track of his lies. I
believe I have been absolutely consistent in my emails documenting the
destruction of my life, since reporting the allegations that Cohen committed
criminal tax fraud, to IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others. I have no idea what Phil Spector’s former
investigator, Bill Pavelic, had to say to this criminal. I can assure this Court that I am thoroughly
disturbed by this ongoing harassment and the relentless targeting of my sons,
family members, and friends. I believe Gianelli contacted Bill Pavelic in
an attempt to infiltrate Phil Spector’s legal matters. Gianelli’s email confirms that he attempted
to elicit information from Captain Bornman (Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department),
Doug Davis (Franchise Tax Board), and Agent Kelly Sopko (U.S. Treasury). If Agent Sopko advised Gianelli, a man
engaged in egregious criminal conduct, that she does not regard me as credible
then Agent Sopko should resign as an investigator. I think Gianelli’s statements about Agent
Sopko actually call her credibility into question due to the fact that many
people have asked their attorneys to advise Gianelli to cease and desist or
contacted law enforcement in an attempt to put his harassing conduct to an end.
158. On December 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that “Alan Hootnick” has made his living as an analyst for
decades. I remain unclear as to
Gianelli’s obsession with Mr. Hootnick’s background in intelligence.
159. On December 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote about a
person he allegedly knows who spoke to Phi Spector and read Gianelli’s entirely
slanderous hit piece about me to Mr. Spector.
I believe Phil Spector is aware of who Gianelli is because I have
brought him, and his activities, to the attention of Mr. Spector
personally. I also informed Phil Spector
that Gianelli works in tandem with Michelle Blaine and Cohen’s fan, Susanne
Walsh. I also informed Phil Spector that
Investigator William Frayeh, concluded that Gianelli may have found a
sympathetic ear about me with his prosecutor, Alan Jackson. I do not believe for one moment that Gianelli
knows anyone who speaks with or visits Phil Spector. Phil Spector never thanked anyone for slandering
me, defending Leonard Cohen, and attempting to infiltrate his legal matters. Phil Spector didn’t explain to a pal of
Gianelli’s the issues at stake in the pending habeas matter as well as the
underlying fats of his criminal case.
This is another attempt of Gianelli’s to infiltrate Spector’s legal
matters and elicit information about his health, finances, and appeal before
the 9th Circuit. Gianelli
also wrote that he has “suspected all along Dennis Riordan” never bothered
Spector with my accusations about him.
Gianelli is on a fishing expedition and part of that includes
information with respect to Dennis Riordan.
Stephen Gianelli worked in tandem with Michelle Blaine to target my
email accounts and blogs. She publicly
congratulated Gianelli for inspiring that “pull” on her blog. Gianelli’s obsession with Phil Spector betrays
his preposterous arguments defending himself.
Blaine didn’t post her congratulatory comment on Gianelli’s site. She posted it on her own mControl blog where
Gianelli was posting. I didn’t have a
hate blog. I had a “Phil Spector and
Kelley Lynch” blog dedicated to Phil Spector’s innocence. I believe Gianelli is moonlighting for the
Spector prosecutors or someone affiliated with them. He has also evidently developed a relationship
with Spector’s estranged sons, Gary and Louis Spector, and has written them
copying me on the emails. For all I
know, Michelle Blaine may have introduced Gianelli to Gary and Louis
Spector. I don’t believe a word out of
this criminal’s mouth.
160. On December 10, 2015, Gianelli continued to
harass me over his position that someone he knows spoke on the phone to Phil
Spector and read him the slanderous article Gianelli has posted online and is
now transmitting to third parties.
Gianelli excerpts an email that he appears to have written to
himself. I am not a schizophrenic and do
not have multiple other disorders. No
one Gianelli knows just got off the phone with Phil Spector. This man is an absolute psychopath.
161. On December 10, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote copying in Alan Hootnick. His
email advised us that he has never spoken to Ed Lozzi. Stephen Gianelli wrote an email to Ed Lozzi
and for reasons I cannot imagine copied me on that email. Ed Lozzi is alleged Lana Clarkson’s former
publicist. He has spent years demonizing
Phil Spector on line.
162. On December 10, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that if he wanted to know about Phil Spector’s finances, I am the
last person on the planet he would ask.
