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. I am submitting this declaration to Tax Court in response to the false accusations
that have been transmitted to Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office, with respect to me
and in order to address Stephen Gianellis ongoing campaign of harassment with respect to this
case.
2.
On or about July 25, 2015, Stephen Gianelli, an individual who does not know me, wrote
that he and the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office are getting along fine. This email was meant
to provoke a response and elicit information. I initially ignored it.
3.
I do not know Stephen Gianelli. He is a Bay Area lawyer who writes that he resides in
Greece and is immune from prosecution in the United States. Gianelli appears to work in a
coordinated fashion with Leonard Cohen and his legal representatives, Michelle Rice and Robert
Kory. He has also worked in a coordinated fashion with Cohens fan, Susanne Walsh, and Phil
Spectors former assistant, Michelle Blaine. This individual has relentlessly harassed me, my
sons, sister, roommate Paulette Brandt, friends, and others. He has worked in tandem with
Leonard Cohens fan, Susanne Walsh, and Phil Spectors former assistant, Michelle Blaine.
Cohens lawyer, Michelle Rice, has been copied in on numerous harassing emails sent over the
past six years by these individuals to me, my sons, witnesses, and others. My sons, John Rutger
Penick and Ray Charles Lindsey, have addressed some of this in declarations that have been
submitted to numerous courts. Their declarations can be viewed at the following links. The
harassment is ongoing. Gianelli is obsessed with my blog, riverdeepbook.blogspot.com and
believes my posts give him a legal right to engage in this unconscionable activity. He has also
created or devoted blogs used to slander and defame me. His obsession is pathological and
frightening. He appears to be a proxy of Leonard Cohens who argues Cohens legal positions,
defends him, slanders and discredits me, and targets witnesses.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-charles-lindsey-kelley-lynchs-son.html
4.

On August 14, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise that he is not giving Michelle Rice

ammunition. That is precisely what is going on here. This individual functions as an agent
provocateur and infiltrator. He has repeatedly contacted and lied to IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury,
and other government agencies about me. Stephen Gianelli writes in a frighteningly familiar
manner although I have never met this individual. His harassment, stalking, slander,
intimidation, threats, and so forth have gone on for over six and a half years. He has publicly
stated many times that Michelle Rice and he communicated in May 2009. At that time, he had a
blog primarily devoted to Phil Spectors trials. That is when this harassment began. Gianellis
communications with the prosecutor from my 2012 trial was used to falsely arrest me. Cohens
lawyer, Michelle Rice, has encouraged Gianelli to provoke and incite me. That would no
doubt include by targeting my sons and family members. Evidently, Rice sees this as an
opportunity to get rich.
5.
Gianellis obsession relates to all matters involving Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector. At
this time, his focus is primarily on Leonard Cohen, IRS, Paulmikell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial
Counsels office, this Tax Court case, federal tax matters involving Leonard Cohen, and various
matters before Los Angeles Superior Court. Those matters include four appeals related to
Leonard Cohens fraudulent default judgment (Case No. BC338322), failure to serve me the
summons and complaint, a fraud upon the court motion (Case No. BC338322), and a fraudulent
California domestic violence restraining order. That order is based on a Colorado order that was
issued without findings and does not meet the requirements of VAWA. The original Colorado
order, which Cohen made a desperate flight into Colorado to obtain in the middle of his 2008
tour, is not a domestic violence order. Cohen was evidently concerned, or so he alleged, that I
might attend his concert scheduled for July 2009. No evidence supports this preposterous
allegation. Cohen also expressed concerns about my online posts, communications with
journalists, and communications with third parties such as IRS, FBI, and DOJ. The restraining
orders have been used to prevent me from requesting IRS required tax and corporate
information for the years 2004 and 2005. I have merely been assigned a dating relationship
with Leonard Cohen. Cohens willful refusal to provide me with this information has interfered
with my ability to file my 2004 and 2005 federal and state tax returns. He has now taken the
legal position that the May 2006 default judgment extinguished his obligation to provide me with
this IRS required information. As the Natural Wealth lawsuit confirmed, six months prior to
Cohens use of these abusive tactics, Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory planned to use restraining
orders to discredit me as a witness. Leonard Cohen has enjoyed being unopposed in these
matters. That was intentional. He has now gone to extreme lengths to prevent me from
properly addressing these legal matters. That would include his recent attempt to have my Los
Angeles Superior Court fee waiver (Case No. BC338322) terminated so that I am not permitted
to file any additional legal pleadings. It is my understandings that Leonard Cohen needed to
argue fraud and/or rescission to explain away his role in these transactions and corporations. It
is Leonard Cohen who demanded complex stock deals. He has merely used a fraudulent and
fabricated narrative to advance his self-serving goals. Cohen has a long history of fabricating

narratives. Those narratives relate to his stories about his role in the Bay of Pigs, plan to join the
Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War, possible participation in CIAs MKULTRA
program, Janis Joplin, Phil Spector, and allegedly disgruntled ex-lovers, Ann Diamond and
myself, who have stalked or harassed him. Leonard Cohen is a fabulist who understands that his
stories largely go unchallenged.
6.
Stephen Gianelli has contacted many parties about me. That would include, but is not
limited to, Agent Kelly Sopko (U.S. Treasury), Agent Luis Tejeda (IRS Fraud Group, Los
Angeles), Agent Wynar (FBI, Oakland), Paulmikell Fabian (IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office,
Los Angeles), Doug Davis (Franchise Tax Board), and a representative of the State of Kentucky
who I contacted with respect to my ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC . His goal
is to elicit information, insert extraneous information into federal matters, defend Leonard
Cohen, and lie about me excessively. Gianelli has also contacted individuals such as billionaire
Ron Burkle, Kevin Huvane (CAA), and Bryan Lourd (CAA) in a blatant attempt to discredit and
slander me. Kevin Huvane and Bryan Lourd are Oliver Stones representatives at Create Artist
Agency. Oliver Stone is a personal friend of mine. As their first line of defense, Leonard Cohen
and Robert Kory went into my younger sons fathers office to advise him that I had sex with
Oliver Stone while we were together. That is a blatantly false allegation used to stir up and
coordinate a custody matter involving my younger son. It is my personal belief that Stephen
Gianelli wrote and sent what I refer to as the bloody stump email. It is a horrifying and vile
email that falsely accuses me of abusing my sons, slanders Oliver Stone, and accuses me of
revolting conduct with respect to my son, Rutger. Rutger suffered horrendous injuries while
working at Whole Foods in Brentwood, California. On February 3, 2007, his fingers were
ripped off in a meat grinder. Rutger was not trained or qualified to work on that machine and
discovery uncovered very probable criminal negligence on the part of Whole Foods. During my
2012 trial, Leonard Cohen inconceivably testified that I accused him of causing this accident. I
have never made any such statement or allegation and am well aware that Whole Foods is to
blame for the incident. This email advised me that I should be raped, murdered, or commit
suicide. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the stakes are high and the lows inconceivably vulgar.
Stephen Gianelli creates monikers like this. He has also targeted my Buddhist teacher, the 14th
Sharmapa, and created blog posts and an email account using the moniker the 14th Sheep Dog.
This email was sent by the 17th Shitzu which is an attack on my Buddhist teacher, the 17th
Karmapa. See Exhibit A: Bloody Stump email, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
7.
It now appears that Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory are involved in
what I view as a blatant, and utterly moronic, cover-your-ass campaign. That campaign has
led to Gianelli harassing me by enclosing emails written by Michelle Rice. It also involves
Gianellis emailing me, my sons, family members, friends, and others (including IRS, FBI, DOJ,
Treasury, Senate Judiciary, and IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office) slanderous, defamatory, and
false accusations meant to undermine and discredit me. See Exhibit B: Evidence of Email

Campaign.
8.
On September 7, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote to inform me that he had not
telephoned the Chief Trial Counsels office. Gianellis provocative July 25, 2015 email, advising
me that he is getting along with the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office, did not indicate whether or
not he had spoken or written to that office. Mr. Fabian confirmed that Gianelli contacted him
by email and it is my personal opinion that Gianelli has attempted to interfere with this Tax
Court case while slandering me to Mr. Fabian. I have not falsely accused Stephen Gianelli of
anything. I have documented his ongoing criminal harassment for IRS, FBI, and DOJ for over
six years. Gianelli has no logical reason for his conduct other than his role as a proxy.
9.
Stephen Gianelli inserts extraneous information into emails and appears to have played
a role in my two false arrests and imprisonments related to Los Angeles Superior Court Case
No. 2CA04539. I was falsely accused of violating a domestic violence order. The jurors were
advised that the IRS and federal tax matters were a ruse. They were advised that I am in
possession of the IRS required tax and corporate information that Cohen steadfastly refuses to
provide me. The jurors were essentially advised that I am a disgruntled ex-lover, although
Cohen and I were not lovers, who merely harassed Cohen for no reason whatsoever. Michelle
Rice wrote and advised me that I was required to use LA Superior Courts discovery process to
obtain the IRS required tax and corporate information. Apart from a handful of references to
the restraining order, the trial was devoted to IRS, federal tax matters, and Phil Spector. Stephen
Gianelli has personally informed me that he worked with the City Attorney of Los Angeles to
have me arrested on two separate occasions. Gianelli forwarded me a September 27, 2013 email
from Vivienne Swanigan, City Attorneys office, encouraging him to continue harassing me.
Swanigan also instructed Gianelli to communicate an official message from their office to me.
This situation appears to have been highly coordinated and involves Los Angeles government
actors including former DA Steve Cooley. Stephen Gianelli has indeed communicated with my
prosecutor, Sandra Jo Streeter. His communications, copying me and others, with her began in
November 2012 and continued with her and her colleagues for over a year. These
communications were later used by the City Attorney to retaliate against me. The trial record in
this case indicates that the City Attorney was attempting to cover up certain wrongful conduct of
Leonard Cohens. My appellate attorney, Francisco Suarez felt the trial was an IRS matter that
warranted an IRS investigation. My public defender concluded that the City Attorney was
attempting to sabotage IRS, discredit me, the DA did not want the Phil Spector verdict
overturned, and there may have been a juror plant on the jury. That juror evidently relied on
statements the prosecutor made with respect to assets belonging to Traditional Holdings, LLC.
He advised my public defender that he felt sorry for Leonard Cohen who was left with only
$150,000 in his retirement account. Leonard Cohen borrowed or caused to be expended
approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC, the alleged retirement account, and
has failed to repay these loans with interest. Cohen understood that these loans/expenditures

had to be repaid within three years. The jurors were advised not to rely on statements made by
the attorneys and this matter should have been raised with the Court.
Subject: Fwd: Emails to Kelly Lynch
From: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
To: Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan <vivienne.swanigan@lacity.org>
CC: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>,
John Penick <mr.synt4xerror@gmail.com>,Ray Lindsey
<raymond.c.lindsey@gmail.com>,karen <karen@mccourt.org>,wfrayeh
<wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>,Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>
Ms. Swanigan,
Here is an email wherein you recently expressly REQUESTED ME TO SEND several emails to Kelley
Lynch clarifying that I have never met or communicated with Sandra Jo Streeter and am not in
cahoots with her - which I subsequently did as requested, copy to you.
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Vivienne Swanigan <vivienne.swanigan@lacity.org>
Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Emails to Kelly Lynch
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Since you are still intent on "poking the lion", could you please send emails (several) to Kelly
Lynch stating that you are not connected to Sandra Streeter, have never met her, and you are not
involved with a conspiracy with her? Because, unfortunately, your poking at Lynch and
defending our prosecutor is making her focus more and more on Ms. Streeter and a delusional
belief that Streeter and you are cohorts in a conspiracy against her.
Also, could you please not give Lynch any further information about what we are
doing/planning? My intent in emailing you about the hearing was just to let you know what
happened as a courtesy, not to give you more ammunition to throw at Lynch. I do not like the
fact that I have unwittinglin fueled the fires of Kelly Lynch's imaginary Gianelli-Streeter
conspiracy by giving you information about what happened at the hearging. - Vivienne
*****************Confidentiality Notice *************************
This electronic message transmission contains information
from the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, which may be confidential or protected by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message

and any attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

********************************************************************
10.
On September 8, 2015, Gianelli wrote and falsely advised me that I had accused Mr.
Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office, of engaging in inappropriate communications with
him. I have never made any such statement. Gianellis communications that were inappropriate.
Gianelli is a chronic, pathological liar. I spoke with Mr. Fabian briefly, he was entirely
professional, and explained to me that Gianelli had contacted him. Gianelli has consistently
attempted to infiltrate matters and now appears obsessed with this Tax Court case. When I filed
my fraud upon the court motion, with Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC338322), I
addressed misconduct on the part of Leonard Cohen and his legal representatives, Michelle Rice
and Robert Kory. That is evidently the attorney misconduct Gianelli has referred to in his
harassing emails.
11.
Stephen Gianelli wrote that Mr. Fabian does not know that I have a 10-year long
history of making false and malicious reports of alleged criminality and other alleged misconduct
to the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, the United States Department of Justice and other
local, state and federal agencies, against everyone whom you feel has wronged you including but
by no means limited to every one of your former employers who fired you (including Leonard
Cohen), a half dozen federal and state court judges who have ruled against you in two different
states, your opposing counsel in civil harassment proceedings and other civil litigation (including Los
Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC338322 where a $14 MILLION embezzlement
based judgment was entered against you), and various prosecutors two of whom you have also threatened
to either kill or execute before and after your April 2012 Los Angeles County conviction for
emailed death threats in violation of a restraining order registered in that county in 2011 and
related 18-month jail sentence as well as your January 22, 2014 6-month remand for violating
your probation by (among other things) emailing your trial prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter to
advise that she had made your kill list I would like to address some of the issues Gianelli has
raised with respect to me as well as the to so-called death threats or my alleged kill list.
12.
On February 14, 2013, Valentines Day, I sent a Valentine Card to the FBI and DOJ. I
have been documenting everything I have gone through since reporting the allegations that
Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud for IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others. I was
advised that Cohens tax fraud was criminal in nature by my former lawyers and accountant who
also brought to my attention certain steps on the Traditional Holdings, LLC federal tax returns
and Cohens failure to report the 2001 Sony transaction income on those returns. I reported
those allegations to IRS Agent Bill Betzer on April 15, 2005 and at other times. I have also
reported the allegations to FTB, State of Kentucky, and other authorities. Leonard Cohens
lawsuit (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC338322) is blatant retaliation. By May 2005,
Cohen and Kory were well aware of the fact that I had reported the allegations that he

committed criminal tax fraud to IRS and other authorities. In fact, Agent Betzer was raised in
Natural Wealths lawsuit against Cohen and Kory. I am in possession of emails from Kory
confirming that they understand I had reported these allegations to IRS and other authorities.
Cohen was also forced to confront the very serious allegations made against him and Robert
Kory in the Natural Wealth lawsuit. This email was addressed to FBI and DOJ - not my
prosecutor, Sandra Jo Streeter. Streeter is mentioned in the P.S. to DOJ and FBI: Hopefully
Streeter wont charge me with terrorist threats. I had addressed the use of false threats to
prosecute me privately and publicly with IRS, DOJ, FBI, Treasury, and others. Streeter
evidently saw this email as an opportunity to retaliate. After all, I asked IRS, DOJ, and FBI to
investigate my trial and specifically as it relates to the lies about federal tax matters. That would
include, but is not limited to, the prosecutor informing jurors that I am in possession of IRS
required tax and corporate information that Cohen is required to provide me for the years 2004
and 2005. The Valentine card was linked to an article by journalist Glenn Greenwald on the
DOJs white paper about drones which can be viewed at this link. I have also included a link to
Glenn Greenwalds article that appeared in the Guardian on February 11, 2013.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/valentines-special-someone
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list
I do not have a kill list and did not create this Valentine card. The card clearly depicts a
military drone and the kill list is an obvious euphemism for the CIAs alleged disposition
matrix which is evidently a database. I received a call from Detective Viramontes, LAPDs
Threat Management Unit, about this card. He informed me that Hugo Rossiter, City Attorneys
Office, contacted him about the card. Streeter apparently feared for her life over this card. She
too is a fabulist. The trial record is evidence of that fact. I asked Detective Viramontes, who
concluded that the card was a joke, if Sandra Jo Streeter has psychiatric problems. I also asked
him to ask Streeter if the true threat here relates to IRS and FBI. He assured me that he would.
This card, and the emails Gianelli sent the City Attorney attempting to provoke and incite me,
were then used by the City Attorney in a probation violation matter related to the fraud
domestic violence order. I have notified the City and County of Los Angeles that I plan to file
federal RICO suits over the two false arrests, imprisonments, and lies about federal tax and
other matters during my trial. My sons and many others were copied on these harassing,
slanderous emails falsely accusing me of many things. I repeatedly asked the City Attorney to
advise Gianelli to cease and desist. I attempted to file complaints with that office. I also refuted
the lies been repeated to that office. Gianelli has also repeatedly lied to Investigator William
Frayeh, Los Angeles District Attorneys Office, about me. William Frayeh was an investigator
on the Phil Spector case. He appeared to conclude that Gianelli was a shady character who
found a sympathetic ear with Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson about me. I do not know Alan
Jackson.

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch vs. the Los Angeles DA, City Attorney, Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson,
Sandra Jo Streeter, et al.
To: Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>,
"*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>,
"Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert
MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a
<anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand"
<rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson"
<hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb
<woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>,
lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>
Hi FBI,
I'll post this on my Blog. Streeter is a pathetic liar and will clearly do anything to cover for
Cohen. Oh well. They wasted a few more taxpayer bucks setting their reply in stone. Good for
them. Now we can all read their rotten logic, additional lies, and pathetic narrative. I hope the
appellate division is clear about why I am abandoning my appeal. I think I was quite clear with
them about prosecutorial misconduct, concealed exculpatory evidence, etc. So, Gianelli thinks
I'm bluffing. Well, we shall see about that. The IRS didn't sound like they were bluffing when
they advised me to file fraud form 3949a re. Cohen's illegal K-1s and the fraudulent refund. So,
that zero sum game is back in play again.
All the best,
Kelley

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Happy Valentine's Day. Hopefully Streeter won't charge me with terrorist threats.

13.
Another false threat used against me by the City Attorney of Los Angeles, during my
2012 trial, relates to former District Attorney Steve Cooley. Cooley publicly aligned himself with
Leonard Cohen during this trial and had an investigator in the courtroom throughout the
proceedings. That might explain why Leonard Cohen took the witness stand and testified about
Phil Spector and a gun incident. This occurred during the District Attorneys election campaign.
Both prosecutor Alan Jackson and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich were running for that office.
David Mamet had recently made very public statements that Phil Spector had been railroaded
and was releasing a film about the trial starring Al Pacino and Helen Mirren. Cohens testimony
about Phil Spector and an alleged gun incident was elicited by the prosecutor using an April 18,
2011 email to Spectors appellate attorney, Dennis Riordan. Leonard Cohen testified, after being
asked to review the email, that he was a recipient. He was not and confirmed this during crossexamination. The email advised Mr. Riordan that Leonard Cohen advised me for approximately
20 years that Phil Spector never held a gun on him and his stories were merely good rock n roll
stories. Cohen now has three distinctly different versions of his highly embellished, good rock
n roll gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court. Depending on which version

one chooses to believe, Phil Spector evidently held a gun to Cohens head, neck, or chest, and
the alleged weapon was an automatic or semi-automatic. The versions repeated by the news
media include other details. At times the weapon was a cross bow and Spector was holding a
bottle of wine. Cohens testimony during the trial about this alleged incident contradicts the
version Spectors prosecutors used in at least two motions filed with Los Angeles Superior Court
in the Spector case. Mick Brown, UK Telegraph, advised me that he reviewed Spectors Grand
Jury Testimony/Transcripts (unsealed by Judge Larry Fidler), and Cohens testimony or
statement(s) was presented to the Grand Jury. That matter was also used against me. And,
while the Spector Grand Jury testimony was unsealed and would be considered Brady material,
this was withheld from my legal counsel. In any event, the City Attorney falsely accused me of
threatening to execute Steve Cooley. In actuality, I sent a public email informing various
parties (including IRS, FBI, and DOJ) that I planned to run for President; would run on the
Wedding Party; and my political platform would involve cleaning up corrupt political actors.
This is a game my colleagues and I played while working on an ACLU campaign. It involved
taking the position that we were running for President, appointing our Cabinet and other
individuals, and enunciating our political platforms. I, therefore, appointed my Vice President,
CIA Director and FBI Director. I appointed my mother as my Deputy FBI Director. I also
wrote that I might marry billionaire Ron Burkle in the Rose Garden and permit voters to vote
on my wedding dress as the news is constantly gruesome these days and a wedding might take
their minds off of that fact. At the time I sent the parody email, ACLU took Cooley to task for
publicly encouraging executions (death penalty) using a drug used to put down dogs. That is
where the word execution arose. Another issue I wrote about was the fact that, should I
become President, I would instruct my Attorney General to prosecute Steve Cooley for his role
in the Phil Spector matter (and what I view as a blatant set up) and seek the death penalty.
Californias Penal Code (PC 118) permits a prosecutor to seek the death penalty when willful
perjury is used to obtain a life sentence. Phil Spector, who is gravely ill and an older man, has
definitely received the equivalent of the death penalty. I have included the relevant portion of
Californias Penal Code for this Courts review. My email was clearly a parody and relied upon
my becoming President of the United States. Any reasonable person could clear draw that
conclusion, and a prosecution of Cooley was part of the email, but certain parties are dead set on
undermining my credibility and falsely accusing me of many things. The prosecutor during my
trial continually elicited Cohens testimony about this email, Phil Spector, Dennis Riordan,
former DA Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, and the alleged gun incident. It is evident that
Californias Penal Code or a potential prosecution threatens former District Attorney Steve
Cooley. Gianelli has publicly stated that Spector prosecutors Pat Dixon and Alan Jackson are
fearful of the fact that I quoted Eminems songs Puke and Love the Way You Lie. Dixon
evidently believes Eminem wrote the line about drying humping for him. It certainly seems to
me that I have been targeted by a gang of chronic, pathological liars with motive.
California Penal Code 128: Every person who, by willful perjury or subornation of perjury

procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person, is punishable by death or life
imprisonment without possibility of parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to
Sections 190.3 and 190.4.
14.
Stephen Gianelli wrote that I have a 10-year long history of making false and malicious
reports of alleged criminality and other alleged misconduct to the Internal Revenue Service, the
FBI, the United States Department of Justice and other local, state and federal agencies, against
everyone whom you feel has wronged you including but by no means limited to every one of
your former employers who fired you (including Leonard Cohen), a half dozen federal and state
court judges who have ruled against you in two different states, your opposing counsel in civil
harassment proceedings and other civil litigation (including Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No. BC338322. I have not falsely accused anyone of misconduct to the IRS, FBI, or
DOJ. I reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud and provided
IRS, FBI, and DOJ with substantial evidence supporting those allegations. Cohens Complaint
is nothing other than his fabricated defense. I have indeed reported Gianellis ongoing
harassment, stalking, threats, intimidation, and false accusations to IRS, FBI, and DOJ. I have
provided them with his utterly deranged emails that are clearly part of a campaign to slander and
discredit me. Others have reported his conduct to law enforcement agencies. My sisters lawyer
advised him to cease and desist years ago. Nothing deters this individual who also appears to
find his conduct amusing. I have attached hereto many of the emails I received from Stephen
Gianelli harassing me over Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office, and this Tax Court
matter. Gianelli has also conveyed fraudulent and slanderous information directly to Mr.
Fabian. That is one of the reasons he attempted to begin a dialogue with Mr. Fabian and IRS
Chief Trial Counsels Office. Gianelli falsely accused me of having a $14 million embezzlement
based judgment entered against me. Leonard Cohen, after failing to serve me the summons &
complaint, obtained a default judgment related to damages in the amount of $5 million. Prejudgment interest in the amount of over $2 million was added to the original Default Judgment
entered against me in May 2006. Leonard Cohen has recently renewed the default judgment
and, after adding an approximately $7 million in fraudulent financial interest to the original
Default Judgment amount, the Judgment now totals approximately $14 million. Leonard Cohen,
as I previously stated, prefers to be unopposed. He has used the news media to slander, defame,
and discredit me. He has perjured himself both in oral testimony and in declarations submitted
to numerous courts. I attempted to address some of these issues in my fraud upon the court
motion but California does not follow Hazel-Atlas and evidently characterizes these motions as
motions to reconsider. This has permitted Cohen and his legal representative, Michelle Rice, to
take the position that they are protected from intrinsic fraud because California evidently
condones the tampering with the administration of justice. Cohen and his lawyers are the parties
who introduced intrinsic fraud elements into these matters in the declarations and their
responsive pleadings to my motion to vacate. and Leonard Cohen did not fire me. He heard
I reported or intended to report his tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service, demanded that I meet
with him and his tax lawyer to unravel their handiwork with respect to these transactions and

corporations, demanded that I privately hand over corporate books and records (related to
Traditional Holdings, LLC, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and LC Investments, LLC), and
spent approximately 7 months attempting to coerce me into what I viewed as an illegal
settlement or deal. In fact, Betsy Superfon (a woman I know), informed me that when she asked
Robert Kory to fax through the type of deal he had in mind, he advised her that it was not the
type of deal that could be faxed. We both concluded that the deal was illegal. Superfon also
advised me that Cohen, who had evidently contacted her, would give me anything I wanted to
settle the outstanding matters between us. It was and remains my understanding that Leonard
Cohen wanted me to provide false testimony against his representatives. Specifically, Neal
Greenberg and Richard Westin, but I was also advised that Cohen and his representatives
planned to go after the Grubman, Indursky law firm, and Greg McBowman (Cohens royalty
consultant) for fraud in the inducement. I was also advised by my lawyers that Cohen intended
to go after Ken Cleveland (his former CPA) and others. I have embezzled nothing whatsoever
from Leonard Cohen. The Complaint, an entirely fabricated narrative, fraudulent financial
ledger, and default judgment are evidence of theft, self-dealing, and money laundering. Leonard
Cohen, and his wholly owned LC Investments, LLC, continue to view themselves as the rightful
owners of corporate assets, and the royalties generated by those assets, owned by Blue Mist
Touring Company, Inc. Los Angeles Superior Court has wrongfully transferred or converted my
property to Leonard Cohen and LC Investments, LLC. At the time the properties were
transferred Traditional Holdings, LLC and Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. were suspended
corporate entities. They have not been revived and Cohens lawyer, Michelle Rice, has now
argued that it is irrelevant that they were in bad standing because the gravamen of the
complaint against Richard Westin (Cohens personal tax and corporate lawyer) was that he set up
the corporations; they were not formed properly; and not maintained in good standing. Cohen
was awarded a constructive trust and the Court exercised its inherent authority. I have no idea
what this has to do with me as Westin worked for Leonard Cohen and I provided him a limited
power of attorney to prepare and file the Traditional Holdings, LLC formation documents. I
also agreed to permit him, after Cohens instructed him to do so, to prepare an Indemnity
Agreement, related to the Traditional Holdings, LLC entity, that was executed by Cohen and me.
A Court does not have the inherent authority to wrongfully convert my property to Leonard
Cohen based on a fabricated narrative that is not supported by the evidence.
15.
Stephen Gianelli has accused me of sending him thousands of emails. Those emails are
cease and desist letters. They have addressed the ongoing criminal harassment, targeting of my
sons and others, and his attempts to slander and discredit me publicly and with certain parties
such as Mr. Fabian and IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office. As for Gianellis comment that I have
accused him of being a child molester, I would like to point out that this individual targeted
my then minor son, and lured him into privately communicating with him, while relentlessly
slandering me. My son, Ray Charles Lindsey, addressed the fact that this slander caused
tremendous confusion for him. The same is true for my son, John Rutger Penick. A custody

matter was coordinated involving my younger son, Ray Charles Lindsey. Leonard Cohen and
Robert Kory provided the Court with a declaration that reads more like a business document
than a declaration expressing concern for my son. Ray witnessed a conversation between me
and Robert Kory where I discussed the allegations that Cohen committed tax fraud, the failure
to file state tax returns, Cohens theft of my intellectual property, and their threats. Cohen and
Kory then encouraged Steve Lindsey, Rays father, to remove custody of my son from me.
Lindsey was meeting with Cohen and Kory for reasons I cannot imagine. Lindsey repeatedly
encouraged me to enter into a deal with Cohen that I believed was illegal and may have involved
insurance fraud. There is evidence with a Colorado lawyer, Daniel Scheid, that Cohen, Kory,
Steve Lindsey (my younger sons father), and others coordinated the custody matter, conspired
to have me falsely arrested on May 25, 2005, and engaged in criminal witness and evidence
tampering. Scheid confirmed this in writing and I forwarded his email to IRS and others. I also
discussed this matter with the Denver FBI. Due to my concerns about handling evidence, and
Cohens ongoing attempts to conceal evidence presently before LA Superior Court, I have
decided not to attempt to subpoena this information. I have, in the alternative, asked IRS, FBI,
and DOJ to investigate these matters. As a mother, it does concern me when adult strangers
(Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and others) target my sons (including my then minor son),
and lure them into privately communicating with them. I have no idea who these individuals
are. The FBI cautions parents about predators on the internet and I take all matters involving
my sons deadly seriously. My older son, Rutger, did not witness a mental breakdown as Gianelli
falsely states. He did attempt to determine what Gianelli was referring to in June 2013 when he
wrote to advise Rutger that the City Attorney planned to arrest me. Evidently, Gianelli had
information from the City Attorney with respect to that issue and decided to alarm my son over
the situation. Boies Schiller advised me that Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory planned to
destroy me and my sons. I sent the Denver FBI a copy of their email confirming this. Boies
Schiller also advised me that they believed Cohen and Kory were attempting to engage me in
criminal conduct and instructed me to go wired to my meetings with Cohen/Kory. They
advised me to have Investigator Brian Bennett, a DA investigator on the Spector case, to wire
me. I have authorized IRS, and others, to review and use all emails in my former email
accounts, tsimar@aol.com and ekajati@aol.com. Those emails relate to extensive
communications with Leonard Cohen, his representatives, Boies Schiller, and others about these
transactions, corporate entities, and the conduct of Leonard Cohen and his representatives after
we parted ways in October 2004. I also permitted Boies Schiller to review three huge boxes of
evidence. They concluded, based on the evidence, that Cohen owed me millions and was
attempting to blame his wrongdoing on me and others.
16.
Leonard Cohen, Michelle Rice, and Stephen Gianelli have falsely accused me of signing
third parties names to their declarations. He has made this false accusation to Mr. Fabian. I,
therefore, provided Mr. Fabian with a declaration and enclosed the declarations of Rutger
Penick, Clea Surkhang, Dan Meade, and Palden Ronge that I have been falsely accused of

forging and fabricating. These individuals provided declarations addressing the fact that they
understood I was not served Cohens lawsuit, did not resemble the Jane Doe in the proof of
service (Cohen personally attached photographs of me to his declaration in an attempt to prove
that I was the individual who was served), and other issues. Due to the fact that they were
available to testify telephonically, but unavailable to attend the January 2014 hearing regarding
the motion to vacate I filed (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC338322), each of these
individuals provided me with a declaration. They also orally authorized me to conform their
signatures and advised me that they would mail the original signed declarations to me which I
could then present to the Court. I have done that. Additionally, all four individuals prepared
limited powers of attorney authorizing me to conform their signatures. I provided Mr. Fabian
with the declarations, original signatures of each declarant, and the limited powers of attorney.
It is my personal opinion that these declarations, and limited powers of attorney, are legitimate
legal instruments. The limited powers of attorney can be viewed at this link and the declarations
are attached hereto.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/281864417/Limited-Powers-of-Attorney-Motion-forTerminating-Sanctions-Fraud-Upon-the-Court
17.
On September 10, 2015, Gianelli wrote Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office, an
email raising issues about me and former DA Steve Cooley. One reason Gianelli contacted Mr.
Fabian was to open a door to communicate with him. I have seen him engage in this conduct
for years. This permits Gianelli to elicit information, infiltrate matters, discredit and slander me,
and he uses these communications to introduce extraneous matters into seemingly unrelated
matters. These extraneous matters were used against me during my 2012 trial so I view that as
pre-meditated. The relentless targeting of me, my sons, and others provided Cohen and certain
political actors in Los Angeles with ammunition. In other words, it is a tactic. Gianellis
harassment is also clearly meant to dissuade me from pursing legal remedies and intimidating
witnesses. Paulette Brandt has received harassing emails from Gianelli for nearly 3 years now.
He has also engaged in a campaign of slande and retaliation with respect to Paulette Brandt. I
have literally received tens of thousands of emails from this individual. I have attached an
example of one of my recent cease and desist letters to Gianelli dated September 11, 2015.
18.
On September 12, 2015, Gianelli continued harassing me and copied in Mr. Fabian.
Rutgers declaration confirmed that he wrote Gianelli, confirmed what Gianelli had told him
about me (entirely slanderous although Gianelli does not know me), and attempted to determine
what Gianelli was referring to when he wrote him that the City Attorney planned to arrest me
again. This false arrest and imprisonment was based on Gianellis communications with the City
Attorneys Office. This is one of the reasons I am bringing his communications with Mr.
Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office, IRS, FBI, and DOJ al transmitting false and
fraudulent information to the attention of this Court. Stephen Gianelli has relentlessly

harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, and targeted my roommate, Paulette Brandt. Paulette
Brandt is Phil Spectors former girlfriend and worked with Mr. Spector until sometime around
June 2002. She too remains convinced that Phil Spector is innocent. We gave interviews to a
small internet radio program that addressed much of what has gone on with Leonard Cohen and
Phil Spector. Ann Diamond, a former girlfriend of Cohens, also participated in the radio
programs. Gianelli, whose email campaign was addressed in the program, immediately
descended on these sites and began slandering me, Paulette Brandt, and Ann Diamond. Ann
Diamond provided me with a declaration that has been submitted to LA Superior Court. She
also wrote a rather enlightening and insightful piece on Gianellis harassing email campaign.
Ann Diamond on Stephen Gianelli
When Stephen Gianellis emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and unsolicited, they
are so overflowing with repetitive accusations, misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts,
undiluted rage, and general nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of
them. My impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he seems to
have unlimited energy and endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not
know in an attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of having
an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as he's concerned, so he's
barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under normal circumstances be a sign of mental
imbalance.
He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful deductions. His tone is that
of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me flashbacks of a courtroom where Im being crossexamined by a vicious criminal lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the
witness. Gianellis game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant
nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be overwhelmed by a
word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his overuse of "copy and paste" -- he's in a
hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to make a persuasive argument. He doesnt reread
his emails to see what kind of message they actually convey: that the writer is standing on some
soapbox in his mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the
streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.
He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the truth, or looking beyond the
various documents he "downloaded at his own expense" -- and as anyone with common sense
knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in 2004-5. They convey some of the
evidence, all of it coming from one side.
Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since 2008, does not make
sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him names on the internet, and in revenge
he has totally immersed himself in her legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and
friends, spreading false stories about her, making up quotes, writing her in jail, posting photos
of her residence and roommates on his blog for the past seven years. Nobody in their right
mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no material interest in this case, and is not a
paid shill -- behaves like this. It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress
leave' or in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing. Hiding behind

the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long, especially not on the porous
internet. His badly written and often illogical, emotional rants would embarrass and bring him
close to professional suicide.
But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a comfortable tax haven on
Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his childish fantasies and catty remarks with his
tiny circle of cronies. Its fairly obvious he uses alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g.
Mongochili, to make it appear others read his blog and share his obcession with Lynch. His
sheer extremism indicates he is either a rogue criminal lawyer gone slightly postal, or a paid
agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team. I think the latter.
I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the one intended: it can only
make people suspicious of the case against Kelley Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its
course? Why subject her to endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared
guilty? This kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to be both
the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.
Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A single-paragraph response from
my end always leads to a flood from his. Each exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of
irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which might be worth discussing, if
they werent drowned by high-volume invective. Of course this could be a tactic: if he really was
ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an insufferable bully. Or maybe most of
his cases involved low-life criminals or people with little or no education.
He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing -- but then so could
I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's one of the reasons, including the 10year series of precedents, that I am not surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.
If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments to these legal matters,
and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He would have no need to bring up my "past"
- or a wacked version of it that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's disinfo team. He
draws from a psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from other
Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, Im no stranger to
slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where anyone can read what I have to say.
Much of what I have written on Cohen was initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours
that were circulated (and believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much
more detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop idol in our
celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with people who base their
opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive
tactics have not really evolved in the past twenty years, since he used them on me.
I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman' who never got over her
passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy
clichs say much more about him than they do about me or my writing, or why I became
interested in what really happened to Kelley Lynch.

And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging Gianelli. But in my
experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone Cohen places in charge of his
'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's private entourage that I have met over the
years, he may not even realize he's being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable.
It's a fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen skirts
with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at home, and knows his place, in
that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and
put the audience into a deeper state of trance.
I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium of Cohen
associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived next door to Leonard Cohen,
and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I might believe differently. But the essence of
what happened to Kelley also happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower
stakes. It was relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then my reputation was
damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard Cohen, as
Kelley's was.
I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the corruption that is sinking
the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree with that. He would only disagree with the
idea that we all have an obligation to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and even profit
from it.
Ann D.
Ann Diamond, Paulette Brandt, and my interviews can be accessed through the following links.
See Exhibit D: Ann Diamonds declaration, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Truth Sentinel Episode 39 (Leonard Cohen, truth, lies, guilt, innocence, law, MK Ultra)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVXTY0ATTR8
Truth Sentinel Episode 40 (Phil Spector, truth, lies, guilt and innocence, murder trial)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB1WMxTwnHg
Gianelli falsely accused Paulette Brandt of materially changing her testimony with respect to the
fact that I was not served Leonard Cohens 2005 lawsuit. This false allegation was made by
Leonard Cohen in one of his legal pleadings. Leonard Cohen seems to feel he is entitled to
attack the credibility of others in order to defend himself. Paulette Brandt sent her former
roommate a rental arrears demand letter. She also filed a Small Claims case against her. For
unimaginable reasons, her former roommate contacted Robert Kory who proceeded to slander
me to her. This information was hysterically repeated to the mediator in the Small Claims case.
After Paulette Brandt was awarded $6,700 in rental arrears, her former roommate connected
with Stephen Gianelli who represented her in the Small Claims case and assisted her in
defrauding Ms. Brandt of the $6,700 due her. That conduct was entirely retaliatory. Paulette
Brandt testified, during my probation hearing, that she too was being harassed by Stephen

Gianelli who was copying her in on emails to the City Attorney of Los Angeles slandering and
falsely accusing me of many things. Paulette Brandt also testified that the Boulder Combined
Court advised her, on numerous occasions, that the permanent Cohen restraining order expired
on February 15, 2009 and my motion to dismiss was entered on January 12, 2009. Paulette
Brandt attended the January 17, 2014 hearing, as did Palden Ronge, and planned to testify. Her
declarations merely set forth the basic facts and she later submitted additional declarations
providing the testimony she planned to offer at the hearing. The Court did not afford any
witnesses the opportunity to testify. Paulette Brandt, and others, kept in touch with me in
August 2005 until I was evicted from my home in December 2005 by dropping by the house.
The reason for this is my phones were shut off and electricity turned off. Leonard Cohen
withheld commissions for services rendered and intentionally bankrupted me. Paulette Brandt
was at my home on August 24, 2005 when the process server alleges that he served a Jane Doe
co-occupant. No such individual exists and I did not resemble the individual described therein
although Cohen submitted photographs of me to the Court in an attempt to prove that I was the
individual served. Rutger and my only co-occupant was a male friend of his, Chad Knaak.
Gianellis email goes onto address Tax Courts jurisdiction, my pleading addressing his conduct,
and his communications with the IRS Chief Trial Counsels Office. It is my personal belief that
Gianelli is absolutely attempting to interfere with this case.
19.
By September 16, 2015, Gianelli was earnestly attempting to prove that he, Michelle
Rice, Robert Kory, and Daniel Bergman were or are not in a legal conspiracy. Daniel Bergman
is the individual who represented Steve Lindsey in the coordinated custody matter. He and his
client were in contempt of court for approximately five straight years. It is of interest to note
that restraining order savvy Leonard Cohen has not obtained a restraining order against Gianelli
who is a San Francisco lawyer. It is my personal belief that Bergman was hired due to the fact
that my declaration, originally submitted to IRS on March 1, 2015 (with exhibits), addressed
issues related to the custody matter and King Drew incident. The entire King Drew file is
fraudulent and does not relate to me. It contains someone elses date of birth, place of birth,
social security number, medical number, and medical records. Gianelli enclosed Michelle Rices
July 27, 2015 email which is preposterous and appears to have been calculated. Pro se litigants
are not the problem with the legal system. Lawyers and prosecutors who are willing to lie, and
witnesses who are willing to perjure themselves, are a far more serious and rampant problem.
This is something the Chief Justice of the 9th Circuit Court has been attempting to address for
some time now. Gianelli and Rices comments about inciting violence are outrageous,
calculated, and gratuitous. However, it is clear that this email campaign, and the targeting of my
sons, was planned to harass, provoke, and incite me. I think most parents would be livid if their
sons were relentlessly targeted by individuals who appear to be dangerously unstable, have some
form of motive, and are engaged in a relentless campaign of slander against the parent
themselves.

20.
On September 18, 2015, Gianelli continued to harass me over Tax Court and the
Courts jurisdiction over this case. This individual, whom I do not know at all, constantly sends
me harassing emails containing legal opinions, legal researching, and recently sent me a legal
pleading he wrote for a matter before LA Superior Court (Case No. BC338322). In this
instance, Gianelli sent me information about Tax Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction. I have
included some recent emails of Gianellis where he provides me with legal research and opinions
on other Cohen related matters as well. He also defends Leonard Cohen and most definitely
appears to be an unofficial member of Cohens legal team. As Ann Diamonds declaration
confirms, Leonard Cohen uses proxies and operatives to do his bidding. Gianelli has sadistically
advised me that his legal opinions and harassing emails are helpful.
21.
Stephen Gianelli is obsessed with my blog, riverdeepbook.blogspot.com, and believes
the blog posts (generally emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ) entitle him to criminally harass me, my
sons, Paulette Brandt, and others. On September 19, 2015, Gianelli wrote about my position
that he, Cohen, Kory, Rice are engaged in a legal conspiracy and that he personally appears to be
a party-at-interest. He included an email from Michelle Rice to him with Robert Kory and
Daniel Bergman copied in. Evidently, Robert Kory requested that Gianelli only email him.
Rice took the position that Gianellis fixation with me is truly pathological. Others have
concluded that it is psychotic. Rice apparently has connections in law enforcement who were
willing to assist Leonard Cohen in arresting me. I will note at this point that LAPDs report,
related to my false arrest and imprisonment, confirms that my emails were generally requests for
tax information. Therefore, law enforcement and the City Attorney concluded that my requests
for tax information violated the fraud domestic violence order Cohen registered in California on
May 25, 2011 based on the Colorado order issued without findings. I discovered Leonard
Cohens declaration in that matter, replete with perjured statements, following the hearing and
filed a Motion to Quash. It is my personal belief that these moronic and deranged emails,
including Rices pathetic firing of Daniel Bergman in an email to Gianelli, are nothing over than
a cover your ass operation. Every word in Rays custody matter was a lie and the King
Drew/SWAT incident demands an investigation. Rice has noted that she gets RICH off of
Gianellis harassment of me. Gianelli addressed my public position that the emails between him
and Kory/Rice are choreographed. Rutgers declaration addresses what he witnessed with
respect to the King Drew/SWAT incident and can be viewed at this link. This declaration was
submitted to Los Angeles Superior Court and signed by John Rutger Penick.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html
22.
One of Gianellis ongoing concerns is Leonard Cohens May 2006 judgment. It is my
personal belief that Cohen, who understood I wasnt served and whose lawyers refused to
communicate with me or serve me, used the Complaint to file and amend his 2003, 2004, and
2005 returns (possibly involved carry-backs re. his 2001 and 2002 returns). By December 2005,

Cohen also applied for and obtained fraudulent tax refunds. I discovered the fraudulent IRS and
FTB tax refunds in 2012 and 2013, respectively, and have now challenged them as fraudulent.
They were based on the fabricate, fraudulent Complaint allegations and the fraudulent financial
ledger which in no way resembles an accounting, let alone a corporate accounting. Cohen
returns and application for fraudulent ax refunds occurred six months before the default was
entered in May 2006. Therefore, Cohen evidently understood the default was a sure thing.
It is also my personal belief that Cohen intentionally failed to serve me, after being notified of
this fact, in order to obtain the judgment. One of the issues Cohen seems extremely concerned
about relates to federal claims preclusion. I believe this was one of their goals in obtaining the
judgment. The Complaint, default judgment, and the fraudulent financial ledger were also
transmitted to IRS Agent Luis Tejeda and used to defend Cohen against the allegations that he
committed criminal tax fraud. After Robert Kory realized I received an email from Agent
Sopko, following our meeting, he contacted Agent Tejeda and proceeded to defend Leonard
Cohen using the fraudulent, fabricated Complaint, fraudulent financial ledger, and fraudulent
default judgment that is evidence of theft. I discovered Korys meeting with Agent Tejeda on
April 9, 2012, when the prosecutor in my trial handed my lawyers an IRS binder. The IRS
binder, which was evidently used as evidence against me during this trial, was addressed in a
Sidebar. The Court decided not to permit Agent Tejeda to testify. In fact, the Court decided
that it would not wait two hours, following lunch, to permit my lawyer to speak with Agent
Tejeda. Agent Tejeda was apparently meeting with IRS/DOJ attorneys about his possible
testimony. My appellate attorney, Francisco Suarez, spoke to an attorney at DOJ and was
advised that IRS/DOJ had concerns about privacy matters. I am not clear if Agent Tejeda was
advised of the contacts of the binder which were clearly not private but used as some form of
evidence against me. The binder basically consists of Robert Korys letters to IRS defending
his client, the fraudulent Complaint and other legal documents (Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC338322), and evidence that Cohen applied for and received fraudulent tax refunds
in or around December 2005. I did not discover, until December 2013, that Cohen submitted
the fraudulent Complaint with his tax returns and in order to apply for the fraudulent refunds.
That information was set forth in Robert Korys Declaration which essentially argued federal tax
matters. The excerpt from the Sidebar is as follows:
Ramnaney: Your Honor, there is one other issue about scheduling. We received a binder [IRS
binder] from Ms. Streeter that was provided to her by one of the witnesses that includes, you
know, we believe a highly relevant witness that goes to Mr. Korys anticipated testimony based
on what she provided us. Hes an agent of the IRS and we have subpoenaed him. We received
that information on Monday. We subpoenaed him, hes received that subpoena, but pursuant to
federal regulations he has to clear that before he can testify with the appropriate authorities. I
spoke with the agent this morning. That request is being considered and evaluated by their
attorneys, and as I said, theyll give me an answer by this afternoon regarding whether or not he
will be able to testify and as to what he will testify to. Based on the fact that we received the
binder on Monday, I think me and Mr. Kelly --

Court: What does his testimony go to?

Ramnaney: We believe it goes directly to the level of a specific intent element, your Honor, that
Ms. Lynchs communications were not made with any intent to harass or annoy, and they were
made in good faith. Based on the actions taken by this agent, they fully corroborate Ms. Lynchs
intent. We also think that on the secondary corollary matter, they go to the vice motivation of
the peoples witnesses.
Court: Okay. Well, I will consider that after I hear your information this afternoon,.
Ramnaney: Okay.
Excerpt of Information in the IRS Binder
Tab 2 - Letter from Robert Kory to Internal Revenue Service dated December 13, 2005
regarding Tentative Refund Application 1037704856. This letter - to IRS/Fresno - confirmed
receipt of Form 6762 regarding the Request for Missing information to Complete Tentative
Refund Application.
Tab 3 - Letter 662C from IRS dated February 3, 2006 confirmed Tax Refund for Leonard
Cohen for tax periods December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003.
This form confirmed that the IRS was processing Cohens request for adjustment, dated
December 13, 2005. The IRS enclosed copies of the corrections made to Cohens form 1045
(Application for Tentative Refund). It confirmed that Cohen would receive the following
refunds - $557,196.00, $56,725.00, and $50,919.00 within 4 to 6 weeks.
Tab 4 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda/Internal Revenue Service Fraud Unit
Division of the Western United States dated March 9, 2007.
In response to Agent Sopkos March 6, 2007 email to Kelley Lynch, Robert Kory contacted
Agent Tejeda/IRS and followed up his phone call with a letter to Agent Tejeda. Agent Sopkos
email reads as follows:
Good afternoon Ms. Lynch,
Per our meeting last week, I have found a solid IRS contact that will be better able to assist you.
His name is Luis Tejeda, and he is the head of a fraud group at IRS. I spoke with him today and
advised him that I would be passing on his contact information to you.
Office phone and address redacted.
He emphasized that you will need to put something in writing - a summary of all important
details, with as much specificity as you have. (For example if you have copies of any paperwork
involved, or social security numbers of people involved ) Once you pass the information on
to him, he will review it and proceed accordingly. As standard practice, you will not get
confirmation that your information was received. However, you may contact Tejeda to follow-

up.
I hope that this information is helpful to you. If there is anything else I can assist you with,
please be sure to let me know.
Kelly A. Sopko
Special Agent
Treasury IG for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
Special Inquiries & Intelligence Division
Agent Sopko was addressing the fact that she advised me to report the allegations of Leonard
Cohens criminal tax fraud to Agent Luis Tejeda, Internal Revenue Service. After meeting with
Agent Sopko, and receiving this email, I reported Cohens tax fraud to Agent Tejeda. Robert
Kory noted, in his letter, that while I had publicly alleged that she was reporting Cohen to the
IRS for tax fraud, that was merely a nuisance but the situation had changed once I met with
and received Agent Sopko's email. Agent Sopko contacted me to arrange a meeting. I did not
receive a return email from her. Ms. Lynch has managed to obtain a return email from
Special Agent Kelly Sopko, the contents of which Kory apparently read to Agent Tejeda. In
this letter, Kory goes onto falsely state that I was using communications from the Internal
Revenue Service to defame Mr. Cohen and used the threat of an IRS investigation to attempt to
extort resolution of civil claims. I have never attempted to extort anything from Cohen including a resolution of civil claims. Cohen offered me numerous deals or settlements
including 50% community property. My lawyers and accountant were present for that meeting.
My accountant, Dale Burgess, asked me to phone IRS/Treasury (after we discussed my meeting
with Agent Sopko and her partner) to advise them that he personally recalled the offer of 50%
community property. Leonard Cohen has now wrongfully converted my property to himself
via the default judgment and is attempting to extort $14 million from me ($5 million damages
and approximately $9 million in fraudulent financial interest). The only communication the
Binder contained from IRS/Treasury was Agent Sopkos email. This evidently led the City
Attorney to concluded that the federal tax matters were a ruse, I was in receipt of IRS Required
tax and corporate information for the years 2004 and 2005, and there is an IRS holding with
respect to the default judgment entered in May 2006. The fraudulent IRS refunds, issued in
December 2005, are not a holding with respect to the May 2006 default judgment. They have
now been challenged as fraud. I have also filed an Identity Theft Affidavit with IRS regarding
this and other uses of my personal identification information.
Tab 5 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda dated March 11, 2007 re. allegations
made by Kelley Lynch against Leonard Cohen. Excerpt: While I understand that you must be
open to Ms. Lynchs allegations, I would ask that you take whatever steps might be in your
power to limit communications that she can then use to further defame Leonard Cohen. I
have not defamed Leonard Cohen and the Treasury agents did not advise me that Agent Sopkos
email was classified material.
Tab 6 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda dated March 23, 2007 regarding Cohens
judgment against Kelley lynch for breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, breach of
contract, accounting, conversion, and imposition of constructive trust and injunctive relief

Tabs 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, and 6e are documents from Cohens fraudulent and retaliatory lawsuit
against me: Complaint dated August 15, 2005, Case Summary dated August 15, 2005 (only
discovered this at trial), Declaration of Leonard Norman Cohen, Declaration of Kevin Prins,
Declaration of Scott Edelman.
Tab 7 - Default Judgment against Kelley Lynch dated May 15, 2006
Stephen Gianellis September 23, 2015 mentions interesting questions that could have been
asked ten years ago in a deposition IF I had filed a responsive pleading instead of ignoring the
default hearing. I was not served the summons and complaint. I was not notified of the entry
of default. Gianelli is referring to Robert Korys fascinating memorandum dated January 14,
2005. This Memorandum, copied to former LA DA Ira Reiner and accountant Kevin Prins,
contains Korys statements that Cohen and his representatives failed to report the $8 million
gross income related to the Traditional Holdings/Sony sale in 2001. That would include the $1
million prepayment that is at issue in this Tax Court matter. The document, which is entirely
slanderous and outrageous, raises many serious matters and falsely accuses numerous Cohen
representatives. I have attached this Memorandum hereto. I have also included my comments
(bold red) in the body of the Memorandum. I would like to point out that I was excluded from
participating in any discovery, or depositions, related to Leonard Cohens fraudulent and
retaliatory lawsuit against me. Conveniently enough, all of the questions Kory raised in this
Memorandum were resolved in Cohens favor, according to the fraudulent Complaint, although
the evidence itself did not change. The evidence has simply been replaced by a self-serving
fabricated narrative. I read about a $9 million judgment in the media that was allegedly entered
against me in March 2006. The actual judgment was somewhat over $7 million and was entered
against me in May 2006. This is why people should not be forced to rely on the news media for
information about lawsuits that should have been served. See Exhibit E: Robert Kory
Memorandum dated January 14, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
23.
On September 24, 2015, Gianelli wrote and enclosed an email he received from
Michelle Rice dated August 13, 2013 proving they have an extensive history of communicating
about Leonard Cohens legal issues and secret mediations. This email is evidence that Cohen
engaged in what appears to be insurance fraud with Lloyds of London as it relates to his
meditations with Richard Westin. This email is also evidence that I was falsely accused in those
secret mediations. According to Cohens testimony during my 2012 trial, he and Westin
rectified a mistake in my ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC during
meditations. This was done secretly and in hindsight. It is clearly illegal and does not explain
my inclusion on the 2001, 2002, and 2003 federal tax returns or why I paid taxes based on K-1s I
received which were transmitted to IRS with the TH returns. The Natural Wealth lawsuit raised
very serious allegations that Cohen and Kory engaged in extortion attempts related to insurance
fraud. Those, and other allegations, have never been litigated. Leonard Cohens lawyer,

Michelle Rice, has now advised Los Angeles Superior Court that Judge Lewis Babcock, in the
Natural Wealth lawsuit, determined that the corporate entities belong to Leonard Cohen
personally. Judge Babcocks Order relied on the Los Angeles Default Judgment. I advised
Judge Babcock that I refused to participate in the Natural Wealth litigation matter due to my
concerns that it was an attempt to conceal criminal tax fraud. See Exhibit F: Judge Babcocks
September 5, 2008 Order (Natural Wealth lawsuit).

