From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:19 PM
Subject: Stephen Gianelli & Non-Compliance w/ Federal Tax Laws
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,": Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, 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>, "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>,
Date: Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:19 PM
Subject: Stephen Gianelli & Non-Compliance w/ Federal Tax Laws
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,": Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, 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>, "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>,
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I've sent you Gianelli's harassing posts, arguing non-compliance with federal tax laws, from today. I have also forwarded you the emails You Tube transmits to me re. these posts. Stephen Gianelli is part of Leonard Cohen's legal team. He is insanely obsessed with the fraudulent domestic violence order LA Superior Court issued Cohen. I have sent you the header information re. my email that Gianelli wrote he was bcc'd on. He was not and I believe Gianelli spoofed the fabricated email evidence the City Attorney continues to submit to LA Superior Court. He is obsessed with my blog, lifts information from that blog, and has communicated extensively with Kory & Rice over the years.
As Gianelli removes posts after attacking me while attempting to elicit information, I will continue to send them to IRS, FBI, and DOJ so that they are memorialized. I have advised Gianelli to cease and desist.
As Robert Kory's declaration expressed concerns about his role in criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income, I assume that's not the only thing they're reviewing in the IRS Tax Crimes Handbook.
Kelley
P.S. Please review this video as it contains evidence supporting my theory that Leonard Cohen has now converted a federal tax controversy into a fraud domestic violence order and used the situation as an opportunity to steal from me, corporations, and so forth. Cohen even has the male Leni Reinfenstahl glorifying him. That would be David Remnick, New Yorker, who seems to believe it is acceptable to emotionally distress my family and friends while libeling me. Cohen knows that lying about matters, including re. woman who harass him (which is something he has falsely accused others in the past of doing), is far more salacious than addressing the business dispute that arose, paying his representatives, and providing the IRS required tax and corporate information. Misogynists, sycophants, awe inspired fans, groupie journalists, and local government actors also tend to fall for his carefully crafted insanity.
TRUTH SENTINEL POSTS INITIATED BY GIANELLI ON AUGUST 17, 2017
Family Code sec. 6380 a) Each county, with the approval of the Department of Justice, shall, by July 1, 1996, develop a procedure, using existing systems, for the electronic transmission of data, as described in subdivision (b), to the Department of Justice. The data shall be electronically transmitted through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) of the Department of Justice by law enforcement personnel, or with the approval of the Department of Justice, court personnel, or another appropriate agency capable of maintaining and preserving the integrity of both the CLETS and the *Domestic Violence Restraining Order System, as described in subdivision (e)*. Data entry is required to be entered only once under the requirements of this section, unless the order is served at a later time. A portion of all fees payable to the Department of Justice under subdivision (a) of Section 1203.097 of the Penal Code for the entry of the information required under this section, based upon the proportion of the costs incurred by the local agency and those incurred by the Department of Justice, shall be transferred to the local agency actually providing the data. All data with respect to criminal court protective orders issued, modified, extended, or terminated under subdivision (g) of Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, and all data filed with the court on the required Judicial Council forms with respect to protective orders, including their issuance, modification, extension, or termination, to which this division applies pursuant to Section 6221, shall be transmitted by the court or its designee within one business day to law enforcement personnel by either one of the following methods: (1) Transmitting a physical copy of the order to a local law enforcement agency authorized by the Department of Justice to enter orders into CLETS. (2) With the approval of the Department of Justice, entering the order into CLETS directly. (b) Upon the issuance of a protective order to which this division applies pursuant to Section 6221, or the issuance of a temporary restraining order or injunction relating to harassment, unlawful violence, or the threat of violence pursuant to Section 527.6, 527.8, or 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or the issuance of a criminal court protective order under subdivision (g) of Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, or the issuance of a juvenile court restraining order related to domestic violence pursuant to Section 213.5, 304, or 362.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or the issuance of a protective order pursuant to Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or upon registration with the court clerk of a domestic violence protective or restraining order issued by the tribunal of another state, as defined in Section 6401*, and including any of the foregoing orders issued in connection with an order for modification of a custody or visitation order issued pursuant to a dissolution, legal separation, nullity, or paternity proceeding *the Department of Justice shall be immediately notified of the contents of the order and the following information: (1) The name, race, date of birth, and other personal descriptive information of the respondent as required by a form prescribed by the Department of Justice. (2) The names of the protected persons. (3) The date of issuance of the order. (4) The duration or expiration date of the order. (5) The terms and conditions of the protective order, including stay-away, no-contact, residency exclusion, custody, and visitation