Gianelli then lies that I don’t know Phil Spector and haven’t spoken to
him in years. Gianelli does not know
either Phil Spector or me. This is
merely an attempt to elicit information and Gianelli is focused on Spector’s
finances and continuously raises Dennis Riordan’s legal fees as a way to
discuss that issue. Gianelli, who does not know Dennis Riordan, advised me that
it is completely “inappropriate” for me to “unilaterally impose” myself on Phil
Spector’s attorneys. Gianelli is also
obsessed with Bruce Cutler and has used me to phone him. Gianelli has relentlessly attempted to
infiltrate Phil Spector’s case, target witnesses, and elicit information. Stephen Gianelli ends his note by telling me
that I am a “narcissistic, self-entitled, rude, sociopath.” This individual is twisted and sick. If Dennis Riordan has something to say, I
have no doubt that he will speak up.
163. On December 10, 2015, Gianelli wrote
copying in Alan Hootnick. I have
explained some of the situation with Karina Von Watteville and Stephen
Gianelli. I do think it is highly
relevant and material that this woman, someone I do not know, decided to phone
Robert Kory in response to Paulette Brandt’s rental arrears letter. She then ended up represent by Stephen
Gianelli and together they proceeded to defraud Paulette Brandt of $6,700. Paulette Brandt has provided declarations to
numerous courts in connection with Leonard Cohen related matters. She has been relentlessly targeted and
harassed by Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh (Cohen’s fan), and others. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers, Kory &
Rice, lied in documents that Paulette Brandt materially changed her testimony. Paulette Brandt was not provided the opportunity
to testify. When I filed my Motion
(addressing fraud upon the court), she provided me with two detailed
declaration. Her declarations addressed
the harassment she has been the victim of.
At one point, Paulette Brandt asked Linda Carol for a declaration. That declaration was to be submitted to Small
Claims Court. Ms. Brandt filed a Claim
against Von Watteville with respect to the rental arrears. Von Watteville’s response was to rant to at
least two mediators about Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory. Linda Carol was referred to Paulette Brandt
by Von Watteville. She dictated her
declaration to me. It was ultimately not
submitted to the Small Claims Court.
However, Gianelli relentlessly targeted me, Paulette Brandt, and Linda
Carol over this proposed declaration and his new client, Von Watteville. Von Watteville now appears to be providing
Gianelli with information about me and Paulette Brandt. Karina Von Watteville sued the estate of an
elderly man, Sam Menning. She recently
lost that suit and I believe the legal pleadings prove enlightening.
164. On December 10, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote Alan Hootnick and copied me on the email.
Gianelli, who does not know Phil Spector, advised Alan Hootnick that
“Lynch just cannot cope psychologically with the reality that – although others
are visiting Spector in jail and talking to them on the phone, she is not. Kelley Lynch is not even on Spector’s visitor
list, let alone in daily communication with him. She has concocted this fantasy of Spector’s
continued friend and support (and the friendship and support of his attorneys
and former attorneys) out of thin air, but sure is she of her delusion, she
accuses me of writing myself.” This
email then mentions Bruce Cutler. Gianelli
is absolutely obsessed with Bruce Cutler.
The email also mentions Bill Pavelic.
Bill Pavelic and I communicated for a period of time. He informed me that he believes Spector is
innocent, charges should never have been brought, and explained that Spector’s
former bodyguard (Jay Romaine) could have helped prove that the gun was not
Spector’s. Pavelic’s rather shocking
blurb about the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, and some of the dirty
politics in Los Angeles, can be viewed at this link. Stephen Gianelli, as he has done countless
times (including with respect to IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office) then
contacted Bill Pavelic using me as the reason for doing so. He also used this same tactic with Bruce
Cutler. Stephen Gianelli has spent years
working on his “project” which includes targeting and slandering me,
terrorizing members of my family, harassing Paulette Brandt, and threatening,
insulting, and intimidating witnesses.
This particular email was nothing other than an opportunity for Gianelli
to continue his fishing expedition with respect to Phil Spector. For some reason, Stephen Gianelli is also
interested in the Coyote Shivers case.