24.
Michelle Rices August 13, 2013 email to Gianelli confirms the lengths Michelle Rice has
personally gone to target and discredit me for her client, Leonard Cohen. She and her partner,
Robert Kory, now serve as Leonard Cohens general counsel, litigation counsel, personal
manager, and business manager. Rices email addressed recovering monies from Lloyds of
London (reinsurer for Westin) based on KLs acts. I havent engaged in any acts that would
permit Lloyds of London, or any insurer, to enter into a financial settlement with Leonard
Cohen. I also find it highly suspect that Cohen was engaged in secret meditations that involved
blaming and falsely accusing me when I was intentionally excluded from those meditations.
JAMS, who was involved in the meditations has now advised me that they have destroyed the
file. I have contacted Lloyds of London with respect to this potential insurance fraud and
extortion.
24.
On October 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote and transmitted a copy of this Courts Order of
October 1, 2015 and informed me that its game over. On October 5, 2015, Gianelli wrote to
advise me that Tax Court will dismiss this case. On October 6, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise
that Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over this case. Gianelli also commented on my
Objection and specifically addressed Rule 162. I quoted the IRS manual directly with respect to
that particular rule and inadvertently failed to cite the IRS manual. I have requested leave to file
a motion addressing the fraud upon this Court and the Court has not ruled on that request.
Under Rule 162, unless the Court shall otherwise permit, a motion to vacate must be filed
within 30 days after a decision has been entered, and sections 7481(a)(1) and 7483 provide
that a Tax Court decision becomes final 90 days after entry if no party files a notice of appeal.
25.
On October 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote that Cohens default judgment does not bind me,
it binds the IRS. That was evidently Leonard Cohens motive for obtaining the Default
Judgment: to bind IRS. The fabricated, fraudulent complaint narrative, transmitted to IRS well
in advance of the entry of default, does not bind IRS or me. It is evidence of fraud. The
fraudulent financial ledger was also transmitted to IRS. That ledger willfully conceals my
ownership interest in these entities, corporate distributions made in accordance with corporate
books and records, and does not address Leonard Cohens loans/expenditures totaling
approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC alone. The fraudulent financial

ledger also does not address the fact that Leonard Cohen and LC Investments, LLC collected
royalties related to assets owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and both parties failed to
transfer that income to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. or report that income on Blue Mist
Touring Company, Incs tax returns. There are other serious issues with respect to the
fraudulent financial ledger as well. I wasnt served Cohens lawsuit and intend to address these
issues in my federal RICO suit.
26.
On October 14, 2014, Stephen Gianelli wrote me copying in DOJs Criminal Division
and FBIs Washington Field Office. This email is filled with blatant lies, fraudulent
misrepresentations, and misinformation. I was not served Leonard Cohens lawsuit and
knowledge of a lawsuit is not evidence of service. I was unable to read the actual Complaint
until Gianelli posted it online in or around April 2010. Gianelli has regurgitated the testimony
of Leonard Cohen, during my 2012 trial, by falsely informing me, DOJ and FBI that I chose to
not appear in the lawsuit at the time, to claim you were not served or to proclaim your
innocence. I diligently and repeatedly attempted to address, with Cohen and his
representatives, the fact that I was not served the summons and complaint. I did not choose not
to participate. Gianelli, who does not know me, falsely accuses me of attempting to back off
Cohen with threats to go to the IRS which you did, and you flooded Cohen and his attorneys
with harassing emails. At no time did I attempt to back Cohen off with threats to go to the
IRS. I repeatedly attempted to address many issues, including the fact that I was not served,
with Cohens representatives. They refused to communicate with me and that was certainly a
tactic which permitted them to later claim that I was harassing them. As of October 2004,
Cohen heard I had or was reporting his tax fraud to IRS. An informant had evidently
discovered my July 25, 2004 letter to the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office and, it is my
understanding, certain third parties shared information with Cohen and others. I was aware that
a default judgment had been entered. This March 2006 Billboard article was brought to my
attention. This article is a good explanation of why one should not be forced to rely on the
news media for details about lawsuits. Cohen, or possibly someone affiliated with him, evidently
leaked this information to the press. However, a $9.5 million judgment was not entered against
me. The damages were reduced to $5 million. I cannot explain the $4.5 million difference in the
amounts. I would like to point out that at no time did I work as Cohens business manager. I
never stole $9.5 million from Leonard Cohen or his retirement account. The annuity obligation
was extinguished from the federal tax return in 2003. By the time Cohen filed his retaliatory
lawsuit, he personally had borrowed (or caused to be expended) approximately $6.7 million.
That amount includes the $3.3 million in transaction fees Cohen has taken the position are not
his personal expenses but rather corporate expenses. Leonard Cohen sees no separateness
between himself and corporate entities. He has continuously argued that he is the alter ego of
numerous corporate entities. Cohens nest egg was reduced because he steadfastly refuses to
repay his loans/expenses to Traditional Holdings, LLC and/or address them. I do consider the
judgment evidence of tax fraud, theft, self-dealing, extortion, unlawful debt collection, and

money laundering. These corporations are suspended, were suspended when the original
judgment was entered, and are not Leonard Cohen or LC Investments, LLCs personal property.

Cohens Ex-Manager Ordered To Pay $9.5 Million

Billboard Magazine
March 03, 2006 12:00 AM EST
Singer/songwriter Leonard Cohen may never see $9.5 million a court ordered his former
business manager to pay after she failed to respond to allegations of stealing from his retirement
savings, Cohens attorney said yesterday (March 2).
A California Superior Court judge granted Cohen, 71, the default judgment Monday against
Kelley Lynch in response to a lawsuit alleging she siphoned $5 million from the musicians
personal accounts and investments. By late 2004, the suit alleges, his nest egg was reduced to
about $150,000.
Cohen, known for such reflective songs as Suzanne, may never be able to collect, according to
his attorney, Scott Edelman.
Shes hard to get in touch with. I dont know where she lives now, and I dont have a phone
number for her, Edelman said. We dont know what she did with the money ... But she knows
whats going on because she leaves me phone messages at all hours. Lynch could not be located
for comment.
Edelman said Lynch, who worked for Cohen for 17 years until he fired her, also refused to
return photographs, records and memorabilia, even after a court order. We went into her home
four months ago with a sheriff and a moving truck to get his stuff, the lawyer said.
Another defendant in the suit, tax professor and lawyer Richard Westin, reached an out-of-court
settlement with Cohen on Feb. 13, details of which were not revealed.
Lynch allegedly hired Westin to help defraud Cohen. Westins attorney did not immediately
return calls for comment.
Leonard is sad that this whole thing took place, but glad that this leg of the litigation is
completed, Edelman said. He would prefer to spend his time on his creative endeavors.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. [Reprinted in Billboard}
27.
Stephen Gianelli has repeatedly stated that I wrote him claiming something or other.
Gianelli has been slandering me online since May 2009. He has dedicated blogs to this activity.

In or around April 2010, he posted a handful of legal documents related to Cohens lawsuit (Los
Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC338322) on Scribd. Thats another one of Gianellis
functions: posting legal documents that he feels advance Leonard Cohens legal positions. He
also posts Phil Spectors legal documents online. I attempted to refute Gianellis slanderous
statements which were made publicly and in emails to my sons, sister, friends, and aquaintances.
I also advised him to cease and desist harassing me, my sons, sister, and others. I did intend to
file a motion to vacate Cohens judgment as of April 2010 but was not in possession of all legal
documents or evidence needed to properly respond. Shortly after April 2010, I relocated to
Florida. I did not move back to Los Angeles until June 2013. My motion to vacate was
promptly filed on August 9, 2013. I also did not choose not to attend hearings and had no
obligation to attend hearings in a matter that I was not served and where the court has no
jurisdiction over me. I was not in a financial position to travel to Los Angeles to file legal
documents or attend hearings. I believe Cohens intent was to willfully bankrupt me which
ultimately resulted in my not being in a position to hire an attorney or respond prior to the time
I returned to Los Angeles.
28.
On March 15, 2015, I filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions addressing fraud upon
the court, the extensive use of perjured testimonial statements, and litigation misconduct in Los
Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC338322. That motion was a fraud upon the court motion.
At that time, I specifically addressed the fraud and perjury that has infested all matters related to
me and Cohen before Los Angeles Superior Court. The Appellate Division has now quoted or
regurgitated fraud and perjury in their opinions. My motion to vacate addressed the fact that I
was not served; the proof of service is evidence of extrinsic fraud; the judgment is void; and the
court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, I did indeed address fraud. Cohen has now argued that
due to the fact that California does not follow Hazel-Atlas, which addresses the tampering with
the administration of justice, all intrinsic fraud is protected. Of course, Cohen and his legal
representatives introduced the elements of intrinsic fraud into that matter intentionally
through their attempts to relitigate matters in pleadings and declarations filed in response to my
Motion to Vacate. The allegations of misappropriation transformed the Los Angeles Superior
Court proceeding into a quasi-criminal matter. Those false allegations were also used against me
during my 2012 trial.
29.
The evidence, which Los Angeles Superior Court has now sealed (including my K-1s,
Pacer documents, litigation pleadings available through the Southern District of New York, my
own emails refuting Cohens lawyer and complaining about the situation surrounding the
inadvertent $1 million and $7 million 1099s which I did not handle, and evidence attached to
Natural Wealths lawsuit), does not support the Complaint. I forfeited no objection whatsoever
and, in particular, as this information was transmitted to Agent Luis Tejeda and IRS in an
attempt to defend Leonard Cohen and the Complaint was transmitted to IRS with Cohens 2005
returns and in order to amend his 2003 and 2004 returns. Cohen also used the Complaint and

some version of the fraudulent financial ledger to apply for and obtain tax refunds from Internal
Revenue Service in December 2005 six months prior to the entry of default. I view the entire
situation as a disgrace. In October 2005, based on a writ of possession which does not name or
mention the corporate entities, the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department raided my house and
seized corporate documents and evidence I informed IRS Commissioners Staff I planned to
ship to them in Washington, DC. Cohens lawyer, Scott Edelman, was copied on some of the
emails addressing this evidence and my decision to ship it to IRS. The corporate evidence was
wrongfully seized from my home. I was unaware of the related case (Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. BC341120) until Judge Ken Freemans court reporter brought it to my attention
in the Spring of 2010. I was attempting to determine what evidence was presented to the Court
that would support the entry of default in order to prepare a Motion to Vacate. I still have not
been served many documents in either case. That too is a tactic Leonard Cohen and his
representatives have employed.
30.
On October 15, 2015, Gianelli (who does not know me) wrote falsely implying that I
have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. This has been an ongoing false allegation repeated by
Stephen Gianelli publicly, on blogs dedicated to slandering me, and in mass emails. Stephen
Gianelli does not know me and at no time have I ever had a drug or alcohol problem.
Unfortunately, the same is not true for Leonard Cohen who has a long, publicly documented
history of psychiatric problems, drug and alcohol abuse. In fact, while nearly simultaneously
entertaining a biographer with stories about his meth and LSD usage, Cohen testified during my
2012 trial that my rhetorical question related to his conduct (Are you on drugs?) was an
attempt to assail his reputation. Leonard Cohen will say whatever he needs to say in order to
advance his self-serving goals. As Ann Diamond stated in her declaration, when confronted
with his own lies, he will never back down. His actions towards me are positively vindictive,
vicious, and belie the carefully crafted image he has created for the press. Leonard Cohens
public image in no way resembles the individual I worked with for over 17 years. It is a fantasy
frequently told by awe inspired journalists.
31.
Gianellis October 15, 2015 email further advised me that the Tax Court matter will be
dismissed. Stephen Gianelli obviously views himself as the Court itself. Gianelli is using these
emails to represent Leonard Cohens legal interests, elicit information about the Tax Court case,
interfere with federal tax matters, transmit fraudulent information to federal authorities, and in
an attempt to defend Leonard Cohen He also uses these emails to slander and defame me.
32.
On October 15, 2015, Gianelli also wrote to advise me that information I sent Mr.
Fabian was not of interest to Mr. Fabian or relevant. I believe my September 2009 letter to
former Spector prosecutor, DDA Alan Jackson, is indeed relevant and material. It addressed
many federal tax matters, the $1 million prepayment that is at the center of this Tax Court case,
and Gianellis harassment. That letter can be viewed at the following link.

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2013/03/kelley-lynchs-letter-to-phil-spector.html
33.
On October 16, 2015, Gianelli responded to a blog post
on riverdeepbook.blogspot.com. I noticed that the U.S. Treasury visited my blog and someone
apparently reviewed an email I sent Agent Kelly Sopko (U.S. Treasury) in March 2013. Stephen
Gianelli has publicly stated that he actually hunted down Agent Sopkos partner at the
Department of Justice. He also contacted her after apparently concluding that I was
spamming Agent Sopko. That was simply an excuse to infiltrate the U.S. Treasury and
potentially obtain information about Leonard Cohen. I found Gianellis statement (that he
contacted Agent Sopkos partner at DOJ) shocking and addressed this with Agent Sopko.
Stephen Gianelli is evidently amused with his own conduct. This email also states: 90 seconds
on your blog is all anyone needs to see that you have no credibility at all. That is how long it
took the FBI agent I spoke with about you to conclude you were 5150. I have never spoken
with or met an FBI agent who is in a position to make this determination. I believe Gianelli may
be referring to Agent Wynar, Oakland FBI, who he has also stated is someone he once worked
with on a case. I have contacted Agent Wynar about this situation and also spoke to at least one
individual directly at the Oakland FBI about Stephen Gianellis relentless harassment of me, my
sons, and others. Perhaps Agent Wynar would like to explain why Gianelli feels comfortable
threatening me with his alleged Mafia connections if 5150 cases interest him.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2013/03/gianelli-allegedly-contacted-agent.html
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/10/kelley-lynchs-email-to-irs-fbi-doj-re_15.html
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/10/kelley-lynchs-email-to-us-treasury-re.html
34.
On October 16, 2015, Gianelli wrote a rather lengthy harassing email about the Tax
Court case, copying in Mr. Fabian and Cohens lawyers, Michelle Rice and Robert Kory. I
personally remain unconvinced that Gianelli is not an unofficial member of Leonard Cohens
legal team. He lies extensively and constant. He is defending Leonard Cohen and arguing his
legal positions. It seems dubious at best to assume that Gianelli, Cohen, Kory and/or Rice
would agree that they were working in a coordinated fashion together. The situation demands
an investigation. Stephen Gianellis email explains why he doesnt have to ask Mr. Fabian whats
on his mind because he personally is an experienced lawyer who has read his office
procedural manual. Gianelli has also made himself conversant with the statutory basis for tax
court jurisdiction. And, Gianelli has read the tax court orders re: Fabians supplementary
filing and ordering you to file an objection, of any, by October 22. Based on the above,
Gianelli has determined what is on Mr. Fabians mind, conveyed that information to me in
harassing emails, and has determined that Tax Court does not have jurisdiction. Perhaps he is

actually trying to convince Tax Court of that fact. Based on Gianellis logic, all one would have
to do for Tax Court to obtain jurisdiction over someone is file a whistle blower claim. I have
not and never wil file a whistle blower claim over the fact that I reported the allegations that
Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times. The
situation is positively evil and there are no awards that could address what has unfolded since
that time. I did not tacitly or otherwise admit that there was no determination sent to me. I
have been quite clear with the Court that a determination letter, with respect to the $1 million,
was not issued to Traditional Holdings, LLC although the $1 million was a prepayment against
the 2001 Traditional Holdings/Sony deal. The $1 million was not a loan from Sony to Leonard
Cohen although it was used to recoup Cohens personal account with Sony and, according to
Westins schedule sent to Ken Cleveland, the recoupments were not reported on Cohens tax
returns. The $1 million prepayment was never transferred to Traditional Holdings, LLC and no
loan documents or promissory notes were executed evidencing a loan of any sort related to the
$1 million prepayment. The assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. which raises
an entirely different set of issues. As Ive stated elsewhere, my lawyers reviewed a tremendous
amount of evidence and concluded the following: Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. owns the
assets, Leonard Cohen and LC Investments, LLC collect the royalty income related to those
assets, and Traditional Holdings, LLC sold something to Sony that it does not own. I was also
advised that the income from the Sony sale was not reported on the Traditional Holdings, LLC
2001 returns; Cohens loans were not addressed on the Traditional Holdings, LLC returns, my
promissory note was extinguished on the Traditional Holdings, LLC 2002 returns (using a
separate tax ID number), and the annuity obligation was extinguished from the 2003 Traditional
Holdings, LLC returns. Robert Korys January 2005 memorandum confirms that Cohen and his
representatives failed to report $8 million in income to IRS with respect to the 2001 Traditional
Holdings, LLC transaction. However, Hochman, Rettigs letter clearly states that Cohen
amended his 2001 return to show the $1 million prepayment as income to him personally in
2001. Korys January 2005 memorandum also confirms that phantom income was shifted to me
but not distributed. I have no further details about these matters. I did not handle IRS or tax
matters. I was extremely clear with Cohen and his representatives about this fact. It is my
personal belief that Stephen Gianelli is attempting to elicit information about any possible
discussions or communications Mr. Fabian and I have had with respect to the Tax Court case.
35.
On October 11, 2015, I received an email from Robert Kory. For reasons I cannot
imagine, it was sent to Gianelli and addressed a case that has nothing whatsoever to do with me
or these matters. After attempting to address this ongoing harassment, including with Kory &
Rice, for years now, Robert Kory suddenly decided to advise Gianelli that he should stop
emailing Lynch and provoking her. This should not be viewed as sport. Your emails suggest
that provoking Lynch is fun are quite troubling. This is true understatement. I suppose
pressuring my sons inconceivably over Leonard Cohen, and other disturbing matters, was also
fun and/or sport. I continue to view these communications as a cover your ass operation.

36.
On October 11, 2015, I received an email from Michelle Rice sent to Stephen Gianelli
with Robert Kory copied in. I have nothing whatsoever to do with any client she allegedly
represented in Atlantic Records, et al. v. Project Playlist, Inc. The email continues the ongoing
dialogue between Rice and Gianelli about their legal and litigation skills. Rices email appears to
have been written in the rather moronic spirit of the ongoing cover your ass operation. One
can safely assume that if Leonard Cohen, Michelle Rice, or Robert Kory truly believed Gianelli
was harassing them, they would have obtained a restraining order against him. Leonard Cohen
has proven himself to be an ardent abuser of these litigation tactics so this would provide him
with the opportunity to obtain a legitimate restraining order. Cohen also had the ability to
summon LAPDs Threat Management Unit at some point in or around 2011 and therefore one
can also assume that he or his representatives would have contacted them to request assistance
with Gianellis allegedly ongoing harassment of him and/or Kory & Rice. There is no dispute
between me and Gianelli. That is simply a self-serving statement on the part of Michelle Rice.
Stephen Gianelli has harassed, stalked, slandered, defamed, insulted, intimidated, and threatened
me since hearing from Michelle Rice in May 2009. Sometime thereafter, Gianelli actually
contacted me under what I believe was an assumed name (Joff Belark) and asserted that he was a
journalist interested in the matters between me and Leonard Cohen. I bccd IRS and others on
those communications. Gianelli then proceeded to write a highly inflammatory, slanderous, and
utterly fraudulent article about the situation between me and Leonard Cohen. This conduct has
continued unabated since that time. Rice is correct when she states that I have requested
Gianelli to cease and desist. Gianellis conduct is beyond troubling and disturbing.
37.
On October 13, 2015, Gianelli sent me yet another harassing email with Kory and Rice
copied in. That email advised me as follows: You are wasting your efforts by complaining to
Kory Rice about my email communications. Gianellis emails are almost specifically related to
Leonard Cohens legal matters and defense. The email goes onto discuss Hazel Atlas and the
fact that perjury to the court is intrinsic fraud. I have been quite clear that I intend to pursue
these matters to the U.S. Supreme Court. The default judgment is evidence of theft and a
default does not transform the theft of ones property into a legal condoned operation.
38.
On October 14, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Mr. Fabian. This email advised me that
Leonard Cohen does not have to prove anything. Leonard Cohen, his legal representatives,
and Los Angeles Superior Court all evidently believe that the finality of judgments trumps fair
legal proceedings and ones constitutional right to due process. Our legal system would
absolutely function more efficiently if courts, and prosecutors, held parties accountable for
fraud, perjury, the submission of false evidence, litigation misconduct, and fraud upon the
court. To say otherwise is absurd. I did not ignore Cohens 2006 default judgment. I was not
served the summons & complaint. Cohen and his legal representatives continue to lie about this
fact. My witnesses were not provided with an opportunity to testify. I have not been permitted

to participate in discovery, confront fraudulent and perjured allegations, or attack perjured

testimony which seems like a futile exercise in any event given the overwhelming tolerance for
it. Leonard Cohen believes he can withhold commissions due me, transfer my share of
intellectual property and corporations to himself, and engage in any type of misconduct he feels
serve his ultimate goals.
39. On October 14, 2015, Gianelli again wrote copying in Michelle Rice, Robert Kory, DOJs
Criminal Division, FBIs Washington Field Office, and Paulmikell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial
Counsels Office. He attempted to address his slanderous, defamatory posts on Leonard
Cohens fan site, www.leonardcohenfiles.com and leonardcohenforum.com. These sites are
owned and operated by Jarkko Arjatsalo. Leonard Cohen works very closely with this website
and has since approximately 1998. It is impossible to believe that Gianelli would be permitted to
post on these sites without Leonard Cohens approval. The sites have banned Ann Diamond, a
former girlfriend of Cohens, from posting there. Ms. Diamond submitted a declaration in
connection with the fraudulent domestic violence order. Gianelli, and others, have relentlessly
targeted her, slandered her, falsely accused her of stalking and harassing Leonard Cohen, and
falsely accused her of being the recipient of a restraining order taken out by Mick Jagger, Rolling
Stone.
40.
I do not have any conspiracy theories. I remain convinced that there is a legal
conspiracy taking place that involves Leonard Cohen, his legal representatives, Stephen Gianelli,
and others. That legal conspiracy relates to federal tax controversies. Gianellis email states that
he has come to realize certain things about Leonard Cohen. Although he has no idea who I am,
and didnt know Leonard Cohen for the 20 years I worked with him, Gianelli is confident that I
became financially over-extended and invaded Leonard Cohens accounts to keep my head
above water. This is blatantly false and Gianelli has no evidence to support these accusations.
Gianelli has written third parties that I owned a $30,000 Birkin bag and had a $20,000 per month
pharmacy bill. I had no such bag or monthly expense. These are merely slanderous allegations
meant to advance Leonard Cohens fraudulent and fabricated narrative. Leonard Cohen willfully
destroyed my life, targeted my sons, obtained a fraudulent default judgment, used fraudulent
restraining orders to discredit me, intentionally bankrupted me, withheld commissions due me
for services rendered, and stole my share of intellectual property and interest in certain
corporations that he views as his personal property. Cohen has merely used a fabricated
narrative in an attempt to blame his wrongdoing on me. Gianelli may be referring to Cohens
sexual harassment and indecent exposure when he addresses Cohens failure to respect and to
maintain professional boundaries but at no time in the 17 years I worked as Cohens personal
manager did he complain about the services I provided. He did complain about the fact that I
didnt want to have sex with him and used this against me at times. That however was not part
of my job and was beyond unprofessional According to the City Attorney of Los Angeles, when
a male colleague exposes his penis to a female colleague that is her intent to annoy the male

colleague. It is almost impossible to keep up with the deranged and false accusations that have
been leveled against me. According to the transcript of my 2012 trial, Leonard Cohens own
conduct annoys him. Gianelli once again, although he does not know me, falsely accuses me of
having a drug and alcohol problem. I have no such problems whatsoever. This is merely
another attempt on Gianellis part to defend Leonard Cohen legally and advance Cohens absurd
and preposterous narrative. The individual who didnt respect professional boundaries was and
remains Leonard Cohen. That includes, but is not limited to, his conduct with respect to
numerous corporate entities.
41.
Gianelli has also used this harassing email as an opportunity to advise me, DOJs
Criminal Division, FBIs Washington Field Office, and Mr. Fabian that he believes I was served
and failed to show in court because I was ashamed of my guilt and humiliated. I have
nothing to be ashamed of or feel guilty about. I am the individual who refused to enter into any
type of settlement with Leonard Cohen and the offers were lucrative. They also, from what I
could tell, included demands that I provide false testimony against Cohens representatives.
Natural Wealths lawsuit addressed that matter extensively. Leonard Cohen offered me 50%
community property and offered to pay me the commissions due me, my 15% share of
intellectual property, and whatever I wanted. Leonard Cohen personally offered me
whatever I wanted. I was advised, by Cohen and Kory personally, that they wanted me to
testify against Neal Greenberg, Richard Westin, Grubman Indursky firm, Greg McBowman,
Ken Cleveland, and possibly others. Robert Kory personally advised me that I had a cause of
action against each of these parties and Leonard Cohen with assist me with those actions.
Gianellis position that I was served is nothing other than his ongoing attempt to defend
Leonard Cohen legally. He most certainly appears to be an unofficial member of Leonard
Cohens legal team. I do not believe for one moment that Gianelli does not have an affiliation
with Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, or Daniel Bergman. This is precisely how
Leonard Cohen operates. He uses operatives to target people and this conduct benefits Leonard
Cohen while slandering and discrediting me.
42.
Michelle Rices July 25, 2015 email to Stephen Gianelli falsely accuses me of referring
to her as a child molester. I believe this is a veiled reference to the fact that Leonard Cohen
was allegedly accused of molesting his daughter. That issue was addressed in Ann Diamonds
declaration and I was asked to contact my former brother-in-law, Van Penick, about the
situation. Van Penick is an attorney in Nova Scotia, Canada. It was and remains my
understanding that Freda Guttman personally advised Ann Diamond that her daughter or son
attended school with Lorca Cohen and was present when she publicly stated that her father
molested her. I ultimately asked Van Penick to contact Ann Diamond to advise her that
publishing these comments on her blog were upsetting to Lorca Cohen. Given the fact that
these accusations have been used against me, including by my prosecutor, I have no choice but
to address them directly. It is of interest to note that Rice finds allegations about child

molestation amusing.
43.
I continue to receive harassing emails over this case. On October 16, 2015, Gianelli
copied Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, and Mr. Fabian on an email to me. On October 16, 2015,
Gianelli also wrote to advise me that Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over this case. Those
emails are attached hereto and made a part hereof.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
This declaration is executed on this 18th day of October 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

SIGNED
______________________________
Kelley Ann Lynch
NOTE: Signature page will be uploaded separately.

EXHIBIT A
BLOOD STUMP EMAIL

From: Helvetia Hornwaller <simitheseventeenthshitzu@gmx.at>

Date: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:44 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
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 Stones cock at your infamous parties. That is just beyond evil, not to
mention a severe violation of Miss Manners etiquette. Rutger and Ray still to this day cry
themselves to sleep reliving the horrible abuse you dished out to them. Thats why Rutgers hand
is now a DISGUSTING BLOODY STUMP. He was overwrought with grief for his mentally ill,
alcoholic mother, so grief stricken that he couldnt pay attention at the slicing machine and got
his fingers lopped off. You like to say it was Leonard Cohens fault but it actually was your fault,
Kelley, entirely your fault. I guess thats why Rapunzels second cousin told everyone how you
wanted to be fist fucked with RUTGERS 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. Im sure youll 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. Dont 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

NOTE: Stephen Gianelli creates monikers like this (ie., 14th Sheepdog to slander the 14th
Sharmapa and 17th Shitzu) to slander the 17th Karmapa, my Buddhist teachers)

EXHIBIT B
THE EMAIL CAMPAIGN
NOTE: Gianelli refers to blog posts which can be viewed at riverdeepbook.blogspot.com.
From: Michelle Rice [mailto:mrice@koryrice.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed motion to vacate the fraud
domestic violence matter? (See 4/14/2015 email)
And who cannot control their emotions? Booo hooo Kelley Lynch called me a child molester in
emails that no one ever reads....
Boooo fucking hoooooo...... man up and put on your big boy pants and shut the f*&k up.
Do me a favor and keep inciting her to file more motions, you are making me richer than
f*&k. In fact, I think I can pay off my mortgage on my $2 million Hollywood Hills home with
jetliner views by the end of this year.
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Subject: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15
OF JURISDICTION by Resp.
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Docket Inquiry Index

Docket No.:
017085-15

Caption:

Kelley Ann Lynch

07/23/2015MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by P07/23/2015N/A

Resp. (OBJECTION)
Exactly the response I predicted.
And it will be granted.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated Saturday, July 25, 2015 6:55 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Not to worry! The IRS Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and I are getting along fine!
Thank you for asking! Good luck with the pending motion to dismiss!
From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 6:55 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal;
Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a;
wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; stan.garnett; Mike
Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower;
Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com
Subject: Re: KVW Latest Legal Documents
Stephen Gianelli,
I wonder why IRS is on my blog reading about you, Cohen, federal tax matters, and the fraud
domestic violence order? Make some calls
and come up with your next round of lies and insanity.
Kelley Lynch
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
IRS,
I see you were on my blog. Did you block Gianelli for harassing IRS?
Kelley
1
Exit Time:

Total Visits:
1

20 Jul 2015 09:27:22

Browser:
IE 11.0
OS:
Win7
Resolution:
1440x900

Location:
Washington, District of Columbia, United States
IP Address:
Internal Revenue Service (152.220.16.213) [Label IP Address]
Search Referral:
www.google.com/#1 (Keywords Unavailable)
Visit Page:
riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/05/kelley-lynchs-email-to-

Total Visits:
1
Location:
Washington, District of Columbia, United States
IP Address:
Internal Revenue Service (152.220.16.213) [Label IP Address]
Search Referral:
www.google.com/#1 (Keywords Unavailable)
Visit Page:
riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/05/kelley-lynchs-email-to-leona
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi FBI,
Gianelli belongs in prison. That is entirely clear. He wrote that hes not representing the public
figure KVW. So why is he criminally harassing me over this woman? Did Linda Carol lie to
LAPDs TMU? We shall find out.
Kelley
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Senate Judiciary,
The Criminal Stalker and other operatives continue to target me and others. Have you read Ann
Diamonds declaration re. the types of operatives Cohen uses or the tactics he employs? See
attached. That does explain Gianellis possible connections to Gary and Louis Spector or
Michelle Blaine. I refer to her as the female Leonard Cohen: a bald faced liar and thief. One
normally has to go to a hell realm to find these types of subhuman beings. LA Confidentially
evidently appreciates their skills.

Kelley
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Feuer and Mayor Garcetti,
This is blatant criminal harassment. These people appear to be the scum of the earth and they
are targeting LA residents and others.
Kelley Lynch
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I tend to doubt KVW, the public figure Gianelli is criminally harassing me over, wrote the latest
documents filed in the Sam Mennings estate matter. This womans defense to the Small Claims
matter, before Gianelli assisted her in defrauding Paulette (by lying about statutes to the Small
Claims Court), was Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory. She then showed up with Gianellis legal
argument. The only person who referred to this woman as a prostitute is Linda Carol and she
confirmed that for LAPDs TMU personally. As for the Wanted Poster I have no idea who
created it and could care less. I view all of these individuals as unsavory characters and
opportunists. Thats my personal opinion.
Having said this, KVW called Robert Kory after receiving Paulettes rent demand letter and that
demands an investigation particularly as the Criminal Stalker has decided to criminally harass
me over a woman I wouldnt associate with if my life depended on it.
Kelley
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Stephen Gianelli,
It looks as though you are now writing KVWs legal documents in the Sam Menning case she
recently lost. I am remind you to cease and desist with your ongoing criminal harassment.
I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to a so-called Wanted Poster re. KVW.
She probably created it herself. I never accused KVW, the public figure you advised you are not

representing, of being a prostitute. You are the individual who relentlessly writes about that
issue.
When you defraud someone of rental arrears, including by lying in Small Claims Court, that is
fraud.
In any event, you have said you are not representing this woman. I will, of course, ask a court to
help determine who is writing any legal documents she submits attempting to fraudulently target
me.
Cease and desist, criminal.
Kelley Lynch
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:21 AM
Subject: Von Watteville vs. Brandt, et. Al
To: Paulette Brandt <PAULETTEBRANDT8@gmail.com>, Kelley Lynch
<kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>, linda carol <lindacarol184@gmail.com>
Cc: Karina Von Watteville <karina.inger.v@gmail.com>
This is a reminder that the statute of limitations for libel arising out of the publication of the flier
using the photograph taken by Paulette Brandt and the allegations allegedly originating with
Linda Carol and republished by Kelley Lynch in mass emails and on her public weblog falsely
accusing Ms. Von Watteville of being dirty, bug infested, a prostitute, and as being guilty of
fraud is two years.
That other shoe has not yet dropped. But it will drop.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
NOTE: Kelley Lynch had nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged flier related to Karina Von
Watteville. Linda Carol is the individual who alleged that Von Watteville was a prostitute and
dominatrix. She confirmed this, in Lynchs presence, for LAPDs Threat Management Unit
while dictating the contents of her declaration that was being prepared for Paulette Brandts
Small Claims case.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:07 AM
Subject: FYI- Docket No.: 017085-15; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS

To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Part 35. Tax Court Litigation
Chapter 3. Motions
Section 2. Jurisdictional Defects
35.3.2 Jurisdictional Defects
35.3.2.1 (09-21-2012)
Tax Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. The Tax Court is a statutory court of limited jurisdiction, and strict
compliance with all essential jurisdictional elements is necessary before the court is
empowered to enter a legal decision in the case. Generally speaking, the Tax Court has
jurisdiction to redetermine income, gift and estate tax liability, transferee liability with
respect to these taxes, certain excise taxes, declaratory judgments under sections 6110,
7428, 7476, 7477, and 7478; and certain other causes of action such as interest
abatement, relief from joint and several liability, and collection due process proceedings.
With minor exceptions, the jurisdiction of the court with respect to taxes extends only to
those years and taxes in which a deficiency or liability was determined in the statutory
notice of deficiency or liability and raised in a timely petition to the Tax
Court. Jurisdictional questions may be raised by the court upon its own motion or by
either party at any stage of the proceeding. Normally, all questions concerning
jurisdiction should be resolved prior to the filing of the answer.
2. A jurisdictional motion is required where the petition attempts to take an appeal
from something other than a statutory notice or other valid determination letter
permitting Tax Court review; the petition is not filed within the statutory period; the
petition attempts to take an appeal with respect to a year or a tax as to which no
deficiency (or transferee liability) is determined; the petition is brought by an improper
party or a nonexistent party; or, the petition is filed for redetermination of a deficiency or
liability which has been paid before the mailing of the statutory notice. Special care
should be taken to insure that a corporation, trust, or estate is still in existence and
competent to sue. The foregoing jurisdictional items are not all inclusive, and the Field
attorney should research the statutory and case law with respect to any case in which
there is doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.
3. A jurisdictional defect should be raised in a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction as soon as the jurisdictional defect is discovered and any evidence needed to
support such a motion is acquired. Field attorneys should avoid waiting to raise such
defects in the answer, stipulation or motion under T.C. Rule 122 in order to ensure a
prompt resolution of the case and to avoid unnecessary work for the Tax Court.
4. There is no jurisdictional defect in a petition when a petitioner seeks a
determination of a section 6651(a)(2) (failure to pay) addition to tax when the Tax Court

already has jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency of the tax for the period upon
which the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax is based. See Estate of Hinz v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-6; Estate of Nemerov v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-186. Motions to
dismiss this claim on jurisdictional grounds should not be filed.
5. See CCDM 35.3.8, Motions in Declaratory Judgment Cases and Section 7436
Worker Classification Cases, for guidance concerning motions in these types of cases.
35.3.2.2 (09-21-2012)
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
1. If the document filed with the court as a petition is not properly within its
jurisdiction, such as in instances in which a petition was not timely filed, the response
should be a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Exhibits 35.11.1-34 through
35.11.1-40. When the petition is late, the Field attorney assigned the case should
immediately obtain proof of mailing (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book
For Accountable Mail, or equivalent with legible United States postmark or an
appropriate affidavit) from the office that issued the notice and attach the same to the
jurisdictional motion. The motion should be filed with the court, if possible, before the
answer due date.
2. Any motion based upon a jurisdictional defect must be a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction and not a motion merely to strike the petition, in whole or in part.
Likewise, a jurisdictional defect concerning a party must be raised in a jurisdictional
motion, not merely a motion to change caption. The jurisdictional defect may extend to
the entire case, or it may extend only to some taxes or some years or some persons
which the petition attempts to bring before the Tax Court. Since the Tax Court must in
its final order or decision cover all taxes for all years placed in controversy, and since the
court may not enter a decision or final order with respect to any year, tax or person over
which it does not legally acquire jurisdiction, a motion should be made to eliminate from
the case all parts thereof over which the court does not acquire jurisdiction at the earliest
time in which the jurisdictional defect appears in the case. When a jurisdictional motion
is not intended to resolve the entire case, it is generally combined with an additional
request such as a caption change or striking of certain allegations, signifying that the
motion will result in only a partial disposition. Such a motion may be titled Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Change Caption or Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Year 2003 and to Strike.
3. In dismissing a case, in whole or in part, for lack of jurisdiction the court does not
determine any tax or transferee liability. Thus, such motions should be filed regardless of
whether the respondent has a statutory burden of proof as to the year, tax or person
over which the petition attempts to place in controversy but over which the court lacks
jurisdiction.
4. The petitioner has the burden of alleging and proving, when questioned, that the
court has jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy in the petition. At

the same time, the moving party has the burden to establish a prima facie case for the
relief requested in the motion. Thus, jurisdictional motions must be based upon facts
and not upon failure to allege in the petition a jurisdictional fact known to the
respondent. If the court has jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy,
and if such fact is known to the respondent although not alleged in the petition, the
essential jurisdictional facts should be alleged in the answer so that jurisdiction will
appear on the record. Thus, in the latter instances a jurisdictional motion would not be
filed, but the missing jurisdictional elements in the pleadings would be cured by
allegations in respondents answer. In the case of a timely, yet imperfect petition that the
court has served on respondent without ordering it perfected, necessary jurisdictional
facts such as the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of the
petition may be made in a motion for more definite statement with respect to the
imperfect petition.
35.3.2.3 (09-21-2012)
Timeliness of Petition
1. In every case a computation must be made to determine the number of days
between the mailing of the statutory notice of deficiency and the filing of the
petition. The mailing date of the statutory notice is always the date certified or registered
mail was sent to petitioners last-known address. The envelope in which the petition is
mailed to the court bearing a postmark or postmeter mark after the prescribed date is
conclusive as to the date of mailing, for purposes of section 7502, precluding the
consideration of conflicting evidence as to date of mailing. Thus, in every such case, a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be filed. Section 3463(a) of RRA 98
provides that the Service shall include on each notice of deficiency the date determined
by the Secretary as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax
Court. Even if the date listed on the notice of deficiency for the last day to file is
incorrect and allows more than the statutory 90 or 150 day period to timely file a
petition, a petition mailed to the Tax Court on or before the date listed on the notice will
nevertheless be deemed timely. If the notice of deficiency fails to list the last day on
which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court and the petition is otherwise
untimely, the Field attorney should contact the office of the Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration) concerning how to proceed with the case.
2. Section 7502(f) treats any private delivery service designated by the Service
(Designated Delivery Service) as if it were the United States Postal Service for purposes
of the timely mailing as timely filing provisions of section 7502. See Rev. Proc. 9717,
Notice 9726 and Notice 200162.
3. If a petition is untimely and the address on the petition differs from the address on
the statutory notice of deficiency, a computer check should be made of the petitioners
last known address and the Field attorney should attempt to obtain the petitioners most
recently filed return as of the date that the notice of deficiency was issued. Ordinarily a

jurisdictional motion should be filed if the petition is not filed within the 90day period
or the 150day period. See Exhibits 35.11.1-41 and 35.11.1-42 for tables to compute 90and 150- day periods. Common sense must be used in close cases. For example, if the
petition was mailed from San Francisco, the postmark date is illegible, and it is filed with
the Court one day late, common sense dictates that it was mailed timely. Any
questionable calls should be brought to the attention of Procedure and Administration.
Bear in mind that the filing due date of the petition may vary in some circumstances. The
90-day or 150-day period is extended if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or any
legal holiday in the District of Columbia, see section 7503; and the time is suspended in
some cases falling within section 7508. The petition served upon the respondent should
normally bear the notation of the court as to the postmark date shown on the envelope
in which the petition was mailed to the court, the lack of a postmark, private delivery
service information, or the illegibility of the postmark or delivery service received date. If
a postmark is made other than by a United States Post Office, e.g., by a private postal
meter registered with the United States Postal Service, and the petition is received by the
Tax Court within the time a letter ordinarily would have been received had it been
mailed on the last day of the statutory period, no jurisdictional motion should be filed.
4. When the envelope in which the petition was mailed bears a private postmeter
mark, section 7502 applies. Under the implementing regulation, Treas. Reg. 301.7502
1I(1)(iii)(b), if the postmeter date is within the 90day period and the petition was
received no later than the ordinary delivery time for mail postmarked at the same place
of origin by the United States Postal Service on the last day of the statutory period, the
petition will be considered timely filed. If the petition is received later than the ordinary
delivery time for documents so mailed and postmarked by the United States Postal
Service, it will be considered timely only if petitioner can prove three things: first, that
the petition was actually deposited in the mail before the last pickup from the mailbox
on the 90th day; second, that the delay in receiving the petition was due to a delay in the
transmission of the mail, and third, the cause of the delay. The jurisdictional issue should
not be raised if the petitioner can demonstrate informally that the petition was timely
mailed. See Exhibit 35.11.1-43, Letter to Petitioner Regarding Late Filed Petition. If a
motion to dismiss is filed based on the receipt of the petition beyond the ordinary
mailing time, and the petitioners response is fairly specific that the petition was mailed
on or before the 90th day, the motion may be withdrawn or conceded. The petitioner has
the burden of proof, but the Tax Court will not lightly dismiss a petition and thereby
deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to litigate the deficiency in the Tax Court. The
controlling regulation suggests that a petitioner can avoid the risk of an untimely filed
petition by using certified or registered mail. As to registered mail, the date of
registration is treated as the postmark date; as to certified mail, the mailer can obtain a
postmarked receipt which is evidence of timely mailing and hence timely filing.
5. Every motion filed to dismiss upon the basis that the petition was not timely filed

must make out a prima facie case on the untimeliness of the petition. The date the
statutory notice of deficiency was mailed must be alleged in the motion. In addition, the
filing date of the petition and facts which show that the case does not come within any
of the statutory exceptions to the 90day or 150day period must be alleged. See Exhibit
35.11.1-34, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Untimely Petition Late U.S.
Postmark. The motion should have attached a photocopy of the executed Application
For Registration or Certification (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 or its equivalent) from
the United States Post Office. This form sets forth the name and address of the sender
of the documents, whether sent by registered or certified mail, the article number, the
name and address of the addressee, the type of document mailed, the signature of the
employee of the Postal Service receiving the document, and the post office stamp
showing the date of the mailing and the post office in which mailed. This application is
sometimes referred to as the mailing list of statutory notices. On occasion the Tax
Court has, on its own, raised a question as to the sufficiency of the mailing list in proving
the mailing date of the statutory notice when the mailing list did not set forth the type of
document mailed. In some instances, in the absence of a description of the document on
the mailing list, it may be necessary to obtain from the person in the office of the Area
Director, Service Center, or Appeals, as applicable, who mailed the document an
affidavit that the document set forth on the mailing list is in fact the statutory notice
upon which the petition to the Tax Court is based. The names and addresses of other
taxpayers on the mailing list must be redacted or blocked out to comply with disclosure
restrictions. Only the United States postmark and the lines applicable to the petitioner
should be exposed when making copies. If the United States postmark is placed on a
typewritten or handwritten portion of the list, the postmark must remain readable and
any words underneath cannot be eradicated. The minor information that might appear
beneath the postmark will be insufficient to disclose anything subject to disclosure or
Privacy Act restrictions.
6. If the U.S. postmark on the copy of the mailing list (submitted to the court as an
attachment to the original of the motion) is not legible, or if there is no United States
postmark on the list, it will be necessary to secure and attach to the motion an affidavit
or declaration attesting to the date of mailing of the notice by the person who prepared
the mailing list, or that persons reviewer, or other custodian of the Services records of
mailing. Where the mailing list or certified mail receipt (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 or
its equivalent) is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable, the Tax Court has held that
the testimony of the 90-day clerk relative to the procedure for mailing the deficiency
notice, while admissible, is not alone sufficient to prove that the notice was mailed. On
the other hand, the presumption of official regularity and absence of direct evidence
contradicting the governments evidence of mailing was held sufficient by a district
court. Any questions concerning this area may be directed to Procedure and
Administration.

7. If the postmark date on the envelope containing the petition is illegible, or if there
is no postmark, and there is a substantial question of fact as to whether the petition was
timely mailed, a jurisdictional motion may be filed requiring the petitioner to sustain his
or her burden as to the timely mailing of the petition. Such a motion is not required if
the petitioners position is documented as to the circumstances surrounding the mailing
and such evidence is a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances. See Exhibit 35.11.136, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Untimely Petition Illegible
Postmark/ Postmeter.
8. A question occasionally arises as to whether the petitioner is entitled to 90- or 150days after the mailing of the statutory notice within which to file a petition with the Tax
Court. The taxpayer may claim to have been a nonresident or out of the country at the
time of the issuance of the notice and, therefore, entitled to 150 days. In instances of this
type, the Field attorney should research the statutory and case law before filing a
jurisdictional motion, since there is not always a bright line test to determine the
applicability of the 150-day rule.
9. In the event further litigation over a jurisdictional issue becomes necessary, the
Field attorney will need to present direct testimony or prepare several affidavits in
support of the Services position. At a minimum, the Field attorney should have an
affidavit from the preparer of the notice of deficiency or another knowledgeable person
about the issuance of the particular notice. As needed, depending on the complexity of
the particular factual situation, direct testimony or an affidavit from the Service Center
Witness Coordinator should explain the particular processing of address information.
Additionally, if a taxpayer questions the efficacy of the Postal Services proper handling
of the notice of deficiency, direct testimony or an affidavit from a postal representative
may be needed.
10.
Cases challenging the processing periods contained in Rev. Proc.
200118, 200108 I.R.B. 708, should be defended utilizing the existing case law, which
generally gives the Service a reasonable processing time to input change of address
information. Therefore, extreme care must be exercised in the development of cases
questioning the efficacy of the Services processing of tax returns. Whenever possible,
direct testimony or an affidavit from a knowledgeable Service Center employee should
be utilized so that the courts are aware of the lengths the Service must go to in
processing the millions of returns received each year. Inasmuch as the Service may now
update a taxpayers address based on a change of address request filed with the Postal
Service, the Services procedures for updating addresses based on return information
should rarely be at issue in cases before the court.
35.3.2.4 (08-11-2004)
Absence of Valid Statutory Notice
1. Petitions to the Tax Court may be predicated only upon the issuance of a valid
statutory notice of deficiency or liability.

2. The Tax Court does not acquire jurisdiction upon the issuance of a 30-day letter,
notice of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar notices with respect to the
taxpayers tax liability. If the petition is based upon the issuance of a 30-day letter, notice
of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar notice, a jurisdictional motion should
be filed. In this instance, the motion should make out a prima facie case that the petition
is based upon a 30-day letter, notice of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar
notice. A search must be conducted by the Field attorney, including a computer search,
to verify that a notice of deficiency or other determination letter that would confer
jurisdiction on the Tax Court has not been issued to the taxpayer. The fact and results of
such a search should be reported to the court in the motion by stating that the Service
has not issued any other determination letter that may form the basis of a petition to the
court.
35.3.2.5 (09-21-2012)
Jurisdiction Over Party Petitioners
1. The court must have jurisdiction over the party or parties who are filing the petition
from the statutory notice. If one or all of the listed parties are not the party or parties to
whom the statutory notice was issued, a jurisdictional motion should be filed unless it is
clear from the petition that the substitute party has legal authority to file a petition for
or on behalf of the party to whom the statutory notice was issued. See Exhibit 35.11.137, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: No Statutory Notice. In that event, a
motion to correct caption may be required.
2. In the research of the statutory and case law, it may be necessary not only to
examine federal statutes but also state statutes and federal and state court decisions on
the legal authority of the purported petitioner to prosecute an action in the Tax Court.
Most frequently this question arises in statutory notices issued to dissolved corporations,
merged corporations, discharged executors, sham trusts, etc. The question also arises
under state or foreign law as to the authority of former officers and stockholders of
dissolved corporations or discharged executors to bring the action in the Tax Court.
Questions may also arise under state or foreign law with respect to statutory notices to
unincorporated associations; in cases in which the notice was issued jointly and severally
to a husband and wife and the petition is executed only by one of the parties even
though the name of the other party is set forth in the caption and body of the petition;
or in cases in which the statutory notice is issued to two or more persons and the
petition is executed by only one of such persons and the term petitioner is used rather
than petitioners in the caption and body of the petition. In these instances, the entire
petition must be examined to determine whether the petition is intended to include all
parties to whom the statutory notice was issued. For petitions based upon a statutory
notice issued to two or more persons, it is important that it be determined if all of such
persons are in fact proper party petitioners so that immediate assessment may be made
against any person who did not in fact petition from the statutory notice. If the

petitioning spouse, who intends to file a joint petition, fails to clarify his or her intention
by filing an amended petition promptly, then a motion to dismiss the nonpetitioning
spouse should be filed. Prior to filing such a motion to dismiss, consideration should be
given to informally contacting the petitioner to see if the omission was inadvertent.
3. If petitioners counsel executes and timely files a petition on behalf of the
petitioner, but at the time of filing was not admitted to practice before the Tax Court, a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that suit was instituted by a third
party should only be filed if there is a question that the attorney is acting on behalf of the
petitioners. Petitioners counsel should be notified in writing that he or she must take the
steps necessary, under T.C. Rule 200, to be admitted to practice before the court and file
an entry of appearance after becoming admitted. Otherwise, he or she cannot be
recognized by the court or respondent as petitioners counsel of record and a motion
may then be required to cure the pending jurisdictional defect.
4. As to whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction over a petitioner-corporation to which
a deficiency notice was issued as a possessor of cash, see CCDM 35.2.1.1.4.1(1),
Possessor of Cash.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:03 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated : Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:43 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
No, I did not say that I am giving Michelle Rice ammunition. I said the opposite that she is the
last person in the world that I am communicating with right now. (In fact, were it not for the
fact that all of your legal positions are so ridiculously devoid of merit and have zero chance of
carrying the day I would be sorely tempted to root for Michelle to fall on her face and lose to
a pro se litigant on appeal and in the trial court but that just isnt in the cards.)
What I said was that YOU, by forwarding an email to Michelle Rice setting forth a big procedural
vulnerability in your typical appellate approach, citing the governing authorities chapter and verse, are
giving Michelle Rice ammunition to use against you. Particularly since we all know that despite these
authorities you will completely disregard (indeed ignore) the applicable standard of review in
favor of a self-serving, once sided recitation of disputed facts. And now Michelle Rice has the
legal authorities to blow you out of the water by reminding the court of appeal that you have
waived your arguments on appeal at her fingertips without a single hour of research.
We have had this conversation before, in the context of your direct appeal from the judgment of
the criminal conviction against you in 2012. You disregarded the standard of review then in

favor of a one-sided, self-serving recitation of disputed facts then as well, and the appellate panel
held that you had WAIVED your arguments on appeal.
You keep repeating the same behaviors expecting different results. Or perhaps you dont care
about winning at all you simply want to make your former employers life miserable. Either
way you are going to lose and keep losing.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:43 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog posted email to Michelle Rice dated Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
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, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Hello IRS,
Im being criminally harassed over Cohen and have (together with my sons and friends) for six
years and this gives Rice ammunition? How twisted, predictable, and perverted. IRS should
seize their computers, etc. I would assume Gianellis not communicating with Rice right now.
These emails will be used in my federal RICO suit. No one is this obsessed with a stranger.
And, he remains obsessed with Paulette Brandt, etc.
Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM
Subject: Your blog posted email to Michelle Rice dated Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
I am not trying to elicit information about your appeals. Based on my 37 years experience in
drafting, presenting and arguing civil and criminal writs and appeals in the California Court of
Appeal (the first two as a law clerk during law school at a firm representing the California
Medical Association and other appellate savvy clients) as well as my familiarity with the legal and
factual context of the underlying orders you have discussed appealing on your blog, I know far
more about the appeals process in general and YOUR pending and threatened appeals than you
ever will. I already know what you will file and what the outcome will be.
My email simply points out that your habit of arguing contested facts from your own perspective
(as you did in your direct appeal from the 2012 criminal harassment conviction) in the face of a
deferential abuse of discretion standard of review (which is the standard applicable to orders
denying a motion to set aside a default judgment) is a direct path to appellate failure.
So is IGNORING the applicable standard of review in your opening brief.
Of course, you prefer to talk about what you want to talk about, and the applicable court rules
and procedures be damned.
But legal rules and procedure do not operate the way Kelley Lynch thinks they should. They
operate the way they always operate for policy reasons that are more important that a pro
se litigants self-serving conception of justice in a given case.
Last, regardless of what you obviously prefer to believe, Michelle Rice is the last person in the
world that I am communicating with right now. Therefore, by forwarding my emails to her you
are simply giving her more legal ammunition to use against you in the trial court and court of
appeal. That is the real irony. Since you are not about to do anything I suggest as the proper way
to go about presenting something in court, you are only aiding the opposition.
Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, *IRS.Commisioner
<*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ
<ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Division, Criminal <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Doug.Davis
<Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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
Michelle Rice,
I continue to be criminally harassed by the proxy stalker. If you have any questions about my
appeals, please hit reply all or wait for me to file them. Gianelli has not entered his formal entry
of appearance in these appeals.
Kelley Lynch
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Subject: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Your focus on contested facts leads me to wonder whether you have given any thought to
the applicable standard of review in each of your pending and contemplated appeals.
Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review. Failure
to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit. (Sonic

Manufacturing Tech., Inc. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465 [citations omitted].)
In every appeal, the threshold matter to be determined is the proper standard of review the
prism through which we view the issues presented to us. [Citation.] (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45
Cal.4th 1, 36, fn. 12.)
Failing to provide a fair statement of facts based on the relevant standard of review as typically
occurs when a person without appellate experience prepares the opening brief risks not only
having the justice set aside the brief, but also risks waiving any arguments based on the defective
statement of facts. As the appellate courts have stated, It is well established that a reviewing
court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of
fact.(Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [Internal quotation marks
omitted].) Appellants are required to set forth in their brief all the material evidence on the
point and not merely their own evidence. Unless this is done the error assigned is deemed to be
waived. (Ibid. [emphasis in original].) The failure to provide a fair statement of the facts waives
any issue relying on those facts. (County of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment Agency (1999) 75
Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274.)
Where the trial courts order granting relief is within its sound discretion, it should not be
disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988)
44 Cal.3d 474, 478.) The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court
exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from
the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial
court. (Id., at pp. 478-479.) Reversal is unlikely where the standard of review is abuse of
discretion.
The standard of appellate review of an order refusing to set aside a default judgment is always
an abuse of discretion standard. (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92,
118.)
This is rarely a winning argument.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM
Subject: Your blog-posted email dated Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,
As I am sure you know, I do not represent and will never represent Leonard Cohen.
One clear indication of this, aside from the facts that you have been expressly so advised ad
nauseam and that the Cohens counsel on the referenced appeal is Michelle Rice (and not the
undersigned), is that I am bothering to point out your failings to you at all.
If I represented Leonard Cohens interests I would not have written to advise you of the
Department 7 judges qualifications and published pet peeves nor would I have advised you
that you were in default regarding Appeal - Case Number B265753. Nor would I have bothered
to give you any of the other chapter-and-verse primers on the law revealing your various
pending legal claims to nonsense.
I would be giving you no heads up or assistance at all.
I certainly would not have mentioned certain propensities on your part that annoy the judge you
will be appearing in front of on September 1.
As for the appeal, I would have let you simply receive the default notice in Mondays mail and
then let you scramble around trying to figure out what statement was being referenced and I
certainly would not have pointed out to you a pitfall in filling out the case information statement
that could potentially lead to a dismissal of the pending appeals.
You really are quite clueless when it comes to helpful tips. If you were not so obsessed with
trying to instantly scream harassment every time someone sneezes in your earshot, you might
learn something that might make the difference between a hearing on the merits and none at all.
Nothing will win the day for you, however. Your issues are so meritless that even token
opposition would defeat them let alone the polished and spot opposition that you were served
with on August 17. But at least you might make it to oral argument in B265753 without the case
being dismissed on procedural grounds. If you had the capacity to listen and learn. Which you
obviously dont.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: Re you blog posted and emailed claim I have harassed Rutger for six years
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Your fanciful spin of Rutgers cordial email to me dated June 14, 2013 (typical of his emails from
June of 2009 through that date) as an expression of alarm regarding secret information [
between you and me the way you reply to my mothers emails makes me laughyou are right
on every level and I hope you are well and thank you for your emails] is absurd. Nor is the
email consistent with your assertion that I have harassed Rutger for the last six years.
Equally absurd is your habit of citing to self-serving and argumentative declarations purportedly
authored by your sons but in fact composed and drafted by you in support of your many
harassing court filed motions on which you have affixed their signatures purportedly through
signed powers of attorney.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:19 AM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division,
Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert
MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Stan
Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower;
Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Michelle Rice
Subject: Fwd: Re you blog posted and emailed claim I have harassed Rutger for six years
Gianelli,
Cease and desist. You have criminally harassed both of my sons for years now. Theyve
addressed in their declarations filed with various courts.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-charles-lindsey-kelley-lynchs-son.html
You have [not] authenticated this email and Rutger explained his alarm over your emails
providing secret information you obtained from the City Attorney about me in or around June
2013.
Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:43 PM
Subject: As Lynch advised the Court the IRS continues to view her as a partner..
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
On May 26, 2015 you wrote on Scribd.com (by way of preface for your upload of Leonard
Cohens opposition to your so called motion for terminating sanctions:
As Lynch advised the Court the IRS continues to view her as a partner. (See
here https://www.scribd.com/doc/267109127/Leonard-Cohen-Opposition-re-Kelley-Lynch-sMotion-Terminating-Sanctions-filed-conformed-5-26-15.)
That is quite a bold claim.
You often criticize those who question the accuracy claim with the words they dont speak for
the IRS, which observation applies equally to you by the way. So what EXACTLY is the
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that the IRS EVER considered Kelley Lynch a partner (let alone
that it continues to do so)?
As far as can be determined, the Internal Revenue Service met with you exactly ONCE in
response to your emailed claim that you had evidence proving that Leonard Cohen committed
tax fraud in connection with an alleged abusive tax shelter crafted by tax lawyer Richard
Westin (Traditional Holdings, LLC).
In response to that single meeting, on March 6, 2007 Agent Kelley Sopko of the US Treasury
emailed you to provide you with the telephone number and address of IRS Agent Louis Tejeda
head of the fraud unit at the IRS who can better assist you. You were advised to submit your
information to Agent Tejeda in writing and that he would proceed accordingly.