provisions of the order. (6) The department or division number and the address of the court. (7) Whether or not the order was served upon the respondent. (8) The terms and conditions of any restrictions on the ownership or possession of firearms. All available information shall be included; however, the inability to provide all categories of information shall not delay the entry of the information available. (c) The information conveyed to the Department of Justice shall also indicate whether the respondent was present in court to be informed of the contents of the court order. The respondent’s presence in court shall provide proof of service of notice of the terms of the protective order. The respondent’s failure to appear shall also be included in the information provided to the Department of Justice. (d) (1) Within one business day of service, any law enforcement officer who served a protective order shall submit the proof of service directly into the Department of Justice Domestic Violence Restraining Order System, including his or her name and law enforcement agency, and shall transmit the original proof of service form to the issuing court. (2) Within one business day of receipt of proof of service by a person other than a law enforcement officer, the clerk of the court shall submit the proof of service of a protective order directly into the Department of Justice Domestic Violation Restraining Order System, including the name of the person who served the order. If the court is unable to provide this notification to the Department of Justice by electronic transmission, the court shall, within one business day of receipt, transmit a copy of the proof of service to a local law enforcement agency. The local law enforcement agency shall submit the proof of service directly into the Department of Justice Domestic Violence Restraining Order System within one business day of receipt from the court. (e) The Department of Justice shall maintain a Domestic Violence Restraining Order System and shall make available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel, through computer access, all information regarding *the protective and restraining orders and injunctions described in subdivision (b)*, *whether or not served upon the respondent*. (f) If a court issues a modification, extension, or termination of a protective order, it shall be on forms adopted by the Judicial Council of California and that have been approved by the Department of Justice, and the transmitting agency for the county shall immediately notify the Department of Justice, by electronic transmission, of the terms of the modification, extension, or termination. (g) The Judicial Council shall assist local courts charged with the responsibility for issuing protective orders by developing informational packets describing the general procedures for obtaining a domestic violence restraining order and indicating the appropriate Judicial Council forms. The informational packets shall include a design, that local courts shall complete, that describes local court procedures and maps to enable applicants to locate filing windows and appropriate courts, and shall also include information on how to return proofs of service, including mailing addresses and fax numbers. The court clerk shall provide a fee waiver form to all applicants for domestic violence protective orders. The court clerk shall provide all Judicial Council forms required by this chapter to applicants free of charge. The informational packet shall also contain a statement that the protective order is enforceable in any state, as defined in Section 6401, and general information about agencies in other jurisdictions that may be contacted regarding enforcement of an order issued by a court of this state. (h) For the purposes of this part, “electronic transmission” shall include computer access through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). (i) Only protective and restraining orders issued on forms adopted by the Judicial Council of California and that have been approved by the Department of Justice shall be transmitted to the Department of Justice. However, this provision shall not apply to a valid protective or restraining order related to domestic or family violence issued by a tribunal of another state, as defined in Section 6401. Those orders shall, upon request, be registered pursuant to Section 6404.
The Colorado Order could not be registered in California as a fraudulent DV order.
-------- Penal Code sec. 273.6 (a) Any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order, as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code, or of an order issued pursuant to Section 527.6, 527.8, or 527.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. […] (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall apply to the following court orders: (4) *Any order issued by another state that is recognized under Part 5 (commencing with Section 6400) of Division 10 of the Family Code*. Family Code sec. 6401 In this part: (1) “Foreign protection order” means a protection order issued by a tribunal of another state. […] (5) “Protection order” means *an injunction or other order, issued by a tribunal under the […] antistalking laws of the issuing state*, to prevent an individual from engaging in violent or threatening acts against, harassment of, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to, another individual. Family Code sec. 6403 a) A law enforcement officer of this state, upon determining that there is probable cause to believe that a valid foreign protection order exists and that the order has been violated, shall enforce the order as if it were the order of a tribunal of this state. […] (d) Registration or filing of an order in this state is not required for the enforcement of a valid foreign protection order pursuant to this part. Family Code sec. 6404 (a) Any foreign protection order shall*, upon request of the person in possession of the order, be registered with a court of this state in order to be *entered in the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System established under Section 6380*. The *Judicial Council shall adopt rules of court to do the following: (1) Set forth the process whereby a *person in possession of a foreign protection order may voluntarily register the order with a court of this state for entry into the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System*.