He lied to Shivers investigator, Mike Conzachi, that I wanted him to
arrest Gianelli for me. That is a
bald-faced lie but gave Gianelli the opportunity to contact Mike Conzachi. I have spoken with Mr. Conzachi at length
with respect to the restraining order abuse and fraud taking place in Los
Angeles. He contacted Paulette Brandt as
well because she is aware of another domestic violence case that involves
egregious fraud. Coyote Shivers filed a
complaint with the Criminal Grand Jury of Los Angeles. He also contacted DOJ. I personally have contacted DOJ and Senate
Judiciary because it is my belief that these parties should investigate the
fraudulent domestic violence orders, VAWA funding fraud, and extortion attempts
with respect to fraudulent domestic violence fines and fees. Gianelli has nothing whatsoever to do with
the Coyote Shivers case. He does not
know Coyote Shivers. I do. Mike Conzachi believes the only way to bring
down the restraining order Mafia in Los Angeles is through the use of RICO.
165. On December 10, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying
in Alan Hootnick. Evidently Gianelli
wanted one of us to re-read his email to “Ed Lozzi.” I am uninterested in Gianelli’s letter to Ed
Lozzi and found it astounding that he would write Lozzi, Clarkson’s alleged
former publicist (and a friend of Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson), copying me
on the communication.
166. On December 10, 2015, Gianelli remained
fixated on Phil Spector. The notion of
someone reading Phil Spector a slanderous article about me, defending Leonard
Cohen, is positively obscene. This email
informed me that my Tax Court case and “ridiculous RICO suit” will be
dismissed. It also informed me that I am
“still the notorious thieving, stalking former manager of the (more popular
than ever) Leonard Cohen. I never
stalked or harassed Leonard Cohen. He,
and the government actors in Los Angeles who targeted me, are chronic
liars. Leonard Cohen is the thief who
has now stolen approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC
alone. He has stolen intellectual
property from me and Machat & Machat.
He appears to have stolen from Phil Spector. Cohen withheld commissions due me and
intentionally bankrupted me. This does
not even begin to describe Cohen’s embezzlement of royalty income related to
assets owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.
However, Leonard Cohen has come up with one of his famous fabricated
narratives and used that to further defraud the U.S. government with respect to
his fraudulent tax refunds. Leonard
Cohen has used his own wrongdoing to further benefit himself. It is all rather mind-boggling but his sense
of entitlement and greed are inconceivable.
167. On December 10, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote copying in Alan Hootnick. He
clearly believes he has an ally in Hootnick.
Gianelli evidently wanted to discuss Paulette Brandt and my
relationships with Phil Spector.
Although this man does not know Phil Spector, he has decided to lie that
Paulette and I do not know him well and are not his dear friends. I worked for Phil Spector from approximately
1988 until 1990. Paulette Brandt, who
had previously worked for Phil Spector, returned to his employ in 1991. While I did work as Phil Spector’s assistant,
he and I remainder very close friends.
Paulette Brandt worked with Phil Spector in the 70s, lived with him in
Beverly Hills, was his girlfriend, worked with him in NY and Los Angeles,
worked for Apple Records and ABKCO Records, dated Phillip again in the mid-80s,
and worked with him from 1991 through 2002 when Michelle Blaine targeted
Phillip and managed to get rid of Paulette Brandt, Jay Romaine, and Morgan
Martin (Mr. Spector’s driver). Stephen
Gianelli has no idea what Paulette and my relationship is with Phil Spector or
his attorneys at this point in time. He
doesn’t know any of us. He uses these
types of emails to elicit information about Mr. Spector. Gianelli would also like to know when was the
last time Paulette or I spoke to any of our Hollywood friends or the Tibetan
lamas who have guided me through this unconscionable ordeal. It’s none of Gianelli’s business. If the Court is interested, I would be more
than happy to submit that information under seal. Gianelli, of course, wrote the “bloody stump”
email, using a moniker, and not only targeted me but horrendously slandered
Oliver Stone. If the Court would like to
know the last time Oliver Stone and I communicated, I would be more than happy
to provide that information under seal.
I have been very clear publicly that, after I was falsely arrested in
2012, I heard directly from Phil Spector.