That is the only time the IRS has corresponded with you, and that single communication over
nine years ago certainly does not evince a partnership let alone a continuing one.
Instead, based on the fact that you have flooded the IRS (and other federal law enforcement
agencies) for YEARS with daily and weekly emails about Leonard Cohen, and others, you
ALLOWED YOURSELF TO ASSUME that the you and the IRS share the same objectives.
But that is a fantasy concocted out of a single 2006 meeting and follow up email as well as your
tens of thousands of UNILATERAL email to the IRS ever since.
Ask yourself this:
If you were truly in partnership with the IRS why hasnt Leonard Cohen been prosecuted based
on your allegations of tax fraud as of today, more than nine years after your meeting with Kelly
Sopko?
Why hasnt Agent Tejeda ever returned any of your many phone calls and hand delivered
messages or provided you with an email address?
And why has the IRS filed a motion to dismiss your July 6, 2015 tax court petition challenging
the tax refunds that Leonard Cohen received in 2006 based on the allegation that you embezzled
the entire $7M net proceeds from the Sony sale (see
here https://www.scribd.com/doc/266099538/Kelley-Lynch-Alleged-Trial-Evidence-IRSBinder )?
Indeed, if the IRS viewed you as a partner why, in in view of your allegations to the IRS of
tax fraud you claim to have made as early as April 15, 2005, did the IRS give Cohen a refund
at all?
The sooner you start recognizing that your fantasy of a partnership (or any relationship) with
the IRS is just that, the better off you are going to be.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated August 21, 2015 8:51 PM (Athens time)
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,
Commencing in approximately April, 2009 and for many years thereafter, you routinely copied
me in on email communications you were engaged in with just about everyone in your life
(Rutger, Ray, Karen, David, your occasional public defenders and court appointed lawyers) and
all of the mass emails you were sending out, sometimes numbering 40 or more a day.
I know more than I care to know about your personal and legal feuds spanning the last
decade, mainly from you.
You have received a single email from the IRS in your lifetime, and you could not resist sharing
it with the world (including me) Agent Kelley Sopkos email of March 6, 2007.
You have received a single email from the FBI, Washington Field Office dated Dec 23, 2009
at 5:33 AM (reference line Toward improving communication that amounts to no more than a
routine threat assessment letter stating Kelley, It sounds like life remains very interesting and
exciting. Where are you now? Are you in the Washington, D.C. area? Are you available by
telephone? translation: You sound like a nut. Are you within striking distance of Washington
DC so we need to keep an eye on you? You could not resist sharing that email with the world
(including me) either. (Which explains why you continue to pester an FBI field office with zero
territorial connection to any of your complaints unlike the other FBI offices in LA, Houston,
and Boulder who all blew you off the Washington Field Office actually answered you once!
(Albeit not for a reason that one would find flattering.)
Given your habit and custom of wearing any email from a government agency as a badge of
legitimacy, I am quite confident that there are no others. If there were, you would not have been
able to resist forwarding them to the world and them posting the emails on your various blogs as
you have the two I referenced. Indeed, you even forwarded around an auto-reply from
Anderson Cooper 360 as a confirmation that the press is listening!. Ha! You are nothing if not
completely predictable, suggestible, and transparent.
My questions were rhetorical.
I already know all I need to know about your sordid tale and how it will end. I have no reason or
desire to fish for information from you, particularly since I have more insight into your legal
situation than you do.
Once the tax court rules on the motion to dismiss, that order will be posted on their website,
and we will see if your prior public representations about the subject matter of your pending

petition on your various blogs and in mass emails (characterizations you have apparently
forgotten publishing) were accurate. One thing is certain, the petition will be dismissed in a few
weeks max.
Finally, Ms. Lynch, by sending me over 20,000 emails (many of them layering email upon email
and consisting of 40 or more pages), at times at the rate of 40 or more a day, for more than five
years, some of the emails using the most vulgar and vile epithets and language imaginable, you
have long ago forfeited any claim of alleged harassment by me. Which is one of the many
reasons why I have never been contacted by ANY of the many local, state, or federal agencies
whom you have contacted about me in four different states, including California, Colorado,
Washington DC, Texas, and Florida.
Have a nice day. You have an opposition to a sanctions motion to file and I have a plane to
Rome in route to the Amalfi Coast to catch.
Not to worry, Ill try to avoid the Somali Pirates you referenced earlier should any of them
figure out how to travel from the West Coast of Africa to Italy or Greece as you previously
suggested. Ha!
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 8:51 PM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division,
Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert
MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Stan
Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower;
Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com
Subject: Re: As Lynch advised the Court the IRS continues to view her as a partner..
Hi IRS,

Further attempts to elicit information on the part of the criminal stalker. The Criminal is
amused with his conduct. I suppose thats because he has the support of government actors
such as the City Attorney and may have found a sympathetic ear with Alan Jackson about me.
Hes lying about IRS matters and harassing me over federal tax matters.
Kelley
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Stephen Gianelli,
I have advised you for over six years now to stop criminally harassing me, my sons, and others.
You appear to be amused by your conduct. You are the party who advised me that IRS blocked
your emails as harassing. You continue to lie about IRS matters. My petition has nothing to
do with Cohens embezzlement of approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC.
The Tax Court will decide if they have jurisdiction not the IRS.
You have no details re. my communications with IRS and you will not have any. You are a
criminal, engaged in stalking and harassment, and appear to be an unofficial member of Leonard
Cohens legal team who attempts to elicit information. The IRS and I are not partners. The IRS
has evidence that I am a partner on entities Cohen wrongfully converted to himself by arguing
that he is the alter ego.
Please contact someone interested in hearing from you. For instance, the City Attorney of Los
Angeles.
Kelley Lynch
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Let me set the record straight on a few things:
9. Michelle Rice is the SOLE author of the litigation strategy against you. That includes
every declaration signed by Leonard Cohen, the August, 2005 complaint in BC338322,
and every pleading filed on Cohens behalf or signed by Jeffery Korn or Scott Edelman.
She and she alone is calling the litigation shots not Robert Kory, not Edelman, not

Korn, not Bergman and has been since 2005.

2. Rice is terrified that a new judge will grant your motion to vacate the 2011 registration of the
Colorado order, because she literally fears for her life now that (she says) she lives 3-miles from
you. And she had a lot of trouble getting it registered in 2011.
3. Michelle Rice has threatened to sue me, has said very disparaging things about me, and has
made it clear that Leonard Cohen and the undersigned are adverse.
For these reasons my correspondence to you is in no way on behalf of Kory/Rice or Cohen.
In fact, I wish you the best of luck on August 1 now that Ms. Rice has opened the door in her
opposition to the merits of the restraining order and your 2012 criminal conviction.
I think she is making a big tactical mistake. Well see.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Mensa; 170 IQs
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2111/2363052881_dbc5907843_o.jpg
Michelle Rice emailed to inform me that the reason that she has such a grotesquely over sized
forehead (see above photo, second from Leonard Cohen moving clockwise) is that she is a
member of Mensa with a genius IQ of 170. Leonardo had an IQ of 170 s o you had best be
prepared on 9/1!
As for Michelles Mensa membership see the Christopher Hitchens essay The Eggheads and
I published in Vanity Fair. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1996/09/hitchens-199609
Good. Luck!

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:56 AM
Subject: M. Rice
To: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Bragging about your MENSA membership is not SMART.
It only flags you as an insufferable and insecure - tool.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/08/31/a-thing-not-to-do-when-youre-smart/
NOTE: This email is evidently related to Michelle Rices MENSA membership that Gianelli has
harassed me over.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:56 AM
Subject: Docket No. 17085-15 ORDER Re: pening motion to dismiss
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Section 7623 (Order, ) refers to the determination by the IRS of a whistleblower claim.
The court wants to know whether the IRS previously served you with a notice of determination
of your claim to ascertain if there is anything to appeal at this time and if so whether you filed
within 30 days of the date of mailing of the notice of determination as required for jurisdiction.
Therefore, your petition, in part at least, purports to appeal the purported denial of a
whistleblower claim relating to Leonard Cohen.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Subject: Hope springs eternal (from Kelley Lynchs blog, apparently)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
I dont think my federal suits will be viewed as frivolous.

--Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynchs blog posted email dated Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Just when I think you are starting to behave in a semi-rational manner I read something like this
on your blog.
Do you really believe that the United States Senate has or will take an interest in a 2006 default
judgment and/or a judgment entered in 2008 in a federal court case in which you were served with
process but refused to participate at the time? Or that the FBI has or will either?
Do you really believe that seven years after the case is over filing a statement that you
agree with specified allegations in Greenbergs complaint (which was never adjudicated, by
the way and which complaint was dismissed with prejudice years ago) is of ANY legal
significance at all?
The objective answer to these questions is, of course, no. As an aside, one presumes that you
agree with Greenbergs implausible allegations because with few exceptions they came directly from
you via Norman Posel, with no independent evidence other than your questionable and self-serving account of
events to underpin them.
The fascinating question remains: How in the world could you believe any of this matters?
Are you that divorced from reality?
Do you revert to this delusional world view when under stress (such as the stress of losing your
2015 motions after losing your 2013 motion after losing your 2013 appeal after losing your 2012
criminal trial)?
Entire psychiatric courses could be taught about you in medical school.
Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Hope springs eternal (from Kelley Lynchs blog, apparently)
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, *IRS.Commisioner
<*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ
<ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Division, Criminal <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Doug.Davis
<Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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
Hi Senate Judiciary,
I spoke to FBI about the evidence re. criminal witness tampering, etc. and refuse to handle it
myself. These are the statements I agree with. Everything else in Greenbergs suit is selfserving. I will now address in federal court the fraud upon the District Court in Denver.
Kelley
NATURAL WEALTH LAWSUIT
AMENDED COMPLAINT
& LYNCHS SUMMARY OF FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS & STATEMENTS
Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc., et al. v. Leonard Cohen, et al.
Case No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB

I, Kelley Lynch, agree with the following factual statements and was a witness to much of what
was addressed in Natural Wealths Amended Complaint (Denver District Court, Case No. Case

1:05-cv-01233-LTB). Therefore, Neal Greenberg, and other Plaintiffs, and I are in agreement
with respect to the following facts.
[MESSAGE TRUNCATED]
NOTE: See link for the entire exhibit.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/search?q=LYNCH%E2%80%99S+SUMMARY+OF+FA
CTUAL+ALLEGATIONS+%26+STATEMENTS
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynchs blog posted email dated Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM
To: Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, *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>,
Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, Michelle Rice
<mrice@koryrice.com>
Hi Senate Judiciary,
When you read this latest criminally harassing email, keep in mind that this mans goal is to
infiltrate, provoke, terrorize (my sons), elicit information, dissuade, intimidate, threaten, etc.
Hes on someones payroll and I dont trust any cover your ass letter.
Leonard Cohen is a Canadian. He illegally used my SSN and identifying information to obtain
fraudulent tax refunds based upon the fraudulent narrative in the LA Superior Court Complaint.
He used the Complaint, and some version of the ledger (that is evidence of accounting and
financial fraud) to defend himself against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with
IRS. This was the plan. His plan included using fraud restraining orders to discredit me as a
witness. For some reason these people seem to believe this is a game. Do keep in mind that

Leonard Cohens loans/expenditures from TH alone come to approximately %6.7 million. I

have provided the Senate Judiciary with the evidence this lying fraud is concealing. I doubt LA
Superior Court or the City Attorney (who lied about many federal tax matters) have jurisdiction
over the Senate. Thats number one.
Then theres major VAWA fraud here. I think that should concern the Senate Judiciary as much
as the criminal tax fraud does. LA Superior Court is all over a federal tax matter and now
handing out domestic violence orders without findings or notice based on sister state judgments
they didnt bother verifying. They are assigning people dating relationships.
I dont have a/c privilege with Robert who targeted my then minor son. No one at that office
cares about my sons who were terrorized including Ray as a minor with Rice copied in at
times. Robert Korys memorandum from January 2005 raises many many fascinating issues
including the FAILURE TO REPORT THE 2001 SONY SALE TO IRS. I didnt handle IRS
matters and Leonard Cohens Complaint is utter bullshit. The IRS has had the evidence since
2005 thats the evidence Cohens trying to conceal now.
This was pre-meditated right down to NOT serving me and intentionally attempting to run
statutes of limitations. Thank goodness LA Superior Court is running a celebrity justice
program. Otherwise, Cohen would not get away with this.
Kelley
Excerpt from Robert Korys January 15, 2005 memorandum:

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).
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynchs blog posted email dated Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Just when I think you are starting to behave in a semi-rational manner I read something like this
on your blog.
Do you really believe that the United States Senate has or will take an interest in a 2006 default

judgment and/or a judgment entered in 2008 in a federal court case in which you were served with
process but refused to participate at the time? Or that the FBI has or will either?
Do you really believe that seven years after the case is over filing a statement that you
agree with specified allegations in Greenbergs complaint (which was never adjudicated, by
the way and which complaint was dismissed with prejudice years ago) is of ANY legal
significance at all?
The objective answer to these questions is, of course, no. As an aside, one presumes that you
agree with Greenbergs implausible allegations because with few exceptions they came directly from
you via Norman Posel, with no independent evidence other than your questionable and self-serving account of
events to underpin them.
The fascinating question remains: How in the world could you believe any of this matters?
Are you that divorced from reality?
Do you revert to this delusional world view when under stress (such as the stress of losing your
2015 motions after losing your 2013 motion after losing your 2013 appeal after losing your 2012
criminal trial)?
Entire psychiatric courses could be taught about you in medical school.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Hope springs eternal (from Kelley Lynchs blog, apparently)
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, *IRS.Commisioner
<*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ
<ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Division, Criminal <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Doug.Davis
<Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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
Hi Senate Judiciary,
I spoke to FBI about the evidence re. criminal witness tampering, etc. and refuse to handle it
myself. These are the statements I agree with. Everything else in Greenbergs suit is selfserving. I will now address in federal court the fraud upon the District Court in Denver.
Kelley
NATURAL WEALTH LAWSUIT
AMENDED COMPLAINT
& LYNCHS SUMMARY OF FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS & STATEMENTS
Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc., et al. v. Leonard Cohen, et al.
Case No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB

I, Kelley Lynch, agree with the following factual statements and was a witness to much of what
was addressed in Natural Wealths Amended Complaint (Denver District Court, Case No. Case
1:05-cv-01233-LTB). Therefore, Neal Greenberg, and other Plaintiffs, and I are in agreement
with respect to the following facts.
[MESSAGE TRUNCATED]
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 3:14 AM
Subject: Motion to supplement the record in your tax court case
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
The tax court is not going to decide the pending motion to dismiss except on very narrow
grounds including did the IRS serve you with a Notice of Determination and if so whether or
not you initiated your tax court petition within 30-days of the date of mailing of that decision.

Your claims that various third parties, including me, are bad people or are harassing you are
completely irrelevant to the pending motion just as those same claims were completely
irrelevant to your three state court motions that you lost notwithstanding your attempts to
interpose those irrelevancies in those Los Angeles Superior Court proceedings as well.
The court is concerned with the issues before it, not your general poor persecuted me
arguments.
The tax court decides cases based on law, not sympathy.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 9:54 AM
Subject: Your pending Motion to supplement the record purportedly filed in tax court and
published on your blog and in mass emails
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
By the way, Ms. Lynch, a prohibited ex-parte communication would be between a party or an
attorney and the court concerning a pending matter.
A communication directed only to an attorney for a party by a person other than the court WOULD
NOT be an ex-parte communication, nor would it be unethical or improper for any reason IF
such a communication in fact occurred.
Attorneys contact each other about pending cases routinely.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
www.LinkedIn.com/in/stephengianelli/
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:29 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch blogposted email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 PM

To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
There you go (again) confusing speculation and malicious wishful thinking with fact.
I never said that I discussed your tax court petition with the IRS. Nor did I ever have any such
discussion.
You wrote to me that the IRS was reading about me on your blog, and cut and pasted the
activity log on your blog showing that someone using an IRS IP address was on your blog. You
implied that I was in trouble or should be worried.
I replied not to worry and that I get along with the office Chief Trial counsel just fine and
that the lawyer representing the IRS in opposition to your tax court petition was a nice guy
all of which is true, not of which states that any taxpayer information was discussed at any time.
This is not rotten logic it is fact as is your 10-year pattern of making unfounded, serious
accusations of misconduct against people you bear grudges against without any facts to support
those accusations.
In addition, tax court proceedings are public record. When the tax court grants the pending
motion to dismiss or otherwise issues a decision or other order disposing of the case, that
decision will be available to any member of the public, including me, on the tax court website.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 PM
Subject:
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,
Im not convinced about the proxy ambulance chaser (Gianelli) and his argument re. ex parte
communications. First of all, I can assure IRS that Gianelli does not have a power of attorney
from me to speak to IRS about any tax matter that involves me whatsoever. This man is a
criminal. If I wasnt afforded the opportunity to participate in any communication this criminal
had with IRS about my Petition, that would be a serious problem. This man appears to be an
agent provocateur/infiltrator. Isnt that why he hunted down Agent Sopkos partner or husband
at DOJ? I didnt ask the Court to decide my Petition based on Gianellis self-proclaimed
communications with the gentleman handling the Tax Court Petition at the Chief Trial
Counsels office. I asked the Court to investigate that matter. I think that will protect the
communications. I also view this as blatant retaliation.
Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:12 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You still dont get it.
Contrary to your malice fueled speculation to the contrary, I have not telephoned the Chief
Trial Counsels Office at a Washington DC IP address or otherwise. Nor did I ever say that I
did.
Someone from the IRS (no doubt) clicked on one of the many links to your blog that you are
constantly emailing to the IRS in one of your daily mass emails a ritual you have been

observing for ten years. That means only that whoever looked at your blog was able to quickly
ascertain that you are a crackpot, just as every analytical person who has looked at your blog has
been able to see at a glance. The only persons who buy your nonsense are brain addled and
substance abusing people like your former roommate Linda Carol - whom (true to your pattern)
you have now viciously turned on and the other airheaded people you seem to temporarily
attract as followers until even they start questing your story.
As for my axe to grind, I was the wrong person for you to falsely and maliciously accuse of
felony offenses in over then thousand mass emails republished on your blogs since April of
2009. This malicious conduct on your part caused me to take an interest in looking into your
legal claims about others and debunking your malicious lies that are published daily in mass
emails and on your blogs.
Whether you chose to disregard this logical explanation or not in favor of some wacky
conspiracy theory I could not care less.
All I know is this: I predicted in 2010 that your (belated) motion to vacate in BC338322 would
be denied it was. I predicted that you would be arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for criminal
harassment and violating the Colorado protection order you were. I predicted your appeal and
your habeas petition challenging your 2012 criminal conviction would both be rejected, and for
the precise reasons I put in writing they were. I predicted that you would be returned to jail for
probation violations, including your email harassment of your trial prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter.
In January of 2014 you were. I predicted that your SECOND motion to vacate filed in
BC338322 would be denied, because the rules of procedure preclude two bites at the apple
and for that precise reason your second motion asking that the court enter an order vacating the
2006 default judgment entered in BC338322 was denied on June 23, 2015. I also predicted in
2014 that your threatened motion to vacate the May, 2011 California registration of the 2008
Colorado protection order would be denied, and it was denied on September 1, 2015 for
precisely the reasons I put in writing.
I have also predicted that your pending motion objecting to the renewal of the default judgment
(which tries to raise the alleged lack of service of process A THIRD TIME) would be denied. It
will be on October 6, 2015 and Cohens pending motion for sanctions will also be granted at
that time. And I have predicted that your tax court petition would be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. It will be.
When are you going to learn that my legal assessments of your preposterous and self-serving
legal positions and defenses are ALWAYS spot-on?
One would assume that you are NEVER going to learn. But that is hardly my problem, is it?

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch blogposted email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 PM
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,
Apart from the Criminal Stalkers pathetic excuses, it doesnt make sense that he would call the
Chief Trial Counsels Office re. an IRS Washington, DC IP address. My Tax Court Petition has
nothing to do with the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud that I reported to
IRS Commissioners Staff and many others. I have also provided IRS with an abundance of
evidence.
In any event, Gianelli has some type of personal axe to grind here and we know he is a chronic
and pathological liar. He uses this M.O. to infiltrate matters. See his communications with
Bruce Cutler. Only an idiot would believe his lies about that situation. In any event, I have been
clear he should feel free to marry Cutler.
Right now Gianelis focus is on my Tax Court Petition and all Cohen-related LA Superior
Court fraud/perjury matters. I will also contact the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office about these
harassing emails.

Kelley
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Wrong again!
I didnt say that I had no discussions with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. I said those
discussions were not about taxpayer information OR your pending tax court petition.
Nor did I say that the discussions were extensive.
They were nevertheless sufficient to form an impression about the courtesy and collegiality of
opposing counsel in your matter.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:52 PM
Subject: Your blog posted mass email dated September 8 referencing your latest tax court filing
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Your decade long habit of falsely accusing others (including lawyers with unblemished
reputations, including the opposing counsel in your tax court case) whom you happen to not
like of serious misconduct in every forum in which you appear without ANY admissible,
supporting evidence does not aid your credibility or cause.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian, the FSB
(74inanci intelligence) and others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
What Mr. Fabian undoubtedly told you was that on July 30 I emailed him asking Would it be
possible for you to send me a PDF copy of your motion to dismiss filed in the above matter?

and he replied that, for technical reasons (the lack of an electronic copy, the inability to forward
documents by email) Our office must respectfully decline to send you a .pdf copy of the
motion to dismiss in this case.
Aside from the subsequent exchange of thank yous and have a nice weekends that was the
entirety of the communication.
For you to try to spin this email string (copy attached) into something sinister or unethical is typical
of the way you conduct yourself but disingenuous in the extreme. Nor is this communication
properly characterized as a communication about the petition on file in the above matter.
What Mr. Fabian does not know is that you have a 10-year long history of making false and
malicious reports of alleged criminality and other alleged misconduct to the Internal Revenue
Service, the FBI, the United States Department of Justice and other local, state and federal
agencies, against everyone whom you feel has wronged you including but by no means limited
to every one of your former employers who fired you (including Leonard Cohen), a half dozen
federal and state court judges who have ruled against you in two different states, your opposing
counsel in civil harassment proceedings and other civil litigation (including Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BC338322 where a $14 MILLION embezzlement based judgment was
entered against you), and various prosecutors two of whom you have also threatened to either kill or
execute before and after your April 2012 Los Angeles County conviction for emailed death
threats in violation of a restraining order registered in that county in 2011 and related 18-month
jail sentence as well as your January 22, 2014 6-month remand for violating your probation by
(among other things) emailing your trial prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter to advise that she had
made your kill list.
Additionally, Ms. Lynch, you have transmitted to me in excess of 20,000 emails since April of
2009 (when it became necessary to ban you as a commenter on my legal blog) many of which
emails contain both vile expletives and epithets directed at me and others as well as malicious and false accusations
of criminality (e.g., you accused me of being a child molester, obstructing justice, witness
tampering, subornation of perjury and more ) all ccd to hundreds of law enforcers and the
media and then published on your various blogs.
You have also tried to inject your malicious, false claims against me into each of the many
criminal and civil legal proceedings that you have been involved in since 2013, including
unsuccessful civil motions and even as an unsuccessful defense to the January 22, 2014
revocation of your probation and remand following an evidentiary hearing wherein you called
witnesses to the stand (including Paulette Brandt). Therefore, your most recent tax court filing
(which you also republished in mass emails and on your blog) is a part of a pattern.

Your adult son Rutger Penick who witnessed your mental breakdown after you were caught
embezzling millions from your then employer in 2004, were involved in a 4-hour stand-off with
LAPD SWAT (resulting in your first of many involuntary psychiatric commitments), and later
spiraled into homelessness and a lifestyle devoted to electronic revenge and harassment said it
best in an email to me written on June 14, 2013:
from: Rutger Penick <mr.synt4xerror@gmail.com>
to:
STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM
subject: Re:
Thank you for letting me know. [Gianelli wrote Rutger that the City Attorney
planned to arrest me. He evidently had insider information.]
REDACTED RUTGERS DECLARATION ADDRESSED THIS
SITUATION EXTENSIVELY.

Mr. Fabian is probably also unaware of your unique custom of signing third parties names to their
declarations that are then court-filed by you as you were caught doing in Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BC338322 earlier this year in support of your second attempt to obtain
an order vacating the $14MILLION default judgment against you entered in May of 2006.
In addition, Ms. Lynch, by claiming that your opposing counsel engaged in an improper
communication regarding taxpayer information and /or your pending petition, you are indeed
accusing Mr. Fabian of misconduct since it takes at least two to engage in an (allegedly)
improper communication.
Finally, perhaps you wish to explain to Mr. Fabian why you are copying your email
communications to him not only to me, but to the FSB (the security service for the Russian
Federation, formerly the KGB), the NSA and other persons and agencies who appear to have
nothing to do with your pending tax court petition. Because on its face, these ccs do not
enhance your credibility.
Very Truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece
NOTE: IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, CIA, NSA, FSB, and others are copied on my emails
documenting the destruction of my life since reporting the allegations related to Cohens
criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005. They also address the ongoing campaign of criminal
harassment meant to slander and discredit me and Gianellis attempts to infiltrate and infest
matters with extraneous material while attempting to elicit information.
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog posted mass email dated September 8 referencing your latest tax court
filing
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, STEPHEN GIANELLI
<stephengianelli@gmail.com>, *IRS.Commisioner <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>,
Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>,
Division, Criminal <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Doug.Davis
<Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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@judiciaryrep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, Michelle
Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Mr. Fabian,
It was nice speaking with you this afternoon. Thank you for clarifying that Stephen Gianelli
contacted you by email with respect to the Tax Court matter and Petition I filed with respect to
fraud upon the Tax Court. This individual has criminally harassed me, my sons and sister,
Paulette Brandt, and others since hearing from Leonard Cohens lawyer, Michelle Rice, in 2009.
There have been no false allegations about this issue. I have reported this conduct to IRS, FBI,
and DOJ together with evidence. My sons have also addressed the ongoing harassment in their
declarations that have now been submitted to Tax Court. I want you to be clear that Gianelli
does not represent me and is not a party to this matter. I was the Tax Matters partner on the
2001, 2002, and 2003 federal tax returns Cohen filed for Traditional Holdings, LLC. Robert
Korys memorandum to my lawyers clearly states that the income from the Sony deal was not

reported to IRS. There is no delta of $5 million as Cohens personal expenses and loans are not
corporate expenses. As of 2002, the Sony deal closed and the assets were owned by BMT.
Cohen and his lawyers are now attempting to conceal the corporate evidence submitted to LA
Superior Court. These matters are under appeal. I would like you to understand that Stephen
Gianellis M.O. involves infiltrating or attempting to infiltrate. His conduct is extreme and
disturbing. I have no idea who this man is and he targeted my younger son as a minor. He
could be, for all I know, a sexual predator. He functions as a proxy of Leonard Cohens and
whether or not a cover-your-ass letter exists that is factual. He harasses me with legal opinions,
legal research, etc.
I have asked the Tax Court to investigate these communications because there are serious issues
related to retaliation with respect to my April 15, 2005 report to IRS that Cohen committed
criminal tax fraud. My lawyers advised me that Cohen/TH failed to report the income in 2001;
extinguished the promissory note in 2002; and extinguished the annuity itself in 2003. Cohens
Complaint confirms that they also failed to file state tax returns. I have spoken to the State of
Kentucky about this matter.
Paulette Brandt has asked me to inform you that Stephen Gianelli has worked under the
direction of the City Attorneys office who instructed him to continue harassing me by emails.
The City Attorneys office advised the jurors that I am in possession of 1099s and K-1s from
Cohen/corporations for 2004 and 2005. I am not and have also asked Cohen to rescind the K1s LCI transmitted to IRS for the years 2004 and 2005 showing $0 income. Paulette Brandt has
received harassing emails from this individual, Gianelli, for several years now. She has been
threatened in writing and she is a witness who has submitted declarations to LA Superior Court.
Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Fabian Paulmikell A <Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov>

To: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc:
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:17:53 +0300
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION
No problem, the name confusion is pretty common. Thanks, you too.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A

Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION
Fair enough.
Sorry about the first/last name confusion.
Have a good Friday.
From: Fabian Paulmikell A [mailto:Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:12 PM
To: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION
Good morning Mr. Gianelli,
Our office must respectfully decline to send you a .pdf copy of the motion to dismiss in this case
for a couple of reasons. Our office is unable to forward attachments by e-mail outside of our
organization for security reasons. Also, Ms. Lynch is currently representing herself in this case.
Because she is pro se, any documents filed by my office would have been served on her by mail
at her address of record, or electronically if she elected electronic service.
Thanks,
Paulmikell Fabian
Attorney
IRS Office of Chief Counsel, SB/SE
300 N. Los Angeles St., Ste. 3018
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Tel: (213) 894-3027 x146
Fax: (213) 894-6548

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:27 PM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A
Subject: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

Dear Mr. Paulmikell,

Would it be possible for you to send me a PDF copy of your motion to dismiss filed in the
above matter?
Thank you,
Stephen R. Gianelli SBN-83476
http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephengianelli
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch email dated Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian, the FSB
(80inanci intelligence) and others
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
FYI.
And the beat goes on...
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:
Ms. Lynch,
What Mr. Fabian undoubtedly told you was that on July 30 I emailed him asking Would it be
possible for you to send me a PDF copy of your motion to dismiss filed in the above matter?
and he replied that, for technical reasons (the lack of an electronic copy, the inability to forward
documents by email) Our office must respectfully decline to send you a .pdf copy of the
motion to dismiss in this case.
Aside from the subsequent exchange of thank yous and have a nice weekends that was the
entirety of the communication.
For you to try to spin this email string (copy attached) into something sinister or unethical is typical
of the way you conduct yourself but disingenuous in the extreme. Nor is this communication
properly characterized as a communication about the petition on file in the above matter.
What Mr. Fabian does not know is that you have a 10-year long history of making false and
malicious reports of alleged criminality and other alleged misconduct to the Internal Revenue

Service, the FBI, the United States Department of Justice and other local, state and federal
agencies, against everyone whom you feel has wronged you including but by no means limited
to every one of your former employers who fired you (including Leonard Cohen), a half dozen
federal and state court judges who have ruled against you in two different states, your opposing
counsel in civil harassment proceedings and other civil litigation (including Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BC338322 where a $14 MILLION embezzlement based judgment was
entered against you), and various prosecutors two of whom you have also threatened to either kill or
execute before and after your April 2012 Los Angeles County conviction for emailed death
threats in violation of a restraining order registered in that county in 2011 and related 18-month
jail sentence as well as your January 22, 2014 6-month remand for violating your probation by
(among other things) emailing your trial prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter to advise that she had
made your kill list.
Additionally, Ms. Lynch, you have transmitted to me in excess of 20,000 emails since April of
2009 (when it became necessary to ban you as a commenter on my legal blog) many of which
emails contain both vile expletives and epithets directed at me and others as well as malicious and false accusations
of criminality (e.g., you accused me of being a child molester, obstructing justice, witness
tampering, subornation of perjury and more ) all ccd to hundreds of law enforcers and the
media and then published on your various blogs.
You have also tried to inject your malicious, false claims against me into each of the many
criminal and civil legal proceedings that you have been involved in since 2013, including
unsuccessful civil motions and even as an unsuccessful defense to the January 22, 2014
revocation of your probation and remand following an evidentiary hearing wherein you called
witnesses to the stand (including Paulette Brandt). Therefore, your most recent tax court filing
(which you also republished in mass emails and on your blog) is a part of a pattern.
Your adult son Rutger Penick who witnessed your mental breakdown after you were caught
embezzling millions from your then employer in 2004, were involved in a 4-hour stand-off with
LAPD SWAT (resulting in your first of many involuntary psychiatric commitments), and later
spiraled into homelessness and a lifestyle devoted to electronic revenge and harassment said it
best in an email to me written on June 14, 2013:
from: Rutger Penick <mr.synt4xerror@gmail.com>
to:
STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM
subject: Re:
Thank you for letting me know.

REDACTED Rutger personally addressed this unconscionable situation in

his declaration.

Mr. Fabian is probably also unaware of your unique custom of signing third parties names to their
declarations that are then court-filed by you as you were caught doing in Los Angeles County
Superior Court Case No. BC338322 earlier this year in support of your second attempt to obtain
an order vacating the $14MILLION default judgment against you entered in May of 2006.
In addition, Ms. Lynch, by claiming that your opposing counsel engaged in an improper
communication regarding taxpayer information and /or your pending petition, you are indeed
accusing Mr. Fabian of misconduct since it takes at least two to engage in an (allegedly)
improper communication.
Finally, perhaps you wish to explain to Mr. Fabian why you are copying your email
communications to him not only to me, but to the FSB (the security service for the Russian
Federation, formerly the KGB), the NSA and other persons and agencies who appear to have
nothing to do with your pending tax court petition. Because on its face, these ccs do not
enhance your credibility.
Very Truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog posted mass email dated September 8 referencing your latest tax court
filing
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, STEPHEN GIANELLI
<stephengianelli@gmail.com>, *IRS.Commisioner <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>,
Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>,
Division, Criminal <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Doug.Davis
<Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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@judiciaryrep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, Michelle
Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Mr. Fabian,
It was nice speaking with you this afternoon. Thank you for clarifying that Stephen Gianelli
contacted you by email with respect to the Tax Court matter and Petition I filed with respect to
fraud upon the Tax Court. This individual has criminally harassed me, my sons and sister,
Paulette Brandt, and others since hearing from Leonard Cohens lawyer, Michelle Rice, in 2009.
There have been no false allegations about this issue. I have reported this conduct to IRS, FBI,
and DOJ together with evidence. My sons have also addressed the ongoing harassment in their
declarations that have now been submitted to Tax Court. I want you to be clear that Gianelli
does not represent me and is not a party to this matter. I was the Tax Matters partner on the
2001, 2002, and 2003 federal tax returns Cohen filed for Traditional Holdings, LLC. Robert
Korys memorandum to my lawyers clearly states that the income from the Sony deal was not
reported to IRS. There is no delta of $5 million as Cohens personal expenses and loans are not
corporate expenses. As of 2002, the Sony deal closed and the assets were owned by BMT.
Cohen and his lawyers are now attempting to conceal the corporate evidence submitted to LA
Superior Court. These matters are under appeal. I would like you to understand that Stephen
Gianellis M.O. involves infiltrating or attempting to infiltrate. His conduct is extreme and
disturbing. I have no idea who this man is and he targeted my younger son as a minor. He
could be, for all I know, a sexual predator. He functions as a proxy of Leonard Cohens and
whether or not a cover-your-ass letter exists that is factual. He harasses me with legal opinions,
legal research, etc.
I have asked the Tax Court to investigate these communications because there are serious issues
related to retaliation with respect to my April 15, 2005 report to IRS that Cohen committed
criminal tax fraud. My lawyers advised me that Cohen/TH failed to report the income in 2001;
extinguished the promissory note in 2002; and extinguished the annuity itself in 2003. Cohens
Complaint confirms that they also failed to file state tax returns. I have spoken to the State of
Kentucky about this matter.
Paulette Brandt has asked me to inform you that Stephen Gianelli has worked under the
direction of the City Attorneys office who instructed him to continue harassing me by emails.
The City Attorneys office advised the jurors that I am in possession of 1099s and K-1s from
Cohen/corporations for 2004 and 2005. I am not and have also asked Cohen to rescind the K1s LCI transmitted to IRS for the years 2004 and 2005 showing $0 income. Paulette Brandt has

received harassing emails from this individual, Gianelli, for several years now. She has been
threatened in writing and she is a witness who has submitted declarations to LA Superior Court.
Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Fabian Paulmikell A <Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov>

To: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc:
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:17:53 +0300
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION
No problem, the name confusion is pretty common. Thanks, you too.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION
Fair enough.
Sorry about the first/last name confusion.
Have a good Friday.
From: Fabian Paulmikell A [mailto:Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:12 PM
To: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION
Good morning Mr. Gianelli,
Our office must respectfully decline to send you a .pdf copy of the motion to dismiss in this case
for a couple of reasons. Our office is unable to forward attachments by e-mail outside of our
organization for security reasons. Also, Ms. Lynch is currently representing herself in this case.
Because she is pro se, any documents filed by my office would have been served on her by mail
at her address of record, or electronically if she elected electronic service.

Thanks,
Paulmikell Fabian
Attorney
IRS Office of Chief Counsel, SB/SE
300 N. Los Angeles St., Ste. 3018
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Tel: (213) 894-3027 x146
Fax: (213) 894-6548

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:27 PM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A
Subject: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION
Dear Mr. Paulmikell,
Would it be possible for you to send me a PDF copy of your motion to dismiss filed in the
above matter?
Thank you,
Stephen R. Gianelli SBN-83476
http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephengianelli

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Subject: Fwd: Is Cooley Coming After Me With A Parody Email?
To: Fabian Paulmikell A <Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov>
Cc: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Mr. Fabian,
Despite Ms. Lynchs claim that she has sent me 20,000 cease and desist emails over the last
five years, the below email string is far more typical. (Cooley is former Los Angeles County

District Attorney Steve Cooley whom Ms. Lynch threatened to execute in a 2011 email string
see here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/266435431/Kelley-Lynch-Email-Dated-January-212012-Threatening-to-Assassinate-District-Attorney-Steven-Cooley#scribd.)
Which of course explains why a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge sentenced Ms. Lynch
to 18-months in jail upon her April 2012 conviction for criminal harassment, why the court
revoked her probation for additional email harassment in January of 2014 and remanded her to
jail for an additional six months, and why numerous civil harassment restraining orders have
been issued against her in favor of former landlords, her former assistant, and others.
Clearly, this woman is lacking in any semblance of credibility.
For the record I have never represented Leonard Cohen. Mr. Cohen is ably represented by the
Los Angeles firm Kory Rice LLP. I speak only on my own behalf, as a victim of Ms. Lynchs
electronic harassment.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:48 AM
Subject: Fwd: Is Cooley Coming After Me With A Parody Email?
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, STEPHEN GIANELLI
<stephengianelli@gmail.com>, *IRS.Commisioner <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>,
Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>,
Division, Criminal <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Doug.Davis
<Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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
Mr. Fabian,
This is the reason for Gianellis original communication with you. This is his M.O. and thats
why he brought his communications to you to my attention. This man is a criminal and working
as a proxy. I didnt threaten to execute Cooley but have evidently run into the mother lode of
lying clowns and other dangerous psychopaths since reporting Leonard Cohens criminal tax
fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times. I believe Korys memorandum confirming
that they failed to report the income from the 2001 Sony sale is definitive evidence of a portion
of the tax fraud and explains their motive.
I am not lacking credibility and this criminal wouldnt know credibility if he fell over it. He has
relentlessly targeted my sons and other people in my life. His emails made my younger son
physically ill and I think Rutger was clear when he told him to SHUT UP. His declaration is
even clearer.
Ask yourself this question, Mr. Fabian. What lawyer would even exert this type of energy on a
client? Youre a lawyer, right? Well, that person doesnt exist. This man is a criminal and he has
motive.
If you would like to discuss anything with me as it relates to the Tax Court matter, please feel
free to call me. Otherwise, this conversation is over. This mans M.O. is as transparent as the
day is long. I would like to point out that this criminal is not a party to this matter; was able to
email me documents he downloaded from Tax Court; and his reasons for contacting you were
an attempt to infiltrate and begin a dialogue about the matters he is now discussing. Ive seen it
happen for years now. Everyone I know thinks this man belongs in prison.
All the best,
Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynchs flurry of blog posted mass emails to the IRS/others of today
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
You just dont get it.

I sent a one sentence email to IRS counsel Fabian in July of 2015 asking if he could send me a
copy of his motion to dismiss your tax court petition filed that same month. He demurred for
technical reasons. We exchanged have a nice weekends. That was the totality of it.
In September of 2015, two months later, Kelley Lynch decided that any communications
between me and your opposing counsel at the IRS must be an improper ex-parte
communication and you filed a formal motion to supplement the record in your tax court
case requesting an investigation into same and reiterating the same accusations false and
scurrilous accusations that you have made against me in blog posted mass emails for five years.
You then sent out your motion in mass emails and also posted it on your blog.
Up to that point as far as Mr. Fabian knew you were just another pro se tax court litigant who
was trying to impermissibly stretch the tax courts jurisdiction. I mentioned nothing about you in
my email asking for a copy of the motion to dismiss, not even your name.
You then wrote yet another email to Mr. Fabian making even more false accusations against me.
At that point I gave Mr. Fabian the highlights of your illustrious 10-year pattern of electronic
harassment and false accusations against others, your sons email dated June 14, 2013 (opining
that you are sick and need help and that I am right on every level and thanking me for my
emails), your criminal conviction and remand for probation violations as well as your death
threats emailed to prosecutors.
You then sent another email to Mr. Fabian claiming that your 20,000 emails to me were all
cease and desist emails, so I send a second email to Mr. Fabian forwarding an email string to
me sent by you earlier this year liberally using the epithet faggot and faggots over and over,
and linking your death threat email to Steve Cooley. Clearly, this was not a cease and desist
email, not even close.
The point is that thanks YOU and your opening the door to this discussion which will only
hurt you with the tax court not help now Mr. Fabian and his office KNOWS EVERYTHING
about your history. Your embezzlement, the SWAT standoff at your home, your psychiatric
hospitalizations, the $14MILLION embezzlement judgment, the many civil harassment
restraining orders against you, your ten-year pattern of false criminal complaints to the IRS, your
criminal harassment conviction EVERYTHING.
Congratulations!
And the more you talk, and the more you try to explain all of this away, the less credible you

sound.
From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:54 PM
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov; STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner;
Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb;
rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald;
Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ;
Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com
Subject: Re: Is Cooley Coming After Me With A Parody Email?
Stephen Gianelli,
Cease and desist, Criminal. Youre not a party to the Tax Court matter and I will bring this letter
to the Courts attention. I will also let Tax Court know that you belong in prison if the judge has
been unable to figure out what so many others have.
The only thing of interest re. my PARODY EMAILS is the fact that Steven Machats name was
highlighted. I suppose his views that Cohens a thief who stole from him; uses corporations to
evade taxes; falsely accuses his representatives of ripping him off to breach contracts; etc. didnt
work with the DAs plans for Leonard Cohen. Those plans evidently involved putting him on
the stand to sabotage IRS; discredit me; and testify about some version (there are three or so
before LA Superior Court) of the Spector gun story. Its right up there with his stories about
CIAs MKULTRA, Bay of Pigs, and Yom Kippur War.
Is Cooley on your mind? Then call him up and ask him to marry you and stop harassing me, my
family, and friends while attempting to infiltrate various matters.
Kelley Lynch
Gods, Gangsters & Honour by Steven Machat
Excerpts:
Leonard was desperate to get rid of this two managers, Judy Berger and Mary Martin, who he
believed had stolen the rights to his songs and records early on in his career. Even back then,
Cohen was convinced that women were ripping him off. He signed an agreement, and when he
wanted to get rid of the contract, he accused everyone of ripping him off. You could say it
became repeat 89inancia. My father duly got rid of Berger and Martin, set up a new company
called Stranger Music for Cohen and agreed to manage Leonard for 15% as well as 15% of
Stranger. The idea of the company was twofold: one, to maintain ownership of the copyrights

duly created; and two, to 90inancia Leonards exposure to American tax, just like any other rich
individual trying to 90inancia their tax liabilities.
Ive no problem with people trying to avoid tax, but as the years have passed, I couldnt help but
smile at the apparent contradiction between Leonards public persona and his private business
arrangements. This was a supposedly devout Buddhist with no interest in material possessions,
who was all the same happy to put his trust in business managers and companies he created with
his knowledge and consent whose sole aim was to 90inancia tax liability.
Leonard then sold Stranger Music for a small fortune and Ive seen nothing from Cohen.
Cohen controlled his copyright, not my father. The irony was that Cohen had total control over
my father Do you know what happened to the $400,000 worth of bearer bonds in my
fathers office? Bearer bonds are just unregistered bonds or paper money that are used to
conceal ownership and, with it, tax liabilities. Cristini told me (who knows if this is true?) that he
had found the bonds in my fathers office hours after he had died but the next day they
disappeared.
Cohen denied any knowledge of these bonds. I was unsure if they existed or were part of my
fathers schemes cooked up to conceal Leonards money.
Cohen said: Steven, you remember the 1988 tour? Flemming extorted $100,000 from me. He
wanted 20% managerial commission, in addition to his promoters fees. He thought he was
doing extra work for me and wanted me to pay him.
Far from being the poet of the spirits, Leonard was a hustler using Buddhism as a I.
The next time I would see Leonard Wed just seen The Hand That Rocks The Cradle where
Rebecca De Mornay plays the psychopathic nanny who stalks this family. Who should walk
along but Cohen, who was holding hands with DeMornay, his girlfriend at the time. Cohen was
extremely uncomfortable because he knew he had stolen from me and it was clear he couldnt
get away quick enough. Neither could my son, because he took one look at DeMornay and ran.
He was terrified because he thought she was the nanny in the film!
It was clear that Leonard was also wary of me because, I guess, he thought I might be planning
to sue him.
The whole scheme was so ridiculous [Leonard Cohens attempts to limit his liabilities on the
deals] from the start. All Leonard had to do to avoid U.S. taxes was tear up his green card,
and stop living in and using the U.S. as his base.

Its no secret that Leonard has also made a killing on the art market by selling his paintings, plus
his touring of the last two years If thats true, it doesnt really tally with the clear implication
from Cohen that he is a man who has been robbed of everything.
Leonard told me before I left that he had actually offered Kelley a settlement
Its clear that Cohen and his lawyers want to heap the blame on Kelleys shoulders for more than
just revenge. Because Cohens pension assets were cashed in ahead of schedule they are
liable to tax so they need to establish that this situation is her fault. The penalties could actually
be greater than the tax itself.
Leonard has cast himself into a hell of his own making.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:44 AM
Subject: Additional email to the IRS posted on your blog on September 10
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
The more you try to explain away your harassing behaviors, malicious false complaints to law
enforcement (including the IRS), death threats, criminal convictions, civil harassment restraining
orders against you, the $14MILLION embezzlement based judgment against you, and your tens
of thousands of epithet and profanity laced mass emails to all manner of public officials and
lawyers, the more your true nature as a crack-pot comes into focus.
Keep up the good work! (You continue to be your own worst enemy.)
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynchs flurry of blog posted mass emails to the IRS/others of today
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, *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
Mr. Fabian,
If you would like to discuss how Cohen transformed a non-domestic violence restraining order
(obtained without any findings whatsoever) in Boulder into a domestic violence order that
requires a dating relationship that would require an audit into VAWA funding fraud. Thats a
complex discussion that I intend to have in federal court where I will provide Greenbergs
evidence that Cohen/Kory planned to use restraining orders to discredit me as a witness. I
dont really see any need to open a discussion about this although the tactics are material and
relevant. I will also be discussing with federal court how a local state restraining order subverts
reporting and filing requirements and why the City Attorney is permitted to lie about federal tax
matters and my being in possession of tax documents that I am not. Detective Viramontes was
clear my requests for tax information were uncomfortable to Leonard Cohen. LAPD was
also clear in their report my alleged emails were generally requests for tax information. I still
dont have that information and it is entirely problematic. I will now sue for that information.
The only way all of this relates to the Tax Court Matter is that I believe Cohen and his
representatives pre-meditated their arguments when Sony issued the inadvertent $1 million and
$7 million 1099s and IRS inquired about the $1 million downpayment on TH deal. That would
require looking at the totality of circumstances.
One email doesnt prove that I havent advised Gianelli thousands of times to cease and desist
including with respect to his lies, slander, etc. to government entities such as the City Attorney,
District Attorney, IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
Do I think that Steve Cooley is a faggot? Not really. I dont want to insult the LGBT
community. I think hes a criminal. Thats my personal opinion. Does it really interest you?
Does it affect whether or not there is fraud upon the Tax Court or jurisdictional issues? No. It
does not.
Have a good evening.
All the best,
Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:24 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Thu 9/10/2015 1:40 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian asserting that
I have not accurately characterized her emails
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
One email is not a pattern, tens of thousands of vile and disturbed emails are.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Subject: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, *IRS.Commisioner
<*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ
<ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Division, Criminal <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Doug.Davis
<Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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
Stephen Gianelli,
I am addressing your ongoing harassment over Leonard Cohen legal matters, my countless cease
and desist letters, your false and slanderous accusations (made to government agencies and
others), the harassment of my sons and others, your attempts to threaten and intimidate
witnesses, your attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit information, your provocations, and your

communication with Mr. Fabian of the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office. Given the fact that you
have repeatedly harassed me with docket information from the Tax Court and actually emailed
me documents you downloaded from Tax Court (re. my Petition), it is obvious that you did not
actually contact Mr. Fabian for copies of documents which would be an inappropriate request in
any event. I have addressed this situation with Tax Court, Mr. Fabian, and advised you to cease
and desist.
As for vile and obscene emails, I remain convinced that you sent the bloody stump email and
other emails using the moniker 14th Sheepdog which you created and used on your entirely
slanderous blog.
I, and others, have maintained the harassing emails you have sent since hearing from Cohens
lawyer, Michelle Rice, in May 2009. You are a chronic pathological liar so your self-serving
characterizations will not replace the actual evidence. That evidence has been submitted to IRS,
FBI, and DOJ.
I have not accused you of being a pedophile. You attempted to (and did) lure my then minor
son into privately communicating with you. I have stated very clearly that any adult stranger
who attempts to communicate with a minor should be viewed as a potential sexual predator. I
have no idea who you are and neither do either of my sons who have addressed this ongoing
criminal harassment (and other issues) in their declarations submitted to numerous courts. Ray
was quite clear when he informed you, Walsh, and Lawrence that your emails made him
physically ill (and noted that Michelle Rice had been copied in) and Rutger was equally clear
when he advised you to shut up and then addressed your copying him in on an email to the
City Attorney by noting that you and Walsh appear to be two fruitcakes who stay up all night
conjuring up insane accusations.
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Rutger Penick wrote [in response to Gianelli/Walshs
communications with the City Attorney copying him in]:
Wow, you guys are ridiculous. What did you do last night? Thinking of things to write? Bravo
fruitcakes. Suzanne [Walsh]and Gianelli are meant for each other, thunder buddies?
Sincerely,
Rutger Penick
IT Support Specialist
t +1.424.298.4660
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-charles-lindsey-kelley-lynchs-son.html

I have never accused Leonard Cohen or ripping Rutgers fingers off. He and the City Attorney,
who elicited that obscene and vile testimony, are the individuals that made this false statement. I
am well aware of the criminal negligence in the Whole Foods matter and repeatedly contacted
the District Attorneys office requesting that they investigate and prosecute the responsible
parties. This is also a very serious public health issue.
Actually, Leonard Cohen is the individual who sexually harassed me, forced me to read
business/legal documents to him while he soaked in bubble baths, and exposed his penis to me.
I have stated that you appear amused by your repulsive conduct and seem to get off on it. I am
aware that Pat Dixon views Eminems song Puke and his statements about dry humping as
a threat to him. I am also aware that Alan Jackson views Eminems song Love the Way You
Lie as being about him. I am a friend of Phil Spectors and remain utterly loyal to him. I have
made that abundantly clear since the incident at his home whereby Clarkson shot herself and
endangered his life.
I have no idea if Judge Ken Freeman is corrupt or not. LA Superior Court entered a judgment
against me, wrongfully converted my property to Cohen, and failed to obtain jurisdiction over
me. I know a judge in the Bay Area asked if Freeman was senile or old and his clerk simply had
him sign a highly questionable judgment that inserted corporations not named as parties to the
suit into it.
A jury heard the Boulder PD matter and did not believe Boulder PD. Im not certain why
anyone involved in the matter would brag about that fact. I have stated, and Rutgers
declaration confirms this, that LAPD informed my son that they would shoot me and my dog.
They also informed my son that they were there because my dog was my alleged hostage and
they were taking precautions. I dont believe LAPD was at my house for a friendly visit. I can
assure you of that and believe they endangered the life of my son who they willfully disregarded.
My letters, including this one, have advised you to cease and desist and addressed your ongoing
criminal harassment, stalking, threats, false accusations, slanderous and defamatory statements,
blatant lies, witness intimidation, and so forth. You most certainly appear to be an unofficial
member of Leonard Cohens legal team.
Kelley Lynch
P.S. Leonard Cohen retaliated against me after hearing that I intended to report his tax fraud to
IRS. I was advised that the informant actually advised Cohen that I wrote the IRS Chief Trial
Counsels office on July 25, 2004. Cohen personally addressed these matters with me in the fall
of 2004. Given the fact that you were not involved with either Cohen or myself for the 20 years
I worked with him, you are not in a position to address his retaliation, theft, tax fraud, or

conduct with respect to me. Cohen has a pattern of falsely accusing others, using operatives,
and lying.

From: Helvetia Hornwaller <simitheseventeenthshitzu@gmx.at>

Date: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:44 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
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 Stones cock at your infamous parties. That is just beyond evil, not
to mention a severe violation of Miss Manners etiquette. Rutger and Ray still to this day cry
themselves to sleep reliving the horrible abuse you dished out to them. Thats why Rutgers hand
is now a DISGUSTING BLOODY STUMP. He was overwrought with grief for his mentally ill,
alcoholic mother, so grief stricken that he couldnt pay attention at the slicing machine and got
his fingers lopped off. You like to say it was Leonard Cohens fault but it actually was your fault,
Kelley, entirely your fault. I guess thats why Rapunzels second cousin told everyone how you
wanted to be fist fucked with RUTGERS 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. Im sure youll 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. Dont 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

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:12 AM
Subject: Fwd: Eminem
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
But we are NOT talking about one obscene and vulgar mass email sent by you, are we Ms.
Lynch?
There have been tens of thousands that are not arguably cease and desist emails, including
emails falsely accusing me of being a pedophile, and falsely accusing Leonard Cohen of incest,
being responsible for ripping Rutgers fingers off, allegedly having a small penis and that
Cohen should be taken down and shot.
You have also copied me with mass emails accusing me of masturbating while emailing you,
emails (scores of them) referencing dry humping Assistant District Attorney Pat Dixon,
watching Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson burn, stating that you were willing to die for
Phil Spector, accusing Judge Kenneth Freeman of corruption, accusing the Boulder PD (who
frequently arrested you when you lived in Colorado) of being corrupt, the LAPD of trying to
assassinate you etc. etc. etc.
NONE of these bizarre and patently harassing emails (tens of thousands of them) could be fairly
characterized as cease and desist letters.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Ms. Lynch,
I write to point out that the original, court-filed declaration of your son John Rutger
Penick cut and pasted into the body of the above email was (as you later admitted in signed
pleadings) signed by your hand and thus has no evidentiary force as testimony by Mr. Penick. (See Code of
Civil Pro. 2015.5 [a declaration must be subscribed by the person making it]; People v.
Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 59, fn. 5 ["Subscribe" means "to sign with one's own hand."].)
Regarding your roommate Paulette Brandts 2015 declaration, Ms. Brandt materially changed her

testimony on the subject of your 2006 service with Leonard Cohens civil suit from that of her
2013 declaration, and in any event Brandts testimony was evidentially rejected by the court
when it denied your 2013 and 2015 motions to set aside the $14 MILLION embezzlement based
judgment against you. The court also (apparently) rejected Ms. Brandts testimony about an
alleged conspiracy of harassment between me and Los Angeles prosecutors because it found you
in violation of the terms of your 2012 probation at the January 22, 2014 hearing in which Ms.
Brandt testified and remanded you to serve an additional 6-months in jail for additional email
harassment.
Nor can the substance of Rutger Penicks declaration be reconciled with his June 14, 2013
email to me stating that you are sick and need help and thanking me for my emails.
Nor is any of this likely to aid you in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss your tax court
petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated September 11, 2015 11:55 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian,
IRS Office of the Chief Counsel + others
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,

You have a 10-year long pattern of making false accusations of criminality against persons whom
you feel aggrieved by. The incident at Juanitas Restaurant in Boulder, Colorado (where you were
arrested by BPD for refusing to leave until the police arrested another diner for molestation
and a jury convicted you of criminal trespass) is a part of that pattern, as is your 20,000 +/emails to the IRS/FBI/Justice/LAPD/Santa Monica PD/Houston PD/State Bar of California
and many others falsely accusing me of being a pedophile, a sexual predator, a terrorist,
suborning perjury, obstruction of justice, interfering with a tax fraud investigation, false
statements, etc., etc., etc.

There are two people in the world with an axe to grind against Leonard Cohen: Kelley Lynch
and Ann Diamond, a Canadian writer who claims a prior romantic relationship with Cohen but
that Cohen claims is a stalker and mentally unbalanced. Ms. Diamonds claims that she was
abducted as a child and subjected to LSD experiments and sexual abuse by high ranking US
military officials and that the British Royal Family engaged in ritual orgies involving animal
sacrifice on an island in Greece pretty much speak for themselves. None of the articles you cite by
Ann Diamond were ever published except by Kelley Lynch.

I simply wrote to Mr. Fabian in July of this year asking if it would be possible for him to email to
me a copy of his motion to dismiss in your pending tax court matter. Two months later, in
September of 2011, you then filed a formal motion to supplement the record in that matter
that exclusively addresses your false accusations against me. You then wrote to Mr. Fabian purporting to
confirm a telephone conversation wherein Mr. Fabian (allegedly) stated that I contacted him
regarding the allegations in your pending petition (which he never did, because that never
happened). It is this injection by you of your false accusations against me into your tax court
matter, and your additional flurry of 30 +/- scurrilous and libelous emails about me that I have
responded with three or four emails of my own setting the record straight including about
your history with restraining orders (having them granted against you and being convicted of
violating them).