I didn't violate any order and the California DV order is evidence of fraud.
Ms. Lynch, 1. You participated in a You Tube podcast wherein you slandered me in the linked audio tape. The podcast post also has a comments section – here. 2. You are receiving my posted comments on this site because you elected to subscribe to comment notifications to an email address you provided to You Tube. Also, on the You Tube page itself is the option to mute any past or future comments I may post so you never see them if you visit the page. Therefore, if you are reading them, *it is because you want to read them*. 3. My participation in this public discussion in which you have elected to try your various legal proceedings in the court of public opinion is not harassment. 4. Penal Code section 273.6(c)(4) when read with Family Code sections 6401, 6403(a)and(d), 6404 (a) and 6380(a) and (f) and Judicial Council form DV-600 all make crystal clear that: A. Violations of the CO order may be enforced through a prosecution for violating Penal Code 273.6(a) – whether the CO order was registered in CA or not, and whether the CO order was a domestic violence order or simply an anti-stalking order (as in your case). B. The CO order was properly registered in May, 2011 using Judicial Council Form DV-600, which is the procedure Fam. Code sec. 6404(a)(1) authorized the Judicial Council to adopt “whereby a person in possession of a foreign protection order may voluntarily register the order with a court of this state for entry into the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System.” If you want to make dumb legal claims in the public comments section of your You Tube podcast disparaging me, I am going to comment. If you don’t like it, too bad. You sending 10,000 more emails to the IRS, ICE, the CIA, or Russian Intelligence/FSB is not going to change that.
No one slandered you, Gianelli. That would be impossible. You are a pathetic liar engaged in criminal conduct. See my recent email advising you to cease and desist sending me harassing emails. Marc Madero/LAPD's TMU was copied so feel free to present your preposterous defense to him directly and explain why the fraudulent California DV order is valid. It's not and it is not the Colorado order.
For the record, Gianelli. You use fake monikers, fake email accounts, etc. to harass me and others. I am convinced you sent the "bloody stump" email. You have created fake monikers such as the 14th Sheepdog which is not how the 14th Sharmapa spelled his name. Furthermore, you wrote that you were bcc'd on an email I sent IRS, FBI, and DOJ (which was posted on my blog). You were not.
Stephen G56 seconds agoHighlighted reply
The sole purpose of the 2011 CA order was to register the 2008 CO order and enter the later into CLETS pursuant to Fam. Code sec. 6401, 6403, and 6380 and Judicial Council form DV-600. Indeed, the CA order of registration of the CO order attaches the CO order and incorporates it by reference. The sole purpose of the CA order is to facilitate enforcement of the CO order. Therefore, the appropriate question is how is the CA order not the CO order - at least substantively?
Gianelli, The fraud Cali order is not the Colorado order. Please cease and desist. I am presently studying the IRS Tax Crimes Manual, the statute of limitations set forth therein, vis a vis your arguments as to why Leonard Cohen (and the corporations he controlled) were not obligated to provide me with IRS required forms 1099, K-1s, balance sheets, corporate tax returns, etc. The corporations do not have injunctions. In any, Judge Debra Brazil can determine if the IRS Tax Crimes Manual applies to the arguments you sent forth on behalf of Cohen, Kory, Rice, et al. I do have Rice's email, lying to me and federal authorities, about these and other issues.
The sole purpose of the 2011 CA order was to register the 2008 CO order and enter the later into CLETS pursuant to Fam. Code sec. 6401, 6403, and 6380 and Judicial Council form DV-600. Indeed, the CA order of registration of the CO order attaches the CO order and incorporates it by reference. The sole purpose of the CA order is to facilitate enforcement of the CO order. Therefore, the appropriate question is how is the CA order not the CO order - at least substantively?
Gianelli, call the City Attorney, ask them to hire you, go into Court and argue these matters before Judge Debra Brazil. In the meantime, I will submit the IRS Tax Crimes Manual to the Court together with your arguments.