If the Court would like a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Spector
at that time, I would be more than happy to provide that under seal as
well. This Court should understand that
Phil Spector views Paulette Brandt as “one of the most important” people in his
life. I think it’s important to
re-emphasize the fact that Paulette Brandt worked inside the Pasadena home for
years; knows a number of the witnesses; has never seen any of the conduct the
Spector prosecutors used to convict him with; believes he is innocent; and has
been quite public about that fact.
Paulette Brandt was also with Mr. Spector, at his Beverly Hills home,
when Leonard Cohen and he began working together. She was also present in the studio during
their recordings and never heard about the infamous Spector/Cohen gun
incident. Ann Diamond was dating Leonard
Cohen, immediately following the Spector/Cohen project, and Cohen never
informed her that Spector held a gun on her.
168. On December 10, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
again wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.
Gianelli clearly wanted to address his letter to Ed Lozzi with Alan
Hootnick. Stephen Gianelli was on the
Truth Sentinel site arguing that Clarkson’s DNA was not on the ammunition and
the gun was Phil Spector’s. This is not
what the evidence supports and this individual argues Spector prosecution
theories online. He also sets up
reasonable doubt theories that can be attacked and refuted. I personally believe there’s something
entirely sinister about my stalker writing Ed Lozzi and copying me on the
correspondence. Stephen Gianelli is
attempting to elicit information about Phil Spector and his appeal before the 9th
Circuit. Judge Hess did note that I’m a
“moving target” but I must say that I have never seen such unconscionable
judicial demeanor in my entire life.
This is true for many of the judges before LA Superior Court. For some reason, they all appear to have
anger management problems. Given the
fact that my grandfather was a magistrate, I do not have any problems with
judges, magistrates, and so forth but I find the conduct of the judges I have
been before appalling and mind-boggling.
I also do not appreciate judges lying about me from the bench.
169. On December 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote
copying Alan Hootnick. Gianelli
understands that Alan Hootnick communicates with Rachelle Spector, Mr.
Spector’s wife who has been utterly demonized throughout the internet. Gianelli evidently wanted us to understand
that he never said the person who is alleged speaking to Spector (and evidently
read him Gianelli’s entirely slanderous article about me) was not necessarily
his friend. The person is evidently “a
friend of Phil Spector” who just happened to reach out to Stephen
Gianelli. Apparently, Louis and Gary
Spector also decided to reach out to Stephen Gianelli. I can assure this Court that Phil Spector is
not grateful that this criminal has relentlessly targeted me, Paulette Brandt,
my elderly parents, my sons, and many others.
That would include, but is not limited to, the Scientist who asked me to
contact Spector’s attorneys to inform them that he would like to stand up for
Phil Spector. He has been targeted my
gold diggers in the industry. One
attempted to commit suicide at his home.
He recorded her threatening to “frame” him for murder. I have submitted that evidence to IRS, FBI,
and DOJ. I am not the only individual
who has questioned this criminal’s integrity.
Many people have advised him to cease and desist or contacted law
enforcement to file complaints. My
appellate attorney, Francisco Suarez, was harassed by Gianelli for over a
year. He contacted a computer expert
about the situation and advised me that he has never seen anything like this
activity in his entire career.
170. On December 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote
copying in Alan Hootnick. Although he
doesn’t know Phil Spector at all, Gianelli wanted to inform us that “Phil
Spector has no idea that Kelley Lynch claims that Gianelli works with Michelle
Blaine; writes Ed Lozzi; defends the thief known as Leonard Cohen.” I beg to differ. I have personally addressed this situation
with Phil Spector. Stephen Gianelli is
dreaming if he thinks Phil Spector views him as an “insightful lawyer who has
helped his friend understand his legal process who believes that he didn’t
receive a fair trial and whose conviction should be reversed.”