I have also pointed out that you have a history of submitting fabricated evidence to the Los
Angeles Superior Court (including the declarations that you have cited to Mr. Fabian, on which
declarations you signed the purported signatures of the declarants).

Your subsequent emails (eccentrically ccd to the Russian state security service and others)
attempting to explain away all of this have made my point for me: You are simply not credible
on any level.

The IRS, the FBI and the other agencies that you pester daily with mass emailed accusations of
criminality about me and me and others have long ago formally designed you an unreliable
informant.

You have been engaged in this unseemly and bizarre behavior since being fired for
embezzlement in 2004 and it has only brought you world-wide notoriety as a convicted stalker,

jail, and the complete and total loss of your credibility. Certainly none of the many hundreds of
people whom you have reported for alleged criminality have ever been prosecuted. The only
one who was ever even investigated as a result of your daily criminal complaints has was
Leonard Cohen, who in 2007 was exonerated by the Western Regional Supervisor of the IRS
Criminal Division, Agent Luis Tejeda.

None of the many local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies you have been serially
contacting about me for the past six years demanding my prosecution have even CONTACTED
me for a statement, let alone investigated or prosecuted me. The State Bar of California has not
even asked me to explain your many complaints.

Ms. Lynch, you are living in the past, harping on things that occurred almost 15-years ago
transparently to harm the man you blame for the destruction of your life Leonard Cohen.
You have only succeeded in making yourself a nuisance to law enforcement and the civil tax
authorities and a laughing stock with the public.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/83476
www.linkedin.com/in/stephengianelli/

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 11:55 PM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division,
Criminal; Doug.Davis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; Opla-pd-los-occ; Robert
MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Mike
Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower;

Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov; Dennis

Subject: Fwd: Cease & Desist, Gianelli

Gianelli,
Cease and desist. What does Boulder have to do with it? It just explains the Ramsey case and
the fact that Boulder has a serious problem with pedophiles. The
police are well aware of that fact. The manager was a liar who lied to the Sheriff's Department
who served my subpoena and didn't act properly (according to the owner).
In any event, I won a jury trial on the ONLY ISSUE I was arrested over. I understand that
prosecutors falsely stack charges when they don't have a case.

Study Ann Diamond's piece on you. Mr. Fabian should as well. I think you wrote the bloody
stump email and there's probable cause to believe that because you create
these types of monikers and are a dangerously unstable, obsessed psychopath.

You didn't contact Mr. Fabian over my motions with respect to your wrongful communications
with his office. You simply cannot stop lying. Your a perfect Leonard
Cohen operative: A DANGEROUS CLOWN.

Kelley Lynch
When Stephen Gianellis emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and unsolicited, they
are so overflowing with repetitive accusations, misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts,
undiluted rage, and general nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of
them. My impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he seems to
have unlimited energy and endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not
know in an attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of having
an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as he's concerned, so he's
barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under normal circumstances be a sign of mental
imbalance.

He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful deductions. His tone is that
of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me flashbacks of a courtroom where Im being crossexamined by a vicious criminal lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the
witness. Gianellis game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant
nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be overwhelmed by a
word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his overuse of "copy and paste" -- he's in a
hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to make a persuasive argument. He doesnt reread
his emails to see what kind of message they actuall convey: that the writer is standing on some
soapbox in his mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the
streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.
He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the truth, or looking beyond the
various documents he "downloaded at his own expense" -- and as anyone with common sense
knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in 2004-5. They convey some of the
evidence, all of it coming from one side.
Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since 2008, does not make
sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him names on the internet, and in revenge
he has totally immersed himself in her legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and
friends, spreading false stories about her, making up quotes, visiting her in jail, posting photes
of her residence and roommates on his blog for the past seven years. Nobody in their right
mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no material interest in this case, and is not a
paid shill -- behaves like this. It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress
leave' or in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing. Hiding behind
the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long, especially not on the porous
internet. His badly written and often illogical, emotional rants would embarrass and bring him
close to professional suicide.
But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a comfortable tax haven on
Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his childish fantasies and catty remarks with his
tiny circle of cronies. Its fairly obvious he uses alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g.
Mongochili, to make it appear others read his blog and share his obcession with Lynch. His
sheer extremism indicates he is either a rogue criminal lawyer gone slightly postal, or a paid
agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team. I think the latter.
I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the one intended: it can only
make people suspicious of the case against Kelley Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its
course? Why subject her to endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared
guilty? This kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to be both
the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.

Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A single-paragraph response from
my end always leads to a flood from his. Each exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of
irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which might be worth discussing, if
they werent drowned by high-volume invective. Of course this could be a tactic: if he really was
ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an insufferable bully. Or maybe most of
his cases involved low-life criminals or people with little or no education.
He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing -- but then so could
I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's one of the reasons, including the 10year series of precedents, that I am not surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.
If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments to these legal matters,
and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He would have no need to bring up my "past"
- or a wacked version of it that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's didinfo team. He
draws from a psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from other
Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, Im no stranger to
slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where anyone can read what I have to say.
Much of what I have written on Cohen was initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours
that were circulated (and believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much
more detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop idol in our
celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with people who base their
opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive
tactics have not really evolved in the past twenty years, since he used them on me.
I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman' who never got over her
passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy
clichs say much more about him than they do about me or my writing, or why I became
interested in what really happened to Kelley Lynch.
And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging Gianelli. But in my
experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone Cohen places in charge of his
'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's private entourage that I have met over the
years, he may not even realize he's being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable.
It's a fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen skirts
with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at home, and knows his place, in
that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and
put the audience into a deeper state of trance.
I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium of Cohen
associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived next door to Leonard Cohen,
and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I might believe differently. But the essence of
what happened to Kelley also happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower

stakes. It was relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then my reputation was
damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard Cohen, as
Kelley's was
I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the corruption that is sinking
the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree with that. He would only disagree with the
idea that we all have an obligation to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and even profit
from it.
Ann D.

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Subject: RE: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,

1. I never sent any such bloody stump email.

2. You have no evidence that I did. Just like you have no evidence that I am a child molester,
suborned perjury, that I am on Leonard Cohens payroll (despite being retired and living
abroad) etc. etc. etc.

Instead, these accusations are all malicious and false accusations calculated to cause me harm
just like the false accusations of criminality you have leveled to the IRS and FBI about three
former employers who fired you, former landlords, and even a stranger dining in Juanitas
Restaurant who apparently looked askance at your disheveled (judging from your booking
photo) appearance motivating you to falsely accuse the man of molesting his daughter in the
restaurant and refusing to leave until he was arrested (the Boulder PD arrested YOU instead,
and you were convicted by a jury of 12 of criminal trespass for refusing to leave on request of
restaurant management.

I have an unblemished disciplinary record with the State Bar of California [SBN 83476]. I have

never been subjected to a restraining order or held in contempt by any court. I dont even have
any moving violations on my criminal record, let alone misdemeanor or felony convictions. And
I have an excellent professional reputation. (See here www.linkedin.com/in/stephengianelli/.)

Last, YOU injected these attacks on me into your case through a request to supplement the
record in your tax court proceeding. And then you have the nerve to claim surprise that I
would be commenting!

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:30 PM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division,
Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert
MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Stan
Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower;
Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com
Subject: Cease & Desist, Gianelli

Stephen Gianelli,

I am addressing your ongoing harassment over Leonard Cohen legal matters, my countless cease
and desist letters, your false and slanderous accusations (made to government agencies and
others), the harassment of my sons and others, your attempts to threaten and intimidate
witnesses, your attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit information, your provocations, and your
communication with Mr. Fabian of the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office. Given the fact that you
have repeatedly harassed me with docket information from the Tax Court and actually emailed
me documents you downloaded from Tax Court (re. my Petition), it is obvious that you did not
actually contact Mr. Fabian for copies of documents which would be an inappropriate request in
any event. I have addressed this situation with Tax Court, Mr. Fabian, and advised you to cease

and desist.

As for vile and obscene emails, I remain convinced that you sent the bloody stump email and
other emails using the moniker 14th Sheepdog which you created and used on your entirely
slanderous blog.
I, and others, have maintained the harassing emails you have sent since hearing from Cohens
lawyer, Michelle Rice, in May 2009. You are a chronic pathological liar so your self-serving
characterizations will not replace the actual evidence. That evidence has been submitted to IRS,
FBI, and DOJ.

I have not accused you of being a pedophile. You attempted to (and did) lure my then minor
son into privately communicating with you. I have stated very clearly that any adult stranger
who attempts to communicate with a minor should be viewed as a potential sexual predator. I
have no idea who you are and neither do either of my sons who have addressed this ongoing
criminal harassment (and other issues) in their declarations submitted to numerous courts. Ray
was quite clear when he informed you, Walsh, and Lawrence that your emails made him
physically ill (and noted that Michelle Rice had been copied in) and Rutger was equally clear
when he advised you to shut up and then addressed your copying him in on an email to the
City Attorney by noting that you and Walsh appear to be two fruitcakes who stay up all night
conjuring up insane accusations.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,
Apparently, when you initiate a court matter you feel that you are entitled to bring to the
attention of the court your every personal grievance with non-parties to the litigation. Your tax
court case is no exception.
However, the tax court does not even have jurisdiction over your initiating petition let alone
your vendetta against the undersigned and others. You are simply wasting the valuable resources
of the tax court on nonsense.
Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:14 PM
Subject: Your emal to Michelle Rice dated Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

I always know when you perceive one of my rebuttals to your mass emails to the IRS/DOJ/FBI
to be particularly effective: You redact the body of it while complaining about it. I therefore
forward herewith the entire email. Please see yellow highlighted text clarifying that it is not on
behalf of Leonard Cohen.

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 12:20 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: 'washington.field@ic.fbi.gov'; 'Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov'; 'Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov'
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM to the IRS/FBI/ICE/NSA
and others

Ms. Lynch,

Your claim that I am an interested party in respect to your pending (for now) tax court
petition relating to a 2002 prior, adjudicated tax court case involving Leonard Cohen
(contending that the 2002 stipulated disposition in that matter was procured through a fraud on
the court) is ridiculous on its face.

You make no attempt to support such a statement and throw it out there in the public domain
like it is self-evident.

The stakes are high? Ha!

What stakes exactly?

You said the same thing in response to my 2010 analysis of your threatened motion to vacate
Cohens 2006 default judgment (that it would be denied), in response to my analysis of your
direct appeal from and habeas petition following your criminal harassment conviction and 18month jail sentence (same), in response to my 2013 prediction that you would be remanded to
jail for violating your probation (you were), in response to my prediction that your 2015, second
motion to vacate would be denied (it was), and in response to my pointing out with reasoned
analysis why your other many failed legal positions dont withstand scrutiny (they all went
nowhere).

Were you convicted of criminal harassment in 2012? Yes you were. Was your conviction affirmed on direct
appeal and your habeas petition dismissed? You bet. Were your 2013 and 2015 motions to vacate
the (now) $14MILLION judgment against you denied? Yes. Was your 2015 motion to vacate the
California registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order denied in a court ruling that exactly
tracked my earlier analysis of the question? Yes it was.

Let me reiterate: The tax court cares not at all that I wrote to your opposing counsel once
requesting a copy of the motion to dismiss your petition or about your claims of victimhood
and harassment. The tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition, and none of these
collateral allegations can confer that jurisdiction.

Your pending motion to vacate the renewal of Cohens (now) $14 MILLION judgment will be
denied; your grounds in support of that order have already been litigated. Twice.

Cohens pending sanctions motion will be granted.

Your pending appeals taken from the denial of your second motion to vacate and the order
sealing documents are going nowhere.

Any federal court litigation initiated by you and arising out of your former agency relationship
with Cohen, which terminated in 2004, will be quickly dismissed.

Why do I care about any of this? Because unlike many of your harassment victims who deal with
you passively, hoping that if they remain silent in the face of your electronic harassment in mass
emails and on the web you will eventually go away, I decided on a more proactive approach.
And if you think for a minute that I need to be paid by Leonard Cohen in order to take an
interest in your mass emailed and blog posted slander (as well as your absurd and publicly
expressed legal positions) after you falsely accused me of being a child molester in mass emails
and on your Google indexed blogs, you have a lot to learn about human nature.

Any questions?

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
www.linkedin.com/in/stephengianelli/
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

____

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
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've received yet another criminally harassing email from the Proxy Stalker, Stephen Gianelli.
Nothing deters this man and the stakes are clearly high. He is obviously a party-at-interest.

I have forwarded you all of this Criminal's harassing emails. I didn't initiate anything so that
Stephen Gianelli, who is most definitely a proxy of Leonard Cohen's (whether or not a coveryour-ass letter exists) and unofficial member of his legal team, can engage in ongoing harassment
with respect to me, witness tampering and intimidation with respect to my witnesses, or use the
opportunity to insert himself into a Tax Court matter and then lie and falsely accuse me to
opposing counsel, Mr. Fabian, in the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office. This is not a personal
grievance. This is engaged in blatant criminal conduct and evidence supporting that fact has
been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.

Tax Court has jurisdiction over fraud upon the court. Both Tax Court and the 9th Circuit

follow Hazel-Atlas. I think the person with the actual vendetta is Leonard Cohen. Isn't that
why he retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to
IRS; used it as an opportunity to steal from me; bankrupted me intentionally; failed to serve me
the Complaint; filed and amended tax returns based on the fabricated Complaint narrative;
concealed his loans/expenditures totaling approximately $6.7 million from his alleged
"retirement" account; applied for an received fraudulent tax refunds from IRS and FTB; used
the Complaint to defend himself against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with
Agent Tejeda; and joined forces with the Los Angeles District Attorney and City Attorney in
targeting me? What will Leonard Cohen do for an encore? How low will Leonard Cohen go?
He has now gone so far over the deep end, from my perspective, that he literally hired my
younger son's father's custody lawyer. That move appeared to be entirely desperate.

The Tax Court can decide how to handle and respond to my motions. I have addressed this
matter with the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office. And, I have advised Gianelli to cease and
desist yet again. I think it's obvious that this man is moonlighting for someone regardless of his
lame argument that he's a retired lawyer/liar residing in Greece who cannot be extradited.

I'll forward any additional emails I receive from this Criminal to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.

All the best,

Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM to the IRS/FBI/ICE/NSA
and others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov

Ms. Lynch,

Your claim that I am an interested party in respect to your pending (for now) tax court
petition relating to a 2002 prior, adjudicated tax court case involving Leonard Cohen

(contending that the 2002 stipulated disposition in that matter was procured through a fraud on
the court) is ridiculous on its face.

You make no attempt to support such a statement and throw it out there in the public domain
like it is self-evident.

The stakes are high? Ha!

What stakes exactly?

You said the same thing in response to my 2010 analysis of your threatened motion to vacate
Cohens 2006 default judgment (that it would be denied), in response to my analysis of your
direct appeal from and habeas petition following your criminal harassment conviction and 18month jail sentence (same), in response to my 2013 prediction that you would be remanded to
jail for violating your probation (you were), in response to my prediction that your 2015, second
motion to vacate would be denied (it was), and in response to my pointing out with reasoned
analysis why your other many failed legal positions dont withstand scrutiny (they all went
nowhere).

Were you convicted of criminal harassment in 2012? Yes you were. Was your conviction affirmed on direct
appeal and your habeas petition dismissed? You bet. Were your 2013 and 2015 motions to vacate
the (now) $14MILLION judgment against you denied? Yes. Was your 2015 motion to vacate the
California registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order denied in a court ruling that exactly
tracked my earlier analysis of the question? Yes it was.

Let me reiterate: The tax court cares not at all that I wrote to your opposing counsel once
requesting a copy of the motion to dismiss your petition or about your claims of victimhood
and harassment. The tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition, and none of these
collateral allegations can confer that jurisdiction.

Your pending motion to vacate the renewal of Cohens (now) $14 MILLION judgment will be

denied; your grounds in support of that order have already been litigated. Twice.

Cohens pending sanctions motion will be granted.

Your pending appeals taken from the denial of your second motion to vacate and the order
sealing documents are going nowhere.

Any federal court litigation initiated by you and arising out of your former agency relationship
with Cohen, which terminated in 2004, will be quickly dismissed.

Why do I care about any of this? Because unlike many of your harassment victims who deal with
you passively, hoping that if they remain silent in the face of your electronic harassment in mass
emails and on the web you will eventually go away, I decided on a more proactive approach.
And if you think for a minute that I need to be paid by Leonard Cohen in order to take an
interest in your mass emailed and blog posted slander (as well as your absurd and publicly
expressed legal positions) after you falsely accused me of being a child molester in mass emails
and on your Google indexed blogs, you have a lot to learn about human nature.

Any questions?

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
www.linkedin.com/in/stephengianelli/
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
____

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
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've received yet another criminally harassing email from the Proxy Stalker, Stephen Gianelli.
Nothing deters this man and the stakes are clearly high. He is obviously a party-at-interest.

I have forwarded you all of this Criminal's harassing emails. I didn't initiate anything so that
Stephen Gianelli, who is most definitely a proxy of Leonard Cohen's (whether or not a coveryour-ass letter exists) and unofficial member of his legal team, can engage in ongoing harassment
with respect to me, witness tampering and intimidation with respect to my witnesses, or use the
opportunity to insert himself into a Tax Court matter and then lie and falsely accuse me to
opposing counsel, Mr. Fabian, in the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office. This is not a personal
grievance. This is engaged in blatant criminal conduct and evidence supporting that fact has
been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.

Tax Court has jurisdiction over fraud upon the court. Both Tax Court and the 9th Circuit
follow Hazel-Atlas. I think the person with the actual vendetta is Leonard Cohen. Isn't that
why he retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to

IRS; used it as an opportunity to steal from me; bankrupted me intentionally; failed to serve me
the Complaint; filed and amended tax returns based on the fabricated Complaint narrative;
concealed his loans/expenditures totaling approximately $6.7 million from his alleged
"retirement" account; applied for an received fraudulent tax refunds from IRS and FTB; used
the Complaint to defend himself against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with
Agent Tejeda; and joined forces with the Los Angeles District Attorney and City Attorney in
targeting me? What will Leonard Cohen do for an encore? How low will Leonard Cohen go?
He has now gone so far over the deep end, from my perspective, that he literally hired my
younger son's father's custody lawyer. That move appeared to be entirely desperate.

The Tax Court can decide how to handle and respond to my motions. I have addressed this
matter with the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office. And, I have advised Gianelli to cease and
desist yet again. I think it's obvious that this man is moonlighting for someone regardless of his
lame argument that he's a retired lawyer/liar residing in Greece who cannot be extradited.

I'll forward any additional emails I receive from this Criminal to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.

All the best,

Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Subject: Fw:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

As you can see from the last message from Michelle Rice that I did not delete unread, we are
hardly a part of the same team (officially or unofficially) and never have been.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

---Forwarded message--From: Michelle Rice

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:42
To: Stephen Gianelli; Robert Kory
Reply To: Michelle Rice
Subject:

We would not have needed to associate in Dan Bergman had you not incited her to
further filings in a case that we thought had concluded in January 17, 2014 when she lost
the first Motion to Vacate. I have each and every one of your emails thereafter inciting
Lynch to file her "long promised motion accusing Leonard Cohen and Kory/Rice of
perjury." She filed her "Motion for Terminating and Other Sanctions" on March 17,
2015 after your daily barrage of emails inciting her to do so.... That motion was 1,100
pages. Not something that you want to be on the receiving end of even if it was totally
frivolous.

I will also not be reading any of your emails either as I had not been for years until I
could not stand by any longer after seeing you repeated emails affirmatively inciting her
to move to vacate a valid and subsisting restraining order of my client.

What would do if you had a restraining order and someone was inciting the restrained
person to move to vacate your valid order ? And indeed violate that order by inciting
further harassment ?

And as for your final immature parting shot - actually Stephen pro se litigants are the
most difficult defendants to deal with in litigation.

I will be happy to send a link to the article recently published in the ABA Journal of
Litigation on that very subject.

Good riddance.

Michelle L. Rice, Esq.

Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641

Admitted to practice law in the following jurisdictions: California, District of Columbia

and New York

NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message
immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this
message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>; Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:53 AM
Subject:

Ms. Rice,

I will not be reading your future emails.

For the record, as far as inciting Lynch to violence the most provocative thing you could
have done is associate Dan Bergman.

As far as losing in court to her, if you cannot beat the pro se "retarded kid" you are in a
world of hurt.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:27 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction is limited. Petitioner has burden of proving jurisdiction. Appeals where no
STATUTORY NOTICE OR VALID DETERMINATION LETTER or untimely appeals
PROHIBITED
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

35.3.2.1 (09-21-2012)
Tax Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. The Tax Court is a statutory court of limited jurisdiction, and strict compliance with all
essential jurisdictional elements is necessary before the court is empowered to enter a legal
decision in the case. Generally speaking, the Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine income,
gift and estate tax liability, transferee liability with respect to these taxes, certain excise taxes,
declaratory judgments under sections 6110, 7428, 7476, 7477, and 7478; and certain other causes
of action such as interest abatement, relief from joint and several liability, and collection due
process proceedings. With minor exceptions, the jurisdiction of the court with respect to taxes
extends only to those years and taxes in which a deficiency or liability was determined in the
statutory notice of deficiency or liability and raised in a timely petition to the Tax Court.
Jurisdictional questions may be raised by the court upon its own motion or by either party at any
stage of the proceeding. Normally, all questions concerning jurisdiction should be resolved prior
to the filing of the answer.
2. A jurisdictional motion is required where the petition attempts to take

an appeal from something other than a statutory notice or other valid determination
letter permitting Tax Court review; the petition is not filed within the statutory period; the
petition attempts to take an appeal with respect to a year or a tax as to which no deficiency (or
transferee liability) is determined; the petition is brought by an improper party or a nonexistent
party; or, the petition is filed for redetermination of a deficiency or liability which has been paid
before the mailing of the statutory notice. Special care should be taken to insure that a
corporation, trust, or estate is still in existence and competent to sue. The foregoing
jurisdictional items are not all inclusive, and the Field attorney should research the statutory and
case law with respect to any case in which there is doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.
[]
35.3.2.2 (09-21-2012)
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
1. If the document filed with the court as a petition is not properly within its jurisdiction, such as
in instances in which a petition was not timely filed, the response should be a motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction. See Exhibits 35.11.1-34 through 35.11.1-40. When the petition is late, the
Field attorney assigned the case should immediately obtain proof of mailing (U.S. Postal Service
Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book For Accountable Mail, or equivalent with legible United States
postmark or an appropriate affidavit) from the office that issued the notice and attach the same
to the jurisdictional motion. The motion should be filed with the court, if possible, before the
answer due date.
[]
4. The petitioner has the burden of alleging and proving, when questioned, that the
court has jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy in the petition. At
the same time, the moving party has the burden to establish a prima facie case for the relief
requested in the motion. Thus, jurisdictional motions must be based upon facts and not upon
failure to allege in the petition a jurisdictional fact known to the respondent. If the court has
jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy, and if such fact is known to the
respondent although not alleged in the petition, the essential jurisdictional facts should be
alleged in the answer so that jurisdiction will appear on the record. Thus, in the latter instances a
jurisdictional motion would not be filed, but the missing jurisdictional elements in the pleadings
would be cured by allegations in respondents answer. In the case of a timely, yet imperfect
petition that the court has served on respondent without ordering it perfected, necessary
jurisdictional facts such as the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of the
petition may be made in a motion for more definite statement with respect to the imperfect
petition.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:44 AM
Subject: The Point
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

The point is, Ms. Lynch, that out of intellectual integrity I informed you of a case that is
highly helpful to your position in your pending motion.

I laid it out for you chapter and verse in simple language.

The only thing that this case does not resolve for you is the credibility conflict between the
declaration of service and your declarations, but procedurally, all of your other potential
roadblocks are solved.

But like an Aborigine who is gifted a cellphone and elects to use it as a rock to skip across a
pond, you squandered the opening.

It would have been much more effective if you had waited until the opposition was filed and
then used the case in rebuttal, but now you have tipped your hand and the opposition will surely
deal with this case, instead of ignoring the points raised. Instead, you are so closed minded you
actually cannot see the utility of this case at all.amazing.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water

Never let it be said though that I did not give you accurate information.

Friday, September 18, 2015

And the Point Is?
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Fwd: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view
of your motion

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>, 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've asked Rice, rather than Criminal Stalker Gianelli, to respond to the issues raised in my
motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. Who cares what the criminal thinks. I've already
addressed Fidelity v. Brown in my motion. Rice, in keeping with her predictable behavior, will
serve the Opposition precisely 9 days before the October 6th hearing. Gianelli appears to be
assisting her with research on these issues. I already advised Hess that his January 2014 order
wasn't filed with the court and I wasn't served the order either. Jeffrey Korn promised he would
serve it and failed to do so. I also didn't receive the proposed order, with request to comment,
when that was sent. I am aware that the final order wasn't registered. So what's the criminal's
point? I am aware that there is no finding re. proper service due to all of this. These people
have a lot of nerve insulting someone who is pro per for the sole reason that Cohen bankrupted
me and stole my share of intellectual property via default while withholding commissions due
me for services rendered. LA Superior Court seems to also condone slave labor.

Kelley

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of
your motion
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

See the attached case, Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne, FYI. Under its reasoning:

1. A motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is NOT CONSIDERED to be a motion to

vacate the judgment and is therefore not governed by time limits for motions to vacate the
judgment such as those provided by section 473.5. This is because the motion does not seek to affect the
judgment itself but only the renewal period. For the same reasons one would have AN
ARGUMENT that a motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is not a motion to reconsider a
previously denied motion to vacate the judgment itself, but the case does not address that issue.

2. The moving party need not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.

3. There is no due diligence requirement in filing the motion earlier (e.g., after learning of
the judgment) because the legislature has explicitly provided for a 30-day time window from the
date mailing of notice of renewal of the motion to file it, and the motion is either filled within
that statutory time or it is not.

4. Unlike in the cited case (attached), the fact of valid service is DISPUTED so the moving
party still needs to overcome the presumption of valid service created by the proof of service
filed by the registered process server. And Judge Hess could still defeat the motion by weighing
the evidence and concluding that the moving declarations failed to overcome the presumption in
favor of proper service.

5. Res judicata should not be a factor because NO ORDER SETTING FORTH JUDGE HESS
JANUARY 17, 2014 RULING DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE was ever signed or
filed let alone served. (See the on-line docket case summary.) A proposed order was lodged,
but NO SIGNED ORDER WAS EVER FILED AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT NO
ORDER WAS EVER SIGNED. Since there was no ORDER DENYING THE MOTION
entered, no final, appealable order was ever entered and (arguably) therefore there was no
prior finding of proper service.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Your claim that I am simply "covering up" my "real party involvement" with "cover
your ass emails"
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You could not be more wrong.
If I were you I would concentrate more on the legal authorities I have transmitted to you, and
their implications for your motion, than my motive in transmitting them.

---Forwarded message--From: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>

To: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>; Dan Bergman <DBergman@bergmanlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed "motion to vacate the
fraud domestic violence matter"? (See 4/14/2015 email)

Stephen:

No, Stephen, it is your ego that is in the way here.

The reason Robert requested you only email him is because you were sending dozens of
emails to me a day sending me unsolicited emails regarding Kelley Lynch, which I did not
even read. Your fixation on Kelley Lynch is truly pathological.

The truth is Stephen, now that the gloves are off, so to speak, is that you did not have
the balls or the "juice" to get her arrested when she was harassing you for years in San

Francisco. I have all of the emails where you were reporting her to the police, FBI, etc.
All to no avail. Some big criminal lawyer you are. You did not have any viable contacts
in law enforcement that could help you out after your long self-proclaimed illustrious
career as a criminal lawyer ?

It took little ole me - the lawyer who you claim produces "workmanlike" product for my
client - to get Lynch arrested. Through connections I made. That's right, I got it done.
In fact you wrote me following her March 1, 2012 arrest in Berkeley expressing your
surprise (still have that email, shall I send it to you, with a copy to Dan, to refresh your
memory?) that I was able to get it done when you could not. So your claiming now that
you were instrumental in getting her arrested is nothing more than assuaging your own
fragile ego. Your pathological jealousy of me is as sick as Lynch's jealousy of our firm's
success as Leonard's lawyers, managers, and representatives. Throughout our ten year
tenure Leonard was inducted into the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame, achieved the Grammy
Lifetime Achievement Award, saw his album Old Ideas debut on Billboard at Number 2,
behind Lana Del Rey, the highest charting album of Leonard's entire career. And yes, I
attended all of those events. You did not Stephen.

Now that we are speaking truth and dispensing with civilities - I will say it - you have
been trying for years to take credit for my work because unlike you, I do not selfpromote my considerable successes, but rather let
has-runs and never-weres like yourself step in to try to get a little bit of my considerable
light. Shamelessly discussing with Leonard Cohen fans on your blog what actor is going
to play you in any Cohen-Lynch bio-pic.

What a shameless starf*ker you are. The cold, hard truth of the matter is your career was
nowhere and you glommed onto the Cohen-Lynch matter and my successes seeking your
proverbial 15 seconds of fame.
So do not think we have not seen your shameless self-promoting postings
on leonardcohenfiles.com as if you had anything to do with any of the ten years' worth of
litigation involving Cohen/Lynch.

I did not need anyone's help to properly register the out-of-state restraining order. It is
properly registered as you have repeatedly stated in your numerous bloviated emails

regarding the restraining order that you did not file.

By the way, I also did not need any help flying with Leonard Cohen on a private jet from
Burbank to Denver in August and September 2008 to get the permanent restraining
order in Colorado either.

Dan: your firm is fired and you are no longer needed in BC 338322 and BC 341120.
Please prepare your notice of withdrawal for filing Monday. Robert and I have been
discussing in private how little your firm contributed to the recent effort against Lynch. I
did all of the work and drafted the two dispositive filings, including the Opposition and
Sanctions Motion. The only motion that was barely passable was the Motion to Seal and
even then it was barely literate. Robert and I were shocked that you proposed to file a
declaration for LC's signature with a sentence "Lynch refused to return documents to
him." You will not be assisting in either the restraining order matter, the appeals, nor in
the federal court RICO suit she has threatened to file because I did a PACER search and
none of your attorneys, including yourself, have done any litigation in federal courts. I
have over ten years in federal district courts all over the country, including in Colorado,
Nevada, New York and California.

P.S. I do not want to tell you what Leonard Cohen is paying me to defend him in all of
the litigation against Lynch, a rate I can command because of my previous record of
success. Suffice it to say, it would make both of you sick with more envy than you
already seem to have.

Yours very truly,

Michelle L. Rice, Esq.

Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:49 AM

Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
I have no logical or legal need to distance myself from Michelle Rice a woman BTW who
has expressly stated, in writing, that she has literally gotten fucking rich though opposing
Kelley Lynch in court. We are already polar opposites.
Nor is Michelle Rice the kind of person I would have anything in common with whatsoever, or
that I would ordinarily give the time of day to (to put it mildly).
Ironically, would appear that she is the second female agent in Cohens life to live in a $2M Los
Angeles home funded with his money.
PHOTOGRAPH OF MICHELLE RICE ENCLOSED.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 9:58 PM
Subject: Your blog post dated Sunday, September 20, 2015
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Whether you realize it or not, I am the only person on the face of the earth who has ever told
you the truth about your legal situation.
Your apparently belief that the correspondence authored by Michelle Rice was contrived
notwithstanding its frank language and the disappearance of Bergman from the case vividly
illustrates how you will cling to a false belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
None of which is my problem.
I do not care for you or for Michelle Rice (who has formally notified me that her client is
adverse to me) so whatever the outcome on October 6 I am quite content.
I simply believe that with respect to your statutory objection to the renewal of the 2006
judgment you have a right to litigate your contention that you were never served on its merits.
Winning that issue is quite another matter.
Unfortunately for you and my desire to see the obnoxious Ms. Rice (who has bragged to me
that she has a 170 IQ and is a MENSA member, about how much money she makes, the value
of her home, the number of award dinners she has attended, and about riding on a corporate jet
once I mean, PLEASE) fall on her keester you squandered your credibility with Judge Hess

long ago and even now you appear to be unable to keep your eye on the ball.
Best of luck to you.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:54 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:30 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You are always straining so hard to see the hidden meaning that you miss the obvious.
You are entitled by statute to have the court determine whether or not you were served with
process in a manner authorized by California Statute as a defense to the renewal of the 2006
judgment.
Writing to the IRS will not advance this endeavor.
Stephen R. Gianelli
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:37 PM
Subject: Yikes!
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

ENCLOSED PHOTOGRAPH OF MICHELLE RICE.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:55 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,

Once you identify an opposing counsel in one of your filings you then overwhelm them with
hundreds of thousand word, irrelevant emails that are never even read.
The same is true regarding your tax court matter.
The Chief Counsel's Office has a procedural checklist. For example, once (as is the case in the
pending matter) jurisdictional issues are identified they are immediately addressed with a motion
to dismiss. Until the jurisdiction question is resolved by the court, opposing counsel will not
even address the merits of your petition. Your emails are falling on deaf ears, as did your
hundreds of emails sent to Jeffery Korn (who was only fronting for Michelle Rice).
In the meantime you have a rare opportunity to at least have one of your claims (e.g., lack of
service) heard and determined on the merits without procedural roadblocks.
But instead of developing evidence from an independent source that Judge Hess has not yet
heard, you are wasting your time flogging ancient history in emails and on your blog.
Your perception that the Rice - Gianelli correspondence was choreographed in July in order to
transmit to you now as disinformation as ridiculous as your belief that a lawyer employed by the
IRS would care one way or the other.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Subject: Your recent blog posted email claiming a "cover your ass" email
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
FYI

---Forwarded message--From: Michelle Rice [mailto:mrice@koryrice.com]

Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed "motion to vacate the
fraud domestic violence matter"? (See 4/14/2015 email)

And who cannot control their emotions? Booo hooo Kelley Lynch called me a child
molester in emails that no one ever reads....

Boooo fucking hoooooo...... man up and put on your big boy pants and shut the fuck up.

Do me a favor and keep inciting her to file more motions, you are making me richer than
fuck. In fact,
I think I can pay off my mortgage on my $2 million Hollywood Hills home with jetliner
views by the end of this year.

Michelle L. Rice, Esq.

Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Subject: The Ongoing Criminal Harassment: Attempts To Elicit Information: Obsession With
My Son, Etc.
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, "*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
Cc: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, STEPHEN GIANELLI
<stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Mr. Fabian,

I would like to ask you to review the harassing emails I continue to receive from Stephen
Gianelli. I do not know this individual and has has not entered a formal appearance on behalf of
Leonard Cohen. I, for one, am not falling for the moronic cover-your-ass campaign that
involves absolutely crass emails between Rice and Gianelli. I have advised both of these
individuals to cease and desist.

As you know, I have three hearings on October 6, 2015 related to Leonard Cohen's illegal
default judgment and attempt to extort $14 million from me. I have submitted substantial
evidence to LA Superior Court and the perjury, fraud, and contradictory statements are
excessive, outrageous, and inconceivable. In any event, once these hearings are held, I will move
onto federal court. The wrongful sealing of evidence (including publicly available documents)
and the Court's denial of my motion re. fraud upon the court are under appeal. I intend to file a
notice of appeal with respect to the fraudulent domestic violence order. Restraining orders are
simply a tactic Leonard Cohen and his representatives have employed and the Colorado order
was issued without findings.

I am well aware of the fact that opposing counsel failed to have the Court sign an Order
following the January 2014 hearing. I have documented that matter for IRS, FBI, DOJ, and
others. Gianelli's attempts to appear "helpful" are merely an attempt to elicit information. Rice
has actively encouraged this criminal to provoke and incite me and targeting my sons appears to
have been their preferred method.

I believe that Michelle Rice has spent the past 10 years targeting me, lying about me, and doing
anything it takes for her client. She evidently is also into cash.

However, the point I want to bring to your attention is this criminal's obsession with my son,
Rutger. Leonard Cohen sent me an email in 2011 wherein he stated that he saw "Rutger" copied
in. That email was not presented as evidence during my trial although the subject line (that
interested my "prosecutor") clearly stated 2004 and 2005 federal tax matters or something to that

effect. That is due to the fact that in September 2004, the FTB advised me to go get the tax
information Cohen is obligated and required to provide me. He steadfastly refuses to provide
this information to me and believes he has a legal right to subvert IRS filing and reporting
requirements. Does Rutger think I'm smart? That line is meant to upset and provoke me.
These people belong in prison. I am very clear about that fact. One of Gianelli's roles involves
criminally harassing, threatening, insulting, stalking, slandering, and intimidating witnesses.
People have contacted law enforcement, attorneys, submitted declarations, etc. Noting deters
this criminal.

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html

I have forwarded you the documents Cohen has now filed in response to my Motion to vacate
the Renewal of Judgment and Motion to Tax Costs. The fraud in those documents is extensive.
Some of these issues relate to the matter before Tax Court. They're all intertwined because this
situation with Leonard Cohen is nothing other than a criminal tax fraud matter and attempt to
obstruct justice. That would explain the lengths this unconscionable man has gone to destroy
my life, lie throughout every legal proceeding, and target my sons and others. I would like you
to be clear about the fact that I believe Leonard Cohen and his lawyers are capable of just about
anything.

All the best,

Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen, et al. (RICO)
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
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 isnt 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 dont know if your order was entered. [] He said he would serve me; I never
received anything. I dont even know if an order was filed. Its not on L.A. Superior Courts
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 COURTS 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, youre 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 Cohens $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
isnt 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 dont even see a point when you trip over it.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:14 PM
To: Michelle Rice; STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ;
Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd;
Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson;
Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Whistleblower;
Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Subject: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen, et al. (RICO)

Michelle Rice and Stephen Gianelli,

I view this ongoing harassment, in great part, as your Cover Your Ass Operation. I am aware of
the legal issues the Criminal Stalker (Gianelli) is harassing me over. I raised this issue with Hess
at the June 2015 hearing. The transcript is evidence of that fact.

Cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:44 AM
Subject: Pending motion
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,

Don't be so obtuse.

Your pending motion to vacate will not turn on "the existence of a legal conspiracy".

You already knew that Judge Hess never SIGNED a written order that he directed in the
1/17/2014 minute order, AND that fact means there was no prior determination off service in
this case?

Fine. But I don't think so.

You already knew that a minute order that directs the preparation of a written order is NOT a
final, appealable order? Again, I don't think so.

This area of the law is complex and some lawyers and judges don't even understand it. I learned
these things the hard way, by having an appeal dismissed and working like hell to get it
reinstated.

Try to keep your eye on the ball.

You may not think I am trying to "help" you but I assure you MR feels differently. And she is
seething.

Just read the pinpoint materials I sent you and consider my bullet points and then do what you
have to do.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:25 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
One final point re the argument that service has already been litigated.

I have already given you the authority for the fact that because no final appealable order was
signed there is no res judicata.

In addition, Judge Hess refused to consider your moving declaration at the January 17, 2014
hearing because it was unsigned. Therefore, the motion was denied for reasons OTHER than
whether you were served.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
California law is settled that pending appeal a trial court judgment is not final and will not be
given res judicata effect (Code Civ. Proc. 1049). It therefore follows that an unsigned minute
order that is not yet appealable because it directs a written order that has not yet been signed will
not be given res judicata effect either. (See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 13, comment b
(the "finality" requirement for purposes of claim preclusion resembles the concept of finality for purposes
of appellate review).

Therefore, there is no res judicata as to the January 17, 2014 ruling.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate; reply memorandum
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,

The minute order issued by Judge Hess on January 17, 2014 expressly directs the preparation of
a written order. (See attached minute order stating, in relevant part: Plaintiff is to submit an
order.)

As such it was not an appealable order. In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1410
[minute order that directs preparation of written order not final, appealable order]; in accord In
re Marriage of Dupre (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1517 (rev. denied 7/13/05) (citing Lechowick on this
point.)

Plaintiffs counsel prepared a proposed written order as directed, but instead of submitting the
proposed order to Judge Hess chambers for signature, and then following up to insure that it
had been signed, filed and entered, and then serving you with a notice of entry of same
counsel simply attached the proposed order to a pleading styled Notice of Lodging Court
Order and FILED it, where is sat (and sits) through today. (See attached, endorsed filed
Notice of Lodging Court Order. Therefore, whoever was lead counsel in the matter
committed a serious procedural error by not making sure that the order was submitted to Judge
Hess for signature and by not following up periodically to insure its entry.

Because you COULD NOT have appealed the January 17 minute order as Judge Hess stated on June
23, 2015, and the minute order that directs the preparation of a written order is neither final
nor binding. (See attached transcript, page 3 lines 26-28.)

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:00 PM
Subject: Your September 24, 2015 blog post at 12:34 PM

To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Now you know who the mastermind is. For all of it.
I mean, she says she has a 170 IQ. Which has got to be a genius record for a lawyer.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Subject: After you lose in BC338322, on appeal, and in 017085-15 while contemplating your
next move - if any
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

A successful federal pro se lawsuit requires more than a grievance. The suit must succinctly and
cogently state a claim that is legally recognized by a prior published appellate opinion that is
factually on-point and that the claim is within the jurisdiction of the federal court. The suit must
be filed within the applicable time that has elapsed since the plaintiff was first damaged by the
conduct complained of or first discovered she was damaged thereby (as the case may be). There
must be no applicable privileges that the defense may assert. And the claims may not arise out of
a transaction or transactions that have been previously litigated under the law of the state where
the parties reside.
Most critical, the plaintiff must be poised from the filing of her complaint and very first status
conference to succinctly and cogently communicate the above to a court that is inherently
skeptical of pro se lawsuits (especially those arising under civil RICO) and has considerable tools
at its disposal to weed out and dismiss claims that it views as unmeritorious early on in the
process especially in fee waiver cases.
In federal court you are randomly assigned to a single judge for the remainder of the case.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they are not catch-all courts where plaintiffs
can automatically go after losing in state court and its judges aggressively police the limited
availability that forum and aggressively probe and assess the merits of every pro se case that is
filed very early on.
Once a federal judge forms the impression that a case is without merit, its all over except for
the written order.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM
Subject:

To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
On July 23, 2015, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground
that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination was issued to petitioner for taxable year
1999. On September 16, 2015, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion To Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, wherein respondent asserts that there is no record of respondent having
issued any whistle blower determination under section 7623 to petitioner.
TRANSLATION:
Your tax court petition complains of matters that occurred with reference to taxable year 1999.
But the IRS claims that no notice of determination was ever issued to you by the IRS for that tax
year. Therefore, unless the IRS is wrong about that, or unless you filed a form 211 to the IRS
whistleblower office, which may provide an alternative basis for jurisdiction, your petition will be
dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, the tax court is providing you with an opportunity to file an objection to
the IRS motion to dismiss, as supplemented, on or before October 22. In the meantime, the
court will reserve ruling on your motion to supplement the record, because if the motion to
dismiss is granted the motion to supplement the record will be moot.
WHAT WEILL HAPPEN NEXT:
You have already said in an email copied to me that you have never filed a whistleblower
complaint with the IRS. And it is evident that even if a notice of determination was mailed to
you by the IRS concerning tax year 1999 (which the IRS DENIES) that you failed to file your
petition within 60 days of the date of mailing of that notice.
In other words, GAME OVER.
ATTACHED TAX COURT ORDER DATED OCTOBER 1, 2015.
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Subject: Fwd:
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, "*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, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>

Mr. Fabian,

Gianelli, who Rice encourages to harass ms, has sent me a copy of the Tax Court order. I never
filed a whistle blower request. I've already informed IRS Commissioner's Staff that i would
rather live in a cave than apply for a whistle blower award. In any event, this issue has nothing
to do with the fraud upon the court matter. I am aware of the 9th Circuit Courts holdings re.
Tax Court, fraud upon the court, and Hazel Atlas. I will respond to the Order. I am a little bit
overwhelmed with the insanity with Cohen and his lawyers that includes an attempt to conceal
evidence and obstruct justice. I am very clear about that. The crime fraud exception is now an
issue and I raised that with Hess. He was clear - he has no jurisdiction over IRS/Tax Court. I
submitted my declaration and evidence to IRS prior to filing my Motion for Terminating
Sanctions (fraud upon the court) on March 1, 2015.

It's true. No notice of determination was issued to Traditional Holdings, LLC or Blue Mist
Touring Company, Inc. They are both suspended now and Kory/Rice appear to be
representing them. I do not know how LA Superior Court, in a matter where I was not served,
transferred the corporate assets to Leonard Cohen personally. Cohen, Kory & Rice understood
that these entities were suspended.

That's what I plan to do. I will, of course, appeal any adverse decision on the part of Tax
Court. Since Tax Court confirmed receipt of my additional information (re. Gianelli, etc.), I will
provide the Court with your communications and Gianelli's communications with Kory/Rice.
Perhaps Tax Court will be impressed with Rice's prowess and the fact that she encourages a man
who criminally targeted my sons for over six straight years. No one that I know is impressed.

Kelley

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
On July 23, 2015, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground
that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination was issued to petitioner for taxable year
1999. On September 16, 2015, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion To Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, wherein respondent asserts that there is no record of respondent having
issued any whistle blower determination under section 7623 to petitioner.

TRANSLATION:

Your tax court petition complains of matters that occurred with reference to taxable year 1999.
But the IRS claims that no notice of determination was ever issued to you by the IRS for that tax
year. Therefore, unless the IRS is wrong about that, or unless you filed a form 211 to the IRS
whistleblower office, which may provide an alternative basis for jurisdiction, your petition will be
dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, the tax court is providing you with an opportunity to file an objection to
the IRS motion to dismiss, as supplemented, on or before October 22. In the meantime, the
court will reserve ruling on your motion to supplement the record, because if the motion to
dismiss is granted the motion to supplement the record will be moot.

WHAT WEILL HAPPEN NEXT:

You have already said in an email copied to me that you have never filed a whistleblower
complaint with the IRS. And it is evident that even if a notice of determination was mailed to
you by the IRS concerning tax year 1999 (which the IRS DENIES) that you failed to file your
petition within 60 days of the date of mailing of that notice.

In other words, GAME OVER.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Proper credit in the renewed judgment amount for the "policy limit" settlement
contribution on behalf of defendant Richard Westin; BC338322
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You are entitled to a credit against the judgment amount for the amounts contributed by
Richard Westins insurance carrier toward Plaintiffs damages, and amount that Michelle Rice
has characterized in writing as a policy limit settlement. (See attached email.)
There is case law holding that the judgment debtor is entitled to object to the renewal of a
judgment on this basis (i.e. that the renewed judgment amount does not reflect proper credits
due). However, given your attitude I am not inclined to spend the time finding the citation for
you.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
ATTACHED: MICHELLE RICE EMAIL:

From: Michelle Rice To: "stephengianelli@gmail.com"

Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:29 PM Subject:
Re:
Stephen: I attach the civil case document image from LASC online services which shows that
KL filed the motion on Friday 8/9. We have not been served on LC's behalf. It takes several
days to update the public database. Her filings should show up by the end of the week there.
LOL - "Gibson Dumb and Dumber" as KL calls them. We will NOT have Edelman or GDC
anywhere near this response. I researched and wrote the complaint against KL and Richard
Westin as a 2nd year lawyer. Edelman and GDC were essentially a "filing service" for our firm.
Every essential "victory" against KL was masterminded, researched and instituted by me and LC

knows this - the Writ of Possession getting LC's docs and personal effects back from KL's
house on Mandeville Canyon Rd, the LA restraining order in Oct. 2005 (wrote LC's dec), the
Colorado permanent restraining order in 2008 (I drafted LC's declaration and hired Harvey
Steinberg, CO counsel), the mediation against Richard Westin (wrote LC's brief and attended
mediation with Justice Stone of JAMS), etc., etc. Edelman sat there during the JAMS mediation
and did not have a command of any of the facts. Edelman was also convinced that KL "cut off
the chain of causation" against Richard Westin and that LC could not recover anything against
Westin for KL's acts as the insurance carrier vehemently argued. The call to Lloyd's of London
(the reinsurer for Westin's malpractice policy) for the policy limit payout at the end of the day
which was based on my tort argument in the mediation brief convinced Edelman otherwise.
Seriously, he did not do anything in helping get the default judgment against KL - his firm
"fronted" the litigation, but by and large all of the hard, heavy duty thinking came from me and
Robert. Michelle L. Rice, Esq. Kory & Rice LLP 9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills,
CA 90212 Phone: (310) 285-1633 Fax: (310) 278-7641 NOTICE: This email is confidential and
may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email
in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please
report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for your
cooperation
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:10 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

The State Bar doesn't care about your bogus allegations of "misconduct".
The tax court will be dismissing at the end of the month.
Your appeals are going nowhere.
Any federal court suit will last about 60 days.
It's over, loser.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:28 AM

Subject: It's realy very simple - there is no jurisdiction. You bear the burden of affirmatively
showing jurisdiction and have failed to do so.
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

The tax court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent
expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v.
Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively and, as the

party invoking the Courts jurisdiction, petitioner bears the burden of proving that
jurisdiction exists. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
268, 270 (2000), affd, 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001).

Ms. Lynch, you have not cited a federal statute that you contend gives the tax court
jurisdiction to hear your petition concerning as it does a prior, separate tax court matter to
which you were not a party and which was concluded more than ten years ago - let alone

demonstrated how your petition comes within that jurisdictional statue.

That is because the tax court DOES NOT IN FACT HAVE JURISDICTION over the matters
you seek to raise.
It is pretty clear what is going on.
Judge Hess has barred you from coming into the front door to attack the 2006 judgment in
BC338322, so you are trying to enter through the kitchen window by in effect collaterally
attacking the underpinnings of the 2006 judgment through your 2015 tax court petition.
Not going to happen.
There is no jurisdiction to hear your petition, you have cited no federal statute that provides
jurisdiction for this court of limited jurisdiction, and the tax court has no choice but to dismiss.
Game over.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:02 PM
Subject: Your latest blog post - publicly posting a copy of your "objection" to the IRS motion to
dismiss
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

Your objection to the IRS motion to dismiss your tax court petition addresses the merits of
your assertion that a tax court decision may be vacated if fraudulently obtained, but you fail to
address the basis of the tax courts jurisdiction over your petition NOW more than a decade after the
stipulated judgment in question was entered.
You also characterize Rule 162 as follows:
Under Rule 162, unless the Court shall otherwise permit, a motion to vacate must be filed
within 30 days after a decision has been entered, and sections 7481(a)(1) and 7483 provide
that a Tax Court decision becomes final 90 days after entry if no party files a notice of appeal.
(Bold italics mine.)
But you have not filed a motion to vacate in the tax court proceeding wherein the stipulated
decision you complain about was issued, nor are you a party to that original tax court
proceeding, nor was your tax court petition (even if it could be deemed a motion) filed within
the time limit specified by Rule 162 as you characterize it.
You have no apparent basis for standing, your filing is untimely, and you fail to explain the statutory
basis for tax court jurisdiction over your petition.
Game over.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:03 AM
Subject: PS
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You do wee the irony dont you?
Aside from the fact that Michelle Rice is living in the $2M house that under different
circumstances would have been your house, is getting rich off of royalty income that you
claim an entitlement to, occupies the seat on Cohens private jet that otherwise would have been
your seat, and otherwise has taken your place at the Cohen banquet (literally and figuratively)
-have you considered the fact that if it werent for you and your dogged pursuit of Cohen
Michelle Rice would not even have a legal career?

You ARE her legal career!

Who says God doesnt have a sense of humor!
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 2:46 AM
Subject: Cover your ass campaign? Ha!
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Since Michelle Rice is the one who convinced both Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory of the
need to get you in the system by having you arrested and prosecuted in 2012 for criminal
harassment/restraining order violations as well as being the architect of the entire litigation
strategy against you, your ire is misplaced.
Michelle is the one who used her contacts in law enforcement to have you
arrested/jailed/prosecuted not me.
Nor am I the one getting fucking rich off of your legal issues or living in a $2M house with
jetliner views paid for by Leonard Cohen.
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:34 AM
Subject: Your blog post of 10-10-2015
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Michelle Rice is not my colleague nor is she in my league as a former trial lawyer. In fact, she has
never tried a case at all. And most of the "victories" she lists were against an unrepresented party
she has analogized to "a retarded kid" - i.e. you.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Subject: FW: Michelle Rice's latest email to me dated July 25, 2015 11:35 AM Athens time (1:30
am Los Angles time)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

The Fabulous Michelle Rice, Esq. at a Cohen award dinner

----- Forwarded Message ----From: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
To: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Michelle Rice's latest email to me dated July 25, 2015 11:35 AM Athens time (1:30
am Los Angles time)

Get your facts straight.

For the record, I have been practicing law for 12 years. I was first admitted in the District of
Columbia in 2003 - by my math that is 12 years, not 9 as you imply below.
Apparently math is not your strong suit. Prior to my career in law, I was an economist (A.B.D. all but dissertation - Johns Hopkins)
The "success" I referred to in my email is my 10-year representation of Leonard Cohen includes
the following (note: I am also co-manager with Robert and LC's intellectual property counsel)
- achieving policy limit payout on behalf of Leonard Cohen in JAMS arbitration against
Lynch's co-defendant Richard Westin, Esq. in Feb. 2006. I researched and wrote the brief under
my signature.
(which I can assure you was a fully contested matter)
- researching and drafting the complaint in Cohen v. Lynch for Scott Edelman to file
- conceiving of the idea and accompanying Santa Monica Sheriffs Dept on the Writ of
Possession at Lynch's residence in October 2005 to retrieve Cohen's personal property and
business records
- drafting LC's declaration in the permanent Colorado Restraining Order matter which cocounsel Harvey Steinberg (Colorado admitted lawyer) argued in 2008 hearing
- drafting Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Cohen in District of Colorado
litigation with former investment advisor - remaining $150,000 in Traditional Holdings funds

released to Cohen
check from the District Court's registry made out for Cohen c/o me as his attorney of
record in Sept. 2008
- drafting Cohen's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees in District of Colorado
litigation - Motion for $260k in attys fees denied
- Registration of Colorado Restraining Order in California in 2011 - obtaining permanent
order for client
- filing police report with LAPD against Lynch in 2011
- Working with PI/TMU to get Lynch arrested for violations in Berkeley in March 2012
- drafting the Opposition to Lynch's first Motion to Vacate (Jan. 2014) for Jeffrey Korn to
file
- drafting second Opposition to Lynch's Motion for Terminating Sanctions
- drafting Sanctions Motion against KL

Note: the above list is the litigation matters for Leonard. I also do considerable work in the
intellectual property area including: obtaining trademark registration for the LEONARD
COHEN mark; reviewing various licensing requests, reprint permissions, literary agreements and
other IP agreements, issuing take down notices for bootleg merchandise on eBay, as well as all
trademark and copyright infringement matters (i.e., Youtube takedowns under DMCA).
Just for the record. I am not just a litigator. I am a "360" lawyer. My main area of practice is
IP, not litigation.

Michelle L. Rice, Esq.

Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:17 AM

Subject: Hazel-Atlas
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
PS:
Do yourself a favor, before you drive into another blind litigation alley in front of a far less
forgiving federal bench.
When asked to apply, assess, or set aside a state court judgment the federal district court must
apply the procedural law of the state in which the judgment was issued.
As explicitly set forth in Cohens opposition to your 2015 motion to set aside the 2006
judgment, California does not follow Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co. That was
conclusively established by the California Supreme court, California does not follow Hazel-Atlas
and will only set a judgment aside in the case of extrinsic, as opposed to intrinsic fraud on the
court (including alleged perjury underpinning the judgment). And even when a judgement is
issued by a federal trial court (Cohens judgement isnt) the Federal Rules now place a strict time
limit on motions to set aside judgments procured through alleged fraud.
So it is not a question of how a federal court will interpret Hazel-Atlas the issue is that the
case is inapplicable to an attack on a California state-court judgment based on alleged intrinsic
fraud.
As for your off-hand statement that you guess The Supreme Court: will be considering whether
Cohens judgment will be set aside, no they will not.
This term the Supreme Court granted a mere 18 petitions for review out of the many hundreds
filed. There is zero chance of the United States Supreme Court granting a pro se petition for
review in your case. And even if it did, the result would be the same: Hazel-Atlas does not apply
to a California state-court judgment.
This is easy enough to research start with the cases cited in Cohens opposition on this point.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated October 12, 2015 also posted on her blog
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

The 2006 default judgment in BC338322 does not bind the IRS, it binds YOU.

Consequently, under res judicata any claims you may have enjoyed against Leonard Cohen
arising out of your former business relationship and/or to interests in Cohen related business
entities (Blue Mist, Traditional Holdings) are PRECLUDED.

Your attempts to go back in time and unwind the 2003 stipulated disposition in Cohens 2001
tax court case through your 2015 petition suffers from unrelated but equally fatal disabilities
including a lack of jurisdiction for the tax court to even consider it.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

And, Ms. Lynch, I am speaking for myself and on one else. I have copied you in no one else.
Get a clue.