Preposterous argument. I have indeed contacted CIA and intend to submit a FOIA request, as I informed them, re. Leonard Cohen's claims that he was a participant in their MK Ultra program, CIA recon during Bay of Pigs, etc. I have a friend who worked with the Russian FSB, one of their intelligence agencies. My communications with people I know in Russia are none of your business although my friend, a member of FSB's Alpha Unit, did believe your harassing conduct should be documented and exposed. You are now arguing federal tax matters related to Leonard Cohen, corporations he controlled, and further arguing non-compliance with federal tax laws. You are an agent provocateur, infiltrator, fixer, and someone Rice urged to harass and incite me as it makes her "richer than fuck." You are a proxy operative who also lies publicly and in harassing emails to elicit information. You have attempted to infiltrate through your endless attempts to communicate with Agent Sopko, Agent Tejeda, Agent Wynar, Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsels' Office. No one slandered you. That would be humanly impossible. Furthermore, as stated above, you create fake monikers (such as 14th Sheepdog, Truth Teller, etc.) with which to harass people, engage in dialogues with yourself, and further to create fake email accounts. This is all well documented. You lied that you were bcc'd on my email to IRS, FBI, and DOJ. I can prove that fact definitively. I believe you created the spoofed emails to Kory (which was an altered version of an email I posted on my blog) and to Streeter. I see right through you and your criminal conduct.
"If you want to make dumb legal claims in the public comments section of your You Tube podcast disparaging me, I am going to comment. If you don’t like it, too bad. You sending 10,000 more emails to the IRS, ICE, the CIA, or Russian Intelligence/FSB is not going to change that."
Gianelli, these harassing posts - promoting non-compliance with federal tax laws (including re corporations) - are being broadcast onto my computer screen and emailed to me. You are a criminal stalker who has been advised to cease and desist.
Are you referring to your arguments re. IRS Tax Crimes Manual and explanation as to why - based upon alleged statute of limitations in that Manual - Cohen had a legal right to withhold IRS required tax information (1099, K-1s, balance sheets, corporate tax returns, etc.)? For one, I don't actually believe it supports the withhold withholding of this information. I see you're attempting to elicit information, as usual.
Note, BTW, that the lack of a 1099 does not prevent the tax payer from timely filing a return. If the employer fails to provide a 1099 by the February following the deadline for the employer to provide it, the employee can simply file an IRS form 4852 with their return.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
Kelley Lynch acknowledged that she was aware of this procedure, and had no need to continue to demand a 1099 for tax year 2004 from Cohen.
Are you interested in arguing federal tax matters? I've already explained that I will submit a copy of the IRS Tax Crimes Manual you posted here to the Court with a request for judicial notice. Cohen and the corporations he controlled owed me 1099, K-1s, balance sheets, and so forth for the years 2004 and 2005. I look forward to the Deputy City Attorney's arguments based upon information in IRS Tax Crimes Manual that Leonard Cohen was not obligated to provide that information.
Preparing a Request for Judicial Notice of the IRS Tax Crimes Manual you posted on this site arguing federal tax matters on behalf of Cohen, Kory, Rice, the prosecution, et al. We'll sort out the criminal federal tax statute of limitations in court.
Since you could have, and indeed said you did at one point, file an IRS form 4852 - which is the appropriate procedure if a 1099 is not forthcoming, your entire stated need to send Cohen, Kory and Rice 30,000 demands for a 2004 1099 is fallacious. No need for it, in view of form 4852. As you well know.
I see, Gianelli. You will have to submit evidence that anyone sent 30,000 emails to anyone. Cohen didn't simply owe me a 1099 for 2004. The corporations he controlled (and he alone has the information) owed me K-1s, balance sheets, corporate tax returns, etc. for the years 2004 and 2005. I don't see where in the IRS Tax Crimes Manual Cohen had the legal authority to withhold this information. Therefore, I will raise this manual, and your arguments, with Judge Debra Brazil.
Cohen failed to provide the information that would permit me to use the form you are preposterously arguing permitted him to withhold IRS required 1099, K-1s, balance sheets, etc. The only information in my possession is Cohen's email confirming a commission he paid me in September 2004. I have submitted that email to IRS and FTB. However, that's not all the information I was and remain in need of.