171. On December 12, 2015, Gianelli again wrote
copying in Alan Hootnick. This email
attempts to argue that Gianelli can be friendly with people, such as Michelle
Blaine or Ed Lozzi, and explain it away with further inane comments. Stephen Gianelli does not support
Spector. He argues Spector prosecution
theories online; posted extensively with Michelle Blaine and Sprocket; and
attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit information. Stephen Gianelli, who does not know Phil
Spector at all, would like me to understand that “Spector has had more
important things on his mind for the last decade that YOUR issues and
problems.” Phil Spector can speak for
himself. Stephen Gianelli has not
“analyzed” my legal positions. He has
relentlessly targeted me, my family and friends, slandered me extensively
online, worked with the City Attorney to have me falsely arrested, communicated
extensively with Cohen’s legal representatives, worked with Susanne Walsh
(Cohen’s fan) to slander and target me and others, and defends Leonard Cohen’s
legal interests. Gianelli may also have
found a “sympathetic ear” with Spector’s prosecutor Alan Jackson about me. I don’t know Alan Jackson. This email addresses my communications with
Phil Spector’s attorneys. Those
communications are none of Stephen Gianelli’s business but he is fishing for
information. Stephen Gianelli doesn’t
know if Phil Spector phones me or Paulette Brandt. He doesn’t know us. However, he is attempting to elicit information
and this is how he engages in that conduct.
This man appears to be working for Leonard Cohen and with Phil Spector’s
prosecutors. It is my personal belief
that this situation should be thoroughly investigated.
172. On December 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote
copying Alan Hootnick. He evidently
wanted us to know that he did not work with “Michelle Blaine” who was not
Spector’s “former manager.” Alan Klein
was Spector’s manager. Stephen Gianelli
and Michelle Blaine did work together to target my email accounts and blogs. They were frequently posting on one another’s
blogs. I captured that evidence and
submitted it to IRS, FBI, and DOJ. I
also submitted all of Gianelli’s Blog articles and the comments to IRS, FBI,
and DOJ since Gianelli seems dead set on infiltrating and sabotaging IRS
matters while slandering and discrediting me.
I didn’t have a hate blog. Michelle
Blaine and Stephen Gianelli apparently share a “disdain” for me. Gianelli is using this email to elicit
information about Phil Spector and his legal team. Evidently Gianelli believes Phil Spector and
I may join forces and sue Leonard Cohen over his perjured testimony about
Spector and a gun incident. According to
Mick Brown, UK Telegraph, Cohen’s statements or testimony were indeed presented
to the Spector Grand Jury. The
prosecution included one version of Cohen’s gun story in motions regarding “prior
bad acts” related to Spector. The
version the Spector prosecution used was contradicted by Leonard Cohen’s
testimony during my trial. That
testimony was elicited by the City Attorney using an email Cohen wasn’t a
recipient of. He merely testified that
he was, proceeded to address Phil Spector and a gun, and admitted during
cross-examination that he wasn’t a recipient.
The prosecutor, using this email, concealed the portions of the thread
requesting tax information and addressed to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff. She “misspoke” and had to correct
herself. Stephen Gianelli is on a major
fishing expedition and would like information about Dennis Riordan and Bruce
Cutler.
173. On December 13, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
inform me that he is “going to be away from a computer and traveling until
approximately March 1 of next year.”
Evidently he wanted to advise me that his criminal harassment will stop
during this period of time. As of the
date of this declaration, Stephen Gianelli continues to criminally harass me
over Tax Court, my RICO suits, Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector. For some reason, this criminal would like me
to “Tell the FBI merry Christmas” for him.
This is precisely what former DA Steve Cooley’s investigator asked me to
tell the Denver FBI when I called to discuss a situation related to a case
before LA Superior Court and never mentioned FBI.
174. On December 13, 2015, Gianelli responded to
an article I sent Alan Hootnick. Charles
Sevilla, Phil Spector’s appellate attorney, confirmed for the news media that
Mr. Spector had a serious medical condition and could no longer speak. This seriously undermines Gianelli’s insane
statements that he has an associate who speaks to Phil Spector. I don’t need to rely on information from the
news media but felt the article was accurate.