I seriously doubt that Kory Rice cares what you think otherwise they would be writing you,
not me. But they certainly do not dictate whom I cc or not cc on my emails.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: Cease and Desist
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, rkory <rkory@rkmgment.com>,
"*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field

<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal"

<Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Michelle Rice and Robert Kory,

I do not want to be copied on the Cover Your Ass emails. This has gone on for over six years since Gianelli heard from Rice in May 2009. My sons and many others have been targeted. That
includes, but is not limited to, Paulette Brandt.

Gianelli was in touch with Bergman a number of years ago and I have that evidence.
Furthermore, Rice's email notes that she fired Bergman for incompetence but that also looked
like a cover your ass operation unless your firm is one of the more unprofessional law firms in
the United States.

I will be filing a RICO suit. Tax Court will decide if it has jurisdiction over fraud upon the
court. As the appellate division tends to rubber stamp LA Superior Court's decision, I will more
than likely be pursuing these matters to the U.S. Supreme Court. They might find your
interpretations of Hazel-Atlas fascinating.

The Tax Court matter pre-dates the fraud judgment so I don't think that argument works. The
fraud tax refunds pre-date the fraud default judgment. The requirement that Cohen provide me
with IRS required tax and corporate information pre-dates the judgment.

This conduct should cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:32 AM
Subject: RE: Cease and Desist
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: mrice@koryrice.com, rkory@koryrice.com
Ms. Lynch,

There is no three of you.

I keep my own counsel and I act on my own as I always have.

Please note the italicized and yellow highlighted portion of Robert Korys email to me dated July
27, 2015, quoted in pertinent part below:

The fact remains, you were the first to copy Dan. Had you not copied Dan, Michelle
would not have had to fire him. Your effort to enlist Dan in criticism of Michelle forced her
hand. You are not part of the Cohen legal team. [] What Michelle may have said to Dan
follows directly from your efforts to enlist Dan as your ally. (R. Kory email dated July 27,
2015, emphasis added.)

Therefore, your continued efforts to conflate Gianelli with Kory-Rice-Cohen are inappropriate
as are your imputation of my emailed correspondence to anyone except me. I am not part of the
Cohen legal team officially or unofficially. I dont even like them very much at this point.
How much clearer do facts need to be for you to get it?

And, for your information, no one much cares what crazy inferences you pull out of thin air. No
one has any apparent motive to pretend to distance themselves from each other. There is a
$14M civil judgment against you that became final in 2006 and that you tried unsuccessfully to
attack on January 17, 2014, June 23, 2015, and October 6, 2015 and the validity of service and
the judgment has stood fast. At least one federal court has already given the judgment full faith
and credit. Your 2009 motion to vacate the 2008 Colorado protection order was summarily
denied, as was your motion to set aside the 2011 California registration of that order.

You are fresh out of legal moves.

Your July 2015 tax court petition that also seeks to undermine the factual underpinnings of the
2006 civil judgment is about to be dismissed.

Your pending appeals (including the notice of appeal you filed on October 6) are going
nowhere.

Any federal court lawsuit will be slapped down by the court before the ink is dry on the filing
stamp.

Simply stated, no one cares that you absurdly claim that my emails are on behalf of Kory-RiceCohen because you are powerless to take any effective legal action of any kind. Its over.

As for your cease and desist, I am REPLYING to YOUR emails to me, you disparage me daily
on your public blog (which public posts I have every right to respond to), and after YOU sent to
me 20,000 +/- unsolicited emails (many of them obscene, vulgar, and threatening) I pretty much
own you.

Any questions?

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 12:08 AM
To: rkory; Michelle Rice; STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field;
ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane;
blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan;
hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko;
Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Subject: Re: Cease and Desist

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Let me know if I'm unclear with these three stark raving lunatics.

Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM (no subject line)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: mrice@koryrice.com, rkory@koryrice.com

Ms. Lynch,

You are wasting your efforts by complaining to Kory Rice about my email communications.

I have no affiliation with Kory, Rice or Leonard Cohen. They do not control whom I
email. Nor am I arguing anything.

I am simply responding to your blog posted mass email stating:

As the appellate division tends to rubber stamp LA Superior Court's decision, I will more than
likely be pursuing these matters to the U.S. Supreme Court. They might find your
interpretations of Hazel-Atlas fascinating. (Kelley Lynch email, dated Oct 12, 2015 at 12:30
PM.)

As I said in my email, it is not a question of interpretations of Hazel-Atlas; the issue is

instead whether or not Hazel-Atlas applies at all to a California state-court judgment.

That is a question of California law, not federal law and the California Supreme Court has
declined to follow Hazel-Atlas. Instead, it has followed the harsh rule of United States v.
Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 [25 L. Ed. 93] requiring a showing of EXTRINSIC FRAUD, a case
followed in California by an unbroken line of decisions starting with Weir v. Vail, 65 Cal. 466,
470. (See particularly Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129, 133-135.) That the rule of United States v.
Throckmorton, supra, as adopted by this state, is still our law is evident from the wealth of recent
cases which have recognized its authority. (e.g. Coffelt v. Coffelt, 229 Cal. App. 2d 659, 664; Hopper
v. Hopper, 224 Cal. App. 2d 446, 447-448; Otani v. Kisling, 219 Cal. App. 2d 438, 442.) All of this is
spelled out in the opposition previously served on you.

Moreover, there is no question that perjury to the court is intrinsic fraud. (Jorgensen v. Jorgensen,
32 Cal. 2d 13, 18; Preston v. Wyoming Pac. Oil Co., 197 Cal. App. 2d 517, 528-531.)

This is all hornbook law. It is not argument it is legal fact, written in stone.

Finally, review by the United States Supreme Court is DISCRETIONARY. That means it is up

to the Court as to whether or not it even considers your case. And as I said, this term it
has accepted only 18-cases for review out of many hundred petitions requesting it to do
so.

The issues implicated by your belated attempts to set aside a California state-court default
judgment EIGHT YEARS after it was entered where the trial court exercised its discretion
under well-established California procedural rules and twice denied your motions is not an issue
for the United States Supreme Court.

It just is not going to happen. Nor can the US Supreme Court tell the California Supreme Court
to follow Hazel-Atlas. That is a matter of state-court litigation procedure entirely within the
province of the California Supreme Court.

Your claims to the contrary are simply ridiculous.

So is your stubborn insistence that I am a member of Cohens legal team, officially or otherwise.
Not only is there zero evidence to suggest that, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM
Subject:
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.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@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti"
<mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, 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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Michelle Rice and Robert Kory,

The Criminal Proxy Stalker, who continues to argue Cohen's legal positions, has sent me yet
another criminally harassing email. I will reply to the two of you as you serve as Cohen's general
counsel, personal manager, and business manager.

If you don't know the difference between RICO and Hazel-Atlas, I would strongly recommend
that you research the differences. Since federal courts do follow Hazel-Atlas, including Tax
Court, when Cohen's legal team lies in federal court (or perjures himself, commits fraud, etc.), I
will file a motion re. fraud upon the court. That's a simple fact. I am extremely clear that
California condones the tampering with the administration of justice and seems to feel that
perjury, fraud, and litigation misconduct results in a fair legal proceeding. I completely disagree.
You have lied about serving me the summons and complaint in Case No. BC338322 and
continue to do so. Or, you have lied that I was served but the proof of service lists a third party
Jane Doe who does not exist.

The state court judgment vis a vis federal tax matters will be at issue. That will include, but is
not limited to, the fraudulent tax refunds Cohen obtained six months prior to the entry of
default.

Everyone takes a chance going to the U.S. Supreme Court so I don't feel as though I'm in the

minority here.

I won't be starting with your alleged arguments since you don't have any. You have fraudulent
misrepresentations, perjured statements, and litigation misconduct and tactics.

This conduct should cease and desist.

I still have not received a copy of the "declaration" filed in Case No. BQ033717. Is there
something you forgot to lie to the court about during the hearing?

Kelley Lynch
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:06 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov

Ms. Lynch,

At a minimum, you knew by 2005 that Cohen had sued you for millions and had entered your
default. (The suit was COVERED WORLD WIDE in every major newspaper, on line, and in
the entertainment trade publications.) You knew by 2006 that a default hearing was coming up,
and the date, time and location of same.

You chose to not appear in the lawsuit at the time, to claim you were not served or to proclaim your innocence.

Instead, you tried to back off Cohen with threats to go to the IRS which you did, and you
flooded Cohen and his attorneys with harassing emails.

By June of 2009 you were aware that Cohen had obtained a $7M default judgment against you.
You wrote to me at that point, stating that you were well aware of the judgment, that you
considered it evidence of tax fraud and that you had no intention of asking the court to set it
aside.

By April of 2010 you started writing to me claiming that you were going to be filing a motion to
set the judgment aside by the end of the month. But you took no action to do so.

In fact, you waited until the fall of 2013 more than EIGHT YEARS AFTER BEING SUED
and seven years after you were notified of the default hearing to set damages that you chose not
to attend to ask the court to set the 2006 default judgment aside, on the theory that you were
never served, That motion was denied on January 17, 2014.

You did not claim that the 2006 default judgment was the product of fraud and perjury until
you filed your second motion to set aside the default on those grounds in 2015 TEN YEARS
AFTER COHEN SUED YOU, and NINE YEARS AFTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED AGAINST YOU.

With all due respect, Ms. Lynch, and despite all your drama, innocent people dont hide from a
lawsuit that accuses them of embezzling millions from their employer and if you really thought
that Cohen was the one who owed YOU millions, you would have rushed to court in 2005 to
file that cross-complaint to recover your millions instead of moving around the country
sniping at Cohen on the internet and in emails.

In any event, most tax payers would not be too impressed with the manner in which you have
managed your own personal and legal affairs over the last decade as you found out in April of
2013 when a Los Angeles jury convicted you of criminal harassment and restraining order
violations sending you to jail for 18-months.

As for the California rules prohibiting attempts to set aside a judgment based on a claim that
the witnesses lied the rule is designed to foster finality, because EVERYONE says that

when they lose.

Finally, when you made a decision to stay away from the default hearing where the amount of
damages to be awarded to Cohen was decided you FORFEITED any objections based on the
nature and sufficiency of that evidence. What did you do instead? YOU WAITED OVER
NINE YEARS to come into court to object to that evidence.

And you call the court and the other parties a disgrace?

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
___________________________________________________________________________
______________________

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM (no subject line)
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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

The Criminal Proxy Stalker, who is an absolute moron, continues to harass me. Kory and Rice
are copied in.
The judgment has nothing whatsoever to do with Cohen's fraud tax refunds; LCI's illegal K-1s;
etc. The federal tax matters that have been implicated are mind boggling. That would include
Cohen's including me on TH tax returns and then determining conveniently (with his personal
corporate.tax lawyer) that my ownership interest in TH was a "mistake."

In any event, the Cover Your Ass Operation is laughable. Gianelli is arguing Cohen's legal
positions and has been for over six straight years - while targeting my sons and many others.
Who would ever believe these liars?

Does Hazel-Atlas apply to California cases? We shall find out. I cannot imagine one taxpayer
approving of the tampering with the administration of justice or the use of fraud and perjury to
obtain verdicts, judgments, and orders. It's a disgrace.

Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:33 AM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email to the IRS/FBI/Justice dated Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:50
AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,

Your allegation that Leonard Cohen has a history of drug and alcohol abuse does not mean that
you dont. In fact, it is a possible explanation about why he didnt fire you at the first signs that

you had a problem.

I would not bother submitting another declaration or motion to the tax court until you receive a
ruling on the pending motion to dismiss if I were you. The court has already indicated that it will
hold the last one you filed in abeyance until it rules on the dispositive motion.

Once the motion to dismiss is granted which it will be because your petition is not filed in
response to a notice of determination by the IRS concerning the tax year you purport to address
and for that reason the court lacks jurisdiction to even consider it all of your collateral claims,
motions and declarations become moot.

And flooding Mr. Fabian and the IRS/FBI/Justice with a dozen more emails is not aiding your
cause. Just the opposite in fact.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:50 AM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; Michelle Rice; rkory; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field;
ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane;
blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan;
hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko;
Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM

Hi Mr. Fabian,

The insanity continues. I don't have a history of drug or alcohol abuse. Leonard Cohen does.
It's well documented. I'll include the latest criminally harassing emails in my new declaration
that will be submitted to Tax Court in the next day or two re. the attempts to interfere with
federal tax matters.

Kelley

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Senate Judiciary,

I don't have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Cohen does and it's well documented. The
Criminal Stalker is simply defending Leonard Cohen. It is incredible that this Canadian would
move to this country and engage in this conduct. But, he did have to obtain a new green card
because - as he informed me - Canada Revenue asks where you filed your prior tax returns while
IRS does not. Canada's National Treasure cannot live in Canada due to tax and residence
problems. He has a long history of fabricated narratives. They certainly work with LA
Confidential. I will be addressing the federal tax matters implicated by the fraud default, fraud
refunds, etc. in my federal RICO suit. The Criminal Stalker is attempting to interfere with a
federal tax matter and has copied in Cohen's lawyers. I think that sums things up.

Kelley

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory,

I am advising the three of you to cease and desist. You have lied relentlessly, including to IRS,
FBI, and DOJ, so I do not intend to take your word for anything.

I know precisely how Arjatsalo's website functions and it is with Cohen's approval. Gianelli no
longer wishes to publicly support Leonard Cohen but just wrote to IRS Chief Trial Counsel's
office arguing Cohen's legal positions and attempting to interfere with federal tax matters?

I find it extremely deranged that Gianelli is writing as though he is speaking to a third party
when he addresses his criminally harassing email to me but mentions "Kelley Lynch." I didn't
become over-extended. That's another Leonard Cohen fabricated narrative. He is the individual
with the history of psychiatric problems, drug and alcohol abuse (including the meth and LSD
he spoke to his biographer about while lying to a jury that I "assailed" his reputation), and
fabricated narratives. Since the Criminal Stalker Gianelli didn't know me or Leonard Cohen for
the 20 years I worked with Cohen, his lies are absolutely preposterous and obscene. Cohen
didn't discover theft. He is the thief and has now stolen from me, Phil Spector, and Machat &
Machat. He has also obtained fraudulent tax refunds and appears to have serious tax
"controversies" in the U.S. and Canada that may involve funneling income off-shore before I
ever met him. Cohen heard I was and had reported his tax fraud to IRS. He then spent months
attempting to coerce me into a deal that appeared to involve providing false testimony about his
representatives.

I wasn't served Cohen's lawsuit and that appears to have been intentional, after I brought it to
Cohen and his representatives attention, because he had to file and amend his 2003, 2004, and
2005 tax returns and obtain fraudulent refunds from IRS and FTB that have been challenged as
such.

I have nothing to feel guilty about and Cohen, who has stolen from me and bankrupted me,
certainly doesn't feel guilty. In fact, he feels entitled to lie in every court he has made an
appearance in. I suppose he has some fabricated excuse for his testimony that I never "stole"
from him - just his peace of mind.

Criminally harassing me, my sons, sister, friends, Paulette Brandt, and others is indeed a crime
although I am aware that LA is running a celebrity justice program that involves lying about
federal tax matters, and other issues, for Leonard Cohen.

Cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: mrice@koryrice.com, rkory@koryrice.com, Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, washington.field
@ic.fbi.gov, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Ms. Lynch,

1. In July of 2015 I wrote to Jarkko Arjatsalo and asked him to delete my account at the Leonard
Cohen Forum; he did. I simultaneously deleted my blog as well as every on-line
Google/YouTube comment critical of you and supportive of Leonard Cohen. I did these things
because I no longer wish to publicly support Leonard Cohen in his dispute with you.

2. That does not mean that I agree with your patently incorrect legal positions and preposterous
conspiracy theories. It is not either or. One is not either on your side or on Cohens side.

3. I have come to realize certain things about Leonard Cohen. While I am quite confident that
Kelley Lynch became financialy over-extended and invaded Leonard Cohens accounts to keep
her head above water, I can also see that Cohens failure to respect and to maintain professional
boundaries, as well has his propensity to attract flawed people who are blindly loyal (his most
valued trait) contributed to your false perception of entitlement that lead you to be able to justify
your theft in your own mind (aided as well by your well documented drug and alcohol abuse).
This in no way excuses your misconduct, but it does help to explain it and it also helps to
explain why you felt so betrayed when Cohen, upon discovering your theft, cast you out of the
fold and sued you. If an employer fails to respect professional boundaries he should not be
surprised if his employees dont either.

4. I have not lied. At a minimum you were AWARE of Cohens lawsuit from the prominent,

world-wide media coverage and from your friends and family by 2005. That is a fact. You
received an email from Scott Edelmans office inviting you to attend the 2006 default hearing
where the amount of damages were decided and you elected not to attend even though you were
living in LA. That is also a fact. Any reasonable, innocent person who knew they and not been
served with a lawsuit that accused them of embezzling millions that was being widely reported in
the press and who also believed that the plaintiff was the one who owed them millions would RUN,
NOT WALK, to court and not only proclaim their innocence but would bring to the courts
attention the alleged lack of service as well as take reasonable steps to collect the millions they
were owned from the plaintiff. ESPECIALLY if they were in financial distress and facing
foreclosure and homelessness. But you did NONE of these things. Instead you AVOIDED
going to court. Then you left the state. This behavior is not consistent with the way you spin
events now. That is simply human nature and common sense.

5. Served or not (and for the above reasons I believe you were served, and that you failed to
show in court because you were ashamed of your guilt and humiliated by it) it is now too late to
do anything to make the 2006 default judgment go away. You waited too long, you tried in 2014
and 2015 to do so, and you (predictably) failed. Its over except in Kelley Lynchs mind. You
cannot turn back the clock ten years or more on legal proceedings long ago final and undo them.

6. Pointing these things out is miles from a crime particularly in response to one of your many
thousands of emails and blog posts mentioning me by name.

7. I do not have, nor have I ever had, a personal or professional affiliation with Michelle Rice,
Robert Kory, or Leonard Cohen. I certainly do not represent any of those persons and never
have. Since 2013 I have been retired, living on Crete, and have no clients.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 1:38 AM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; Michelle Rice; rkory; Division, Criminal; Washington Field;
*IRS.Commisioner; ASKDOJ; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa;
khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet
Ryan; hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko;
Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM

Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory,

I view this email to DOJ and FBI as blatant obstruction of justice and further fraud. It is
overwhelmingly obvious that Criminal Stalker Proxy Lawyer Gianelli continues to argue Cohen's
legal positions and is an unofficial member of Cohen's legal team. That might explain why
Jarkko Arjatsalo permits him to post lies on the Leonard Cohen Files but banned Ann Diamond
who is not a scorned lover and never stalked or harassed Cohen. Nor did Mick Jagger or Rolling
Stones obtain a restraining order against her.

Knowledge of a lawsuit is not effecting service. Your lies will not change that fact. I was not
served Cohen's lawsuit and have continuously addressed this since August 2005. However,
Cohen seemed to understand that, by December 2005, the default judgment (which I wasn't
served notice of either) was a sure thing. That would explain why I discovered fraud IRS and
FTB refunds in 2012 and 2013, respectively, and challenged them as fraudulent. Cohen also
filed and amended his 2003, 2004, and 2005 tax returns, six months prior to the entry of default,
using the fraudulent and fabricated complaint narrative. That will be addressed in my federal
RICO suit together with other federal tax matters that have been implicated. That would
include, but is not limited to, Cohen's refusal to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate
information (much of which was due by the first quarter of 2005); rescind the illegal LCI K-1s
(which undermine the fraud expense ledger that is evidence of self-dealing and money
laundering); the failure to report $8 million in income (TH) - per Kory; phantom income shifted
to me but not distributed (TH); Cohen's loans from TH (totaling approximately $6.7 million as
his personal expenses are NOT corporate expenses even if he is arguing alter ego); etc.

I was not served this lawsuit. I wrote IRS in July 2004 about my concerns and reported Cohen's
tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer on April 15, 2005 - after Cohen and Kory offered me 50%
community property and other compensation. It was and remains my understanding that I was
being asked to provide false testimony against Greenberg Westin, Cleveland, Grubman
Indursky, Greg McBowman, and possibly others. No one harassed Cohen or his lawyers.

The default judgment is evidence of fraud, theft, and embezzlement. The corporations were and
remain suspended. I do consider the judgment evidence of tax fraud.

I didn't start "writing" the criminal known as Gianelli. He has been harassing, stalking,
threatening, intimidating, and slandering me, my sons, sister, friends, Paulette Brandt, and others
for over six straight years. Also witnesses who view him as a psychopath in dire need of
psychiatric assistance. It is of interest to note that Investigator William Frayeh, DA's office, felt
that the Criminal Stalker found a sympathetic ear about me with Spector's prosecutor Alan
Jackson. Following that conclusion (in 2009), Cooley publicly aligned himself with Cohen in
targeting me. During my alleged 2012 trial (where the City Attorney lied about federal tax
matters), the prosecutor elicited perjured testimony from Cohen over the April 18, 2011 email
about Phil Spector and a gun while concealing the email thread to IRS Commissioner's Staff and
information related to legitimate requests for tax and corporate information.

Rutger and Ray's declarations address some of the ongoing criminal conduct. That would
explain the witness tampering with respect to them.

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-charles-lindsey-kelley-lynchs-son.html

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html

Gianelli continues to criminally harass and stalk Paulette Brandt. He has now assisted a woman
in defrauding her of $6.700 in rental arrears after that woman phoned Robert Kory and began
ranting about Cohen and Kory to the Small Claims mediators.

I filed my motion to vacate diligently after returning to Los Angeles. Cohen has now stolen
from me; is attempting to extort money from me; and bankrupted me intentionally. He has also
stolen from Phil Spector and Machat & Machat.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/57415308/Kelley-Lynch-s-Conversation-With-Steven-MachatLeonard-Cohen-and-Phil-Spector

I was not served the lawsuit and my fraud upon the court motion (addressing egregious fraud,
perjured statements, and litigation misconduct) is not a second motion or motion to reconsider.
All of these matters are under appeal. That includes the fraud California DMV registration
based on the Colorado order that was issued without findings. That means it does not meet
VAWA requirements. Cohen and I were never in a "dating relationship" and sexual
harassment/indecent exposure are not "dating." The parties with the expectation of affection re.
Cohen appear to be the District Attorney and City Attorney of Los Angeles.

I am aware of the fraud allegations re. embezzlement but Cohen is the individual who is engaged
in embezzlement. The fraud ledger proves that and is an "exhibit" that proves money laundering
as Blue Mist Touring owns the assets Cohen and LCI have falsely taken the position they own.

I am aware that Rice believes the fact that California does not follow Hazel-Atlas seems to give
Cohen the right to commit fraud, perjury, theft, etc. I disagree.

I made no decision to stay away from the default hearing and am unaware of one in any event. I
wasn't served the summons and complaint. The Complaint is not supported by the evidence
and that Complaint was transmitted to IRS proving, from my perspective, criminal conduct on
Cohen's part. IRS has also been provided with substantial evidence.

I tend to view the parties as criminals participating in a Criminal Enterprise.

Cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

_________________________
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:06 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov
Ms. Lynch,

At a minimum, you knew by 2005 that Cohen had sued you for millions and had entered your
default. (The suit was COVERED WORLD WIDE in every major newspaper, on line, and in
the entertainment trade publications.) You knew by 2006 that a default hearing was coming up,
and the date, time and location of same.

You chose to not appear in the lawsuit at the time, to claim you were not served or to proclaim your innocence.

Instead, you tried to back off Cohen with threats to go to the IRS which you did, and you
flooded Cohen and his attorneys with harassing emails.

By June of 2009 you were aware that Cohen had obtained a $7M default judgment against you.
You wrote to me at that point, stating that you were well aware of the judgment, that you
considered it evidence of tax fraud and that you had no intention of asking the court to set it
aside.

By April of 2010 you started writing to me claiming that you were going to be filing a motion to
set the judgment aside by the end of the month. But you took no action to do so.

In fact, you waited until the fall of 2013 more than EIGHT YEARS AFTER BEING SUED
and seven years after you were notified of the default hearing to set damages that you chose not
to attend to ask the court to set the 2006 default judgment aside, on the theory that you were
never served, That motion was denied on January 17, 2014.

You did not claim that the 2006 default judgment was the product of fraud and perjury until
you filed your second motion to set aside the default on those grounds in 2015 TEN YEARS
AFTER COHEN SUED YOU, and NINE YEARS AFTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED AGAINST YOU.

With all due respect, Ms. Lynch, and despite all your drama, innocent people dont hide from a
lawsuit that accuses them of embezzling millions from their employer and if you really thought
that Cohen was the one who owed YOU millions, you would have rushed to court in 2005 to
file that cross-complaint to recover your millions instead of moving around the country
sniping at Cohen on the internet and in emails.

In any event, most tax payers would not be too impressed with the manner in which you have
managed your own personal and legal affairs over the last decade as you found out in April of
2013 when a Los Angeles jury convicted you of criminal harassment and restraining order
violations sending you to jail for 18-months.

As for the California rules prohibiting attempts to set aside a judgment based on a claim that
the witnesses lied the rule is designed to foster finality, because EVERYONE says that
when they lose.

Finally, when you made a decision to stay away from the default hearing where the amount of
damages to be awarded to Cohen was decided you FORFEITED any objections based on the
nature and sufficiency of that evidence. What did you do instead? YOU WAITED OVER
NINE YEARS to come into court to object to that evidence.

And you call the court and the other parties a disgrace?

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
___________________________________________________________________________
______________________

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM (no subject line)
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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

The Criminal Proxy Stalker, who is an absolute moron, continues to harass me. Kory and Rice
are copied in.
The judgment has nothing whatsoever to do with Cohen's fraud tax refunds; LCI's illegal K-1s;
etc. The federal tax matters that have been implicated are mind boggling. That would include
Cohen's including me on TH tax returns and then determining conveniently (with his personal
corporate.tax lawyer) that my ownership interest in TH was a "mistake."

In any event, the Cover Your Ass Operation is laughable. Gianelli is arguing Cohen's legal
positions and has been for over six straight years - while targeting my sons and many others.
Who would ever believe these liars?

Does Hazel-Atlas apply to California cases? We shall find out. I cannot imagine one taxpayer
approving of the tampering with the administration of justice or the use of fraud and perjury to
obtain verdicts, judgments, and orders. It's a disgrace.

Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Subject: kelley lynch email dated Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:53 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov

Ms. Lynch,

Leonard Cohen does not have to prove anything.

He won in 2006. You simply have not realized it yet.

If you are going to continue with your jailhouse-lawyer-gadfly shtick there are a few underlying
legal principles that would be useful for you to learn. One of them is the policy in favor of
finality of disputes. Our legal system would not function very efficiently if a litigant could reopen
matters that were resolved over a decade ago with (for example) a stipulated tax court decision
in 2003 and/or could waltz into court in 2014 and try to reopen a 2006 default judgment that
they ignored until then or if she was able to sue on legal claims to alleged commission income,
royalties, and intellectual property allegedly due under an oral business arrangement that ended
in 2004.

The fact of life that you cannot do any of those things is not a conspiracy. Everyone who points
those facts out to you is not an agent of Leonard Cohen.

Finally, your constant irrelevant and burdensome emails to anyone with the misfortune to be
tasked with opposing one of your time-barred and stale claims in court is not calculated to
persuade anyone to see things your way. It will simply make them happier when the matter is
dismissed. Until then it simply results in more eye rolling and exasperation.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
___________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, Michelle Rice
<mrice@koryrice.com>, rkory <rkory@rkmgment.com>, "Division, Criminal"
<Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,
"*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov

Mr. Fabian,

Cohen discovered this letter in the fall of 2004. He and I discussed it. I've been told this is what
[the] informant discovered, whoever that might be. No one worked for me that had access to
corporate books, records, financial statements, etc. Cohen is a bald faced liar and fabricates
stories. Cohen will never prove that I retaliated with IRS. He retaliated with a fraud lawsuit
with the full understanding that I had gone to IRS and other tax authorities. I have Kory's
[emails] from May 2005 proving that fact. He also had to confront Greenberg's lawsuit. Those
issues haven't been litigated. Gianelli is a criminal who works as an agent
provocateur/infiltrator. I have seen him in action for over six straight years. He has relentlessly
targeted my sons. Rice was copied on numerous emails targeting my sons - including emails by
Cohen's fan, Susanne Walsh, who is evidently a jihadist sympathizer.

I want to be clear: I don't know if Gianelli is a stark raving deranged lunatic, child molester, or
serial murderer. He appears to be a member of Cohen's legal team. That would explain why he
is lying to FBI and DOJ. These people are criminally insane.

Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:44 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:24 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

None of this (below) is of any concern or interest to Mr. Fabian I assure you.

He has reviewed your tax court petition for jurisdiction, determined there is none, and per his
mandate raised the issue in a motion to dismiss.

You have filed your objection to the motion, which has now been submitted to the tax court for
decision.

There is nothing for you to do or for Mr. Fabian to do until a ruling is forthcoming on the
motion.

It seems clear that the motion will be granted. But even if that is not the case, things are on hold
in your tax court case until that issue is resolved.

In the meantime, I assure you that Mr. Fabian has more pressing matters to attend to than some
off-the-wall pro se tax litigant who is trying to reopen an old tax court case resolved by
stipulated disposition in 2003 as to which she was not a party. He certainly is not going to take
the time to read your bizarre and rambling letter to entertainer Phil Spectors murder prosecutor
Alan Jackson which has zero to do with tax court jurisdiction over your matter.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:24 AM
Subject:
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, "*irs. commissioner"
<*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ
<ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, ": Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>,
"Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale
<MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa

<rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert

MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia
<wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald"
<glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson"
<hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett
<stan.garnett@gmail.com>, mike.feuer@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti"
<mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov, "Kelly.Sopko"
<Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>,
Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com
Cc: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>
Mr. Fabian,

Another criminally harassing email regarding the Tax Court matter.

First of all, Leonard Cohen does have the history of psychiatric problems, drug and alcohol
abuse, and fabricates narratives. That would include the Complaint that was transmitted to the
IRS in order to file his 2005 returns, amend his 2003 and 2004 returns, and obtain fraudulent tax
refunds arguing self-dealing, alter ego, and money laundering. Cohen didn't "fire" me at all. He
heard I had or was reporting his tax fraud to IRS. I do have May 2005 emails from Kory
acknowledging that I reported the allegations of criminal tax fraud to IRS. I also have written
confirmation of the offer of 50% community property. My accountant, Dale Burgess, asked me
to contact IRS/Treasury (after I met with the agents) to inform them that he was present for
this offer. Leonard Cohen needed to argue fraud/rescission in order to explain away his role in
these transactions and corporations. I do think it's highly relevant that Cohen failed to report $8
million in income re. the TH 2001 sale; extinguished my promissory note from the 2002 returns;
and extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2003 return. I had nothing whatsoever to do
with tax or corporate matters although Cohen perjured himself over that matter as well. Cohen
also failed to repay his nearly $6.7 million in loans/expenditures from TH and that includes his
personal "transaction fees" which are not corporate expenses. These are just some of the issues
that were confronted in the fall of 2004. I have no history of drug or alcohol abuse and the
Criminal Stalker does not know me and did not know Cohen for the 20 years I worked with
him. This is simply slander meant to discredit me although I'm not certain it is a defense to
Cohen's theft, tax fraud, embezzlement attempts, fraudulent tax refunds, etc.

The Criminal Stalker is attempting to interfere with a Tax Court matter and dissuade me from
filing a declaration with respect to this ongoing criminal conduct.

Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear fraud upon the court motions and that includes with respect
to the determination letter issued to Cohen personally when it should have been issued to
Traditional Holdings, LLC. That does not resolve the problem with the fact that Blue Mist
Touring owns the assets. I would assume Cohen continues to collect the royalty income related
to assets belonging to BMT which would be embezzlement or theft. Leonard Cohen views
corporate property as his own property. This is precisely what happened with Machat &
Machat. Cohen also withheld commissions due them and stole their share of IP. Machat has
been very public about this situation. He also understands the bearer bonds, which Cohen
removed from Machat's office, that related to off-shore entities/accounts where he funneled
money. Fortunately, that occurred well before I knew Cohen so the fraud won't be able to
blame me. He does, however, come up with one fabricated, fraudulent narrative after another.
That would include his insanity with Bay of Pigs, Yom Kippur War, Janis Joplin, Phil Spector,
and now me. He also has told me, and others, that he was in CIA's MKULTRA program.

In any event, the criminal stalker continues to argue Leonard Cohen's legal position and most
definitely appears to be an unofficial member of his legal team. Perhaps that's why Rice
encouraged him to harass and provoke me and it might explain why she was copied on emails
targeting my sons and others.

I have documented what has unfolded since reporting the allegations that Cohen committed
criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005. This criminal's harassing emails will not change that
fact. I addressed a great deal of this in my letter to Spector's prosecutor Alan Jackson. The
letter was hand delivered to former DA Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, and DDA Truc Do.
It was hand delivered in September 2009, updated in 2010, and concealed from my jurors. It
might explain why former DA Steve Cooley aligned himself with Leonard Cohen publicly in
targeting me and elected not to prosecute him after I filed my Complaint with Major Fraud in
2006. The re-election campaign would explain Trutanich role. Clearly, Cohen was on the stand
testifying about Spector and a gun because Cooley and Trutanich had an expectation of affection
with respect to him or his testimony. Of course, Cohen's testimony about receiving my April
18, 2011 email was perjured but it allowed the City Attorney to drag Phil Spector into my alleged
trial - while concealing the email to IRS Commissioner's Staff and Rice about very serious
federal tax matters.

Kelley

Kelley Lynch letter to Phil Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2013/03/kelley-lynchs-letter-to-phil-spector.html

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Whether your letter to Alan Jackson addresses federal tax matters or not it is of no interest to
Mr. Fabian.
His job is to respond to tax court petitions. According to the manual that guides his
representation of the IRS in such matters he was required to initially assess your petition for tax
court jurisdiction. Since your petition was not in response to a required notice by the IRS he
(rightly) concluded that the tax court lacked jurisdiction over your petition. At that point the
manual required him to raise the jurisdictional issue asap via motion. He did. The court found
that the petition had facial merit and ordered you to file an objection. You did. The matter
awaits a decision.
If the court grants the motion, thats it. Its over.
Therefore, there is no point to be served by Mr. Fabian doing any more work on the file until
there is a decision on the motion.
End of story.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:35 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ha!
You send out mass emails daily with links to your blog, and then when someone in officialdom
clicks on one you practically wet yourself!

Treasury is reading my blog!!!! Gooody!!!!

Ha!
90 seconds on your blog is all anyone needs to see that you have no credibility at all. That is how
long it took the FBI agent I spoke with about you to conclude you were 5150.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Subject: Just another crazy engaged in "tax litigation" with the IRS (and I use that term loosely)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
I am not upset that you sent to Mr. Fabian your ridiculous manifesto to Alan Jackson dated
September 21, 2009.
I merely point out that it has nothing to do with his job description to read it.
You are only making a fool out of yourself.
The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel intersects with a lot of crazies in tax court.
They no doubt have special training on how to deal with them. Believe me you meet the profile.
You have filed a tax court petition addressing a discrete issue. The only thing before the tax
court (and therefore the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel) at this time is whether the tax

court even has jurisdiction to even consider that petition.

This is not a general opportunity to share with the tax court and the IRS assigned trial lawyer
even grievance you have had since 2009.
No one is paying attention.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:50 PM

Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated October 17, 2015 12:06 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, mrice@koryrice.com, rkory@koryrice.com

Ms. Lynch,

First, I speak only for myself NOT for Kory, Rice or anyone else. Nor have I ever discussed
your tax court case with them, orally or in writing.

Second, I dont have to ask Mr. Fabian what is on his mind. I am an experienced lawyer. I have
read his office procedural manual. I made myself conversant with the statutory basis for tax
court jurisdiction. I have read the tax court orders re: Fabians supplementary filing and ordering
you to file an objection, of any, by October 22.

Therefore, I know the following:

1. Government lawyers do no more work on a case than is required under the circumstances,
because they have many cases and must allocate their time wisely and they are subject to
supervision.

2. Fabian was required to initially assess your petition which deals with the tax year 1999 for
tax court jurisdiction, which by statute is very limited and only exists where the IRS sends out a
notice of determination or notice of tax deficiency without 60 or 90 days before the date the
petition is filed (as the case may be but never more). No notice, no jurisdiction.

3. Fabian determined that there is no tax court jurisdiction over your petition, because the IRS
has no record of sending you a notice of determination for tax year 1999. Per his published
office procedure, Fabian was required to (and did) file a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity.

4. The court then wanted to eliminate an alternative basis for jurisdiction, to make sure you did
not file a whistle blower claim, that if improperly denied may give rise to tax court relief. The
court therefore ordered Fabian to address this issue in a supplemental filing. Fabian did, by
stating the IRS never received a whistleblower claim from you.

5. The tax court then ordered you to file an objection, if any you have, by October 22, indicating
whether you have filed a whistleblower claim with the IRS on the specified form, and if so to
attach a copy of same to your objection.

6. You filed your objection (you called it a response but technically it is called an objection
in tax court) on October 6, tacitly admitting that there was no notice of determination sent
to you and admitting that you never filed a whistleblower claim.

7. The matter has been submitted to the tax court for decision on the pending motion to
dismiss. In addition, the tax court has ordered that a decision on your pending motion (currently
styled a motion to supplement the record in the tax court docket) will be held in abeyance
pending its decision on Fabians motion to dismiss.

8. Clearly and without a doubt, your tax court matter is on hold pending a ruling on Fabians
motion to dismiss. Therefore, it is highly illogical that Mr. Fabian would do any more work on
the file until there is a ruling. (That was the point of the motion to dismiss in the first place.)
MOREOVER, your objection (response) basically CONCEDES the factual basis for the
motion to dismiss (no notice pertaining to 1999; no whistleblower claim). Therefore, there is
no doubt that the tax court will grant the motion to dismiss.

9. Therefore, in a matter of days, there tax court case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,
and your motion to supplement the record will be moot.

Under these circumstances, there is not a single thing that Mr. Fabian could tell me about what
happens next that I dont already know by reading the procedure manual, the jurisdictional
statute, and the two orders of the tax court, and your objection (which you helpfully posted on
your public, Google indexed blog).

This does not require a mind reader just a lawyer with a willingness to read the governing
rules, the relevant pleadings and orders, and the ability to apply his experience and common
sense to the situation including how government lawyers operate. Its not complicated at all.

Any questions?

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 12:06 AM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; Michelle Rice; rkory; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field;
ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane;
blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan;
hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko;
Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Subject: Fwd: Just another crazy engaged in "tax litigation" with the IRS (and I use that term
loosely)

Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory,

I am once again advising you to cease and desist. If you want to know what's on Mr. Fabian's
mind (and clearly the three of you aren't mind readers), please hit reply all and ask him.

Kelley Lynch
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Just another crazy engaged in "tax litigation" with the IRS (and I use that term
loosely)
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,
It does not take a representative of the IRS or a clairvoyant to know what is on Mr. Fabian's
mind.
Which is, there is a pending motion to dismiss in your tax court case and until the court rules
nothing to be done on the case. It is also obvious to any lawyer who has seen your
correspondence that you view the tax court as a catchall for your wide-ranging grievances going
back to 1999 but that forum is unavailable absent a petition filed within days of a notice of
determination from the IRS - which you concede is not the case.
It is also clear that - kindly put - don't have a clue.
Figuring all that out is not rocket science.
Public officials are busy and have real work to do instead of wasting their time with nonsense.
And you make no sense.
On Friday, October 16, 2015, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Fabian,
> While I view this as the Criminal Stalker Proxy's attempt to elicit information, and interfere
with federal tax matters, I would like you to advise me if Gianelli represents IRS Chief Trial
Counsel's office, speaks for you, or knows what is on your mind. He most definitely appears to
be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen's legal team. As for my letter to DDA Alan Jackson
(hand delivered to Jackson, former DA Steve Cooley, and DDA Truc Do), it addresses Cohen's
theft of $1 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC and the fact that the assets are owned by
BMT. I attach a copy of the letter herewith. I will note that Investigator Frayeh concluded that
Gianelli found a sympathetic ear with Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson about me. That might
explain why Cooley publicly aligned himself with Cohen who then perjured himself when he

testified that he was a recipient of the April 18, 2001 email to Dennis Riordan. That is how the
City Attorney elicited testimony about Spector and a gun while concealing the aspect of the
alleged email to the IRS Commissioner's Staff. Most of the trial was about federal tax matters
and the record is replete with lies about those matters. Let me repeat what my PD told me: the
City Attorney is attempting to sabotage IRS; discredit you; the DA doesn't want the Spector
verdict overturned; and there may be a juror plant on your jury. My appellate attorney, who was
criminally harassed by the Criminal Stalker for over a year, wrote that my trial is an IRS matter
that demands an IRS investigation. The prosecutor then retaliated. All of these matters are
intertwined and essentially the City Attorney attempted to cover up Cohen's own conduct by
informing jurors that it "annoyed' him. Evidently the contents of the "IRS Binder" annoyed
Leonard Cohen. Fortunately, I discovered the fraudulent tax refunds and challenged them as
fraud. These matters, together with the transmission of the fraudulent Complaint to IRS
together with Cohen's 2001-2005 returns and amended returns as well as fraudulent tax refunds
will be addressed in my federal RICO suit. Cohen's testimony that he rectified a mistake in my
ownership interest in TH, but included me in 2001-2003 federal tax returns as a partner (who
paid taxes), will be addressed. Many federal tax matters have been implicated and the fraud
default judgment, evidence of theft, embezzlement, self-dealing, and money laundering, does not
change that fact. These issues arose well before the default. Cohen owes me IRS required tax
and corporate information which I must now sue over. And much of what he owes me was due
approximately six months before he retaliated with his fraud lawsuit that I wasn't served.
> Gianelli, Kory, and Rice have been advised to cease and desist.
> Kelley
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------> From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:53 PM
> Subject: Just another crazy engaged in "tax litigation" with the IRS (and I use that term
loosely)
> To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
>
>
> Ms. Lynch,
>
>
>
> I am not upset that you sent to Mr. Fabian your ridiculous manifesto to Alan Jackson dated
September 21, 2009.
>
>
>

> I merely point out that it has nothing to do with his job description to read it.
>
>
>
> You are only making a fool out of yourself.
>
>
>
> The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel intersects with a lot of crazies in tax court.
>
>
>
> They no doubt have special training on how to deal with them. Believe me you meet the
profile.
>
>
>
> You have filed a tax court petition addressing a discrete issue. The only thing before the tax
court (and therefore the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel) at this time is whether the tax court
even has jurisdiction to even consider that petition.
>
>
>
> This is not a general opportunity to share with the tax court and the IRS assigned trial lawyer
even grievance you have had since 2009.
>
>
>
> No one is paying attention.
>
>
>
> Very truly yours,
>
>
>
> Stephen R. Gianelli
>
> Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
>

> Crete, Greece

>

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
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
Cohens 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

DECLARATION OF ANNE JULIA MCLEAN

I, ANNE JULIA MCLEAN, declare:

9.
I am a citizen of Canada. I also am known by the literary
pseudonym Ann Diamond. I
have known Leonard Cohen for approximately thirty-eight years. I have known Kelley Lynch
since approximately 2008. 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.
In May 2008 I received an email from Kelley Lynch, who was
then living in Colorado.
I had read the 2005 news stories alleging she had stolen Cohens retirement fund. Knowing
Cohen, I had always wondered about her side of the story. Over the next few weeks we
corresponded. She came across as sensible and rational, but clearly furious about the accusations
of embezzlement which she denied. She was sending out hundreds of emails to the media, FBI,
DOJ, IRS etc. and copied some of our personal emails to her internet audience. Since her
working relationship with Cohen in 1988 began at approximately the time I stopped seeing him,
she filled in some blanks and provided some insight into problems I had subsequently had. I
identified with her to the extent that it seemed we had both been close to Cohen at one time,
but had serious disagreements with him. When we mutinied he used his personal power,
oratorical skills and media contacts to damage us professionally and personally. Because Lynchs
side of the story had been ignored in the media, I ended up writing an account (Whatever
Happened to Kelley Lynch) which I posted on my blog in August 2008. Two weeks later I
received a letter from Robert Kory demanding I take down the blog or be sued for libel. Because
I was far away in Greece, and did not know Kelley Lynch personally, I felt I had to comply.
Kelley continued circulating the text of my article over the internet and many people have now
read it. A paraphrased version appears in Sylvie Simmons biography of Cohen, Im Your
Man, where my article[Ann Diamo1] is credited in the footnotes. See Exhibit A attached hereto
and made a part hereof (Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch).
3.
I met Leonard Cohen through a mutual acquaintance in Montreal
in November 1977,
when I was 26 and he was 43. He was still married, but legally separated, from his wife Suzanne
with whom he had two children. Leonard Cohen was known as a ladies man around our
neighbourhood of Montreal, but he had just brought out a new record, Death of a Ladies Man
(with Phil Spector) and a book of poems (Death of a Ladys Man) which seemed to send a

message he was turning over a new leaf. We saw each other a few times over the next two years,
on occasions when he came into Montreal from Los Angeles. Our relationship was more than a
friendship. There was a strong sense of personal connection. Early on, I realized I was interested
in him as a mentor or teacher, not necessarily as a lover or boyfriend. Soon after we met, he
introduced me to his old friend Hazel Field, a woman about my age, who acted as if she was
in charge of Leonards relationships with women. This resulted in my seeing him mostly in
private, rather than joining his circle of friends.
4.
In 1979 I travelled to Greece, where he had invited me to meet
him on the island of
Hydra. I was on Hydra for three and a half months, thanks to a small arts grant from the
Canadian government. In 1980, I received another arts grant and was on Hydra writing a novel
from December to September 1981. Leonard was also there for the entire year. In the fishbowl
of Greek island life, I observed his complicated relationships with women younger than myself.
However when I went out with other men, he began telling me we were getting married. This
became a theme, although it seemed more like a way to make sure I didnt wander off. He
spoke with great conviction, making it hard to know what to believe.
5.
In 1982 he suggested I go to Mount Baldy Zen Center, outside
Los Angeles, to meet
Zen Master Sasaki Roshi. By then I was ready to move on and end our relationship, which had
become ambiguous and confusing. He had hinted he was interested in sado-masochistic sex,
which did not interest me. I was disturbed by his secret world that involved lots of deception
and emotional cruelty. The Roshi (who initially told me I should marry Leonard Cohen) was
helpful and encouraged me to think Leonard was still a good friend.
6.
I returned to Montreal where a friend had offered me an
apartment he was giving up.
It was small, pleasant, with incredibly low rent. My friend was not aware he was living next door
to Leonard Cohen. Montreals economy was depressed and low rent was a big factor in allowing
me to survive on a freelance income over the 12 years I lived there, especially after I quit my
teaching job. During those years I saw Leonard only occasionally, usually by accident in the
street, but sometimes he phoned or I phoned him. Our relationship was distant but cordial, but
there also were a few tense incidents. His daughter Lorca was a concern. At age 10 she asked me
to help her write a book about her father. When Leonard found out he banned me from talking
to her. Another source of tension was Hazel Fields presence on the block. Hazel is a famous
gossip and spread damaging rumours about me that no one would ever repeat to me. Leonard
remained generally friendly to me and once assured me if I was the subject of gossip it was just
due to jealousy.
7.
In March 1992, for the Montreal Gazette I interviewed Leonards
close friend,
Canadian poet Irving Layton on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Before I left Layton remarked
that he was pleasantly surprised to meet me and find out youre nothing like the violent,

psychotic woman Ive been hearing about all these years. He first denied, but later admitted the
source was Leonard Cohen. This came as a shock. I sent Leonard an angry fax, then regretted it
and phoned to apologize. It was the first and only time I ever telephoned his Los Angeles
number, but he accused me of being the anonymous caller who had been harassing him for
weeks. He avoided answering my question. I was left with the impression that he had told
certain people I was a dangerous psychotic while allowing me to think nothing was amiss.
From then on, I realized he had a higher-than-average capacity to deceive people, even those he
called friends. Perhaps he liked pandering to peoples fantasies, or maybe he liked creating
chaos. Or maybe this was his way of controlling people by divide-and-rule.
8.
In autumn 1993 his daughter Lorca, then 19, was enrolled in the
BA program at
Concordia. She was living in Leonards building on the corner of our street with a group of her
friends. Soon after she arrived she knocked on my door and asked if she could speak to me
about something important. I hadnt seen her in five years, and she looked drastically different
from the last time: she was covered with tattoos and piercings and had dyed her hair black and
purple. I had a deadline to meet, so I asked her to come back another time but she never did. A
few months later I met her with Leonard in the park. She was returning to Los Angeles. Later I
was told she had overdosed on heroin and had dropped out of university, but I had been
unaware of all these problems when they were happening.
9.
In summer 1995, Freda Guttman, who had been Leonards first
girlfriend when they
were both teenagers, stopped me in the street and asked point-blank if I thought Leonard had
molested his daughter from the age of four, as Lorca had told her friends. Based on things I had
witnessed over 8 years, I thought it was possible. I went home and didnt get out of bed for two
days the only time in my life that I experienced that kind of emotional paralysis. I suddenly
realized the wild, extreme stories circulating about me were probably a tactic to discredit and
isolate me in case I ever talked about Lorca. In fact, I knew very little about Lorca because I
almost never saw her, but Leonard feared she had confided in me. He had set me up as a female
bogeyman as a useful distraction. The stories about me had spread far and wide, thanks to
Hazels media contacts including with a gossip columnist. The publishing industry was going
through a major spasm from which it has never recovered and I become one of many journalistcasualties.
10.
In May 1996, I travelled to Los Angeles and stayed at Rinzai Ji Zen
Center for six
months. I had a grant to write a novel (Dead White Males, DC Books, 2000), which I did while
staying in a house across the street from the Zen Center. I also hoped to talk to Leonard and
resolve some issues I later realized this was nave. This visit to Roshis centre was different
from other times when I stayed as a practicing, rent-paying resident. Many of the monks and
nuns seemed to have abandoned the Roshi (then 89) and gravitated to Leonard Cohen, who had
moved into a cabin on Mount Baldy. I gathered he was seen by some as a possible dharma

successor to the Roshi. The atmosphere had also changed for the worse. After Leonard spoke to
her about me, a nun rushed at me in the kitchen and physically pushed me out the door. During
the six months I was there, I never made a phone call or any attempt to speak to Leonard about
the unresolved business between us that included child abuse and destructive slander. The
atmosphere was instantly so tense, I decided to do nothing. I rode my bike around Los Angeles
and worked on the novel. Nevertheless, Leonard reported to the center director that I was now
phoning him every day from Culver City. This was not the first time he assumed I was
harassing him when I was not: I didnt even know where Culver City was. Without any evidence,
people believed Leonard. His word is the Gold Standard for Truth with his followers. Wherever
he goes, from Greece to Montreal to Los Angeles, he finds people who are willing, even eager,
to work for him without compensation, and will obey his instructions blindly in return for the
honour of knowing him. His persuasive gifts and charm are well-known and can be hard to
resist.
11.
Those who mutiny, like Kelley Lynch and me, receive the opposite
treatment. Nothing
I say or do has been a match for the clich of the Scorned Woman or jilted ex who goes
on a rampage to avenge her rejection. As Goebbels said, if you repeat a lie often enough, it
becomes truth. I have learned the hard way that Leonard Cohen is a very gifted and skilled
fabricator who does not back down even when confronted with evidence of his lying. His
manipulative skills are exceptional and almost suggest early training in psychological warfare,
including strategies such as putting people in double-bind situations so they will discredit
themselves. As a friend, he can be very kind and generous, but soon becomes utterly fixated on
control. He demands total loyalty. He is a master manipulator. Once he has decided you are too
mutinous and a potential future threat, he becomes ruthless and will go to great lengths to see
you neutralized and destroyed. Like his neo-con heroes, he believes in and practices preemptive strikes.
12.
In 2001, I wrote a book-length blog which I posted on line. This
was due to my being
targeted for years by false stories that I had stalked and harassed Cohen who allegedly did not
even know me. I felt my 20-year history with him made for a memoir which was also a
documentary of the post-60s era and the transition to conservative values, in which Leonard
Cohen had played a part. I posted this 300-page, detailed narrative and added internal links
which were hard to navigate. I installed hit counters on every chapter so I know with certainty of
6000+ who found the book, only about 70 read to the end where I mentioned my chance
meeting with Freda Guttman who repeated Lorcas allegations that her father had molested her.
In summer 2003, I received a letter from Leonards lawyer Van Penick asking me to remove the
paragraph, which I did. A few months later, I deleted the entire blog.
13.
Did Kelley Lynch rob Leonard Cohen of millions, and if so, how
did she end up
penniless and bit homeless? I cant believe Leonard Cohen a shrewd judge of character

would employ a personal manager for 17 years, form a close relationship with her and her
family, put his children in her care, and appoint her to deal with his daily business, unless she
was diligent, extremely intelligent and impeccable in her conduct. His version requires us to
believe he is a trusting, incompetent fool, which he is not. In my view, baseless slander and
outrageous gossip have played a huge role in what should have been a straightforward legal
matter.
14.
In my experience Leonard Cohen draws on a pool of unstable,
addicted, celebrityworshipping acquaintances who serve as his unofficial bodyguards and back-up band to his
fanciful tales and ambiguous statements. Long ago, I came to the conclusion there are two
distinct Leonard Cohens. The secret Leonard Cohen has doubtful ethics, and lives off the
brilliance and charm of the public personality.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated: 25 April 2015
_______________________________
ANNE JULIA MCLEAN

EXHIBIT A

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch?
Ann Diamond
Kelley Lynch is the woman accused in 2005 of skimming millions from singer Leonard Cohens
retirement fund. I knew of her through friends of Leonard Cohen, and had heard her described
in glowing terms as the agent who, singlehandedly, saved Cohens career in the 1990s.
In early May of this year, Lynch suddenly contacted me. She said she was mainly interested in
my perceptions of Cohen as a former friend and next door 193inancia in Montreal. At one time
I also studied with his Zen Master in California, and had spent time with him on Hydra, Greece.
Not having heard her side of the story (I doubt that anyone has, apart from a circle of her
closest friends), I was curious. Over the next few weeks, she shared several documents

pertaining to the case including an affidavit written and signed by her older son, Rutger.
Together, they paint a picture very much at variance from the sketchy media image of Lynch as a
reckless, delusional woman on the brink of a career meltdown. Lynchs own timeline also
includes disturbing behind-the-scene dealings that suggest she may have been set up to take the
blame for Cohens tax situation.
The following account is based on what Lynch has sent me -Since 2005 when she became the object of media gossip, little if anything has been heard from
Kelley Lynch.
A single mother with two sons, Lynch was Leonard Cohens personal manager from
approximately 1988 to 2004, and was known for her skill, hard work, and dedication. Until 2004,
Kelley lived and worked in Los Angeles where she still has many friends and acquaintances in
the entertainment world including Phil Spector and Oliver Stone.
Her own account of the events that wrecked her career, varies widely from the media portrait of
a reckless, delusional woman in the throes of a personal meltdown. The meltdown was real,
however. By late December, 2005, Lynch had lost custody of one son and was homeless and
living on the streets with her older son, Rutger, who witnessed the chain of bizarre events that
had begun a year earlier.
In 2004, Lynch owned a house in Brentwood, and still worked for Cohen, who owed her money
for royalties and other services, but was increasingly involved with his new girlfriend, Anjani
Thomas, ex-wife of Cohens attorney, Robert Kory.
In retrospect, Lynch believes she was set up by Cohen and his representatives to help cover up a
tax situation which made the IRS nervous. In September 2004, Cohens attorney Weston told
Lynch that a financial entity known as Traditional Holdings, LLC could be overturned by the
IRS. Lynch, who had been selected as a partner on the entity, became uneasy and consulted a
new accountant, who referred her to tax lawyers, who found irregularities in Cohens tax history,
both in the US and Canada where he has residences.
Rattled by what she was hearing that she was being dragged into criminal tax fraud Lynch
called the IRS in Washington and also contacted their website. An IRS collection agent advised
her to call the Fraud Hotline, which she did.
Told that any further action on her part might implicate her in fraud, Lynch refused to meet
with Cohen or turn over the corporate books. At that stage, Cohens advisers began claiming
that certain payments, distributions, or advances made to her were actually over-payments.