Cohen failed to provide the information that would permit me to use the form you are preposterously arguing permitted him to withhold IRS required 1099, K-1s, balance sheets, etc. The only information in my possession is Cohen's email confirming a commission he paid me in September 2004. I have submitted that email to IRS and FTB. However, that's not all the information I was and remain in need of. This form is not used for corporate K-1s. I had an ownership interest in the following corporations in 2004 and 2005: Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Old Ideas, LLC, and Traditional Holdings, LLC. In any event, the IRS Tax Crimes Manual will now be submitted to LA Superior Court together with your arguments on behalf of Cohen, Kory, Rice, et al. I've already explained to the Court and others that you and your co-conspirators intentionally insert slanderous information into documents, posts, etc. to create a fake paper trail filled with false accusations. I've also explained to the Court and other authorities that you blatantly lie in an attempt to elicit information. For example, these posts indicate that you are seeking information about what IRS has advised me with respect to Cohen's obligations to provide the forms 1099, K-1s, balance sheets, corporate tax returns, and so forth.
Stephen G4 minutes agoHighlighted reply
All I am saying is that you did not require a form 1099 to filed your 2004 tax returns. You could have filed a form 4852 using the information from your own bank deposit records for your gross income. Lost your bank records? You could have requested copies.
You are attempting to elicit information. Leonard Cohen, and the corporations he controlled, were obligated to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information (including 1099, K-1s, balance sheets, corporate tax returns) for the years 2004 and 2005. Period.
The only financial information on a form 1099 is your gross compensation. That you could get from your own books, or if you did not keep books, your own bank statements, or if you lost them, copies could be easily obtained IN 2005 from your own bank. So your excuse for sending 30,000 emails to Cohen Kory and Rice since 2005 just went poof.
Gianelli, I know what information Cohen was obligated to provide me on the 1099. The same is true for the information he was obligated to provide me re. the corporate K-1s, balance sheets, corporate tax returns, etc. Provide the 30,000 alleged emails sent to Cohen, Kory & Rice with any such request for federal tax and corporate matters. As the LA Times wrote, Cohen and his attorneys testified that I was provided with the IRS required forms 1099 and K-1s. Cease and desist, Gianelli.
Gianelli, since you follow all of this closely, and are part of Cohen's team, you should know that Cohen unlawfully entered my offices and removed my personal business and corporate records. That issue has now been raised with Judge Debra Brazil. You're not entitled to information about my federal tax matters. You are merely arguing on behalf of Cohen, Kory & Rice, et al. while harassing me over federal tax and corporate matters.
Cease and desist, Gianelli. See my email to LAPD's TMU re. your ongoing criminal harassment over federal tax matters. From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:38 PM Subject: Re: New reply on "Note, BTW, that the lack of a 1099 does not prevent the tax payer from timely filing a return. If the employer fails to provide a 1099 by the February following the deadline for the employer to provide it, the employee can simply file an IRS form 4852 with their return. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, 34131@lapd.lacity.org, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, ": Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.
Marc Madero, I find Gianelli's arguments promoting non-compliance with federal tax laws unavailing. That includes his arguments re. statute of limitations in the IRS Tax Crime Manual.
I will remind you that Robert Kory's declaration expressed concerns about his potential role in criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income. Stephen Gianelli is a proxy operative and common criminal. He has once again been advised to cease and desist. Kelley Lynch
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com> wrote:
Stephen Gianelli, Cease and desist harassing me over the IRS required tax and corporate information Leonard Cohen was obligated to provide me. That includes, but is not limited to, 1099, K-1s, balance sheets, and corporate returns. These posts, promoting non-compliance with federal tax laws, are being broadcast onto my computer screen and emailed to me. Unsubscribing to You Tube is not the answer. You should immediately stop your online attacks and attempts to elicit information. Furthermore, you are harassing me through emails lying, at this point, about being bcc'd on an email to IRS, FBI, and DOJ that I posted on my blog. You were not bcc'd. You are simply lying about the 30,000 emails allegedly sent because you want to elicit information about my so-called defense and what IRS has advised. I know your tactics and it's quite clear that you are a professional criminal. Cease and desist. Kelley Lynch
Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.
A: A Doberman.