175. On December 15, 2015, Gianelli once again
wrote copying in Alan Hootnick. He is
attempting to explain away my blog posts, which primarily contain evidence I’ve
submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ, by accusing me of attempting to avoid “any kind
of self-assessment or awareness.” That’s
quite a fascinating statement given the fact that I, my sons, sister, Paulette
Brandt, Eric Salter, and many others have relentlessly advised this criminal to
cease and desist Leonard Cohen has
obtained a fraudulent default judgment, inserted suspended corporations into
that judgment, wrongfully converted my property to himself, stolen intellectual
property, used fraudulent restraining orders to discredit me, and believes he
has the right to remain unopposed in courts of law and the ability to perjure
himself extensively without suffering the consequences of his actions. I believe I have the legal right to seek
legal remedies. By failing to serve me
his lawsuit, Leonard Cohen was able to develop a fabricated narrative which he
then used to defend himself with IRS against the allegations that he committed
criminal tax fraud. I intend to address
the perjured statements and fraudulent misrepresentations Cohen transmitted to
IRS.
176. On December 21, 2015, Gianelli wrote in
response to an email I sent IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Senate
Judiciary. I posted that email on my
blog. Gianelli felt the need to harass
me over that post. I mocked up his
slanderous article, that was posted online and which he is transmitting to
third parties, with my comments.
Gianelli confirmed that my post contained a “point-by-point rebuttal” of
every “factual claim” made about my situation by third parties – including
Gianelli. However, because Gianelli is a
pathological liar, he wrote that I said I would submit that document to federal
District Court. What I wrote, and the
Court should review the email and verify this independently, is that I intended
to update the original declaration I submitted to this Court regarding
Gianelli’s ongoing criminal harassment and would provide this Court with a copy
of the article being used to slander me and defend Leonard Cohen. This post caused Gianelli to argue that Rule
8 prevents me from submitting this evidence to a federal court. I personally believe this evidence is highly
material and relevant and that would include with respect to this Tax Court
case. The Court should understand the
totality of circumstances and the lengths people, including Leonard Cohen and
his operatives, have gone to target, slander, threaten, intimidate, harass,
silence, and destroy me.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/12/kelley-lynchs-email-to-irs-fbi-doj.html
177. On December 21, 2015, Stephen Gianelli
wrote copying Alan Hootnick. Apparently,
when an individual submits a Complaint to federal court, together with a fee
waiver application, they are held to a higher standard than others. Therefore, the District Court must perform a
“spontaneous review of the complaint for compliance with Rule 8 (and other)
pleading standards BEFORE the fee waiver is granted.” Perhaps Courts should review all pleadings to
determine if the parties are engaged in a pattern of egregious fraud, perjury,
and litigation misconduct. I personally
do not believe individuals should be prejudiced due to the fact that they are
self-represented. Gianelli would like me
to understand that if I submit his article and my rebuttal to federal court the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine will apply. For
some reason, the fraudulent 2006 default judgment prevents me from addressing
this egregious conduct and slander.
That’s the trade off – the Court will scrutinize my pleadings and squash
me like a bug due to the fact that Cohen has intentionally bankrupted and
stolen from me. My fee waiver was an
issue for Cohen when he filed his retaliation Motion for Sanctions. Leonard Cohen prefers to be unopposed and
believes I do not have the right to file legal pleadings. Gianelli included his email to Alan Hootnick
informing him that I have “reliable information” about Phil Spector. That is Gianelli’s tactic for eliciting
information from various individuals about Phil Spector and other matters.
178. As of today, I continue to receive
harassing emails from Gianelli. The
relate to this Tax Court matter and my RICO suits against Cohen, the City, and
County of Los Angeles.
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding
"Gianelli"
To: Kelley Lynch
<kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Your tax
court case and any district court case will be dismissed.
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding
"Gianelli"
To: Kelley Lynch
<kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
I think that Kelley Lynch is the one who needs to
"cease and desist". Nor is Kelley Lynch emailing me a dozen times a
day to that effect going to accomplish anything.
How is your 1,000 page "federal RICO
suit" coming, BTW? Waiting for the decision on the Chief Trial Counsel's
pending motion to dismiss your July 2015 tax court case before you file, so you
can inform the district court you "won"? Don't hold your breath. You
won't.
I can well understand your reluctance to actually
file a RICO suit (instead of simply talk, talk, taking about it). Because once
you do file it, it is a matter of DAYS (not months) until it is DIMISSED,
and then you got nothing to threaten; at that point it's over.
Cease and desist, Gianelli.
Ms. Lynch,
You have it wrong. I am still on vacation. In fact,
I board a Gulfstream jet for Mexico in 48 hours.