Lynch says their accounting was incomplete and ignored her share of intellectual property,
unpaid commissions and royalties, and share in Traditional Holdings, LLC. Apparently Lynch
had also been issued K1 partnership tax documents and made a partner on another Cohen
investment entity, LC Investments, LLC, without her permission or awareness.
Lynch says an increasingly nervous and desperate Cohen was pressuring her to agree to
mediation and told a friend of hers that Lynch was the love of his life. She and Cohen had had
a brief affair in 1990, but Cohen now was offering her 50% of his community property as well
as palimony through lawyer Robert Kory at a meeting attended by Lynchs legal
representatives and her accountant, Dale Burgess. To Lynch, none of this made sense at the
time.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles District Attorneys office received an anonymous tip informing
them that Lynch was a friend of producer Phil Spector, whom Lynch maintains is innocent.
Cohen, on the other hand, had given an interview in which he described a gun-waving Spector
who threatened him during recording sessions in 1977.
At around the same time he was offering her millions, Lynch says, Cohen was also circulating
slanderous stories about her. She believes Cohen encouraged Los Angeles record producer Steve
Lindsey, the father of her son Ray, to initiate a custody suit on May 25, 2005, the same day a
25-man SWAT team from the LAPD, acting on a bogus 911 call, suddenly cordoned off her
street and surrounded her home in response to a hostage taking.
Earlier that morning, Lynch says, her 12 year old son Ray woke up not feeling well. She sent an
email to his school informing them she was keeping him at home. When the boys father found
out Ray was home he became agitated and abusive over the phone to Lynch.
Lynch says she had young people who worked for her coming and going that day, and did not
want Rays father coming to the house and attacking her, as he had in the past. She called her
older son Rutger, who was visiting a friend nearby, and asked him to pick Ray up and take him
down the hill where actress Cloris Leachman waited in her car. Leachman, a friend of Lindsey,
took charge of Ray just as seven LAPD squad cars came speeding up Mandeville Canyon Road
in the direction of Lynchs house. With them was Rays father, Steve Lindsey.
Lynch says she looked out the window and saw armed men on her lawn. Her son Rutger and his
friends were telling police there was no hostage-taking, that they had spent the morning with
Lynch, and that there must be some mistake. For reasons no one understands,
LAPD/Inglewood PD decided to believe Steve Lindsey, who had left the scene.
Police later gave varying explanations about what led up to the incident. West LAPD said they

responded to a report that someone heard shots fired. But a company that oversees SWAT
said Lynch would have to have a superior caliber weapon to warrant such a high risk entry. A
member of the SWAT team claimed to have seen a note that Lynchs sister had placed the call
stating Lynch posed a danger to herself and everyone around her. Her sister denies this.
Lynch stayed inside her house and called her former custody lawyer, Lee Kanon Alpert. She also
called Leonard Cohen, assuming he had played a role in the events unfolding on her lawn. Lynch
says she knew Steve Lindsey had also been meeting with Cohen and his attorney, and had
recently told their son Ray that Lynch was going to jail, upsetting the boy. She says Cohen
taped the phone call later used in his successful court case against her for which, Lynch says,
she never received a summons.
Lynch says, Police were on my hillside and crouching under my kitchen window. She says the
standoff on her lawn continued for several more hours, disrupting the neighbourhood. Members
of Inglewood Police Department also participated in the operation.
Eventually, she decided to go into the back yard. Seeing her son Rutger acting as a human
shield and hostage negotiator, Lynch ventured out front with her Akita on leash and joked to
the cops: Who am I supposed to be holding hostage? My dog?
The police responded by telling her son they would only shoot Lynch and her dog if necessary.
That was when I dove into the pool.
SWAT team members searched her house. As they entered, Lynchs African Grey parrot, Lou,
called out: I see dead people! further alarming the nervous cops.
Offering her a hand out of the pool, one officer said they were only there to help her and not to
hurt her.
No one asked me if I was all right; no one questioned me about my well-being. The Medical
Examiners Office later wondered how the police had evaluated her. After stating they were not
arresting her, they handcuffed Lynch, still in her bikini. On her way out the door, her son
managed to hand her a brocade jacket.
Although she lived near UCLA Medical Center, she was taken in a squad car to King-Drew
Medical Centre in Watts, 40 miles away and a three-hour drive in traffic. Known as one of
Americas worst hospitals, King-Drew was recently closed down as a place where patients
routinely die from neglect and medical errors. During the long ride through South Central Los
Angeles, Lynch says she was questioned closely about her relationship with Phil Spector, who
had been charged with first degree murder of Lana Clarkson. In the car, Lynch voiced concern

over what awaited her at the hospital but was told by a woman cop: This will be good for you.
I felt I was being kidnapped.
At Emergency, the admitting psychiatrist administered anti-psychotic drugs without
authorization and left Lynch in the waiting area for hours, still in her bikini and brocade jacket,
and handcuffed to a chair. A nurse advised her she would be transferred but did not tell her
where. Examining her file, the nurse noticed it listed her as 19 years old with wrong social
security number, wrong date of birth, wrong religion, and her name misspelled as Kelly Lynch
Lynch thinks it was the same file she had seen, several months earlier, in the hands of the Special
Investigator who came to question her about Spector.
A second doctor told her to wait her turn to ensure no further harm would come to her, and
assured her that nothing in the King Drew report could cause her to lose custody of her child.
The following day, she was released after nearly 24 hours in the psych ward.
Back home, Lynch learned that while she was being held at the hospital her younger sons father,
Steven Clark Lindsey, had filed for custody of her son Ray Charles Lindsey and obtained a
restraining order denying her access to the boy. She says Lindsey attempted to convince doctors
at King Drew that she was dangerous, in order to have her committed, She says Lindsey also
threatened the psychiatrist who had her released.
On that same day, Cohens attorney Robert Kory filed a Declaration in the custody matter, as
did Betsy Superfon (a friend of Cohen, Kory and Lindsey who had befriended Lynch a few
months earlier ). Superfon later told Lynch she didnt realize what she was signing, and that
Cohen had offered Lindsey money or something else to take Ray away from Lynch.
Her older son alleges Lindsey offered him money to go to Leonard Cohens lawyers office and
transfer or sign over Lynchs house to Cohen or his attorney Robert Kory. Rutger refused and
phoned his own father, who advised him to contact a lawyer.
Two weeks later, in early June, as she drove down her street to buy dog food, a Mercedes sped
out of a neighbouring driveway and rear-ended her car, Lynch was thrown forward, fracturing
her nose against the steering well, and was knocked unconscious. Later, she says, as she drove
back up the hill to her home, the same driver was standing in his driveway and called out: We
are watching you as she passed.
Seeing his injured, bleeding mother enter the house, her older son again phoned his father, who
may have called 911. Accounts vary as whether the call referred to an incident of domestic
violence or a drug overdose. Either way, police arrived at Lynchs door for the second time

in two weeks. Over the protests of her son, they entered while she was on the phone to a friend,
Dr. Wendi Knaak who stayed on the phone talking with Rutger while police again handcuffed
Lynch. This time they took her to UCLA hospital where her obvious head injuries were ignored.
Instead, she was once again drugged and placed in the psychiatric unit where she remained for
several days.
Lynch and her advisors maintain these events were coordinated by Cohen, Kory and Lindsey,
with the help of former LA District Attorney Ira Reiner in a well- orchestrated plan to
traumatize and discredit her paving the way for media stories which accused her of skimming
millions from Cohens retirement fund.
In the summer of 2005, as Lynch was struggling to save her home and protect her child from a
father her friends describe as viciously anti-social and violent, reports of Leonard Cohens
financial troubles hit the press. They alleged the 70-something singer had been scammed by his
personal manager, Kelley Lynch, who colluded with an advisor at the AGILE Group in
Colorado to send him false financial statements while emptying his accounts of millions of
dollars.
Although listed as the owner of Traditional Holdings, the entity in question, Lynch says she
never received any statements from the AGILE Group who instead had been sending them to
Cohen having changed her mailing address to Cohens home in Los Angeles. She has since
filed a complaint with the US Post Office for mail tampering.
She insists Cohen sued her because she went to the IRS about his tax situation. She says he is
not, and never was, broke and that missing funds went to buy homes for his son Adam Cohen
and girlfriend, singer Anjani Thomas, ex-wife of Robert Kory. Noting Cohen is famous for his
financial largesse and once gave Zen Master Sasaki Roshi $500,000 as a gift, Lynch also cites
hefty payments to advisers, various transaction fees, personal taxes, and other monies which may
have been sent offshore.
While Cohen and Lindsey attempted to persuade others, including LA Superior Court, that she
intended to flee to Tibet or another non-extradition country, Lynch was isolated and penniless
and still in Los Angeles. Lynch was former personal secretary to the late Chogyam Trungpa
Rinpoche, a flamboyant Tibetan spiritual teacher who founded Naropa Institute in Boulder,
Colorado in the 1970s, and died in 1987. She says various Tibetan lamas are praying for her
safety.
Journalists covering the story were either unable, or didnt bother, to track Lynch down, and
most reported Cohens statements as fact. The NY Times contacted Kelley for a quote which
they never printed

By July 2005, Lynch had lost her custody battle and Ray went to live with his father. On
December 28, she and Rutger were evicted from the house in Brentwood, and ended up
homeless in Santa Monica, which has no resources for the homeless. The Police Department
gave her no help and, she claims, laughed when she brought in evidence that she was being
stalked by a known serial killer while she camped on the beach.
In 2006, Cohen was awarded a symbolic $9 million settlement in a civil suit against Lynch, who
still does not have a lawyer representing her. Corporate books and other evidence of fraud
appear to have been overlooked by Judge Ken Freeman in his judgment, Lynch says, although
she admits she has not read the court documents and was never served a summons. At the time
of the decision, she told reporters she lacked the money to make a phone call. That same year,
her older son lost his fingers in an accident with a meat grinder while he was working at Whole
Foods in Los Angeles and Lynch could not afford a bus ticket to visit him in hospital.
Lynch heard through a journalist that Cohen later testified for the District Attorneys office in a
secret grand jury relating to the Phil Spector case with former District Attorney Ira Reiner acting
as his lawyer. Reiner is a personal friend of Cohen, and as D.A. presided over some high-profile
cases including the Night Stalker serial killer and the McMartin Day Care scandal.
Recently, on June 17, 2008, Cohens lawsuit against the Agile Group was thrown out of court for
lack of evidence. In response the AGILE Group dropped its counter-suit accusing Cohen of
defamation and fraud. AGILE still claims to be shocked that a singer of Leonard Cohens talent
and stature would engage in false accusations against his own representatives.
Lynch believes Cohen and AGILE colluded to defraud her. She continues to deny all allegations
against her, and remains hopeful that Phil Spectors lawyer, Bruce Cutler, will represent her in
recouping damages to her livelihood and reputation. She now lives in another state and recently
learned her younger son, 15, whom she has not seen since July 2005, stopped attending school
last January.
These days Cohens fans seem to have expended their rage at Kelley Lynch for driving their idol
into bankruptcy. Some now say she unwittingly did them a service by forcing him to go on
tour for the first time in nearly two decades.
At 74, singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen continues to ride a wave of sympathy, gathering wide
support from the music world and even some British royalty. Unquestionably, his career and
finances have benefited from news reports that he is too impoverished to retire.
From his tower of song, Cohen has written:

I smile when Im angry

I cheat and I lie
I do what I have to do
To get by
And Im always alone
And my heart is like ice
And its crowded and cold
In my secret life
My Secret Life. Leonard Cohen
His many admirers need to listen closely.

EXHIBIT B

Layton at 80: singing songs of love

Ann Diamond
Going to interview Irving Layton, I had the feeling I was about to meet my maker. Its almost
the same feeling I qet when I see my bank manager. In both cases, the question of debt arises.
If there had been no Irving Layton back in the `60s when I was deciding what to do with my life
I might have gone straight into real estate with barely a qualm. But as it happened, our country
was suffering a poetry craze, the like of which has never been seen before or since. Long before
I reached the age of reason, I decided to reverse the usual Anglo-Saxon order, and put
imagination ahead of survival on my priorities list. In part, Layton is responsible for my
having made this fatal mistake.
I find him at home with his fifth wife, Anna Pottier, in a happy expansive mood. Hes just been
inducted into Italys prestigious Institute Pertini, whose members include the great names in
world literature and politics: Solzhienitsyn, Dubcek, Saul Bellow. The news arrives as Layton is
firming up plans to go to Italy in April where he will launch a bilingual edition, in English and
Italian, of his book The Baffled Hunter.
It turns out that Irving and I have something in common besides poetry. We both went to
Baron Byng High School. He entered in the fall of 1925, and 40 years later it was my turn. My

suburban neighborhood in the mid-60s had no Protestant high school, so we commuted to

Baron Byng. Thats how I was first inoculated with the smells, the peculiar energy of St. Urbain
St. and its displaced Mediterranean cultures: the school was then divided among Jews, Greeks
and francophone Moroccans, who moved in separate, but mutually respectful worlds. To me it
was exotic and a far cry from the `burbs, and once Id gained entry I was reluctant to come back
out.
It was during Grade 8 at Baron Byng that I first heard of Irving Layton and Mordecai Richler,
two writers who were helping to create a new, cosmopolitan Canadian literature. So its strange
to think of Irving Layton turning 80 on March 6. Or is it March 12?
I decide its time to resolve the mystery surrounding Laytons birth. When is your birthday,
Irving?
My birthday is on the 6th of March but Stalin died on the 12th and since hes been my 201ina
noire for a long time, I like to celebrate both at once.
Come to think of it, Layton has always celebrated things that others prefer to keep in the closet.
After all, its the poets job and hes been at it for 65 years.
The true poet is absolutely tenacious, says Layton. Hes like a sentinel. He doesnt abandon
his post. He continues to speak the truth, just like the prophets. Thats my religion.
Certainly no one can match his singleness of purpose. Layton calls his poetic output an all-time
record. He has written 60 books, and a bibliography of his work, soon to be released, runs to
700 pages.
Are his poems really bits of divine revelation? To sit across the table from him is to entertain
that possibility very seriously. To drink from his silver teapot is to catch some of his enthusiasm
as he reads poems that still resonate from some ancient place of exile where a biblical harp keeps
chiming and God plays an intricate chessgame with words.
Since Laytons heyday, unquestionably, love of poetry has receded in our country. In the early
60s, poetry in Canada outsold fiction and non-fiction. People by the hundreds flocked to
readings. In the 90s, despite government funding, the audience for poetry continues shrinking.
Many would say poor quality is to blame. The current cult of self-expression banalizes poetry
as therapy or consolation.
At one time, Layton recalls, there was a lot of ferment and poets were at the centre of it.
Myself and Leonard Cohen and Louis Dudek and Eli Mandel from Toronto and Phyllis Webb
whod come in from Vancouver. A nice happy band of happy warriors.
We felt we were changing things. We were bringing down the stale Victorianism that had
dominated this country for over half a century. We were liberating energies, freeing the
imagination. There were people opposed to us of course, people who felt we were treading on
their orthodox toes and were furious about it.
Banned in Ontario
Some of Laytons books were banned in Ontario. I think theres no higher compliment than
that, he says. The poets job, as he sees it, is always to destroy complacency and his

commitment to contradiction remains immense. He fulminates, he pontificates, but hes also a

passionate listener.
I bring out my Big Question. Are the Victorians back in control of Canadian poetry?
They may be, he concedes. But basically the poets have lost their elan. Theyre not writing
the kind of work that stirs people or quickens their pulse in any way. Theyre not writing the
kind of poetry that challenges economic and political and social and religious and sexual taboos.
What theyre writing I call kitchen- sink poetry, and it springs from the fact that people are so
frightened about the future and about the present, theyre so uncertain about themselves, that
they cant think deeply and freshly about the problems confronting them.
He names exceptions: David Solway, Anne Cimon, Michael Harris. But he sees contemporary
poetry taking the place of organized religion as a provider of comfort and reassurance. Real
poetry, like true religion, does the opposite. It tells people that precisely because youre suffering
and in turmoil, thats good. It means youre not dead.
The interview has ended, or at least the tape has run out. We rewind it so Irving can hear how he
sounds these days. With obvious delight, he listens to his own voice describing the Grade 6
teacher, Miss Benjamiri, who inspired his first poem. He lingers on details, her tight blouse and
lush breasts, which inspired his 12- year-old lust. If I were an unmitigated Puritan, like some of
his critics, I suppose I might attack him for this, but who can deny that its touching and true?
A serial monogamist?
Afterwards he beams. I believe I have to be the last love poet anywhere. Love has always been
the very foundation of my work.
Dont forget rage, I remind him.
Love and rage and sex. What else is there? To prove his point, hell be launching Dance
With Desire, his collected love poems, at Magnum Bookstore in Ottawa tomorrow. Thats
International Womens Day.
This coincidence of dates brings us to the thorny issue of Laytons record in relationships, a sore
point with feminists. I ask him point blank if hes a serial monogamist.
Yes. He says. But I have yet to be convicted.
And Im his latest victim, Anna chimes in, smiling radiantly.
Says Layton in self-defence, I like to leave them happy, rather than dead.
In Canada, the verdict still isnt in on Irving Layton, and some would say there isnt a jury in the
country that could give him a fair trial. Attempts to put him in his place or expose him all
stumble against the reality of his achievement. Elspeth Camerons notorious portrait did much
to prove that there is still little room in our country for a poet of his range and stature.
You can accuse a poet of the most heinous crimes and personal failings without doing the
slightest damage to his reputation. Perhaps some day Canadas army of critic/moralists will
realize that theyve missed the 20th century. We dont need poets to live exemplary, much less
conventional, lives. We need them to write great poems. Irving Layton has kept his side of the
bargain.

When I finally leave, I have the impression that Ive been taken in again duped into believing
in poetry by someone who calls himself Irving Layton.
And the funny thing is, Im grateful.
Ann Diamond is a Montreal poet.
Kelley Lynch
419 N. Larchmont Blvd., Suite 91
Los Angeles, California 90004
323.935.9939

July 25, 2004

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
Small Business/Self Employed Division Counsel
3018 Federal Building
300 N. Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Re: Leonard Cohen vs. Commissioner (Docket No. 7024-02)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing with respect to the above referenced Trial Court case and related matters. I am
Leonard Cohens personal manager and have an ownership interest in three entities with him.
Those entities are Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas,
LLC. These three entities either own or sold intellectual property.
For the year 1999, Sony Music issued a 1099 to Leonard Cohen in the sum of $1 million. On
January 8, 2002, IRS issued Letter No. 3219 (SC/CG) to Leonard Cohen for the year ending
December 31, 1999 showing a deficiency in connection with tax form 1040. This situation was
initially handled by Leonard Cohens personal tax and corporate attorney, Richard Westin, who
then referred Cohen to Hochman Rettig.
I became particularly concerned with respect to the conduct of Leonard Cohen and his
representatives in January and February 2002. The reason for this is due to hysteria that arose in

connection with the inadvertent 1099s Sony issued to Leonard Cohen personally in the
amounts of $1 million and $7 million respectively. Leonard Cohens tax accountant wrote and
advised him that he shuddered to think of the penalties and interest due. Leonard Cohen called
his tax accountant after receiving his letter to discuss the matter. This matter was then
discussed, both telephonically and in emails, with Leonard Cohen, Richard Westin, and Neal
Greenberg (Cohens financial adviser and investor). These 1099s related to a deal that Sony
pursued which closed in 2001.
What concerns me specifically is the fact that the Sony deal was done with Traditional Holdings,
LLC and not Leonard Cohen. The $1 million non-refundable prepayment should have either
been paid to Traditional Holdings, LLC or transferred to Traditional Holdings, LLC. To
complicate matters even further, the assets that were sold to Sony belong to Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc. and were not assigned to Traditional Holdings, LLC. The reason for this is due
to the fact that, while Sony initially pursued this deal with Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. (and
began their due diligence with that entity), Cohens accountant and tax lawyer raised issues
related to collapsible corporations. Richard Westin represents Leonard Cohen. He does not
represent me or the entities themselves. I did provide Westin with a very limited power of
attorney authorizing him to prepare and file the Traditional Holdings, LLC formation
documents with the State of Kentucky. I also agreed, after Cohen instructed him to do so, to
permit Richard Westin to prepare my Indemnity Agreement with respect to my investment in
Traditional Holdings, LLC via a promissory note. I do not understand how an individual invests
in a company via a promissory note and, at the same time, receives distributions with which to
the payments. I am enclosing Richard Westins March 6, 2002 letter summarizing this matter. I
specifically requested that he write this letter to avoid any future confusion between me and
Leonard Cohen. According to the corporate records, I receive $20,000 and $24,000 which pays
the promissory note and taxes. I also receive $240,000 year (from profits) to pay whatever taxes
Westin advises are due with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC. Richard Westin handles the
Traditional Holdings, LLC tax returns and prepares the K-1s. While I am to receive 100% of
the profit (and this was the agreed upon amount Cohen and Westin arrived at), I am unable to
obtain financial statements and/or profit and loss statements from Neal Greenberg. And, while
Richard Westin and Neal Greenberg are supposed to handle all loan documentation (Greenberg
would have those details), most of Leonard Cohens loans (totaling millions) from Traditional
Holdings, LLC remain undocumented. I would also like to note that Neal Greenbergs financial
statements are incoherent and originally co-mingled Leonard Cohens personal accounts; his
charitable remainder trusts; and the Traditional Holdings, LLC accounts on one statement
prepared for Leonard Cohen personally. Greenberg also provides a courtesy monthly email that
includes the loans which he and Westin have repeatedly confirmed are assets of Traditional
Holdings, LLC. I am alarmed by the complete lack of attention to corporate governance. I also
enclose herewith Neal Greenbergs January and June 2004 letters to Leonard Cohen raising IRS
warnings and dangers. Ive reviewed these letters with Leonard Cohen and he advised me not

to inform Neal Greenberg of any future income. That would include the studio album that will
be delivered; his plans to tour behind that album; and the third intellectual property deal we are
pursuing. That deal is also complicated because Leonard Cohen is once again demanding
unattractive stock deals. Leonard Cohen continually advises me that he does not want to pay
ordinary income taxes. I find these comments alarming in light of some of the other activity.
I have no expertise in IRS or tax matters and find a great deal of the discussions about tax
matters thoroughly confusing if not downright deranged. Some of the information I receive is
incoherent. I do not handle IRS, tax, accounting, financial, investing, legal or inadvertent 1099
matters. I also do not handle financial statements, financial reports, loan documents, or
promissory notes. Leonard Cohen has a team of professional representatives handling those
matters. I am enclosing an email dated February 12, 2002 between me, Leonard Cohen, and
Richard Westin that is self-explanatory and addresses some of my concerns.
On January 17, 2003, Hochman Rettig wrote David R. Jojola of the Los Angeles Office of the
Chief Trial Counsel. This matter was handled by Steve Blanq at Hochman Rettig. I had
concerns about Traditional Holdings, LLC and the private annuity agreement. I am enclosing
many of the corporate records for these entities; the Annuity Agreement; and my Indemnity
Agreement. I am also enclosing the stock certificates, non-revocable assignments, and other
documentation related to my ownership interest in Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.,
Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC which was formed in June 2004 in Delaware (by
Richard Westin) and owns the intellectual property associated with Cohens forthcoming studio
album.
After I addressed my concerns with Steve Blanq, I sent him some of the Traditional Holdings,
LLC documents and the Annuity Agreement. I then mentioned to Richard Westin that I spoke
to Steve Blanq about these matters. I received a phone call from Steve Blanq advising me that
he spoke to Richard Westin who informed him that I do not have attorney/client privilege and
therefore Steve Blanq may not discuss these matters with me. Given the fact that I have an
ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC, I find that statement alarming. Leonard Cohen
personally wrote Richard Westin and Neal Greenberg wrapping them in attorney/client privilege
and excluding me.
Hochman Rettigs letter addressed the factual and legal analysis of the Cohen v.
Commisioner matter (Docket No. 7024-02) as follows: Leonard Cohen, through his
representatives, began negotiations in 1999 with Sony Music International (SMI) for a buyout
of his SMI master recordings catalog. In an effort to secure that SMI was serious about the
buyout and to secure future performance, Mr. Cohen demanded a deposit of $1,000,000.
Ultimately, SMI agreed to this request and on November 5, 1999, wired Mr. Cohen $1,000,000.
Accompanying the wire transfer was a Ietter dated November 5, 1999 which is attached hereto

as Exhibit A. The letter from Paul Gilbert of SMI provides: This amount is deemed a partial
prepayment against the proposed $8 million buy-out of Leonards future royalty interests in his
master recordings and compositions under all of his agreements with Sony Music and
Sony/ATV. The factual basis for treatment as a deposit is further supported by Mr. Gilberts
letter dated April 1, 2002 (attached hereto as Exhibit B) which provides: . . . this letter is to
confirm that the $ 1,000,000 paid to you by Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. (SMEI) in
November of 1999 was a deposit towards a possible royalty buyout
This is not my understanding with respect to the $1 million prepayment. I would like to keep
this letter confidential because I am convinced that I would lose my job if Leonard Cohen, or his
representatives, were to find out that I contacted IRS. There has been so much paranoia and
hysteria on the part of Leonard Cohen and his representatives over this matter that I can
conclude nothing other than some type of egregious tax fraud has occurred.
The history of this deal, and specifically the $1 million non-refundable prepayment, actually
began when Leonard Cohen actively began pursuing intellectual property deals. He closed the
first deal, with Stranger Music, Inc., in 1996. He then actively began pursuing other intellectual
property which included a possible bond securitization deal. As of November 1999, Leonard
Cohen planned to close a bond securitization deal with CAK. In order to pursue that deal,
Cohen formed LC Investments, LLC. CAK demanded a bankruptcy proof entity. However,
SOCAN (the Canadian performing rights society) refused to pay writer share of royalties to a
company not owned 100% by the writer, Leonard Cohen. Therefore, it was decided and agreed
(by Cohen and his representatives) that LC Investments, LLC would collect the SOCAN
royalties. These assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. which is true for all
intellectual property excluding the forthcoming the intellectual property related to the
forthcoming studio album that will be delivered to Sony in the near future. I am enclosing
Leonard Cohens declaration in the CAK litigation that ensued and IRS can review the CAK
litigation documents that were filed in the Southern District of New York (Docket No. 1:00-cv01068-CBM).
What concerns me about the letter Hochman Rettig wrote is this paragraph: The legal authority
is derived from the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light
Co., 493 U-S. 203, I 10 S. Ct. 589 (1990). The Court created a distinction between the taxation
of advance payments and the taxation of refundable deposits, although the Court confirmed that
advance payments are generally taxable and defined advance payment as a non-refundable
payment. The Court, however, held that deposits are not taxable. The Court defined deposits
as refundable payments that are made to secure the payors performance of its legal obligations
under the contract. Please note that the Court also found that a deposit is not taxable even if the
payor elects to apply the deposit against amounts owed to the payee. Thus, if the payor fulfills its
obligations under the contract, the deposit is refunded. That is the exact scenario presented in

this matter. This analysis is also consistent with the United States Tax Courts longstanding
treatment of real estate lease deposits where the Court has distinguished between a sum
designated as a prepayment of rent (taxable upon receipt) and a sum deposited to secure the
tenants performance of a lease agreement. J & E Enterprises, Inc, v. Commissioner.
The reason this paragraph concerns me is that Sony personally contacted me about pursuing the
2001 intellectual property deal with Leonard Cohen. Stuart Bondell, Sony Music Business
Affairs, explained to me that Sony did not want Leonard Cohen pursuing a bond securitization
deal. Evidently they had concerns about establishing artist precedent for these types of deal and
were specifically concerned about not having the ability to pay artist record advances. As Stuart
Bondell explained, advances are the currency of the music industry and permit Sony (and others)
to encourage artists to submit their contractually obligated albums. I phoned Leonard Cohen
and explained that Sony wanted to pursue the intellectual property deal with him. Cohen was
somewhat worried that Sony was making an offer and could later change their minds.
Therefore, he advised me that he would be willing to forfeit the CAK bond securitization deal if
Sony paid him a substantial non-refundable prepayment against the $8 million deal price. The
contractual details had to be resolved and negotiated. I phoned Stuart Bondell back and passed
along Cohens message and Sony agreed to pay the $1 million non-refundable prepayment
Cohen requested. Therefore, from my perspective, Cohen received $1 million in income from
Sony in 1999. However, the assets were owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. at the
time. As of 2001, Richard Westin had formed Traditional Holdings, LLC who ultimately
pursued the stock deal Leonard Cohen personally demanded.
Your October 8, 2002 letter to Richard Westin requests all documents related to the $1 million
payment including correspondence, contracts, agreements, royalty obligations, loan documents,
emails, letters, and checks. While I am enclosing a substantial amount of evidence, IRS would
literally have to make arrangements to come into my management offices and go through the
files. They are voluminous and include the corporate files and corporate books and records.
While I am not involved with this IRS and/or Tax Court matter at all, I do believe that
information is being concealed from the IRS and that makes me extremely uncomfortable.
It was my understanding that Richard Westin and Ken Cleveland, Cohens accountant, decided
to handle the $1 million as a loan on Cohens personal tax return. I was not involved in that
discussion but was on a conference call when they two of them confirmed this and asked me to
call Leonard Cohen to see if he agreed. I then phoned Leonard Cohen personally; he confirmed
that he wanted the $1 million handled as a loan; and I called Westin and Cleveland back and
confirmed this with them.
This essentially sums up my concerns about the $1 million prepayment; $7 million inadvertent
1099s; and the fact that the assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. Initially, after

the non-revocable assignments were executed by Cohen and me, Richard Westin advised us to
begin depositing all royalty income to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. At a later date, he
advised me (and some of this is in writing) that those deposits should be explained as
inadvertent. This situation also causes me concern because the income was deposited to Blue
Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Westin determined that Leonard Cohen personally should
issue the 1099s. Richard Westin also advised me to rip up the SOCAN and writer share
assignments with respect to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. I took copies home and enclose
copies herewith.
Another ongoing issue relates to where the offices for these entities are. There are no offices. I
have continuously advised Richard Westin that my personal management offices are not the
corporate entities offices. These entities use my P.O. Box for their corporate office addresses.
Traditional Holdings, LLCs corporate office is listed as Richard Westins home address in
Kentucky. Most of these entities are Delaware entities. I do not know why Leonard Cohen and
his representatives decided to form Traditional Holdings, LLC in Kentucky. I am enclosing
letters Richard Westin prepared for Leonard Cohen and me with respect to the initial proposals
with respect to the use of an annuity. Leonard Cohen rejected the first proposal and did not
want his adult children involved in any entity he has an ownership interest in.
Please see evidence enclosed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and, if I uncover additional information, I will
submit that to Internal Revenue Service as well.
Very truly yours,

Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Ms. Lynch,

I write to point out that the original, court-filed declaration of your son John Rutger
Penick cut and pasted into the body of the above email was (as you later admitted in signed
pleadings) signed by your hand and thus has no evidentiary force as testimony by Mr. Penick. (See Code of
Civil Pro. 2015.5 [a declaration must be subscribed by the person making it]; People v.
Pierce
Subscribe means to sign with ones own hand.].)
Regarding your roommate Paulette Brandts 2015 declaration, Ms. Brandt materially changed her
testimony on the subject of your 2006 service with Leonard Cohens civil suit from that of her
2013 declaration, and in any event Brandts testimony was evidentially rejected by the court
when it denied your 2013 and 2015 motions to set aside the $14 MILLION embezzlement based
judgment against you. The court also (apparently) rejected Ms. Brandts testimony about an
alleged conspiracy of harassment between me and Los Angeles prosecutors because it found you
in violation of the terms of your 2012 probation at the January 22, 2014 hearing in which Ms.
Brandt testified and remanded you to serve an additional 6-months in jail for additional email
harassment.
Nor can the substance of Rutger Penicks declaration be reconciled with his June 14, 2013
email to me stating that you are sick and need help and thanking me for my emails.
Nor is any of this likely to aid you in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss your tax court
petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian,
IRS/others
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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Mr. Fabian,
Stephen Gianelli is lying to you. Is he writing you requesting information? No, he is not.
These declarations were all signed based on powers of attorney from all witnesses stating quite
clearly that they asked me to conform them. The declarations, with the original witnesses
signatures, and the powers of attorney were submitted to the court. The limited powers of
attorney were signed prior to the declarations being submitted. These were signed in ones hand
and there are no issues. Leonard Cohen is lying about serving me his lawsuit. I confronted his
lies, including with respect to so-called intrinsic fraud upon the court. Each witness offered to
speak directly to the Court and informed the Court that they were available or present to testify
at the January 2014 hearing. The Court did not provide the opportunity for witness testimony.
The Court did not provide an opportunity for confrontation per the U.S. Constitution. Stephen
Gianelli is a moonlighting operative who argues Leonard Cohens cases with various parties.
That now includes you. The man is a criminal who relentlessly targeted my sons, sister, friends,
Paulette Brandt, etc.
Paulette Brandt did not materially change anything. Based on Cohens further lies to the Court,
she explained in greater detail various matters. That would include the fact that she was with me
on the morning the process server said he came to my house. He didnt come to my house.
The Court willfully disregarded this evidence of extrinsic fraud and has now condoned further
fraud and perjury on the part of Cohen and his representatives.
Paulette Brandt testified at the second false arrest hearing based on a domestic violence order
that doesnt exist except in California. There was no dating relationship and this government
will not be assigning me one. Its a disgrace and there is VAWA funding fraud with the City
Attorneys office. Also, the Court attempted to extort from me for domestic violence. This is
a matter that should be investigated by the DOJ. Other people have gone to them as well. Part
of the problem appears to be their celebrity justice program.
I didnt embezzle anything from Leonard Cohen who is not the corporate entities. Neither he

nor LC Investments, LLC own the assets. He is now attempting to hide and conceal evidence
of my ownership interest in corporations. He has managed to get this Court to conceal my
personal K-1s, stock certificates, publicly available documents, etc. These are his attorney/client
privileged documents according to that round of lies. The Court in the fraud probation matter
(since Boulder Combined Court informed me and Paulette for years that the permanent
order expired in February 2009) refused to review the evidence submitted. The Court refused to
review the Brady motion which is highly relevant and material. The City Attorney instructed this
criminal to continue harassing me and to convey a message to me from their office. Im not
interested in their messages and am well aware that they lie. See my trial and all testimony about
federal tax matters. Leonard Cohen still, to this date, has not provided me with IRS required tax
and corporate information for the years 2004, 2005, and other periods. Much of this
information was due in the first quarter of 2005. Cohen hadnt retaliated with his lawsuit yet.
Cohen needed to argue fraud and rescission to explain away his roles in these transactions. My
accountant and lawyers were present when Robert Kory offered me 50% community property,
etc. on behalf of Cohen. I have some of this in writing and my accountant, who was not fired
and did not resign, asked me to call the Treasury agents (after I met with them) to inform them
that he recalled this meeting distinctly. He also believes, and worked for IRS, that Criminal
Intelligence should be involved in this matter.
Leonard Cohen is the individual who embezzled approximately $6.7 million from Traditional
Holdings, LLC alone. He understood, and signed agreements, that his loans/expenditures had
to be repaid to the corporation within 3 years with interest. I have a letter from Kory
confirming that these loans/expenditures are problematic. I have provided that, and other
evidence, to IRS Commissioners Staff.
Rutger explained his declaration and Gianellis attempts to explain away his six year campaign of
terrorism with my sons is falling on deaf ears. My sisters lawyer advised him to cease and
desist. My appellate attorney, who believes IRS should investigate my trial, was harassed by this
Criminal (and Cohens fan, Susanne Walsh) for over a year. He has never seen anything like this
in his career. Many people have been harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, etc. That
includes all the witnesses who provided the declarations Gianelli is lying about. I have sent you
the original signed declarations and the limited powers of attorney. Gianelli is aware these exist.
Hes just a bald-faced liar and routinely lies to IRS, FBI, DOJ, etc. He believes he is immune
and, at times, seems amused by his criminal conduct.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-charles-lindsey-kelley-lynchs-son.html
I think Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear a matter involving fraud upon the court. It follows

Hazel-Atlas. That was Cohens argument re. the intrinsic fraud false accusations contained in
the declarations and reply documents filed in response to my motion to vacate. I have no idea
why this Criminal has written to inform me that IRS declined a whistle blower award when I
never applied for me and advised IRS in 2005 that I would rather live in a cave.
This man is definitely interfering with a Tax Court matter. I want to give some thought, over
the weekend, as to how I intend to handle this with the Tax Court and Judge Michael Thornton.
I will probably be forced to supplement the recent Motion I filed regarding this matter together
with a request that the Court investigate. I will probably inform the Court that Gianelli is now
writing you and lying about me and witnesses and I will from here on out simply maintain the
evidence. I will probably also let the Court know that we have spoken and I have asked you to
maintain the evidence as well. I will submit the originally signed declarations (that Gianelli is
lying about) to Tax Court together with the limited powers of attorney. I will also let Tax Court
know that these witnesses were all criminally harassed, stalked, targeted, intimidated, threatened,
and insulted by Gianelli. I will also submit Paulette Brandts declarations so the Court can take a
look and draw its own conclusions. Paulette Brandt provided further details. She and Palden
Ronge attended the January 2014 hearing and were not provided an opportunity to testify.
All the best,
Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:23 PM
Subject: Your email dated Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM to the IRS Chief Trial Counsel and posted
on your public blog
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Ms. Lynch,
9. To be a valid form of testimony, declarations must be signed by the hand of the declarant. It
matters not that you claim to have been granted the declarants power of attorney before
you signed the witnesses names to their declarations. An agent may not subscribe a
declaration for a witness under California law any more than an agent granted a power of
attorney may take the witnesses stand and testify for his principal. Your statement to the
contrary is ridiculous.
2. Paulette Brandt testified in her 2013 declaration in support of your motion to vacate the 2006
default judgment that she was in touch with you during the purported month of service,
August 2005. She said nothing in her original declaration about being physically present at your home on

the very date and time the proof of service reflects that you were served there let alone anything about
personally dying your hair to a color inconsistent with the process servers description of your
hair color at the time of service. Paulette Brandts declaration in support of your second, 2015
motion to vacate the same judgment, again based on lack of service, for the first time testifying
that she was in your home at the exact time of purported service of a Jane Doe who refused to
give her name, that no one came to the door of the residence, and that she previously dyed your
hair a different color can hardly be fairly characterized as mere clarifications of her prior
testimony that she was in touch with you in August of 2005. It was in fact a material change in
testimony, and a highly suspect on at that. Notably, both motions supported by Ms. Brandts
suspicious testimony were denied.
3. Tax court is known as a court of limited jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is entirely a creature of
statute and is the exception, rather than the rule. Generally, for the tax court to have jurisdiction
over a petition, the petition must contest a notice of tax deficiency or a notice of determination
by the IRS, and the petition must be filed within a specified number of days from the date of
mailing of the notice which is presumed correct from the postmark. The statutory time limit is
strictly enforced and is considered jurisdictional. Tax court jurisdiction is in no way based
on what you think it should have jurisdiction over. Jurisdiction in this instance is either conferred by
statute or there is no jurisdiction. Your notions of common sense have nothing to do with it.
4. Ms. Lynch, YOU are the one who started writing the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and
republishing your years running false accusations against me. YOU are the one who filed a
formal pleading in tax court exclusively directed at alleged misconduct by me. YOU are the one
who has posted those communications and that pleading on your public Google indexed blog. I
am simply responding. YOU and the one who opened that door. And the fact remains that you are a
convicted serial harasser with a long history of false accusations of criminality against a great
many people over a decade and no court or law enforcement agency has ever credited any of
your factual assertions during the last ten years. Moreover, none of this constitutes interfering
with a tax court matter which is a concept that you have manufactured out of thin air and has
zero legal significance.
Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:14 PM
Subject: Your emal to Michelle Rice dated Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM

To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: BlindDistribution@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
I always know when you perceive one of my rebuttals to your mass emails to the IRS/DOJ/FBI
to be particularly effective: You redact the body of it while complaining about it. I therefore
forward herewith the entire email. Please see yellow highlighted text clarifying that it is not on
behalf of Leonard Cohen.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 12:20 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov; Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov; Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM to the IRS/FBI/ICE/NSA
and others
Ms. Lynch,
Your claim that I am an interested party in respect to your pending (for now) tax court
petition relating to a 2002 prior, adjudicated tax court case involving Leonard Cohen
(contending that the 2002 stipulated disposition in that matter was procured through a fraud on
the court) is ridiculous on its face.
You make no attempt to support such a statement and throw it out there in the public domain
like it is self-evident.
The stakes are high? Ha!
What stakes exactly?
You said the same thing in response to my 2010 analysis of your threatened motion to vacate
Cohens 2006 default judgment (that it would be denied), in response to my analysis of your
direct appeal from and habeas petition following your criminal harassment conviction and 18month jail sentence (same), in response to my 2013 prediction that you would be remanded to
jail for violating your probation (you were), in response to my prediction that your 2015, second

motion to vacate would be denied (it was), and in response to my pointing out with reasoned
analysis why your other many failed legal positions dont withstand scrutiny (they all went
nowhere).
Were you convicted of criminal harassment in 2012? Yes you were. Was your conviction affirmed on direct
appeal and your habeas petition dismissed? You bet. Were your 2013 and 2015 motions to vacate
the (now) $14MILLION judgment against you denied? Yes. Was your 2015 motion to vacate the
California registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order denied in a court ruling that exactly
tracked my earlier analysis of the question? Yes it was.
Let me reiterate: The tax court cares not at all that I wrote to your opposing counsel once
requesting a copy of the motion to dismiss your petition or about your claims of victimhood
and harassment. The tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition, and none of these
collateral allegations can confer that jurisdiction.
Your pending motion to vacate the renewal of Cohens (now) $14 MILLION judgment will be
denied; your grounds in support of that order have already been litigated. Twice.
Cohens pending sanctions motion will be granted.
Your pending appeals taken from the denial of your second motion to vacate and the order
sealing documents are going nowhere.
Any federal court litigation initiated by you and arising out of your former agency relationship
with Cohen, which terminated in 2004, will be quickly dismissed.
Why do I care about any of this? Because unlike many of your harassment victims who deal with
you passively, hoping that if they remain silent in the face of your electronic harassment in mass
emails and on the web you will eventually go away, I decided on a more proactive approach.
And if you think for a minute that I need to be paid by Leonard Cohen in order to take an
interest in your mass emailed and blog posted slander (as well as your absurd and publicly
expressed legal positions) after you falsely accused me of being a child molester in mass emails
and on your Google indexed blogs, you have a lot to learn about human nature.
Any questions?
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece
www.linkedin.com/in/stephengianelli/
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
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,
Ive received yet another criminally harassing email from the Proxy Stalker, Stephen Gianelli.
Nothing deters this man and the stakes are clearly high. He is obviously a party-at-interest.
I have forwarded you all of this Criminals harassing emails. I didnt initiate anything so that
Stephen Gianelli, who is most definitely a proxy of Leonard Cohens (whether or not a coveryour-ass letter exists) and unofficial member of his legal team, can engage in ongoing harassment
with respect to me, witness tampering and intimidation with respect to my witnesses, or use the
opportunity to insert himself into a Tax Court matter and then lie and falsely accuse me to
opposing counsel, Mr. Fabian, in the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office. This is not a personal
grievance. This is engaged in blatant criminal conduct and evidence supporting that fact has
been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
Tax Court has jurisdiction over fraud upon the court. Both Tax Court and the 9th Circuit follow
Hazel-Atlas. I think the person with the actual vendetta is Leonard Cohen. Isnt that why he
retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to IRS;
used it as an opportunity to steal from me; bankrupted me intentionally; failed to serve me the
Complaint; filed and amended tax returns based on the fabricated Complaint narrative;
concealed his loans/expenditures totaling approximately $6.7 million from his alleged

retirement account; applied for an received fraudulent tax refunds from IRS and FTB; used
the Complaint to defend himself against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with
Agent Tejeda; and joined forces with the Los Angeles District Attorney and City Attorney in
targeting me? What will Leonard Cohen do for an encore? How low will Leonard Cohen go?
He has now gone so far over the deep end, from my perspective, that he literally hired my
younger sons fathers custody lawyer. That move appeared to be entirely desperate.
The Tax Court can decide how to handle and respond to my motions. I have addressed this
matter with the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office. And, I have advised Gianelli to cease and
desist yet again. I think its obvious that this man is moonlighting for someone regardless of his
lame argument that hes a retired lawyer/liar residing in Greece who cannot be extradited.
Ill forward any additional emails I receive from this Criminal to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
All the best,
Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:19 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM to the IRS/FBI/ICE/NSA
and others
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov
Ms. Lynch,
Your claim that I am an interested party in respect to your pending (for now) tax court
petition relating to a 2002 prior, adjudicated tax court case involving Leonard Cohen
(contending that the 2002 stipulated disposition in that matter was procured through a fraud on
the court) is ridiculous on its face.
You make no attempt to support such a statement and throw it out there in the public domain
like it is self-evident.
The stakes are high? Ha!
What stakes exactly?
You said the same thing in response to my 2010 analysis of your threatened motion to vacate
Cohens 2006 default judgment (that it would be denied), in response to my analysis of your

direct appeal from and habeas petition following your criminal harassment conviction and 18month jail sentence (same), in response to my 2013 prediction that you would be remanded to
jail for violating your probation (you were), in response to my prediction that your 2015, second
motion to vacate would be denied (it was), and in response to my pointing out with reasoned
analysis why your other many failed legal positions dont withstand scrutiny (they all went
nowhere).
Were you convicted of criminal harassment in 2012? Yes you were. Was your conviction affirmed on direct
appeal and your habeas petition dismissed? You bet. Were your 2013 and 2015 motions to vacate
the (now) $14MILLION judgment against you denied? Yes. Was your 2015 motion to vacate the
California registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order denied in a court ruling that exactly
tracked my earlier analysis of the question? Yes it was.
Let me reiterate: The tax court cares not at all that I wrote to your opposing counsel once
requesting a copy of the motion to dismiss your petition or about your claims of victimhood
and harassment. The tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition, and none of these
collateral allegations can confer that jurisdiction.
Your pending motion to vacate the renewal of Cohens (now) $14 MILLION judgment will be
denied; your grounds in support of that order have already been litigated. Twice.
Cohens pending sanctions motion will be granted.
Your pending appeals taken from the denial of your second motion to vacate and the order
sealing documents are going nowhere.
Any federal court litigation initiated by you and arising out of your former agency relationship
with Cohen, which terminated in 2004, will be quickly dismissed.
Why do I care about any of this? Because unlike many of your harassment victims who deal with
you passively, hoping that if they remain silent in the face of your electronic harassment in mass
emails and on the web you will eventually go away, I decided on a more proactive approach.
And if you think for a minute that I need to be paid by Leonard Cohen in order to take an
interest in your mass emailed and blog posted slander (as well as your absurd and publicly
expressed legal positions) after you falsely accused me of being a child molester in mass emails
and on your Google indexed blogs, you have a lot to learn about human nature.
Any questions?
Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
www.linkedin.com/in/stephengianelli/
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: your blog posted tax court declaration dated September 13, 2015
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,
Ive received yet another criminally harassing email from the Proxy Stalker, Stephen Gianelli.
Nothing deters this man and the stakes are clearly high. He is obviously a party-at-interest.
I have forwarded you all of this Criminals harassing emails. I didnt initiate anything so that
Stephen Gianelli, who is most definitely a proxy of Leonard Cohens (whether or not a coveryour-ass letter exists) and unofficial member of his legal team, can engage in ongoing harassment
with respect to me, witness tampering and intimidation with respect to my witnesses, or use the
opportunity to insert himself into a Tax Court matter and then lie and falsely accuse me to
opposing counsel, Mr. Fabian, in the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office. This is not a personal
grievance. This is engaged in blatant criminal conduct and evidence supporting that fact has
been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
Tax Court has jurisdiction over fraud upon the court. Both Tax Court and the 9th Circuit follow
Hazel-Atlas. I think the person with the actual vendetta is Leonard Cohen. Isnt that why he
retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to IRS;

used it as an opportunity to steal from me; bankrupted me intentionally; failed to serve me the
Complaint; filed and amended tax returns based on the fabricated Complaint narrative;
concealed his loans/expenditures totaling approximately $6.7 million from his alleged
retirement account; applied for an received fraudulent tax refunds from IRS and FTB; used
the Complaint to defend himself against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with
Agent Tejeda; and joined forces with the Los Angeles District Attorney and City Attorney in
targeting me? What will Leonard Cohen do for an encore? How low will Leonard Cohen go?
He has now gone so far over the deep end, from my perspective, that he literally hired my
younger sons fathers custody lawyer. That move appeared to be entirely desperate.
The Tax Court can decide how to handle and respond to my motions. I have addressed this
matter with the IRS Chief Trial Counsels office. And, I have advised Gianelli to cease and
desist yet again. I think its obvious that this man is moonlighting for someone regardless of his
lame argument that hes a retired lawyer/liar residing in Greece who cannot be extradited.
Ill forward any additional emails I receive from this Criminal to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.
All the best,
Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:33 AM
Subject: Fw:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
As you can see from the last message from Michelle Rice that I did not delete unread, we are
hardly a part of the same team (officially or unofficially) and never have been.
Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
---Forwarded message--From: Michelle Rice
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:42
To: Stephen Gianelli; Robert Kory

Reply To: Michelle Rice

Subject:
We would not have needed to associate in Dan Bergman had you not incited her
to further filings in a case that we thought had concluded in January 17, 2014
when she lost the first Motion to Vacate. I have each and every one of your
emails thereafter inciting Lynch to file her long promised motion accusing
Leonard Cohen and Kory/Rice of perjury. She filed her Motion for
Terminating and Other Sanctions on March 17, 2015 after your daily barrage of
emails inciting her to do so.... That motion was 1,100 pages. Not something that
you want to be on the receiving end of even if it was totally frivolous.
I will also not be reading any of your emails either as I had not been for years
until I could not stand by any longer after seeing you repeated emails
affirmatively inciting her to move to vacate a valid and subsisting restraining
order of my client.
What would do if you had a restraining order and someone was inciting the
restrained person to move to vacate your valid order ? And indeed violate that
order by inciting further harassment ?
And as for your final immature parting shot actually Stephen pro se litigants are
the most difficult defendants to deal with in litigation.
I will be happy to send a link to the article recently published in the ABA Journal
of Litigation on that very subject.
Good riddance.
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
Admitted to practice law in the following jurisdictions: California, District of
Columbia and New York
NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended

solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please destroy
this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the
receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for
your cooperation.
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>; Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:53 AM
Subject:
Ms. Rice,
I will not be reading your future emails.
For the record, as far as inciting Lynch to violence the most provocative thing you
could have done is associate Dan Bergman.
As far as losing in court to her, if you cannot beat the pro se retarded kid you
are in a world of hurt.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:27 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction is limited. Petitioner has burden of proving jurisdiction. Appeals where no
STATUTORY NOTICE OR VALID DETERMINATION LETTER or untimely appeals
PROHIBITED
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
35.3.2.1 (09-21-2012)
Tax Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. The Tax Court is a statutory court of limited jurisdiction, and strict compliance with all
essential jurisdictional elements is necessary before the court is empowered to enter a legal
decision in the case. Generally speaking, the Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine income,
gift and estate tax liability, transferee liability with respect to these taxes, certain excise taxes,
declaratory judgments under sections 6110, 7428, 7476, 7477, and 7478; and certain other causes
of action such as interest abatement, relief from joint and several liability, and collection due
process proceedings. With minor exceptions, the jurisdiction of the court with respect to taxes
extends only to those years and taxes in which a deficiency or liability was determined in the
statutory notice of deficiency or liability and raised in a timely petition to the Tax Court.

Jurisdictional questions may be raised by the court upon its own motion or by either party at any
stage of the proceeding. Normally, all questions concerning jurisdiction should be resolved prior
to the filing of the answer.
2. A jurisdictional motion is required where the petition attempts to take
an appeal from something other than a statutory notice or other valid determination
letter permitting Tax Court review; the petition is not filed within the statutory period; the
petition attempts to take an appeal with respect to a year or a tax as to which no deficiency (or
transferee liability) is determined; the petition is brought by an improper party or a nonexistent
party; or, the petition is filed for redetermination of a deficiency or liability which has been paid
before the mailing of the statutory notice. Special care should be taken to insure that a
corporation, trust, or estate is still in existence and competent to sue. The foregoing
jurisdictional items are not all inclusive, and the Field attorney should research the statutory and
case law with respect to any case in which there is doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.
[]
35.3.2.2 (09-21-2012)
Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
1. If the document filed with the court as a petition is not properly within its jurisdiction, such as
in instances in which a petition was not timely filed, the response should be a motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction. See Exhibits 35.11.1-34 through 35.11.1-40. When the petition is late, the
Field attorney assigned the case should immediately obtain proof of mailing (U.S. Postal Service
Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book For Accountable Mail, or equivalent with legible United States
postmark or an appropriate affidavit) from the office that issued the notice and attach the same
to the jurisdictional motion. The motion should be filed with the court, if possible, before the
answer due date.
[]
4. The petitioner has the burden of alleging and proving, when questioned, that the court
has jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy in the petition. At the
same time, the moving party has the burden to establish a prima facie case for the relief
requested in the motion. Thus, jurisdictional motions must be based upon facts and not upon
failure to allege in the petition a jurisdictional fact known to the respondent. If the court has
jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy, and if such fact is known to the
respondent although not alleged in the petition, the essential jurisdictional facts should be
alleged in the answer so that jurisdiction will appear on the record. Thus, in the latter instances a
jurisdictional motion would not be filed, but the missing jurisdictional elements in the pleadings
would be cured by allegations in respondents answer. In the case of a timely, yet imperfect
petition that the court has served on respondent without ordering it perfected, necessary
jurisdictional facts such as the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of the
petition may be made in a motion for more definite statement with respect to the imperfect
petition.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:44 AM
Subject: The Point
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
The point is, Ms. Lynch, that out of intellectual integrity I informed you of a case that is
highly helpful to your position in your pending motion.
I laid it out for you chapter and verse in simple language.
The only thing that this case does not resolve for you is the credibility conflict between the
declaration of service and your declarations, but procedurally, all of your other potential
roadblocks are solved.
But like an Aborigine who is gifted a cellphone and elects to use it as a rock to skip across a
pond, you squandered the opening.
It would have been much more effective if you had waited until the opposition was filed and
then used the case in rebuttal, but now you have tipped your hand and the opposition will surely
deal with this case, instead of ignoring the points raised. Instead, you are so closed minded you
actually cannot see the utility of this case at all.amazing.
Oh well, you can lead a horse to water
Never let it be said though that I did not give you accurate information.
Friday, September 18, 2015
And the Point Is?
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Fwd: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view
of your motion
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>, 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,
Ive asked Rice, rather than Criminal Stalker Gianelli, to respond to the issues raised in my
motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. Who cares what the criminal thinks. Ive already
addressed Fidelity v. Brown in my motion. Rice, in keeping with her predictable behavior, will
serve the Opposition precisely 9 days before the October 6th hearing. Gianelli appears to be
assisting her with research on these issues. I already advised Hess that his January 2014 order
wasnt filed with the court and I wasnt served the order either. Jeffrey Korn promised he would
serve it and failed to do so. I also didnt receive the proposed order, with request to comment,
when that was sent. I am aware that the final order wasnt registered. So whats the criminals
point? I am aware that there is no finding re. proper service due to all of this. These people
have a lot of nerve insulting someone who is pro per for the sole reason that Cohen bankrupted
me and stole my share of intellectual property via default while withholding commissions due
me for services rendered. LA Superior Court seems to also condone slave labor.
Kelley
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of
your motion
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

See the attached case, Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne, FYI. Under its reasoning:
9. A motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is NOT CONSIDERED to be a motion
to vacate the judgment and is therefore not governed by time limits for motions to
vacate the judgment such as those provided by section 473.5. This is because the motion does
not seek to affect the judgment itself but only the renewal period. For the same reasons one would
have AN ARGUMENT that a motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is not a
motion to reconsider a previously denied motion to vacate the judgment itself, but the case
does not address that issue.

2. The moving party need not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.
3. There is no due diligence requirement in filing the motion earlier (e.g., after learning of
the judgment) because the legislature has explicitly provided for a 30-day time window from the
date mailing of notice of renewal of the motion to file it, and the motion is either filled within
that statutory time or it is not.
4. Unlike in the cited case (attached), the fact of valid service is DISPUTED so the moving
party still needs to overcome the presumption of valid service created by the proof of service
filed by the registered process server. And Judge Hess could still defeat the motion by weighing
the evidence and concluding that the moving declarations failed to overcome the presumption in
favor of proper service.
5. Res judicata should not be a factor because NO ORDER SETTING FORTH JUDGE HESS
JANUARY 17, 2014 RULING DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE was ever signed or
filed let alone served. (See the on-line docket case summary.) A proposed order was lodged,
but NO SIGNED ORDER WAS EVER FILED AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT NO
ORDER WAS EVER SIGNED. Since there was no ORDER DENYING THE MOTION
entered, no final, appealable order was ever entered and (arguably) therefore there was no
prior finding of proper service.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of
your motion
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
See the attached case, Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne, FYI. Under its reasoning:
9. A motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is NOT CONSIDERED to be a motion
to vacate the judgment and is therefore not governed by time limits for motions to
vacate the judgment such as those provided by section 473.5. This is because the motion does
not seek to affect the judgment itself but only the renewal period. For the same reasons one would
have AN ARGUMENT that a motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is not a
motion to reconsider a previously denied motion to vacate the judgment itself, but the case
does not address that issue.
2. The moving party need not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.
3. There is no due diligence requirement in filing the motion earlier (e.g., after learning of

the judgment) because the legislature has explicitly provided for a 30-day time window from the
date mailing of notice of renewal of the motion to file it, and the motion is either filled within
that statutory time or it is not.
4. Unlike in the cited case (attached), the fact of valid service is DISPUTED so the moving
party still needs to overcome the presumption of valid service created by the proof of service
filed by the registered process server. And Judge Hess could still defeat the motion by weighing
the evidence and concluding that the moving declarations failed to overcome the presumption in
favor of proper service.
5. Res judicata should not be a factor because NO ORDER SETTING FORTH JUDGE HESS
JANUARY 17, 2014 RULING DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE was ever signed or
filed let alone served. (See the on-line docket case summary.) A proposed order was lodged,
but NO SIGNED ORDER WAS EVER FILED AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT NO
ORDER WAS EVER SIGNED. Since there was no ORDER DENYING THE MOTION
entered, no final, appealable order was ever entered and (arguably) therefore there was no
prior finding of proper service.
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
You have one shot at making your case that you were not served on October 6.
I strongly suggest that you do not rely on the same evidence and arguments that have failed to
persuade Judge Hess in the past.
The reason for this any lawyer can explain to you. On appeal, the appellate panel is REQUIRED
to accept Judge Hess factual findings if they are supported by ANY substantial evidence. That
would include the 2005 affidavit of service.
And Ms. Lynch, I have always been helpful in that I have given you my honest view of things
based on 35 years as a trial lawyer. It was often not what you wanted to hear. But my predicted
litigation outcomes have been right in your various matters 100% of the time.
Dont get me wrong, I personally believe that you were served with the summons and complaint
in the manner provided by law and in my opinion Judge Hess believes that as well. He has all but

said so on the record.