I notice you have ignored the Central District
Court linked order + PACER docket proving that BEFORE the defendants
are required to respond, the court will review the complaint for facial merit
in connection with the fee waiver request and dismiss if appropriate.
Gianelli,
I see you've cut your three month vacation short in
order to criminally harass me further. I view you as a criminal and
ambulance chaser so please speak to your wife, Kory & Rice, or someone
interested in your insanity.
Kelley Lynch
Ms. Lynch,
Apparently you don't understand. In pro se cases where the plaintiff asks for a
fee waiver, the district court performs a spontaneous review of the complaint
for compliance with Rule 8 (and other) pleading standards BEFORE the fee waiver
is granted, and BEFORE the defendants are required to respond and before any
discovery is conducted or subpoenas issued.
Therefore, if incorporate your "rebuttal" into your complaint or file
your typical prolix pleading of many hundreds of pages + exhibits and/or raise
claims that are obviously time barred, violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, are
precluded by the 2006 judgment, ETC. Or otherwise violate Rule 8, - your
complaint will be dismissed BEFORE the City and/or Cohen even
knows it was filed. You will not bother them, they will not even know it was
filed until AFTER the district court squashes you silly little lawsuit like a
bug.
That is the tradeoff for the benefit of being able to ask the court to proceed
under a fee waiver. Only meritorious cases are allowed to proceed on that
basis, no need to bother the defendants otherwise.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the
Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
Original Message
From: alan hootnick
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 15:41
To: Stephen Gianelli
Reply To: alan hootnick
Subject: Fw: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding "Gianelli"
Kelley sent me this.
She has "reliable information" about Phil. Well, we know better
--- On Mon, 12/21/15, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding "Gianelli"
> To: "Stephen Gianelli" <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, "*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" <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>
Date: Monday, December 21, 2015, 8:18 PM
Alan Hootnick,
Gianelli has sent his slanderous article to third
parties. Every word is a lie and this man has motive. He must have
shortened his vacation after asking me to advise FBI "Merry Christmas."
Many people think that means "Fuck You." If Gianelli sent
you his "article," please see my rebuttal. Gianelli shouldn't
worry about my RICO complaint. He doesn't represent me; represents
Cohen's legal interests; and Cohen's attorney of record will be given the
proper legal opportunity to respond to that suit.
The criminal has once again been advised to cease
and desist. Perhaps he can hang out with his pals on Spector's prosecution
team over the holidays. They can think of additional ways to infiltrate
Spector's defense. Who knows - perhaps Gianelli will call Bruce Cutler
and ask him to marry him. Maybe surprises await us in the New Year.
I have very reliable information that Phil Spector
was not read this slanderous article and doesn't appreciate the criminal known
as Gianelli.
Kelley Lynch
FBI,
Did you receive Gianelli's "Merry
Christmas" message? He must have shortened his three month vacation to
begin criminally harassing me again.
Kelley
REDACTED ARTICLE
179. Leonard Cohen retaliated against me for
reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to Internal
Revenue Service on April 15, 2005 and at other times. He used his fraudulent Complaint narrative to
file personal tax returns, amend others, obtain fraudulent tax refunds, and
defend himself against the allegations.
This conduct with respect to Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and others has
been ongoing since May 2009. At that
time, Gianelli publicly stated that he heard from Cohen’s representatives at
Kory & Rice. Gianelli, Kory &
Rice now appear to be engaged in some kind of moronic cover-your-ass
operation. These matters, including my
younger son’s custody matter which was clearly coordinated, are all
inter-related. I am asking this Court to
refer the situation with respect to the illegal accessing and tampering with my
Word Press blog to federal law enforcement for an investigation. That blog was created specifically to submit
evidence to this Court. The evidence has
now been destroyed and was replaced with slanderous and false accusations. These are the same slanderous and false
accusations that Leonard Cohen, his representatives, and Stephen Gianelli have
relentlessly spewed into the public domain about me.
I
declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
This
declaration is executed on this 23rd day of December 2015 in Los Angeles,
California.
Signed
Kelley Ann Lynch
____________________________________
KELLEY
ANN LYNCH
Signature page and
evidence documents (including will be uploaded separately.