However, unlike your prior unsuccessful motions to vacate the judgment, which were
procedurally flawed due to your waiting so long to file, your motion to vacate the RENEWAL is
not subject to the same procedural obstacles.
You are therefore entitled to have the fact of service adjudicated.
But you have one shot at it your day in court.
You will either succeed in persuading Judge Hess that you were not served or you will not.
I strongly suggest that you make the most of the opportunity and focus on that issue rather than
these dead ends that seem to bog you down.
Frankly, based on your blog posts and emails so far I dont think you have the capacity to do so.
So prove me wrong on October 6 by doing something different that will be a game changer for
Judge Hess.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Subject: Your claim that I am simply covering up my real party involvement with cover
your ass emails
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You could not be more wrong.
If I were you I would concentrate more on the legal authorities I have transmitted to you, and
their implications for your motion, than my motive in transmitting them.
---Forwarded message--From: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
To: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>; Dan Bergman <Dbergman@bergmanlaw.com>

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 11:17 PM

Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed motion to
vacate the fraud domestic violence matter? (See 4/14/2015 email)
Stephen:
No, Stephen, it is your ego that is in the way here.
The reason Robert requested you only email him is because you were sending
dozens of emails to me a day sending me unsolicited emails regarding Kelley
Lynch, which I did not even read. Your fixation on Kelley Lynch is truly
pathological.
The truth is Stephen, now that the gloves are off, so to speak, is that you did not
have the balls or the juice to get her arrested when she was harassing you for
years in San Francisco. I have all of the emails where you were reporting her to
the police, FBI, etc. All to no avail. Some big criminal lawyer you are. You did
not have any viable contacts in law enforcement that could help you out after your
long self-proclaimed illustrious career as a criminal lawyer ?
It took little ole me the lawyer who you claim produces workmanlike product
for my client to get Lynch arrested. Through connections I made. Thats
right, I got it done. In fact you wrote me following her March 1, 2012 arrest in
Berkeley expressing your surprise (still have that email, shall I send it to you, with
a copy to Dan, to refresh your memory?) that I was able to get it done when you
could not. So your claiming now that you were instrumental in getting her
arrested is nothing more than assuaging your own fragile ego. Your pathological
jealousy of me is as sick as Lynchs jealousy of our firms success as Leonards
lawyers, managers, and representatives. Throughout our ten year tenure Leonard
was inducted into the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame, achieved the Grammy Lifetime
Achievement Award, saw his album Old Ideas debut on Billboard at Number 2,
behind Lana Del Rey, the highest charting album of Leonards entire career. And
yes, I attended all of those events. You did not Stephen.
Now that we are speaking truth and dispensing with civilities I will say it you
have been trying for years to take credit for my work because unlike you, I do not
self-promote my considerable successes, but rather let
has-runs and never-weres like yourself step in to try to get a little bit of my
considerable light. Shamelessly discussing with Leonard Cohen fans on your
blog what actor is going to play you in any Cohen-Lynch bio-pic.

What a shameless starf*ker you are. The cold, hard truth of the matter is your
career was nowhere and you glommed onto the Cohen-Lynch matter and my
successes seeking your proverbial 15 seconds of fame.
So do not think we have not seen your shameless self-promoting postings
on leonardcohenfiles.com as if you had anything to do with any of the ten years
worth of litigation involving Cohen/Lynch.
I did not need anyones help to properly register the out-of-state restraining
order. It is properly registered as you have repeatedly stated in your numerous
bloviated emails regarding the restraining order that you did not file.
By the way, I also did not need any help flying with Leonard Cohen on a private
jet from Burbank to Denver in August and September 2008 to get the permanent
restraining order in Colorado either.
Dan: your firm is fired and you are no longer needed in BC 338322 and BC
341120. Please prepare your notice of withdrawal for filing Monday. Robert and I
have been discussing in private how little your firm contributed to the recent
effort against Lynch. I did all of the work and drafted the two dispositive filings,
including the Opposition and Sanctions Motion. The only motion that was barely
passable was the Motion to Seal and even then it was barely literate. Robert and I
were shocked that you proposed to file a declaration for LCs signature with a
sentence Lynch refused to return documents to him. You will not be assisting
in either the restraining order matter, the appeals, nor in the federal court RICO
suit she has threatened to file because I did a PACER search and none of your
attorneys, including yourself, have done any litigation in federal courts. I have
over ten years in federal district courts all over the country, including in Colorado,
Nevada, New York and California.
P.S. I do not want to tell you what Leonard Cohen is paying me to defend him in
all of the litigation against Lynch, a rate I can command because of my previous
record of success. Suffice it to say, it would make both of you sick with more
envy than you already seem to have.
Yours very truly,
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
I have no logical or legal need to distance myself from Michelle Rice a woman BTW who
has expressly stated, in writing, that she has literally gotten fucking rich though opposing
Kelley Lynch in court. We are already polar opposites.
Nor is Michelle Rice the kind of person I would have anything in common with whatsoever, or
that I would ordinarily give the time of day to (to put it mildly).
Ironically, would appear that she is the second female agent in Cohens life to live in a $2M Los
Angeles home funded with his money.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 9:58 PM
Subject: Your blog post dated Sunday, September 20, 2015
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Whether you realize it or not, I am the only person on the face of the earth who has ever told
you the truth about your legal situation.
Your apparently belief that the correspondence authored by Michelle Rice was contrived
notwithstanding its frank language and the disappearance of Bergman from the case vividly
illustrates how you will cling to a false belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
None of which is my problem.
I do not care for you or for Michelle Rice (who has formally notified me that her client is
adverse to me) so whatever the outcome on October 6 I am quite content.
I simply believe that with respect to your statutory objection to the renewal of the 2006

judgment you have a right to litigate your contention that you were never served on its merits.
Winning that issue is quite another matter.
Unfortunately for you and my desire to see the obnoxious Ms. Rice (who has bragged to me
that she has a 170 IQ and is a MENSA member, about how much money she makes, the value
of her home, the number of award dinners she has attended, and about riding on a corporate jet
once I mean, PLEASE) fall on her keester you squandered your credibility with Judge Hess
long ago and even now you appear to be unable to keep your eye on the ball.
Best of luck to you.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:55 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Once you identify an opposing counsel in one of your filings you then overwhelm them with
hundreds of thousand word, irrelevant emails that are never even read.
The same is true regarding your tax court matter.
The Chief Counsels Office has a procedural checklist. For example, once (as is the case in the
pending matter) jurisdictional issues are identified they are immediately addressed with a motion
to dismiss. Until the jurisdiction question is resolved by the court, opposing counsel will not
even address the merits of your petition. Your emails are falling on deaf ears, as did your
hundreds of emails sent to Jeffery Korn (who was only fronting for Michelle Rice).
In the meantime you have a rare opportunity to at least have one of your claims (e.g., lack of
service) heard and determined on the merits without procedural roadblocks.
But instead of developing evidence from an independent source that Judge Hess has not yet
heard, you are wasting your time flogging ancient history in emails and on your blog.

Your perception that the Rice Gianelli correspondence was choreographed in July in order to
transmit to you now as disinformation as ridiculous as your belief that a lawyer employed by the
IRS would care one way or the other.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Subject: Your recent blog posted email claiming a cover your ass email
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
FYI
---Forwarded message--From: Michelle Rice [mailto:mrice@koryrice.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 11:35 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Re: So where is your oft threatened, but never quite filed motion to
vacate the fraud domestic violence matter? (See 4/14/2015 email)
And who cannot control their emotions? Booo hooo Kelley Lynch called me a
child molester in emails that no one ever reads....
Boooo fucking hoooooo...... man up and put on your big boy pants and shut the
fuck up.
Do me a favor and keep inciting her to file more motions, you are making me
richer than fuck. In fact,
I think I can pay off my mortgage on my $2 million Hollywood Hills home with
jetliner views by the end of this year.
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
California law is settled that pending appeal a trial court judgment is not final and will not be
given res judicata effect (Code Civ. Proc. 1049). It therefore follows that an unsigned minute
order that is not yet appealable because it directs a written order that has not yet been signed will
not be given res judicata effect either. (See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 13, comment b
(the finality requirement for purposes of claim preclusion resembles the concept of finality for
purposes of appellate review).
Therefore, there is no res judicata as to the January 17, 2014 ruling.
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Subject: The Ongoing Criminal Harassment: Attempts To Elicit Information: Obsession With
My Son, Etc.
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, *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
Cc: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, STEPHEN GIANELLI
<stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Mr. Fabian,
I would like to ask you to review the harassing emails I continue to receive from Stephen
Gianelli. I do not know this individual and has has not entered a formal appearance on behalf of
Leonard Cohen. I, for one, am not falling for the moronic cover-your-ass campaign that
involves absolutely crass emails between Rice and Gianelli. I have advised both of these

individuals to cease and desist.

As you know, I have three hearings on October 6, 2015 related to Leonard Cohens illegal
default judgment and attempt to extort $14 million from me. I have submitted substantial
evidence to LA Superior Court and the perjury, fraud, and contradictory statements are
excessive, outrageous, and inconceivable. In any event, once these hearings are held, I will move
onto federal court. The wrongful sealing of evidence (including publicly available documents)
and the Courts denial of my motion re. fraud upon the court are under appeal. I intend to file a
notice of appeal with respect to the fraudulent domestic violence order. Restraining orders are
simply a tactic Leonard Cohen and his representatives have employed and the Colorado order
was issued without findings.
I am well aware of the fact that opposing counsel failed to have the Court sign an Order
following the January 2014 hearing. I have documented that matter for IRS, FBI, DOJ, and
others. Gianellis attempts to appear helpful are merely an attempt to elicit information. Rice
has actively encouraged this criminal to provoke and incite me and targeting my sons appears to
have been their preferred method.
I believe that Michelle Rice has spent the past 10 years targeting me, lying about me, and doing
anything it takes for her client. She evidently is also into cash.
However, the point I want to bring to your attention is this criminals obsession with my son,
Rutger. Leonard Cohen sent me an email in 2011 wherein he stated that he saw Rutger copied
in. That email was not presented as evidence during my trial although the subject line (that
interested my prosecutor) clearly stated 2004 and 2005 federal tax matters or something to
that effect. That is due to the fact that in September 2004, the FTB advised me to go get the tax
information Cohen is obligated and required to provide me. He steadfastly refuses to provide
this information to me and believes he has a legal right to subvert IRS filing and reporting
requirements. Does Rutger think Im smart? That line is meant to upset and provoke me.
These people belong in prison. I am very clear about that fact. One of Gianellis roles involves
criminally harassing, threatening, insulting, stalking, slandering, and intimidating witnesses.
People have contacted law enforcement, attorneys, submitted declarations, etc. Noting deters
this criminal.
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html
I have forwarded you the documents Cohen has now filed in response to my Motion to vacate
the Renewal of Judgment and Motion to Tax Costs. The fraud in those documents is extensive.
Some of these issues relate to the matter before Tax Court. Theyre all intertwined because this
situation with Leonard Cohen is nothing other than a criminal tax fraud matter and attempt to

obstruct justice. That would explain the lengths this unconscionable man has gone to destroy
my life, lie throughout every legal proceeding, and target my sons and others. I would like you
to be clear about the fact that I believe Leonard Cohen and his lawyers are capable of just about
anything.
All the best,
Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen, et al. (RICO)
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
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 isnt 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 dont know if your order was entered. [] He said he would serve me; I never
received anything. I dont even know if an order was filed. Its not on L.A. Superior Courts
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 COURTS 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, youre 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 Cohens $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
isnt 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 dont even see a point when you trip over it.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:14 PM
To: Michelle Rice; STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ;
Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd;

Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson;

Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Whistleblower;
Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Subject: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen, et al. (RICO)
Michelle Rice and Stephen Gianelli,
I view this ongoing harassment, in great part, as your Cover Your Ass Operation. I am aware of
the legal issues the Criminal Stalker (Gianelli) is harassing me over. I raised this issue with Hess
at the June 2015 hearing. The transcript is evidence of that fact.
Cease and desist.
Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:44 AM
Subject: Pending motion
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Dont be so obtuse.
Your pending motion to vacate will not turn on the existence of a legal conspiracy.
You already knew that Judge Hess never SIGNED a written order that he directed in the
1/17/2014 minute order, AND that fact means there was no prior determination off service in
this case?
Fine. But I dont think so.
You already knew that a minute order that directs the preparation of a written order is NOT a
final, appealable order? Again, I dont think so.
This area of the law is complex and some lawyers and judges dont even understand it. I learned
these things the hard way, by having an appeal dismissed and working like hell to get it
reinstated.

Try to keep your eye on the ball.

You may not think I am trying to help you but I assure you MR feels differently. And she is
seething.
Just read the pinpoint materials I sent you and consider my bullet points and then do what you
have to do.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:25 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
One final point re the argument that service has already been litigated.
I have already given you the authority for the fact that because no final appealable order was
signed there is no res judicata.
In addition, Judge Hess refused to consider your moving declaration at the January 17, 2014
hearing because it was unsigned. Therefore, the motion was denied for reasons OTHER than
whether you were served.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:40 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
California law is settled that pending appeal a trial court judgment is not final and will not be
given res judicata effect (Code Civ. Proc. 1049). It therefore follows that an unsigned minute
order that is not yet appealable because it directs a written order that has not yet been signed will
not be given res judicata effect either. (See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 13, comment b
(the finality requirement for purposes of claim preclusion resembles the concept of finality for
purposes of appellate review).
Therefore, there is no res judicata as to the January 17, 2014 ruling.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate; reply memorandum

To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
The minute order issued by Judge Hess on January 17, 2014 expressly directs the preparation of
a written order. (See attached minute order stating, in relevant part: Plaintiff is to submit an
order.)
As such it was not an appealable order. In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1410
[minute order that directs preparation of written order not final, appealable order]; in accord In
re Marriage of Dupre (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1517 (rev. denied 7/13/05) (citing Lechowick on this
point.)
Plaintiffs counsel prepared a proposed written order as directed, but instead of submitting the
proposed order to Judge Hess chambers for signature, and then following up to insure that it
had been signed, filed and entered, and then serving you with a notice of entry of same
counsel simply attached the proposed order to a pleading styled Notice of Lodging Court
Order and FILED it, where is sat (and sits) through today. (See attached, endorsed filed
Notice of Lodging Court Order. Therefore, whoever was lead counsel in the matter
committed a serious procedural error by not making sure that the order was submitted to Judge
Hess for signature and by not following up periodically to insure its entry.
Because you COULD NOT have appealed the January 17 minute order as Judge Hess stated on June
23, 2015, and the minute order that directs the preparation of a written order is neither final
nor binding. (See attached transcript, page 3 lines 26-28.)
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:37 PM
Subject: Your blog post dated September 23, 2015 @ 6:51PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Interesting questions all, that you could have asked ten years ago in a deposition IF you had filed
a responsive pleading in BC338322 instead of ignoring the default hearing you were notified
about and then ignoring the $7.9M judgment that you read about in the news media until 2013.

Now you can ask those questions all you want, but no one is required to answer you. Its simply
too late. The case is resolved with a default judgment entered against you giving rise to issue
preclusion. And any and all applicable statutes of limitation arising out of your oral agency
contract with Cohen, including but not limited to fraud theories, have long ago expired.
Questions are not evidence, and the window to discover and to introduce evidence on the merits
has closed.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Proper credit in the renewed judgment amount for the policy limit settlement
contribution on behalf of defendant Richard Westin; BC338322
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
You are entitled to a credit against the judgment amount for the amounts contributed by
Richard Westins insurance carrier toward Plaintiffs damages, and amount that Michelle Rice
has characterized in writing as a policy limit settlement. (See attached email.)
There is case law holding that the judgment debtor is entitled to object to the renewal of a
judgment on this basis (i.e. that the renewed judgment amount does not reflect proper credits
due). However, given your attitude I am not inclined to spend the time finding the citation for
you.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

ENCLOSED:
From: Michelle Rice To: stephengianelli@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen: I attach the civil case document image from LASC online services which
shows that KL filed the motion on Friday 8/9. We have not been served on LCs behalf. It takes
several days to update the public database. Her filings should show up by the end of the week
there. LOL Gibson Dumb and Dumber as KL calls them. We will NOT have Edelman or

GDC anywhere near this response. I researched and wrote the complaint against KL and
Richard Westin as a 2nd year lawyer. Edelman and GDC were essentially a filing service for our
firm. Every essential victory against KL was masterminded, researched and instituted by me
and LC knows this the Writ of Possession getting LCs docs and personal effects back from
KLs house on Mandeville Canyon Rd, the LA restraining order in Oct. 2005 (wrote LCs dec),
the Colorado permanent restraining order in 2008 (I drafted LCs declaration and hired Harvey
Steinberg, CO counsel), the mediation against Richard Westin (wrote LCs brief and attended
mediation with Justice Stone of JAMS), etc., etc. Edelman sat there during the JAMS mediation
and did not have a command of any of the facts. Edelman was also convinced that KL cut off
the chain of causation against Richard Westin and that LC could not recover anything against
Westin for KLs acts as the insurance carrier vehemently argued. The call to Lloyds of London
(the reinsurer for Westins malpractice policy) for the policy limit payout at the end of the day
which was based on my tort argument in the mediation brief convinced Edelman otherwise.
Seriously, he did not do anything in helping get the default judgment against KL his firm
fronted the litigation, but by and large all of the hard, heavy duty thinking came from me and
Robert. Michelle L. Rice, Esq. Kory & Rice LLP 9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills,
CA 90212 Phone: (310) 285-1633 Fax: (310) 278-7641 NOTICE: This email is confidential and
may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email
in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please
report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for your
cooperation.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:00 PM
Subject: Your September 24, 2015 blog post at 12:34 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Now you know who the mastermind is. For all of it.
I mean, she says she has a 170 IQ. Which has got to be a genius record for a lawyer.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 9:02 PM
Subject: You cant tell the difference ...
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
You cant tell the difference between a threat / and a helping hand. You cant tell the difference between
a threat / and a solemn warning / from one of the few people / who still cares about you and
your family.

To that I would add, you cant tell the difference between helpful truth and harassment.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Subject: After you lose in BC338322, on appeal, and in 017085-15 while contemplating your
next move if any
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
A successful federal pro se lawsuit requires more than a grievance. The suit must succinctly and
cogently state a claim that is legally recognized by a prior published appellate opinion that is
factually on-point and that the claim is within the jurisdiction of the federal court. The suit must
be filed within the applicable time that has elapsed since the plaintiff was first damaged by the
conduct complained of or first discovered she was damaged thereby (as the case may be). There
must be no applicable privileges that the defense may assert. And the claims may not arise out of
a transaction or transactions that have been previously litigated under the law of the state where
the parties reside.
Most critical, the plaintiff must be poised from the filing of her complaint and very first status
conference to succinctly and cogently communicate the above to a court that is inherently
skeptical of pro se lawsuits (especially those arising under civil RICO) and has considerable tools
at its disposal to weed out and dismiss claims that it views as unmeritorious early on in the
process especially in fee waiver cases.
In federal court you are randomly assigned to a single judge for the remainder of the case.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they are not catch-all courts where plaintiffs
can automatically go after losing in state court and its judges aggressively police the limited
availability that forum and aggressively probe and assess the merits of every pro se case that is
filed very early on.
Once a federal judge forms the impression that a case is without merit, its all over except for
the written order.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:50 AM
Subject: Heightened pleading standards in federal court and the implications for marginal, pro se
cases
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Few issues are more important in federal litigation than determining whether a case will be

dismissed for failure to state a claim or instead slog on into discovery so I respectfully suggest
that before you initiate any federal court litigation that you not only carefully research the legal
and factual elements of each cause of action or claim for relief that you intend to plead and
then carefully read the United States Supreme Courts decisions in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007)
and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009).

These decisions generally require that you not only state all of the required elements of a
given claim, but that the factual allegations of the complaint taken in context be
plausible in light of the trial judges experience and common sense.
In Twombly the Court put into retirement the oft-quoted line from its 1957 decision in Conley v.
Gibson that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears
beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would
entitle him to relief. The Twombly Court instead explained that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that a complaint include facts (as distinct from legal labels and
conclusions) giving rise to a plausible (rather than merely conceivable) entitlement to
relief. Two years later in Iqbal, the Court confirmed that Twombly applies to all civil suits, not just
antitrust cases or complex cases.
Twombly and Iqbal have clarified and focused for the lower courts the standard governing
motions to dismiss, particularly by emphasizing and providing terms for applying the second half
of Rule 8s requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. The impact of this shift in focus is particularly acute for pro se plaintiffs who
seek to plead claims that are regarded by courts to be on the margins such as conspiracy
claims.
Courts will sometimes encounter allegations that are simply too unbelievable to be accepted. In
such instances, for example where the plaintiffs allegations involve little green
men, id. At 1959 (dissent), the defendant may ask the court to disregard the implausible factual
allegation. Such cases, usually pro se, are not unheard of since Iqbal. E.g., Deyerberg v. Holder, 2010
WL 2131834 (D. D.C.). (The principle that a court may disregard patently implausible factual
claims is distinct from the principle that a complaint will be inadequate if, accepting well-pleaded
factual allegations as true, it fails to give rise to a plausible inference of liability.)
In addition, as Iqbal emphasized, courts should not accept the truth of factual allegations that are
[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements. 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Thus, at the very least, a motion to dismiss should note the areas
in which a complaint relies on legal labels instead of subsidiary facts.
The real factual allegations that remain have not nudged [the] claims across the line from

conceivable to plausible. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951. Iqbal, following Twombly, adds that assessing
the plausibility of a claim is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on
its judicial experience and common sense. Id.
One particularly common use of judicial experience and common sense is to justify courts
imagining obvious, alternative, lawful explanations for the alleged conduct that it considers at
least as plausible as an explanation involving illegality. Where such alternative explanations exist,
it is less likely that the complaint allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
While Twombly and Iqbal have formalized the analysis of 12(b)(6) motions significantly, they have
by no means eliminated the discretion inherent in deciding one. To the contrary, a court will rely
on substantial judgment and intuition in distinguishing between facts and conclusions as well as
in determining whether the facts alleged create a plausible inference of liability.
Lower courts applying Twombly and Iqbal exercise this discretion differently depending
on the circumstances, dismissing as conclusory a greater number of factual allegations
or taking a more stringent view of the facts required to create plausibility where the case
raises special concerns such as in pro se conspiracy cases. The Seventh Circuit, for
example, has said so explicitly: This case is not a complex litigation, and the two remaining
defendants do not claim any immunity. But it may be paranoid pro se litigation, and

before defendants in such a case become entangled in discovery proceedings, the

plaintiff must meet a high standard of plausibility. Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 971
(2009) (Posner, J.). The Third Circuit similarly has observed that [c]ontext matters in notice
pleading. Fair notice under Rule 8(a)(2) depends on the type of case. Phillips v. County of
Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (2008).
Therefore, a key task for a defendant, in addition to marshaling complaint-specific arguments
under Iqbals formal framework, will be to emphasize every facet of the case that would warrant a more
stringent application of the plausibility standard. A defendant could accomplish this task in several ways.

First, a defendant might suggest, where appropriate given the nature of the case, that the
plaintiffs claim is meritless or abusive. Cf. Cooney, 583 F.3d at 971 (This case is not a
complex litigation, and the two remaining defendants do not claim any immunity. But it may be
paranoid pro se litigation, arising out of a bitter custody fight.).

Second, Twombly and Iqbal invite defendants to support their motions to dismiss by
highlighting the difficulty of inferring liability in the type of case at issue, the costs of
discovery, and the risks of abusive lawsuits associated with the type of case. Such
arguments may be particularly promising in antitrust, employment discrimination, securities

litigation, and indirect patent infringement cases, as well as in cases involving class actions
and allegations of conspiracy or, under RICO, of an enterprise-in-fact, a predicate act that
requires a mental state and does not involve fraud, or a pattern. See, e.g., Edwards v. Prime, Inc.,
602 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2010) (in RICO case, holding two types of predicate acts adequately
pleaded and two othersone requiring knowledge, and another involving a conspiracy
not); McCullough v. Zimmer, Inc., 2010 WL 2178554, *4 n.8 (3d Cir.) (questioning viability of preTwombly circuit precedent allowing plaintiff merely to allege existence of enterprise, rather than
pleading its essential attributes); Logan v. SecTek, Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 179, 183-84 (D. Conn.
2009) (dismissing disability-discrimination complaint because the facts alleged made it possible,
but not plausible that the employer knew the plaintiff was disabled as opposed to merely
injured).
Finally, it should be emphasized that the heightened pleading standards under
Twombly and Iqbal apply equally to pro se litigants indeed, given the sliding scale approach,
in many kinds of cases even more so.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
On July 23, 2015, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground
that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination was issued to petitioner for taxable year
1999. On September 16, 2015, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion To Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, wherein respondent asserts that there is no record of respondent having
issued any whistle blower determination under section 7623 to petitioner.
TRANSLATION:
Your tax court petition complains of matters that occurred with reference to taxable year 1999.
But the IRS claims that no notice of determination was ever issued to you by the IRS for that tax
year. Therefore, unless the IRS is wrong about that, or unless you filed a form 211 to the IRS
whistleblower office, which may provide an alternative basis for jurisdiction, your petition will be
dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, the tax court is providing you with an opportunity to file an objection to
the IRS motion to dismiss, as supplemented, on or before October 22. In the meantime, the
court will reserve ruling on your motion to supplement the record, because if the motion to
dismiss is granted the motion to supplement the record will be moot.

WHAT WEILL HAPPEN NEXT:

You have already said in an email copied to me that you have never filed a whistleblower
complaint with the IRS. And it is evident that even if a notice of determination was mailed to
you by the IRS concerning tax year 1999 (which the IRS DENIES) that you failed to file your
petition within 60 days of the date of mailing of that notice.
In other words, GAME OVER.
ATTACHED TAX COURT ORDER DATED OCTOBER 1, 2015
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:10 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
The State Bar doesnt care about your bogus allegations of misconduct.
The tax court will be dismissing at the end of the month.
Your appeals are going nowhere.
Any federal court suit will last about 60 days.
Its over, loser.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:28 AM
Subject: Its realy very simple there is no jurisdiction. You bear the burden of affirmatively
showing jurisdiction and have failed to do so.
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
The tax court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent
expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v.
Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively and, as the

party invoking the Courts jurisdiction, petitioner bears the burden of proving that
jurisdiction exists. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.

268, 270 (2000), affd, 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001).
Ms. Lynch, you have not cited a federal statute that you contend gives the tax court
jurisdiction to hear your petition concerning as it does a prior, separate tax court matter to
which you were not a party and which was concluded more than ten years ago let alone

demonstrated how your petition comes within that jurisdictional statue.

That is because the tax court DOES NOT IN FACT HAVE JURISDICTION over the matters
you seek to raise.
It is pretty clear what is going on.
Judge Hess has barred you from coming into the front door to attack the 2006 judgment in
BC338322, so you are trying to enter through the kitchen window by in effect collaterally
attacking the underpinnings of the 2006 judgment through your 2015 tax court petition.
Not going to happen.
There is no jurisdiction to hear your petition, you have cited no federal statute that provides
jurisdiction for this court of limited jurisdiction, and the tax court has no choice but to dismiss.
Game over.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:02 PM
Subject: Your latest blog post publicly posting a copy of your objection to the IRS motion
to dismiss
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Your objection to the IRS motion to dismiss your tax court petition addresses the merits of
your assertion that a tax court decision may be vacated if fraudulently obtained, but you fail to
address the basis of the tax courts jurisdiction over your petition NOW more than a decade after the
stipulated judgment in question was entered.
You also characterize Rule 162 as follows:
Under Rule 162, unless the Court shall otherwise permit, a motion to vacate must be filed
within 30 days after a decision has been entered, and sections 7481(a)(1) and 7483 provide

that a Tax Court decision becomes final 90 days after entry if no party files a notice of appeal.
(Bold italics mine.)
But you have not filed a motion to vacate in the tax court proceeding wherein the stipulated
decision you complain about was issued, nor are you a party to that original tax court
proceeding, nor was your tax court petition (even if it could be deemed a motion) filed within
the time limit specified by Rule 162 as you characterize it.
You have no apparent basis for standing, your filing is untimely, and you fail to explain the statutory
basis for tax court jurisdiction over your petition.
Game over.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 2:46 AM
Subject: Cover your ass campaign? Ha!
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Since Michelle Rice is the one who convinced both Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory of the
need to get you in the system by having you arrested and prosecuted in 2012 for criminal
harassment/restraining order violations as well as being the architect of the entire litigation
strategy against you, your ire is misplaced.
Michelle is the one who used her contacts in law enforcement to have you
arrested/jailed/prosecuted not me.
Nor am I the one getting fucking rich off of your legal issues or living in a $2M house with
jetliner views paid for by Leonard Cohen.
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:34 AM
Subject: Your blog post of 10-10-2015

To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Michelle Rice is not my colleague nor is she in my league as a former trial lawyer. In fact, she has
never tried a case at all. And most of the victories she lists were against an unrepresented party
she has analogized to a retarded kid i.e. you.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Subject: FW: Michelle Rices latest email to me dated July 25, 2015 11:35 AM Athens time (1:30
am Los Angles time)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

The Fabulous Michelle Rice, Esq. at a Cohen award dinner

----- Forwarded Message ----From: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
To: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Michelle Rices latest email to me dated July 25, 2015 11:35 AM Athens time (1:30
am Los Angles time)
PHOTOGRAPH OF MICHELLE RICE ENCLOSED.
Get your facts straight.
For the record, I have been practicing law for 12 years. I was first admitted in the District of
Columbia in 2003 by my math that is 12 years, not 9 as you imply below.
Apparently math is not your strong suit. Prior to my career in law, I was an economist (A.B.D.
all but dissertation Johns Hopkins)
The success I referred to in my email is my 10-year representation of Leonard Cohen includes
the following (note: I am also co-manager with Robert and LCs intellectual property counsel)
- achieving policy limit payout on behalf of Leonard Cohen in JAMS arbitration against
Lynchs co-defendant Richard Westin, Esq. in Feb. 2006. I researched and wrote the brief under
my signature.
(which I can assure you was a fully contested matter)
- researching and drafting the complaint in Cohen v. Lynch for Scott Edelman to file
- conceiving of the idea and accompanying Santa Monica Sheriffs Dept on the Writ of

Possession at Lynchs residence in October 2005 to retrieve Cohens personal property and
business records
- drafting LCs declaration in the permanent Colorado Restraining Order matter which cocounsel Harvey Steinberg (Colorado admitted lawyer) argued in 2008 hearing
- drafting Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Cohen in District of Colorado
litigation with former investment advisor remaining $150,000 in Traditional Holdings funds
released to Cohen
check from the District Courts registry made out for Cohen c/o me as his attorney of
record in Sept. 2008
- drafting Cohens Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees in District of Colorado
litigation Motion for $260k in attys fees denied
- Registration of Colorado Restraining Order in California in 2011 obtaining permanent
order for client
- filing police report with LAPD against Lynch in 2011
- Working with PI/TMU to get Lynch arrested for violations in Berkeley in March 2012
- drafting the Opposition to Lynchs first Motion to Vacate (Jan. 2014) for Jeffrey Korn to
file
- drafting second Opposition to Lynchs Motion for Terminating Sanctions
- drafting Sanctions Motion against KL
Note: the above list is the litigation matters for Leonard. I also do considerable work in the
intellectual property area including: obtaining trademark registration for the LEONARD
COHEN mark; reviewing various licensing requests, reprint permissions, literary agreements and
other IP agreements, issuing take down notices for bootleg merchandise on eBay, as well as all
trademark and copyright infringement matters (i.e., Youtube takedowns under DMCA).
Just for the record. I am not just a litigator. I am a 360 lawyer. My main area of practice is
IP, not litigation.
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:06 AM
Subject: FW: Fw:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

From: Stephen Gianelli [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 12:31 PM
To: Michelle Rice
Subject: Re: Fw:
FYI from my Gmail trash archive.
You may believe that these emails are contrived as some kind of cover your ass campaign
but 1. I dont care what you or anyone else thinks and 2. Trust me, my feelings toward Michelle
Rice and the client who she disparages me on behalf of are less than charitable.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:15 PM, <mrice@koryrice.com> wrote:
Look up Atlantic Records, et al. v. Project Playlist. SDNY. Denny Chin. I lead $900 million
copyright infringement litigation
for a start-up client. Won settlement. Backed off major labels. Very contested claims. Got a
PACER Account ? Look it up. Dare you. Come back to me
when youve seen that kind of high stakes litigation youve never even been close. Little state
court boy.
I tell you whats pathetic. The dearth of your digital footprint. Your long 37 year illustrious
career. nothing. Zilch. Nada.
All I get when I Google you is jihad gianelli NAMBLA AND Child Molester, LOL.
Guess you werent so successful in getting all that taken down, eh ? Big litigator and all ?
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:02 AM
Subject:
You have now sent me TWO MORE emails that I deleted unread. But no doubt full of toxic
epithets.
I will (hopefully) leave you with this life hint: When you sport a sunken mouth and a forehead
big enough to be seen from outer space (not to mention THAT hair and body) a nasty
personality leaves you with few social (not to mention relationship) options.

And this protip: You cannot sustain a practice with one client, let alone an elderly client. And the
largest source of small firm or solo (when Robert retires) referrals is other lawyers.
And. I think you can forget the neighbors at this point after calling them stupid and the
internet, opposing a variance for a 1,500 sq. ft. garage edition not to mention how you treated
Steve Head face-to-face.
The law is a small community, Michelle. Word gets around.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE
network.

From: Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>

Date: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: RE:
To: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: <mrice@koryrice.com> <mrice@koryrice.com>, <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
<kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Wilson Sonsini withdrew because they feared a huge loss. Michelle stepped in under protest,
assembled a brilliant team of three firms, fought back in major technical 253inancial, terabytes of
data, developed a computer model that caused counsel to record companies to fear loss, and to
settle on extremely favorable terms . She accomplished all this knowing that her case was
fundamentally flawed. Her clients were leading entrepreneurs with net worth on the billions and
could have been forced to pay massive damages. Kramer called me after the settlement and
congratulated us on Michelles brilliant work. The real tragedy is that the Playlist technical team
and entrepreneurs failed to follow Michelles analysis of DMCA compliance. Had they done so,
Michelle could have won the litigation. Feel free to doubt my words, but I assure you it is the
truth.
You are way off base about Michelle. I urge you to cease your baseless and often childish
criticism of her. I also ask again that you stop emailing Lynch and provoking her. This should
not be viewed as sport. Your emails suggesting that provoking Lynch is fun are quite
troubling.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 11, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:

PS: I looked up Atlantic Records, et al. v. Project Playlist. The LEAD COUNSEL for the defense
was NOT Michelle Rice. (It was David Kramer at Wilson, Sonsini in Palo Alto.) And no,
Michelle, no one would trust a lawyer who has never tried a single case, cross-examined a witness at
trial, given an opening statement or a closing argument let alone one who doesnt even know how to
mark a document, present it to a witness, and then move it into evidence - to try ANY case as lead
counsel for the defense least of all in a $900 million dollar case for a startup company
represented by Wilson, Sonsini. Ha!
Defendant
Project Playlist, Inc
David H. Kramer
Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
(650) 320-4741
Fax: (650) 493-6811
Email: dkramer@wsgr.com
TERMINATED: 11/09/2009

LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
From: mrice@koryrice.com [mailto:mrice@koryrice.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 12:16 PM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Fw:
Look up Atlantic Records, et al. v. Project Playlist. SDNY. Denny Chin. I lead $900 million
copyright infringement litigation
for a start-up client. Won settlement. Backed off major labels. Very contested claims. Got a
PACER Account ? Look it up. Dare you. Come back to me
when youve seen that kind of high stakes litigation youve never even been close. Little state
court boy.
I tell you whats pathetic. The dearth of your digital footprint. Your long 37 year illustrious
career. nothing. Zilch. Nada.
All I get when I Google you is jihad gianelli NAMBLA AND Child Molester, LOL.

Guess you werent so successful in getting all that taken down, eh ? Big litigator and all ?
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:02 AM
Subject:
You have now sent me TWO MORE emails that I deleted unread. But no doubt full of toxic
epithets.
I will (hopefully) leave you with this life hint: When you sport a sunken mouth and a forehead
big enough to be seen from outer space (not to mention THAT hair and body) a nasty
personality leaves you with few social (not to mention relationship) options.
And this protip: You cannot sustain a practice with one client, let alone an elderly client. And the
largest source of small firm or solo (when Robert retires) referrals is other lawyers.
And. I think you can forget the neighbors at this point after calling them stupid and the
internet, opposing a variance for a 1,500 sq. ft. garage edition not to mention how you treated
Steve Head face-to-face.
The law is a small community, Michelle. Word gets around.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.

From: <mrice@koryrice.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: RE:
To: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>, Robert Kory
<rkory@koryrice.com>
Mr. Gianelli:
I attach the parties listing from Atlantic Records, et al. v. Project Playlist, Inc. that I downloaded from
PACER from the Southern District of New York. As you will see in the attached,
I was indeed a counsel of record for my client, Project Playlist, Inc., after Wilson Sonsini
withdrew in 2009.

Your own printout in your email below shows Mr. Kramer as terminated in 2009.
Given your purportedly exceptional legal skills, I can only assume that your misstatement as to
my representation of Project Playlist in the SDNY litigation is intentionally and knowingly false
and as such is defamatory per se.
Your continued attempts to publicly defame and discredit me, subsequent to my telling you in
no uncertain terms as recently as July of this year to cease your harassment of me and this law
office should cease and desist immediately.
Whatever continuing dispute you may have with Ms. Lynch is between the two of you and
should not involve me as Mr. Cohens counsel. As a lawyer of significant skills (according to
you), I find it interesting that you cannot resolve your own legal disputes with Ms. Lynch
without attempting to involve our office and continually attempting to inappropriately intervene
and insert yourself into Mr. Cohens legal matters.
Accordingly, please cease copying me in on emails that you send to Ms. Lynch, who I observe
has also repeatedly requested that you cease your inappropriate interference and
has even written me and my law partner, Robert Kory, to request that you do so.
According to the California State Bar website you remain an active member of the State Bar
irregardless of your publicly holding yourself out as retired. I submit that your ad hominem
attacks on me, Ms. Lynch, and your recently writing that it is fun to harass others when they
have repeatedly requested that you cease such conduct is, as my partner observed below, quite
troubling and disturbing.
Attachment: Party/Attorney Listing U.S. District Court, SDNY, Atlantic Recording Corp. v.
Project Playlist, Inc., 1:08-cv-03022-DC
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
Admitted to practice law in the following jurisdictions: California, District of Columbia and New
York
NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the

addressee. If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message immediately
along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this message to the sender at
the address listed above. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:17 AM
Subject: Hazel-Atlas
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
PS:
Do yourself a favor, before you drive into another blind litigation alley in front of a far less
forgiving federal bench.
When asked to apply, assess, or set aside a state court judgment the federal district court must
apply the procedural law of the state in which the judgment was issued.
As explicitly set forth in Cohens opposition to your 2015 motion to set aside the 2006
judgment, California does not follow Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co. That was
conclusively established by the California Supreme court, California does not follow Hazel-Atlas
and will only set a judgment aside in the case of extrinsic, as opposed to intrinsic fraud on the
court (including alleged perjury underpinning the judgment). And even when a judgement is
issued by a federal trial court (Cohens judgement isnt) the Federal Rules now place a strict time
limit on motions to set aside judgments procured through alleged fraud.
So it is not a question of how a federal court will interpret Hazel-Atlas the issue is that the
case is inapplicable to an attack on a California state-court judgment based on alleged intrinsic
fraud.
As for your off-hand statement that you guess The Supreme Court: will be considering whether
Cohens judgment will be set aside, no they will not.
This term the Supreme Court granted a mere 18 petitions for review out of the many hundreds
filed. There is zero chance of the United States Supreme Court granting a pro se petition for
review in your case. And even if it did, the result would be the same: Hazel-Atlas does not apply
to a California state-court judgment.
This is easy enough to research start with the cases cited in Cohens opposition on this point.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated October 12, 2015 also posted on her blog
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
The 2006 default judgment in BC338322 does not bind the IRS, it binds YOU.
Consequently, under res judicata any claims you may have enjoyed against Leonard Cohen
arising out of your former business relationship and/or to interests in Cohen related business
entities (Blue Mist, Traditional Holdings) are PRECLUDED.
Your attempts to go back in time and unwind the 2003 stipulated disposition in Cohens 2001
tax court case through your 2015 petition suffers from unrelated but equally fatal disabilities
including a lack of jurisdiction for the tax court to even consider it.
You are mixing apples and oranges.
And, Ms. Lynch, I am speaking for myself and on one else. I have copied you in no one else.
Get a clue.
I seriously doubt that Kory Rice cares what you think otherwise they would be writing you,
not me. But they certainly do not dictate whom I cc or not cc on my emails.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: Cease and Desist
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, rkory <rkory@rkmgment.com>,
*IRS.Commisioner <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field
<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Division, Criminal
<Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Doug.Davis <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, 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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Michelle Rice and Robert Kory,
I do not want to be copied on the Cover Your Ass emails. This has gone on for over six years
since Gianelli heard from Rice in May 2009. My sons and many others have been targeted. That
includes, but is not limited to, Paulette Brandt.
Gianelli was in touch with Bergman a number of years ago and I have that evidence.
Furthermore, Rices email notes that she fired Bergman for incompetence but that also looked
like a cover your ass operation unless your firm is one of the more unprofessional law firms in
the United States.
I will be filing a RICO suit. Tax Court will decide if it has jurisdiction over fraud upon the
court. As the appellate division tends to rubber stamp LA Superior Courts decision, I will more
than likely be pursuing these matters to the U.S. Supreme Court. They might find your
interpretations of Hazel-Atlas fascinating.
The Tax Court matter pre-dates the fraud judgment so I dont think that argument works. The
fraud tax refunds pre-date the fraud default judgment. The requirement that Cohen provide me
with IRS required tax and corporate information pre-dates the judgment.
This conduct should cease and desist.
Kelley Lynch
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:32 AM
Subject: RE: Cease and Desist
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: mrice@koryrice.com, rkory@koryrice.com
Ms. Lynch,

There is no three of you.

I keep my own counsel and I act on my own as I always have.
Please note the italicized and yellow highlighted portion of Robert Korys email to me dated July
27, 2015, quoted in pertinent part below:
The fact remains, you were the first to copy Dan. Had you not copied Dan, Michelle
would not have had to fire him. Your effort to enlist Dan in criticism of Michelle forced her
hand. You are not part of the Cohen legal team. [] What Michelle may have said to Dan
follows directly from your efforts to enlist Dan as your ally. (R. Kory email dated July 27,
2015, emphasis added.)
Therefore, your continued efforts to conflate Gianelli with Kory-Rice-Cohen are inappropriate
as are your imputation of my emailed correspondence to anyone except me. I am not part of the
Cohen legal team officially or unofficially. I dont even like them very much at this point.
How much clearer do facts need to be for you to get it?
And, for your information, no one much cares what crazy inferences you pull out of thin air. No
one has any apparent motive to pretend to distance themselves from each other. There is a
$14M civil judgment against you that became final in 2006 and that you tried unsuccessfully to
attack on January 17, 2014, June 23, 2015, and October 6, 2015 and the validity of service and
the judgment has stood fast. At least one federal court has already given the judgment full faith
and credit. Your 2009 motion to vacate the 2008 Colorado protection order was summarily
denied, as was your motion to set aside the 2011 California registration of that order.
You are fresh out of legal moves.
Your July 2015 tax court petition that also seeks to undermine the factual underpinnings of the
2006 civil judgment is about to be dismissed.
Your pending appeals (including the notice of appeal you filed on October 6) are going
nowhere.
Any federal court lawsuit will be slapped down by the court before the ink is dry on the filing
stamp.
Simply stated, no one cares that you absurdly claim that my emails are on behalf of Kory-RiceCohen because you are powerless to take any effective legal action of any kind. Its over.

As for your cease and desist, I am REPLYING to YOUR emails to me, you disparage me daily
on your public blog (which public posts I have every right to respond to), and after YOU sent to
me 20,000 +/- unsolicited emails (many of them obscene, vulgar, and threatening) I pretty much
own you.
Any questions?

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 12:08 AM
To: rkory; Michelle Rice; STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field;
ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane;
blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan;
hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko;
Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Subject: Re: Cease and Desist
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
Let me know if Im unclear with these three stark raving lunatics.
Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM (no subject line)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: mrice@koryrice.com, rkory@koryrice.com

Ms. Lynch,
You are wasting your efforts by complaining to Kory Rice about my email communications.

I have no affiliation with Kory, Rice or Leonard Cohen. They do not control whom I
email. Nor am I arguing anything.
I am simply responding to your blog posted mass email stating:
As the appellate division tends to rubber stamp LA Superior Courts decision, I will more
than likely be pursuing these matters to the U.S. Supreme Court. They might find your
interpretations of Hazel-Atlas fascinating. (Kelley Lynch email, dated Oct 12, 2015 at 12:30
PM.)
As I said in my email, it is not a question of interpretations of Hazel-Atlas; the issue is

instead whether or not Hazel-Atlas applies at all to a California state-court judgment.

That is a question of California law, not federal law and the California Supreme Court has
declined to follow Hazel-Atlas. Instead, it has followed the harsh rule of United States v.
Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 [25 L. Ed. 93] requiring a showing of EXTRINSIC FRAUD, a case
followed in California by an unbroken line of decisions starting with Weir v. Vail, 65 Cal. 466,
470. (See particularly Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129, 133-135.) That the rule of United States v.
Throckmorton, supra, as adopted by this state, is still our law is evident from the wealth of recent
cases which have recognized its authority. (e.g. Coffelt v. Coffelt, 229 Cal. App. 2d 659, 664; Hopper
v. Hopper, 224 Cal. App. 2d 446, 447-448; Otani v. Kisling, 219 Cal. App. 2d 438, 442.) All of this is
spelled out in the opposition previously served on you.
Moreover, there is no question that perjury to the court is intrinsic fraud. (Jorgensen v. Jorgensen,
32 Cal. 2d 13, 18; Preston v. Wyoming Pac. Oil Co., 197 Cal. App. 2d 517, 528-531.)
This is all hornbook law. It is not argument it is legal fact, written in stone.
Finally, review by the United States Supreme Court is DISCRETIONARY. That means it is up
to the Court as to whether or not it even considers your case. And as I said, this term it
has accepted only 18-cases for review out of many hundred petitions requesting it to do
so.
The issues implicated by your belated attempts to set aside a California state-court default
judgment EIGHT YEARS after it was entered where the trial court exercised its discretion
under well-established California procedural rules and twice denied your motions is not an issue

for the United States Supreme Court.

It just is not going to happen. Nor can the US Supreme Court tell the California Supreme Court
to follow Hazel-Atlas. That is a matter of state-court litigation procedure entirely within the
province of the California Supreme Court.
Your claims to the contrary are simply ridiculous.
So is your stubborn insistence that I am a member of Cohens legal team, officially or otherwise.
Not only is there zero evidence to suggest that, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM
Subject:
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.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@lacity.org, mayor.garcetti
<mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, 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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Michelle Rice and Robert Kory,
The Criminal Proxy Stalker, who continues to argue Cohens legal positions, has sent me yet
another criminally harassing email. I will reply to the two of you as you serve as Cohens general

counsel, personal manager, and business manager.

If you dont know the difference between RICO and Hazel-Atlas, I would strongly recommend
that you research the differences. Since federal courts do follow Hazel-Atlas, including Tax
Court, when Cohens legal team lies in federal court (or perjures himself, commits fraud, etc.), I
will file a motion re. fraud upon the court. Thats a simple fact. I am extremely clear that
California condones the tampering with the administration of justice and seems to feel that
perjury, fraud, and litigation misconduct results in a fair legal proceeding. I completely disagree.
You have lied about serving me the summons and complaint in Case No. BC338322 and
continue to do so. Or, you have lied that I was served but the proof of service lists a third party
Jane Doe who does not exist.
The state court judgment vis a vis federal tax matters will be at issue. That will include, but is
not limited to, the fraudulent tax refunds Cohen obtained six months prior to the entry of
default.
Everyone takes a chance going to the U.S. Supreme Court so I dont feel as though Im in the
minority here.
I wont be starting with your alleged arguments since you dont have any. You have fraudulent
misrepresentations, perjured statements, and litigation misconduct and tactics.
This conduct should cease and desist.
I still have not received a copy of the declaration filed in Case No. BQ033717. Is there
something you forgot to lie to the court about during the hearing?
Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:56 AM
Subject: Hazel-Atlas
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
In your latest blog post you write:
Does Hazel-Atlas apply to California cases? We shall find out.
You have already found out. You just cannot accept the answer.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Subject: 265inanc lynch email dated Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:53 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Ms. Lynch,
Leonard Cohen does not have to prove anything.
He won in 2006. You simply have not realized it yet.
If you are going to continue with your jailhouse-lawyer-gadfly shtick there are a few underlying
legal principles that would be useful for you to learn. One of them is the policy in favor of
finality of disputes. Our legal system would not function very efficiently if a litigant could reopen
matters that were resolved over a decade ago with (for example) a stipulated tax court decision
in 2003 and/or could waltz into court in 2014 and try to reopen a 2006 default judgment that
they ignored until then or if she was able to sue on legal claims to alleged commission income,
royalties, and intellectual property allegedly due under an oral business arrangement that ended
in 2004.
The fact of life that you cannot do any of those things is not a conspiracy. Everyone who points
those facts out to you is not an agent of Leonard Cohen.
Finally, your constant irrelevant and burdensome emails to anyone with the misfortune to be
tasked with opposing one of your time-barred and stale claims in court is not calculated to
persuade anyone to see things your way. It will simply make them happier when the matter is
dismissed. Until then it simply results in more eye rolling and exasperation.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, Michelle Rice
<mrice@koryrice.com>, rkory <rkory@rkmgment.com>, Division, Criminal

<Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,

*IRS.Commisioner <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Mr. Fabian,
Cohen discovered this letter in the fall of 2004. He and I discussed it. Ive been told this is what
[the] informant discovered, whoever that might be. No one worked for me that had access to
corporate books, records, financial statements, etc. Cohen is a bald faced liar and fabricates
stories. Cohen will never prove that I retaliated with IRS. He retaliated with a fraud lawsuit
with the full understanding that I had gone to IRS and other tax authorities. I have Korys
[emails] from May 2005 proving that fact. He also had to confront Greenbergs lawsuit. Those
issues havent been litigated. Gianelli is a criminal who works as an agent
provocateur/infiltrator. I have seen him in action for over six straight years. He has relentlessly
targeted my sons. Rice was copied on numerous emails targeting my sons including emails by
Cohens fan, Susanne Walsh, who is evidently a jihadist sympathizer.
I want to be clear: I dont know if Gianelli is a stark raving deranged lunatic, child molester, or
serial murderer. He appears to be a member of Cohens legal team. That would explain why he
is lying to FBI and DOJ. These people are criminally insane.
Kelley

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Oct 14,
2015 at 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated
Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: mrice@koryrice.com, rkory@koryrice.com,

Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Ms. Lynch,
9. In July of 2015 I wrote to Jarkko Arjatsalo and asked him to delete my account at the
Leonard Cohen Forum; he did. I simultaneously deleted my blog as well as every on-line
Google/YouTube commen critical of you and supportive of Leonard Cohen. I did these
things because I no longer wish to publicly support Leonard Cohen in his dispute with
you.
2. That does not mean that I agree with your patently incorrect legal positions and preposterous
conspiracy theories. It is not either or. One is not either on your side or on Cohens side.
3. I have come to realize certain things about Leonard Cohen. While I am quite confident that
Kelley Lynch became 267inancially over-extended and invaded Leonard Cohens accounts to
keep her head above water, I can also see that Cohens failure to respect and to maintain
professional boundaries, as well has his propensity to attract flawed people who are blindly loyal
(his most valued trait) contributed to your false perception of entitlement that lead you to be
able to justify your theft in your own mind (aided as well by your well documented drug and
alcohol abuse). This in no way
excuses your misconduct, but it does help to explain it and it also helps to explain why you felt
so betrayed when Cohen, upon discovering your theft, cast you out of the fold and sued you. If
an employer fails to respect professional boundaries he should not be surprised if his employees
dont either.
4. I have not lied. At a minimum you were AWARE of Cohens lawsuit from the prominent,
world-wide media coverage and from your friends and family by 2005. That is a fact. You
received an email from Scott Edelmans office inviting you to attend the 2006 default hearing
where the amount of damages were decided and you elected not to attend even though you
were living in LA. That is also a fact. Any reasonable, innocent person who knew they and not
been served with a lawsuit that accused them of embezzling millions that was being
widely reported in the press and who also believed that the plaintiff was the one who owed them
millions would RUN, NOT WALK, to court and not only proclaim their innocence but would
bring to the courts attention the
alleged lack of service as well as take reasonable steps to collect the millions they were owned
from the plaintiff. ESPECIALLY if they were in financial distress and facing foreclosure and
homelessness. But you did NONE of these things. Instead you AVOIDED going to court.
Then you left the state. This behavior is not consistent with the way you spin events now. That
is simply human nature and common sense.

5. Served or not (and for the above reasons I believe you were served, and that you failed to
show in court because you were ashamed of your guilt and humiliated by it) it is now too late to
do anything to make the 2006 default judgment go away. You waited too long, you tried in 2014
and 2015 to do so, and you (predictably) failed. Its over except in Kelley Lynchs mind.
You cannot turn back the clock ten years or more on legal proceedings long ago final and undo
them.

6. Pointing these things out is miles from a crime particularly in response to one of your many
thousands of emails and blog posts mentioning me by name. 7. I do not have, nor have I
ever had, a personal or professional affiliation with Michelle Rice, Robert Kory, or Leonard
Cohen. I certainly do not represent any of those persons and never have. Since 2013 I have been
retired, living on Crete, and have no clients.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law
(ret.) Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:06 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email to the FBI/Justice dated Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov
Ms. Lynch,
At a minimum, you knew by 2005 that Cohen had sued you for millions and had entered your
default. (The suit was COVERED WORLD WIDE in every major newspaper, on line, and in
the entertainment trade publications.) You knew by 2006 that a default hearing was coming up,
and the date, time and location of same.
You chose to not appear in the lawsuit at the time, to claim you were not served or to proclaim your innocence.
Instead, you tried to back off Cohen with threats to go to the IRS which you did, and you
flooded Cohen and his attorneys with harassing emails.
By June of 2009 you were aware that Cohen had obtained a $7M default judgment against you.
You wrote to me at that point, stating that you were well aware of the judgment, that you

considered it evidence of tax fraud and that you had no intention of asking the court to set it
aside.
By April of 2010 you started writing to me claiming that you were going to be filing a motion to
set the judgment aside by the end of the month. But you took no action to do so.
In fact, you waited until the fall of 2013 more than EIGHT YEARS AFTER BEING SUED
and seven years after you were notified of the default hearing to set damages that you chose not
to attend to ask the court to set the 2006 default judgment aside, on the theory that you were
never served, That motion was denied on January 17, 2014.
You did not claim that the 2006 default judgment was the product of fraud and perjury until
you filed your second motion to set aside the default on those grounds in 2015 TEN YEARS
AFTER COHEN SUED YOU, and NINE YEARS AFTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
With all due respect, Ms. Lynch, and despite all your drama, innocent people dont hide from a
lawsuit that accuses them of embezzling millions from their employer and if you really thought
that Cohen was the one who owed YOU millions, you would have rushed to court in 2005 to
file that cross-complaint to recover your millions instead of moving around the country
sniping at Cohen on the internet and in emails.
In any event, most tax payers would not be too impressed with the manner in which you have
managed your own personal and legal affairs over the last decade as you found out in April of
2013 when a Los Angeles jury convicted you of criminal harassment and restraining order
violations sending you to jail for 18-months.
As for the California rules prohibiting attempts to set aside a judgment based on a claim that
the witnesses lied the rule is designed to foster finality, because EVERYONE says that
when they lose.
Finally, when you made a decision to stay away from the default hearing where the amount of
damages to be awarded to Cohen was decided you FORFEITED any objections based on the
nature and sufficiency of that evidence. What did you do instead? YOU WAITED OVER
NINE YEARS to come into court to object to that evidence.
And you call the court and the other parties a disgrace?
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)

Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM (no subject line)
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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
The Criminal Proxy Stalker, who is an absolute moron, continues to harass me. Kory and Rice
are copied in.
The judgment has nothing whatsoever to do with Cohens fraud tax refunds; LCIs illegal K-1s;
etc. The federal tax matters that have been implicated are mind boggling. That would include
Cohens including me on TH tax returns and then determining conveniently (with his personal
corporate.tax lawyer) that my ownership interest in TH was a mistake.
In any event, the Cover Your Ass Operation is laughable. Gianelli is arguing Cohens legal
positions and has been for over six straight years while targeting my sons and many others.
Who would ever believe these liars?
Does Hazel-Atlas apply to California cases? We shall find out. I cannot imagine one taxpayer
approving of the tampering with the administration of justice or the use of fraud and perjury to
obtain verdicts, judgments, and orders. Its a disgrace.
Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:33 AM

Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email to the IRS/FBI/Justice dated Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:50
AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Your allegation that Leonard Cohen has a history of drug and alcohol abuse does not mean that
you dont. In fact, it is a possible explanation about why he didnt fire you at the first signs that
you had a problem.
I would not bother submitting another declaration or motion to the tax court until you receive a
ruling on the pending motion to dismiss if I were you. The court has already indicated that it will
hold the last one you filed in abeyance until it rules on the dispositive motion.
Once the motion to dismiss is granted which it will be because your petition is not filed in
response to a notice of determination by the IRS concerning the tax year you purport to address
and for that reason the court lacks jurisdiction to even consider it all of your collateral claims,
motions and declarations become moot.
And flooding Mr. Fabian and the IRS/FBI/Justice with a dozen more emails is not aiding your
cause. Just the opposite in fact.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:44 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:24 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
None of this (below) is of any concern or interest to Mr. Fabian I assure you.
He has reviewed your tax court petition for jurisdiction, determined there is none, and per his
mandate raised the issue in a motion to dismiss.

You have filed your objection to the motion, which has now been submitted to the tax court for
decision.
There is nothing for you to do or for Mr. Fabian to do until a ruling is forthcoming on the
motion.
It seems clear that the motion will be granted. But even if that is not the case, things are on hold
in your tax court case until that issue is resolved.
In the meantime, I assure you that Mr. Fabian has more pressing matters to attend to than some
off-the-wall pro se tax litigant who is trying to reopen an old tax court case resolved by
stipulated disposition in 2003 as to which she was not a party. He certainly is not going to take
the time to read your bizarre and rambling letter to entertainer Phil Spectors murder prosecutor
Alan Jackson which has zero to do with tax court jurisdiction over your matter.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:24 AM
Subject:
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, *irs. Commissioner
<*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ
<ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, : Division, Criminal <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>,
Doug.Davis <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale
<MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa
<rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert
MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia
<wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, glenn.greenwald
<glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, hailey.branson
<hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett
<stan.garnett@gmail.com>, mike.feuer@lacity.org, mayor.garcetti
<mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov, Kelly.Sopko
<Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>,
Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com
Cc: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>
Mr. Fabian,

Another criminally harassing email regarding the Tax Court matter.

First of all, Leonard Cohen does have the history of psychiatric problems, drug and alcohol
abuse, and fabricates narratives. That would include the Complaint that was transmitted to the
IRS in order to file his 2005 returns, amend his 2003 and 2004 returns, and obtain fraudulent tax
refunds arguing self-dealing, alter ego, and money laundering. Cohen didnt fire me at all. He
heard I had or was reporting his tax fraud to IRS. I do have May 2005 emails from Kory
acknowledging that I reported the allegations of criminal tax fraud to IRS. I also have written
confirmation of the offer of 50% community property. My accountant, Dale Burgess, asked me
to contact IRS/Treasury (after I met with the agents) to inform them that he was present for
this offer. Leonard Cohen needed to argue fraud/rescission in order to explain away his role in
these transactions and corporations. I do think its highly relevant that Cohen failed to report $8
million in income re. the TH 2001 sale; extinguished my promissory note from the 2002 returns;
and extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2003 return. I had nothing whatsoever to do
with tax or corporate matters although Cohen perjured himself over that matter as well. Cohen
also failed to repay his nearly $6.7 million in loans/expenditures from TH and that includes his
personal transaction fees which are not corporate expenses. These are just some of the issues
that were confronted in the fall of 2004. I have no history of drug or alcohol abuse and the
Criminal Stalker does not know me and did not know Cohen for the 20 years I worked with
him. This is simply slander meant to discredit me although Im not certain it is a defense to
Cohens theft, tax fraud, embezzlement attempts, fraudulent tax refunds, etc.
The Criminal Stalker is attempting to interfere with a Tax Court matter and dissuade me from
filing a declaration with respect to this ongoing criminal conduct.
Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear fraud upon the court motions and that includes with respect
to the determination letter issued to Cohen personally when it should have been issued to
Traditional Holdings, LLC. That does not resolve the problem with the fact that Blue Mist
Touring owns the assets. I would assume Cohen continues to collect the royalty income related
to assets belonging to BMT which would be embezzlement or theft. Leonard Cohen views
corporate property as his own property. This is precisely what happened with Machat &
Machat. Cohen also withheld commissions due them and stole their share of IP. Machat has
been very public about this situation. He also understands the bearer bonds, which Cohen
removed from Machats office, that related to off-shore entities/accounts where he funneled
money. Fortunately, that occurred well before I knew Cohen so the fraud wont be able to
blame me. He does, however, come up with one fabricated, fraudulent narrative after another.
That would include his insanity with Bay of Pigs, Yom Kippur War, Janis Joplin, Phil Spector,
and now me. He also has told me, and others, that he was in CIAs MKULTRA program.

In any event, the criminal stalker continues to argue Leonard Cohens legal position and most
definitely appears to be an unofficial member of his legal team. Perhaps thats why Rice
encouraged him to harass and provoke me and it might explain why she was copied on emails
targeting my sons and others.
I have documented what has unfolded since reporting the allegations that Cohen committed
criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005. This criminals harassing emails will not change that
fact. I addressed a great deal of this in my letter to Spectors prosecutor Alan Jackson. The
letter was hand delivered to former DA Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, and DDA Truc Do.
It was hand delivered in September 2009, updated in 2010, and concealed from my jurors. It
might explain why former DA Steve Cooley aligned himself with Leonard Cohen publicly in
targeting me and elected not to prosecute him after I filed my Complaint with Major Fraud in
2006. The re-election campaign would explain Trutanich role. Clearly, Cohen was on the stand
testifying about Spector and a gun because Cooley and Trutanich had an expectation of affection
with respect to him or his testimony. Of course, Cohens testimony about receiving my April
18, 2011 email was perjured but it allowed the City Attorney to drag Phil Spector into my alleged
trial while concealing the email to IRS Commissioners Staff and Rice about very serious
federal tax matters.
Kelley
Kelley Lynch letter to Phil Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2013/03/kelley-lynchs-letter-to-phil-spector.html

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:06 PM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
Whether your letter to Alan Jackson addresses federal tax matters or not it is of no interest to
Mr. Fabian.
His job is to respond to tax court petitions. According to the manual that guides his
representation of the IRS in such matters he was required to initially assess your petition for tax
court jurisdiction. Since your petition was not in response to a required notice by the IRS he
(rightly) concluded that the tax court lacked jurisdiction over your petition. At that point the

manual required him to raise the jurisdictional issue asap via motion. He did. The court found
that the petition had facial merit and ordered you to file an objection. You did. The matter
awaits a decision.
If the court grants the motion, thats it. Its over.
Therefore, there is no point to be served by Mr. Fabian doing any more work on the file until
there is a decision on the motion.
End of story.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Subject: Just another crazy engaged in tax litigation with the IRS (and I use that term loosely)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
I am not upset that you sent to Mr. Fabian your ridiculous manifesto to Alan Jackson dated
September 21, 2009.
I merely point out that it has nothing to do with his job description to read it.
You are only making a fool out of yourself.
The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel intersects with a lot of crazies in tax court.
They no doubt have special training on how to deal with them. Believe me you meet the profile.
You have filed a tax court petition addressing a discrete issue. The only thing before the tax
court (and therefore the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel) at this time is whether the tax

court even has jurisdiction to even consider that petition.

This is not a general opportunity to share with the tax court and the IRS assigned trial lawyer
even grievance you have had since 2009.
No one is paying attention.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:35 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ha!
You send out mass emails daily with links to your blog, and then when someone in officialdom
clicks on one you practically wet yourself!
Treasury is reading my blog!!!! Gooody!!!!
Ha!
90 seconds on your blog is all anyone needs to see that you have no credibility at all. That is how
long it took the FBI agent I spoke with about you to conclude you were 5150.

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:17 AM
Subject: Fwd: Just another crazy engaged in tax litigation with the IRS (and I use that term
loosely)
To: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, *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
Cc: rkory <rkory@rkmgment.com>, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Mr. Fabian,
The latest criminally harassing email from the Stalker Proxy re. you and Tax Court. The man is
positively obsessed. It is my personal belief that some of this insanity may have been planned in
2002. Sony issued inadvertent 1099s to Cohen in the amount of $1 million and $7 million re. the
TH deal and IRS inquired about the $1 million. Cohen handled that $1 million as a loan from
Sony and yet the payment was to be transferred to TH. By 2002, the TH deal had closed and
Cohen understood that. Neal Greenbergs IRS Warning Letters, that are essentially a coveryour-ass letter raise the issue of Cohen receiving disguised income in the form of loans and
the dangers with respect to his failure to repay those loans (now totaling approximately $6.7
million. Westin prepared minutes addressing Cohens dangerous level of borrowing from the
structure.
Robert Korys January 2005 memorandum, with Ira Reiner copied in, confirms that Cohen and
his representative failed to report $8 million in income to IRS in 2001. My accountant and
lawyers explained this to me after reviewing the TH federal tax returns in September 2004. They
also explained that Cohen and his representative extinguished my promissory note in 2002 and
extinguished the annuity obligation itself in 2002. This was done without my knowledge or
awareness. I did not handle IRS, tax, or accounting issues. Cohen also hired his own
representatives and I believe individuals such as Arthur Indursky can prove that he perjured
himself over this matter during my 2012 trial. In fact, Cohen signed retainer agreements
personally with individuals whose expenses he has attempted to take as corporate expenses or
transaction fees. Korys memorandum also addresses the phantom income shifted to me but
not distributed. Cohen willfully refuses to provide me with that information.
These matters clearly relate to inform the Tax Court matter. Cohen continues to argue Alter
Ego, Self-Dealing, and Money Laundering. This is a game for them however and the Criminal
Stalkers email is evidence of that fact. I am not crazy and the lengths Cohen has gone to
destroy my life (bankrupt and steal from me) is evidence of how serious this is. A criminal
stranger who has relentlessly targeted me, my sons, sister, family, friends, and others (witnesses)
is taking the position that Im crazy? Well, as some of my witnesses have noted, this man is a
psychopath.
Gianelli, as is true for Cohen and Kory, has decided to speak for IRS once again. Of course,
IRS has blocked his emails as harassing which shows good insights on the part of IRS.

All the best,

Kelley

EXCERPTS

MEMORANDUM

To:

Dianne DiMascio, Esq., David Berardo, Esq., and Dale Burgess, CPA

From:

Robert Kory

CC:

Ira Reiner, Esq., Kevin Prins, CPA

Re:

Cohen v. Lynch, et al.

Open Accounting, Tax Issues, and Legal Issues

Date:

January 14, 2005

Actual income received by entity compared with reported income

reported on income tax returns, including analysis of sources of all income
reported on returns: Cohen, LCI, Traditional Holdings.

Actual tax payments v. required payments (all entities).

Impact of phantom income to Lynch from profit allocations without

distributions from Traditional Holdings

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).

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:53 PM
Subject: Just another crazy engaged in tax litigation with the IRS (and I use that term loosely)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,

I am not upset that you sent to Mr. Fabian your ridiculous manifesto to Alan Jackson dated
September 21, 2009.
I merely point out that it has nothing to do with his job description to read it.
You are only making a fool out of yourself.
The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel intersects with a lot of crazies in tax court.
They no doubt have special training on how to deal with them. Believe me you meet the profile.
You have filed a tax court petition addressing a discrete issue. The only thing before the tax
court (and therefore the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel) at this time is whether the tax

court even has jurisdiction to even consider that petition.

This is not a general opportunity to share with the tax court and the IRS assigned trial lawyer
even grievance you have had since 2009.
No one is paying attention.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated October 17, 2015 12:06 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov, mrice@koryrice.com, rkory@koryrice.com
Ms. Lynch,
First, I speak only for myself NOT for Kory, Rice or anyone else. Nor have I ever discussed
your tax court case with them, orally or in writing.
Second, I dont have to ask Mr. Fabian what is on his mind. I am an experienced lawyer. I have
read his office procedural manual. I made myself conversant with the statutory basis for tax
court jurisdiction. I have read the tax court orders re: Fabians supplementary filing and ordering

you to file an objection, of any, by October 22.

Therefore, I know the following:
9. Government lawyers do no more work on a case than is required under the
circumstances, because they have many cases and must allocate their time wisely and
they are subject to supervision.
2. Fabian was required to initially assess your petition which deals with the tax year 1999 for
tax court jurisdiction, which by statute is very limited and only exists where the IRS sends out a
notice of determination or notice of tax deficiency without 60 or 90 days before the date the
petition is filed (as the case may be but never more). No notice, no jurisdiction.
3. Fabian determined that there is no tax court jurisdiction over your petition, because the IRS
has no record of sending you a notice of determination for tax year 1999. Per his published
office procedure, Fabian was required to (and did) file a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity.
4. The court then wanted to eliminate an alternative basis for jurisdiction, to make sure you did
not file a whistle blower claim, that if improperly denied may give rise to tax court relief. The
court therefore ordered Fabian to address this issue in a supplemental filing. Fabian did, by
stating the IRS never received a whistleblower claim from you.
5. The tax court then ordered you to file an objection, if any you have, by October 22, indicating
whether you have filed a whistleblower claim with the IRS on the specified form, and if so to
attach a copy of same to your objection.
6. You filed your objection (you called it a response but technically it is called an objection
in tax court) on October 6, tacitly admitting that there was no notice of determination sent
to you and admitting that you never filed a whistleblower claim.
7. The matter has been submitted to the tax court for decision on the pending motion to
dismiss. In addition, the tax court has ordered that a decision on your pending motion (currently
styled a motion to supplement the record in the tax court docket) will be held in abeyance
pending its decision on Fabians motion to dismiss.
8. Clearly and without a doubt, your tax court matter is on hold pending a ruling on Fabians
motion to dismiss. Therefore, it is highly illogical that Mr. Fabian would do any more work on
the file until there is a ruling. (That was the point of the motion to dismiss in the first place.)
MOREOVER, your objection (response) basically CONCEDES the factual basis for the

motion to dismiss (no notice pertaining to 1999; no whistleblower claim). Therefore, there is
no doubt that the tax court will grant the motion to dismiss.
9. Therefore, in a matter of days, there tax court case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,
and your motion to supplement the record will be moot.
Under these circumstances, there is not a single thing that Mr. Fabian could tell me about what
happens next that I dont already know by reading the procedure manual, the jurisdictional
statute, and the two orders of the tax court, and your objection (which you helpfully posted on
your public, Google indexed blog).
This does not require a mind reader just a lawyer with a willingness to read the governing
rules, the relevant pleadings and orders, and the ability to apply his experience and common
sense to the situation including how government lawyers operate. Its not complicated at all.
Any questions?
Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 12:06 AM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; Michelle Rice; rkory; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field;
ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane;
blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan;
hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko;
Whistleblower; Attacheottawa; tips@radaronline.com; Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Subject: Fwd: Just another crazy engaged in tax litigation with the IRS (and I use that term
loosely)
Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory,
I am once again advising you to cease and desist. If you want to know whats on Mr. Fabians
mind (and clearly the three of you arent mind readers), please hit reply all and ask him.
Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Just another crazy engaged in tax litigation with the IRS (and I use that term
loosely)
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,
It does not take a representative of the IRS or a clairvoyant to know what is on Mr. Fabians
mind.
Which is, there is a pending motion to dismiss in your tax court case and until the court rules
nothing to be done on the case. It is also obvious to any lawyer who has seen your
correspondence that you view the tax court as a catchall for your wide-ranging grievances going
back to 1999 but that forum is unavailable absent a petition filed within days of a notice of
determination from the IRS which you concede is not the case.
It is also clear that kindly put dont have a clue.
Figuring all that out is not rocket science.
Public officials are busy and have real work to do instead of wasting their time with nonsense.
And you make no sense.
On Friday, October 16, 2015, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Fabian,
> While I view this as the Criminal Stalker Proxys attempt to elicit information, and interfere
with federal tax matters, I would like you to advise me if Gianelli represents IRS Chief Trial
Counsels office, speaks for you, or knows what is on your mind. He most definitely appears to
be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohens legal team. As for my letter to DDA Alan Jackson
(hand delivered to Jackson, former DA Steve Cooley, and DDA Truc Do), it addresses Cohens
theft of $1 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC and the fact that the assets are owned by
BMT. I attach a copy of the letter herewith. I will note that Investigator Frayeh concluded that
Gianelli found a sympathetic ear with Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson about me. That might
explain why Cooley publicly aligned himself with Cohen who then perjured himself when he
testified that he was a recipient of the April 18, 2001 email to Dennis Riordan. That is how the
City Attorney elicited testimony about Spector and a gun while concealing the aspect of the

alleged email to the IRS Commissioners Staff. Most of the trial was about federal tax matters
and the record is replete with lies about those matters. Let me repeat what my PD told me: the
City Attorney is attempting to sabotage IRS; discredit you; the DA doesnt want the Spector
verdict overturned; and there may be a juror plant on your jury. My appellate attorney, who was
criminally harassed by the Criminal Stalker for over a year, wrote that my trial is an IRS matter
that demands an IRS investigation. The prosecutor then retaliated. All of these matters are
intertwined and essentially the City Attorney attempted to cover up Cohens own conduct by
informing jurors that it annoyed him. Evidently the contents of the IRS Binder annoyed
Leonard Cohen. Fortunately, I discovered the fraudulent tax refunds and challenged them as
fraud. These matters, together with the transmission of the fraudulent Complaint to IRS
together with Cohens 2001-2005 returns and amended returns as well as fraudulent tax refunds
will be addressed in my federal RICO suit. Cohens testimony that he rectified a mistake in my
ownership interest in TH, but included me in 2001-2003 federal tax returns as a partner (who
paid taxes), will be addressed. Many federal tax matters have been implicated and the fraud
default judgment, evidence of theft, embezzlement, self-dealing, and money laundering, does not
change that fact. These issues arose well before the default. Cohen owes me IRS required tax
and corporate information which I must now sue over. And much of what he owes me was due
approximately six months before he retaliated with his fraud lawsuit that I wasnt served.
> Gianelli, Kory, and Rice have been advised to cease and desist.
> Kelley
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------> From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:53 PM
> Subject: Just another crazy engaged in tax litigation with the IRS (and I use that term
loosely)
> To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
>
>
> Ms. Lynch,
>
>
>
> I am not upset that you sent to Mr. Fabian your ridiculous manifesto to Alan Jackson dated
September 21, 2009.
>
>
>
> I merely point out that it has nothing to do with his job description to read it.
>

>
>
> You are only making a fool out of yourself.
>
>
>
> The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel intersects with a lot of crazies in tax court.
>
>
>
> They no doubt have special training on how to deal with them. Believe me you meet the
profile.
>
>
>
> You have filed a tax court petition addressing a discrete issue. The only thing before the tax
court (and therefore the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel) at this time is whether the tax court
even has jurisdiction to even consider that petition.
>
>
>
> This is not a general opportunity to share with the tax court and the IRS assigned trial lawyer
even grievance you have had since 2009.
>
>
>
> No one is paying attention.
>
>
>
> Very truly yours,
>
>
>
> Stephen R. Gianelli
>
> Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
>
> Crete, Greece
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM

Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
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
Cohens 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

EXHIBIT C
DECLARATIONS OF
JOHN RUTGER PENICK,
CLEA SURKHANG, PALDEN RONGE,

& DANIEL J. MEADE

DECLARATION OF JOHN RUTGER PENICK
I, JOHN RUTGER PENICK, declare:
1.
I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California. I am
the son of defendant, Kelley Ann Lynch. 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.
My mother and I lived at 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road, Los Angeles, California, from
approximately November 1997 until December 28, 2005. My brother, Ray Charles Lindsey,
lived with us until May 25, 2005. We lived in this home during the summer and fall of 2005. On
December 28, 2005, we were evicted by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department.
4.
At no time did my mother and I have a female co-occupant who resembled the
individual described in the Proof of Service related to Leonard Cohens lawsuit.
5.

No one in our house was ever advised to evade service and this was never discussed.

6.
The individual the process server alleges to have served, under penalty of perjury, is
described as Jane Doe, white female, 5 7, 135 pounds, blonde hair, black eyes - co-occupant.
No such individual resided with my mother and I during this period of time or at any other time
during our residency in this home. I am unaware of any individual who matches the description
provided by the process server in this matter. On August 24, 2005, my mother did not match
this description.
7.
In the late summer and fall of 2005, Chad Knaak stayed with us. Chad and I have been
friends since childhood.
8.
The process server has stated, under penalty of perjury, that he attempted to serve the
summons and complaint in the above referenced matter on August 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23,
2005 and notes that no one was home. My mother, Kelley Lynch, was home at all times during
this period. As I lived with my mother, and was home at some point every day, I can
unequivocally state that my mother was home each and every day throughout the summer and
fall of 2005. My mother had been in two car accidents, neither due to any fault on her part, and
did not have transportation throughout most of the summer and fall of 2005. Her car was
completely destroyed and I, and others, brought food and other items home as she had no
transportation. Our house was located quite far up Mandeville Canyon Road and my mother
would have had to walk miles to a store. My mother also did not have any money at this time
for any form of transportation, her phone, electricity, and other bills.
9.
In the spring of 2005, and the month of August specifically, my mother wore her hair
very dark brown, almost black, and extremely short. She continued to wear her hair in this

manner throughout the summer and early fall of 2005. Paulette Brandt visited us regularly and
would bring food for the animals and hair dye for my mother. During the summer and fall of
2005, and the month of August specifically, my mother was very thin, had blue eyes, and was
approximately 56 tall.
10.
On or about August 16, 2005, I became aware of Leonard Cohens lawsuit against my
mother because my stepfather, Steve Lindsey, called a friend of mine who brought it to her
attention. Chloe Favella called me about the lawsuit and I told my mother who said she was
already aware because a journalist had contacted her. Paulette Brandt also printed out news
articles and brought them when she visited.
11.
On August 24, 2005, a little over a week after Leonard Cohen filed his lawsuit, my
mother came into my room and asked my friend Chad Knaak if he would phone Leonard
Cohens lawyer and leave a message from her. It was my understanding that my mother found
his name and contact information online. She had handwritten the information on a piece of
paper and handed it to Chad. My mothers phone had been shut off and she was unable to place
the call personally. I was present when my mother asked Chad to call Cohens lawyer to advise
him that she had not been served Leonard Cohens lawsuit and explain to him that IF he
attempted to serve her the lawsuit she would hold him personally accountable. Although I do
not know who answered the phone, I distinctly heard Chad tell the individual on the other end
of the line that my mother had not been served Cohens lawsuit and IF this lawyer attempted to
serve her the lawsuit she would hold him personally accountable. My mother was present for
this call as well. Chad was very professional with the individual he spoke with. I all recall my
mother asking him to be polite during the call.
12.
It is my understanding that my mother was never served Cohens lawsuit. Since the
summer of 2005, my mother has continually advised me that she was not served Leonard
Cohens lawsuit and had no idea what the actual allegations were until the Complaint was posted
online when she visited me at some point in 2010. I know this situation frustrated her and, from
what I recall, Leonard Cohens lawyers refused to speak with my mother. She would borrow my
phone to attempt to speak with them and I was present for quite a number of these calls.
13.
At the beginning of October 2005, our internet service was shut down and my mother
would have to ask people to borrow or use their computer so she could check her emails and
respond to those she received.
14.
On December 28, 2005, the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department evicted us from our
home. My mother ended up homeless in Santa Monica for approximately 8 months. I went to
live with family friends in Brentwood, California.
15.
Although this is out of chronological order, at some point in the fall of 2004, based on
Leonard Cohens statements to City National Bank, my personal bank account had a freeze
places on it and was closed.
16.
In or around January 2012, I visited my mother in Berkeley, California. At that time, I
delivered boxes of evidence (and other items) I stored in my Los Angeles, California storage

center since we were evicted from our home in December 2005. Until that time, my mother had
no personal access to these documents.
17.
I am aware that on April 15, 2005, my mother reported the allegations that Leonard
Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.
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 9th day of March 2015 in Los Angeles, California.
____________________________________
JOHN RUTGER PENICK
DECLARATION OF CLEA SURKHANG
I, Clea Surkhang, do state and declare as follows:
1.

I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Longmont, Colorado. I am

a close personal friend of defendant, Kelley Ann Lynch. 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 here.

2. I have been a close friend of Kelley Lynchs for over 29 years. We met at a Buddhist
seminary in the summer of 1985.
3. During the mid-to-late 1980s, Kelley and I both lived in New York City. We saw each
other every week for dinners and spent time with one another over the weekends.
Kelley had a young son at the time and they lived together in a beautiful apartment that
she kept spotless.
4. In 1987, I moved from New York City to Colorado. Kelley and I remained in close
touch and visited one another when we were able to. My husband, Yongzin Rinpoche, is
also a close personal friend of Kelleys.
5. I have spent time substantial time with Kelley over the years, watched her children grow
up, and know that she is a very caring mother. Her first love is her children.
6. I am aware that Kelley worked as Leonard Cohens personal manager for approximately
17 years. She never once indicated that they were having an intimate dating or
engagement relationship, brief or otherwise. Over the years, we have frequently had
long girl talks and Leonard Cohen was simply not someone she was ever interested in
dating or attracted to. I specifically recall asking her directly: Were you dating? Did
you ever find Cohen attractive? Her answer was always No.

7. Ive watched Kelleys sons, Rutger and Ray, throughout their childhoods. They are both
bright, good hearted fellows. Kelley is an amazingly strong, kind-hearted being, who has
worked her entire life to help her children, parents, friends, and everyone who needed
her assistance. Her care for others is genuine and profound.
8. My husband and I visited Kelley in the late spring/early summer of 2005. At that time,
she was approximately 56, very thin, had large blue eyes, and wore her hair a very dark
shade of brown and extremely short. I recall this because her appearance had changed
radically from the last time I saw her.
9.

Since Leonard Cohen filed his 2005 lawsuit against Kelley, she has continually
maintained that she was not served the summons and complaint.

10. In the spring/early summer of 2007, my husband and I invited Kelley to stay with us at
my mothers home in Erie, Colorado.
11. I am quite confident in Kelleys integrity and the fact that she is as professional and
straightforward in her business dealings as she has been in her friendship.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. On the 4th day of December 2015, I verbally authorized Kelley Lynch to
execute this declaration on my behalf in Los Angeles, California.
___________________________________
Clea Surkhang
DECLARATION OF PALDEN RONGE
I, Palden Ronge, do state and declare as follows:
1. I am a citizen of the Canada and permanent resident of the United States. I currently
reside in Los Angeles California. I am a close personal friend of Kelley Lynchs. 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. My wife, Lila Rich, and I have known Kelley for many years. I personally met her
approximately 1988. We are close family friends and I know her parents and sons, Rutger and
Ray. Over the years, we have visited each other socially on many occasions and participated in
many religious events together.
3. Kelley was an excellent and loving mother. She took her role as a parent seriously and
saw to it that her sons received the best education. She ensured that their personal needs were
met in every way. Ms. Lynch was particularly diligent in supervising her children to insulate
them from the urban youth culture of drug and alcohol abuse. Kelleys sons are wonderful

young men.
4. I have known Kelley to be a well-connected, professional woman, who multi-tasked at a
dizzying pace as she managed the business affairs for Leonard Cohen and handled her other
business matters. Kelley worked as Cohens personal manager for approximately 17 years. It
never once crossed my mind that Kelley and Mr. Cohen were ever involved in any type of
intimate dating or engagement relationship. Nor had I heard anything to indicate that their
relationship was anything but professional.
5. I have worked with Kelley when she and Oliver Stone sponsored a Tibetan Buddhist
meditation center for His Holiness Kusum Lingpa. His Holiness Kusum Lingpa was a highly
regarded Tibetan Buddhist master. I had the good fortune to serve as an interpreter for this
remarkable man and was involved in translating certain religious texts. His Holiness appointed
Kelley to be his chos kyi dags mos (lineage holder) and she worked quite diligently on his behalf.
It is my personal belief that Kelley conducts herself professionally, ethically, and honestly in all
areas of her life.
6. I visited Kelley throughout the spring and summer of 2005. His Eminence Choegon
Rinpoche, a mutual friend, often accompanied me on these visits. I distinctly recall Kelleys
appearance in the summer of 2005, and specifically throughout the month of August 2005, due
to the fact that she changed the color radically. At that time, she had bright blue eyes, very dark
short hair, was approximately 56, quite thin, and weighed approximately 110 pounds. For
years, she had worn her hair very light blonde and it took me some time to grow accustomed to
Kelleys very dark hair and new look.
7. In mid-June, Kelley was rear-ended by a driver on Mandeville Canyon Road. She was
seriously injured and hospitalized for head trauma and other medical issues. I believe she also
broke her nose and seriously injured her neck and back. I visited Kelley in the hospital at that
time and, apart from her physical injuries, she was her usual intelligent, caring, and humorous
self. I recall bringing her sushi.
8. Shortly after this accident, another driver on Mandeville Canyon Road, presumably on
his cell phone and not paying attention, pulled out suddenly and quickly from a side street and
slammed into Kelleys passenger side. Kelley was again injured and this accident destroyed her
car. She was planning to visit Lila and myself in Ojai, California and was unable to do so due to
the damage the car sustained.
9. 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 didnt appear that she was attempting to evade anyone. She
informed me repeatedly that she wanted to be served Cohens lawsuit and review the specific
allegations in the Complaint.
10. I distinctly recall during the summer and fall of 2005 Kelleys frustrated attempts to
address the fact that she was not served Leonard Cohens lawsuit. Kelley has continuously and
consistently maintained that she was not served this lawsuit. She was also extremely frustrated

with the conduct of and tactics used by Leonard Cohens representatives.

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 9th day of March 2015 in Los Angeles, California.
___________________________________
Palden Ronge
DECLARATION OF DANIEL J. MEADE
I, Daniel J. Meade, do state and declare as follows:
1. I am a citizen of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. I was born and raised in the United
States. I am a close personal friend of Kelley Lynchs. 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. I first met Ms. Lynch in 1978 when Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a well known Tibetan
Buddhist teacher, appointed me to the position of Executive Director to the Philadelphia branch
of Vajradhatu International Buddhist Organization. At that time, I was also quite close with her
first husband, Richard Dallett. In fact, when Kelley was married to Mr. Dallett, I worked with
him on numerous projects. My wife and I spent a great deal of time socializing with Kelley and
Richard Dallett.
3. Kelley's volunteer work with Philadelphia Dharmadhatu included serving as my personal
secretary and administrative assistant for approximately 2-1/2 years. I was always pleased with
her professional demeanor and diligent work.
4. Kelley Lynch and I have remained extremely close friends to this day. I view her as one
of my dearest friends. We have stayed in close and constant contact consistently for over 35
years.
5. I also know Kelley's parents, grandparents, brother, sister, sons and second husband,
Douglas Penick, who is also a friend of mine. Kelley has a very close relationship with her
family.
6. In all the years I have known her, I have appreciated her kindness and generosity towards
me and others, as well as various organizations and Buddhist causes. His Holiness Kusum
Lingpa appointed Kelley Lynch to be his lineage holder. Kelley and Oliver Stone sponsored a
Tibetan Buddhist center for Kusum Lingpa Rinpoche and he evidently also appreciated certain
qualities that she embodies.

7. Kelley is a quick wit and possesses a great sense of humor. I would like to share a story
about her with the Court: Approximately 13 years ago, my long term lady friend, also a friend
of Kelley's, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. For the next 4 months, Kelley called me every
day to check in about my state of mind as I was the primary care giver. Her support during this
period of time was invaluable and greatly appreciated. After my friend's death, Kelley
generously flew me out to Los Angeles to visit and recuperate. My son also joined us. She took
a bit of time off work to tend to my needs. I was able to spend time with and became intimately
acquainted with her sons, Rutger and Ray. I found the home environment to be very loving,
uplifted and dignified in a particular sort of Buddhist style. Kelley was a great host and
obviously a good and decent mother. It was a very pleasant 5-6 weeks for me. But, during my
stay I witnessed a few rather unpleasant incidents: I was well aware that Kelley worked as
Leonard Cohen's personal manager. I had been a fan of his music and poetry since the age of
13. One day the phone rang while Kelley was in the shower, I picked up and Leonard Cohen
asked Is Kelley there? I responded by asking Who are you? He replied I am Leonard. I
then simply said Leonard who? and his response was to become angry. He then hung up on
me. I actually meant this as a joke. Of course, I knew it was Leonard Cohen. His voice is very
recognizable. Later that morning, Mr. Cohen emailed Kelley a very personal and vicious letter.
She read it to me and I could not believe what an abusive, humorless, and aggressive asshole he
was to her. My little dream of the man who wrote these profound song lyrics immediately went
down the local toilet in Los Angeles at that time. I asked Kelley to give me a copy of this letter
so I could share it with the world at large and inform them about this man's true nature. I was
in disbelief at his level of hostility particularly given the fact that he holds himself out to the
world as some sort of religious sage. He was clearly jealous of my presence. Kelley discreetly
declined to provide me with a copy of this exceedingly disturbing email. I do not believe she
refused to give me the letter simply to protect her position as Mr. Cohens personal manager. I
believe she declined out of a sense of respect for Leonard Cohen and may have been trying to
keep his weaknesses and unconscionable conduct towards her private.
8. The second unpleasant incident I would like to share is as follows: One day, while
visiting Kelley and her family, I was relaxing by the pool. Kelley's great home care assistant,
Elena, had brought me food. Elena was a delightful individual who took great care of Kelley's
sons and home while she was at work. Kelley was extremely busy working as Cohens personal
manager and also owned a greeting card company. She devoted a tremendous amount of time
to her sons, work, and charitable work. Kelley is a tireless individual. Elena would help with the
boys when they returned from school or other activities, assist with meal preparations, and
appeared to love Kelley and the boys. Elenas presence in the home was important. Kelley
home-schooled her older son and carpooled her younger soon. She had an office in her home
and worked there in the afternoons and on weekends. There were always numerous children
and teenagers in her home. Kelley provided a stable environment for these young people but
was very careful with boundaries and discipline. Kelley was essentially a single mother, raising
her children with the assistance of her parents, and wanted an adult present in the household at
all times. Suddenly, out of the blue, Steven Lindsey showed up unannounced - meaning he did
not call or email asking if it was an appropriate time to drop by. Steve Lindsey is the father of
Kelleys younger son, Ray. I suppose he felt entitled to behave in this manner because he was
Ray's genetic father and felt he could do as he liked, in an arrogant fashion, as rich people tend
to do. Kelley was not pleased with the invasion and from what I witnessed neither were her sons

or Elena. I was sitting by the pool, clueless as to Lindsey's arrival, when he sat down next to me.
He tried to be nice about the death of my girlfriend. The aggression Steve Lindsey brought into
that home was, from my perspective, overwhelming and loud. After helping to calm things
down inside, Kelley came out and made a few dark jokes about death, in a Monty Python sort of
way. She was trying to help me through my grief in her playful fashion. Steve Lindsey became
offended by Kelley and my interactions. He stormed off angry and, from what I could hear
from outside, Ray was in the house quite upset. I asked Kelley Does he always invade your
home unannounced? She replied, Yes, whenever he wants to. I thought How sad for Ray
and Rutger and you. Kelley and her sons were very, very close.
9. It is my personal belief that both Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey were obsessed with
Kelley, extremely possessive of her, privately conducted themselves in a jealous and hostile
manner towards her, becoming angry, paranoid, and vicious when she was unable to immediately
tend to their specific needs.
10. In the 35 years I have known Kelley, I never once heard that she and Cohen were in a
brief, intimate statutory required dating or engagement relationship. I have, on the other hand,
heard first hand that she felt Cohens conduct towards her was harassing, uncomfortable, and
thoroughly unprofessional. At times, throughout the years, Kelley and I have been involved in
an intimate dating relationship and I feel absolutely confident that had she been involved in a
similar relationship with Cohen she would have shared that information with me. Kelley and I
have a very direct and honest friendship.
11. Since 2005, when Leonard Cohen filed his lawsuit against Kelley, she has consistently
maintained that she was not served the lawsuit. This has been extremely frustrating for her.
Kelley and I have discussed the tactics Leonard Cohen has used against her, the unprofessional
conduct of his representatives, slanderous comments to the news media, and fraudulent
restraining orders to discredit her. Kelley has no interest in Leonard Cohen whatsoever. She has
an interest in resolving the legal issues, obtaining tax and corporate information she requires, and
maintaining the private and simple life she always have.
12. In the 35 or so years I have known Kelley (who is from Pennsylvania), it was never my
understanding that she was a friend of Neal Greenbergs. Greenberg lived in Boulder, Colorado
and perhaps they ran into one another briefly at a Buddhist or social event.
13. I have spent a great deal of time in religious retreats. In fact, when I was quite young I
was in a 6 month retreat. I have never heard of a rigorous Buddhist retreat where an
individual has a work room, computer, fax, phone, keyboard, participates in documentaries and
interviews, records albums, and comes and goes as one pleases.
14. These are my thoughts about what a good person Kelley Lynch is. I have no fiduciary
concerns here. She is simply an old friend of mine and I am concerned about her welfare and
the welfare of her sons.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that I executed this Declaration on the 4th day of March 2015

at Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

___________________________________
Daniel J. Meade

EXHIBIT D
DECLARATION OF ANNE JULIA MACLEAN
(ANN DIAMOND)

DECLARATION OF ANNE JULIA MCLEAN

I, ANNE JULIA MCLEAN, declare:

1.

I am a citizen of Canada. I also am known by the literary pseudonym Ann Diamond. I

have known Leonard Cohen for approximately thirty-eight years. I have known Kelley Lynch
since approximately 2008. 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.

In May 2008 I received an email from Kelley Lynch, who was then living in Colorado.
I had read the 2005 news stories alleging she had stolen Cohens retirement fund. Knowing
Cohen, I had always wondered about her side of the story. Over the next few weeks we
corresponded. She came across as sensible and rational, but clearly furious about the accusations
of embezzlement which she denied. She was sending out hundreds of emails to the media, FBI,
DOJ, IRS etc. and copied some of our personal emails to her internet audience. Since her
working relationship with Cohen in 1988 began at approximately the time I stopped seeing him,
she filled in some blanks and provided some insight into problems I had subsequently had. I
identified with her to the extent that it seemed we had both been close to Cohen at one time,
but had serious disagreements with him. When we mutinied he used his personal power,
oratorical skills and media contacts to damage us professionally and personally. Because Lynchs
side of the story had been ignored in the media, I ended up writing an account (Whatever
Happened to Kelley Lynch) which I posted on my blog in August 2008. Two weeks later I
received a letter from Robert Kory demanding I take down the blog or be sued for libel. Because
I was far away in Greece, and did not know Kelley Lynch personally, I felt I had to comply.
Kelley continued circulating the text of my article over the internet and many people have now
read it. A paraphrased version appears in Sylvie Simmons biography of Cohen, Im Your
Man, where my article is credited in the footnotes. See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a
part hereof (Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch).

3.

I met Leonard Cohen through a mutual acquaintance in Montreal in November 1977,

when I was 26 and he was 43. He was still married, but legally separated, from his wife Suzanne
with whom he had two children. Leonard Cohen was known as a ladies man around our
neighbourhood of Montreal, but he had just brought out a new record, Death of a Ladies Man
(with Phil Spector) and a book of poems (Death of a Ladys Man) which seemed to send a
message he was turning over a new leaf. We saw each other a few times over the next two years,
on occasions when he came into Montreal from Los Angeles. Our relationship was more than a
friendship. There was a strong sense of personal connection. Early on, I realized I was interested
in him as a mentor or teacher, not necessarily as a lover or boyfriend. Soon after we met, he
introduced me to his old friend Hazel Field, a woman about my age, who acted as if she was
in charge of Leonards relationships with women. This resulted in my seeing him mostly in
private, rather than joining his circle of friends.

4.

In 1979 I travelled to Greece, where he had invited me to meet him on the island of
Hydra. I was on Hydra for three and a half months, thanks to a small arts grant from the
Canadian government. In 1980, I received another arts grant and was on Hydra writing a novel
from December to September 1981. Leonard was also there for the entire year. In the fishbowl
of Greek island life, I observed his complicated relationships with women younger than myself.

However when I went out with other men, he began telling me we were getting married. This
became a theme, although it seemed more like a way to make sure I didnt wander off. He
spoke with great conviction, making it hard to know what to believe.
5.

In 1982 he suggested I go to Mount Baldy Zen Center, outside Los Angeles, to meet
Zen Master Sasaki Roshi. By then I was ready to move on and end our relationship, which had
become ambiguous and confusing. He had hinted he was interested in sado-masochistic sex,
which did not interest me. I was disturbed by his secret world that involved lots of deception
and emotional cruelty. The Roshi (who initially told me I should marry Leonard Cohen) was
helpful and encouraged me to think Leonard was still a good friend.

6.

I returned to Montreal where a friend had offered me an apartment he was giving up.
It was small, pleasant, with incredibly low rent. My friend was not aware he was living next door
to Leonard Cohen. Montreals economy was depressed and low rent was a big factor in allowing
me to survive on a freelance income over the 12 years I lived there, especially after I quit my
teaching job. During those years I saw Leonard only occasionally, usually by accident in the
street, but sometimes he phoned or I phoned him. Our relationship was distant but cordial, but
there also were a few tense incidents. His daughter Lorca was a concern. At age 10 she asked me
to help her write a book about her father. When Leonard found out he banned me from talking
to her. Another source of tension was Hazel Fields presence on the block. Hazel is a famous
gossip and spread damaging rumours about me that no one would ever repeat to me. Leonard
remained generally friendly to me and once assured me if I was the subject of gossip it was just
due to jealousy.

7.

In March 1992, for the Montreal Gazette I interviewed Leonards close friend,
Canadian poet Irving Layton on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Before I left Layton remarked
that he was pleasantly surprised to meet me and find out youre nothing like the violent,
psychotic woman Ive been hearing about all these years. He first denied, but later admitted the
source was Leonard Cohen. This came as a shock. I sent Leonard an angry fax, then regretted it
and phoned to apologize. It was the first and only time I ever telephoned his Los Angeles
number, but he accused me of being the anonymous caller who had been harassing him for
weeks. He avoided answering my question. I was left with the impression that he had told
certain people I was a dangerous psychotic while allowing me to think nothing was amiss.
From then on, I realized he had a higher-than-average capacity to deceive people, even those he
called friends. Perhaps he liked pandering to peoples fantasies, or maybe he liked creating
chaos. Or maybe this was his way of controlling people by divide-and-rule.
In autumn 1993 his daughter Lorca, then 19, was enrolled in the BA program at
Concordia. She was living in Leonards building on the corner of our street with a group of her
friends. Soon after she arrived she knocked on my door and asked if she could speak to me
about something important. I hadnt seen her in five years, and she looked drastically different
from the last time: she was covered with tattoos and piercings and had dyed her hair black and
purple. I had a deadline to meet, so I asked her to come back another time but she never did. A
few months later I met her with Leonard in the park. She was returning to Los Angeles. Later I
was told she had overdosed on heroin and had dropped out of university, but I had been
unaware of all these problems when they were happening.

8.

9.

In summer 1995, Freda Guttman, who had been Leonards first girlfriend when they
were both teenagers, stopped me in the street and asked point-blank if I thought REDACTED,
as Lorca had told her friends. Based on things I had witnessed over 8 years, I thought it was
possible. I went home and didnt get out of bed for two days the only time in my life that I
experienced that kind of emotional paralysis. I suddenly realized the wild, extreme stories
circulating about me were probably a tactic to discredit and isolate me in case I ever talked about
Lorca. In fact, I knew very little about Lorca because I almost never saw her, but Leonard feared
she had confided in me. He had set me up as a female bogeyman as a useful distraction. The
stories about me had spread far and wide, thanks to Hazels media contacts including with a
gossip columnist. The publishing industry was going through a major spasm from which it has
never recovered and I become one of many journalist-casualties.

10.

In May 1996, I travelled to Los Angeles and stayed at Rinzai Ji Zen Center for six
months. I had a grant to write a novel (Dead White Males, DC Books, 2000), which I did while
staying in a house across the street from the Zen Center. I also hoped to talk to Leonard and
resolve some issues I later realized this was nave. This visit to Roshis centre was different
from other times when I stayed as a practicing, rent-paying resident. Many of the monks and
nuns seemed to have abandoned the Roshi (then 89) and gravitated to Leonard Cohen, who had
moved into a cabin on Mount Baldy. I gathered he was seen by some as a possible dharma
successor to the Roshi. The atmosphere had also changed for the worse. After Leonard spoke to
her about me, a nun rushed at me in the kitchen and physically pushed me out the door. During
the six months I was there, I never made a phone call or any attempt to speak to Leonard about
the unresolved business between us that included child abuse and destructive slander. The
atmosphere was instantly so tense, I decided to do nothing. I rode my bike around Los Angeles
and worked on the novel. Nevertheless, Leonard reported to the center director that I was now
phoning him every day from Culver City. This was not the first time he assumed I was
harassing him when I was not: I didnt even know where Culver City was. Without any evidence,
people believed Leonard. His word is the Gold Standard for Truth with his followers. Wherever
he goes, from Greece to Montreal to Los Angeles, he finds people who are willing, even eager,
to work for him without compensation, and will obey his instructions blindly in return for the
honour of knowing him. His persuasive gifts and charm are well-known and can be hard to
resist.

11.

Those who mutiny, like Kelley Lynch and me, receive the opposite treatment. Nothing
I say or do has been a match for the clich of the Scorned Woman or jilted ex who goes
on a rampage to avenge her rejection. As Goebbels said, if you repeat a lie often enough, it
becomes truth. I have learned the hard way that Leonard Cohen is a very gifted and skilled
fabricator who does not back down even when confronted with evidence of his lying. His
manipulative skills are exceptional and almost suggest early training in psychological warfare,
including strategies such as putting people in double-bind situations so they will discredit
themselves. As a friend, he can be very kind and generous, but soon becomes utterly fixated on
control. He demands total loyalty. He is a master manipulator. Once he has decided you are too
mutinous and a potential future threat, he becomes ruthless and will go to great lengths to see
you neutralized and destroyed. Like his neo-con heroes, he believes in and practices preemptive strikes.

12.

In 2001, I wrote a book-length blog which I posted on line. This was due to my being
targeted for years by false stories that I had stalked and harassed Cohen who allegedly did not
even know me. I felt my 20-year history with him made for a memoir which was also a
documentary of the post-60s era and the transition to conservative values, in which Leonard
Cohen had played a part. I posted this 300-page, detailed narrative and added internal links
which were hard to navigate. I installed hit counters on every chapter so I know with certainty of
6000+ who found the book, only about 70 read to the end where I mentioned my chance
meeting with Freda Guttman who repeated Lorcas allegations that her father had molested her.
In summer 2003, I received a letter from Leonards lawyer Van Penick asking me to remove the
paragraph, which I did. A few months later, I deleted the entire blog.

13.

Did Kelley Lynch rob Leonard Cohen of millions, and if so, how did she end up
penniless and bit homeless? I cant believe Leonard Cohen a shrewd judge of character -would employ a personal manager for 17 years, form a close relationship with her and her
family, put his children in her care, and appoint her to deal with his daily business, unless she
was diligent, extremely intelligent and impeccable in her conduct. His version requires us to
believe he is a trusting, incompetent fool, which he is not. In my view, baseless slander and
outrageous gossip have played a huge role in what should have been a straightforward legal
matter.

14.

In my experience Leonard Cohen draws on a pool of unstable, addicted, celebrityworshipping acquaintances who serve as his unofficial bodyguards and back-up band to his
fanciful tales and ambiguous statements. Long ago, I came to the conclusion there are two
distinct Leonard Cohens. The secret Leonard Cohen has doubtful ethics, and lives off the
brilliance and charm of the public personality.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated: 25 April 2015

_______________________________
ANNE JULIA MCLEAN

EXHIBIT A

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch?

Ann Diamond
Kelley Lynch is the woman accused in 2005 of skimming millions from singer Leonard Cohens
retirement fund. I knew of her through friends of Leonard Cohen, and had heard her described
in glowing terms as the agent who, singlehandedly, saved Cohens career in the 1990s.

In early May of this year, Lynch suddenly contacted me. She said she was mainly interested in
my perceptions of Cohen as a former friend and next door neighbour in Montreal. At one time I
also studied with his Zen Master in California, and had spent time with him on Hydra, Greece.
Not having heard her side of the story (I doubt that anyone has, apart from a circle of her
closest friends), I was curious. Over the next few weeks, she shared several documents
pertaining to the case including an affidavit written and signed by her older son, Rutger.
Together, they paint a picture very much at variance from the sketchy media image of Lynch as a
reckless, delusional woman on the brink of a career meltdown. Lynch's own timeline also
includes disturbing behind-the-scene dealings that suggest she may have been set up to take the
blame for Cohen's tax situation.
The following account is based on what Lynch has sent me -Since 2005 when she became the object of media gossip, little if anything has been heard from
Kelley Lynch.
A single mother with two sons, Lynch was Leonard Cohen's personal manager from
approximately 1988 to 2004, and was known for her skill, hard work, and dedication. Until 2004,
Kelley lived and worked in Los Angeles where she still has many friends and acquaintances in
the entertainment world including Phil Spector and Oliver Stone.
Her own account of the events that wrecked her career, varies widely from the media portrait of
a reckless, delusional woman in the throes of a personal meltdown. The meltdown was real,
however. By late December, 2005, Lynch had lost custody of one son and was homeless and
living on the streets with her older son, Rutger, who witnessed the chain of bizarre events that
had begun a year earlier.
In 2004, Lynch owned a house in Brentwood, and still worked for Cohen, who owed her money
for royalties and other services, but was increasingly involved with his new girlfriend, Anjani
Thomas, ex-wife of Cohens attorney, Robert Kory.

In retrospect, Lynch believes she was set up by Cohen and his representatives to help cover up a
tax situation which made the IRS nervous. In September 2004, Cohens attorney Weston told
Lynch that a financial entity known as Traditional Holdings, LLC could be overturned by the

IRS. Lynch, who had been selected as a partner on the entity, became uneasy and consulted a
new accountant, who referred her to tax lawyers, who found irregularities in Cohen's tax history,
both in the US and Canada where he has residences.
Rattled by what she was hearing that she was being dragged into criminal tax fraud -- Lynch
called the IRS in Washington and also contacted their website. An IRS collection agent advised
her to call the Fraud Hotline, which she did.
Told that any further action on her part might implicate her in fraud, Lynch refused to meet
with Cohen or turn over the corporate books. At that stage, Cohens advisers began claiming
that certain payments, distributions, or advances made to her were actually "over-payments."
Lynch says their accounting was incomplete and ignored her share of intellectual property,
unpaid commissions and royalties, and share in Traditional Holdings, LLC. Apparently Lynch
had also been issued K1 partnership tax documents and made a partner on another Cohen
investment entity, LC Investments, LLC, without her permission or awareness.
Lynch says an increasingly nervous and desperate Cohen was pressuring her to agree to
mediation and told a friend of hers that Lynch was "the love of his life." She and Cohen had had
a brief affair in 1990, but Cohen now was offering her 50% of his "community property" as well
as "palimony" through lawyer Robert Kory at a meeting attended by Lynch's legal
representatives and her accountant, Dale Burgess. To Lynch, none of this made sense at the
time.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles District Attorney's office received an anonymous tip informing
them that Lynch was a friend of producer Phil Spector, whom Lynch maintains is innocent.
Cohen, on the other hand, had given an interview in which he described a gun-waving Spector
who threatened him during recording sessions in 1977.

At around the same time he was offering her millions, Lynch says, Cohen was also circulating
slanderous stories about her. She believes Cohen encouraged Los Angeles record producer Steve
Lindsey, the father of her son Ray, to initiate a custody suit on May 25, 2005, the same day a
25-man SWAT team from the LAPD, acting on a bogus 911 call, suddenly cordoned off her
street and surrounded her home in response to a "hostage taking."
Earlier that morning, Lynch says, her 12 year old son Ray woke up not feeling well. She sent an
email to his school informing them she was keeping him at home. When the boy's father found
out Ray was home he became agitated and abusive over the phone to Lynch.
Lynch says she had young people who worked for her coming and going that day, and did not
want Rays father coming to the house and attacking her, as he had in the past. She called her
older son Rutger, who was visiting a friend nearby, and asked him to pick Ray up and take him
down the hill where actress Cloris Leachman waited in her car. Leachman, a friend of Lindsey,
took charge of Ray just as seven LAPD squad cars came speeding up Mandeville Canyon Road
in the direction of Lynchs house. With them was Rays father, Steve Lindsey.

Lynch says she looked out the window and saw armed men on her lawn. Her son Rutger and his
friends were telling police there was no hostage-taking, that they had spent the morning with
Lynch, and that there must be some mistake. For reasons no one understands,
LAPD/Inglewood PD decided to believe Steve Lindsey, who had left the scene.
Police later gave varying explanations about what led up to the incident. West LAPD said they
responded to a report that someone heard "shots fired." But a company that oversees SWAT
said Lynch would have to have a superior caliber weapon to warrant such a high risk entry. A
member of the SWAT team claimed to have seen a note that Lynchs sister had placed the call
stating Lynch posed a danger to herself and everyone around her. Her sister denies this.
Lynch stayed inside her house and called her former custody lawyer, Lee Kanon Alpert. She also
called Leonard Cohen, assuming he had played a role in the events unfolding on her lawn. Lynch
says she knew Steve Lindsey had also been meeting with Cohen and his attorney, and had
recently told their son Ray that Lynch was going to jail, upsetting the boy. She says Cohen
taped the phone call later used in his successful court case against her for which, Lynch says,
she never received a summons.
Lynch says, Police were on my hillside and crouching under my kitchen window. She says the
standoff on her lawn continued for several more hours, disrupting the neighbourhood. Members
of Inglewood Police Department also participated in the operation.

Eventually, she decided to go into the back yard. Seeing her son Rutger acting as a human
shield and hostage negotiator, Lynch ventured out front with her Akita on leash and joked to
the cops: "Who am I supposed to be holding hostage? My dog?"
The police responded by telling her son they would only shoot Lynch and her dog if necessary.
That was when I dove into the pool.
SWAT team members searched her house. As they entered, Lynch's African Grey parrot, Lou,
called out: "I see dead people!" further alarming the nervous cops.
Offering her a hand out of the pool, one officer said they were only there to help her and not to
hurt her.
No one asked me if I was all right; no one questioned me about my well-being. The Medical
Examiners Office later wondered how the police had evaluated her. After stating they were not
arresting her, they handcuffed Lynch, still in her bikini. On her way out the door, her son
managed to hand her a brocade jacket.
Although she lived near UCLA Medical Center, she was taken in a squad car to King-Drew
Medical Centre in Watts, 40 miles away and a three-hour drive in traffic. Known as one of
Americas worst hospitals, King-Drew was recently closed down as a place where patients

routinely die from neglect and medical errors. During the long ride through South Central Los
Angeles, Lynch says she was questioned closely about her relationship with Phil Spector, who
had been charged with first degree murder of Lana Clarkson. In the car, Lynch voiced concern
over what awaited her at the hospital but was told by a woman cop: "This will be good for you."
I felt I was being kidnapped.
At Emergency, the admitting psychiatrist administered anti-psychotic drugs without
authorization and left Lynch in the waiting area for hours, still in her bikini and brocade jacket,
and handcuffed to a chair. A nurse advised her she would be transferred but did not tell her
where. Examining her file, the nurse noticed it listed her as 19 years old with wrong social
security number, wrong date of birth, wrong religion, and her name misspelled as "Kelly Lynch"
Lynch thinks it was the same file she had seen, several months earlier, in the hands of the Special
Investigator who came to question her about Spector.
A second doctor told her to wait her turn to ensure no further harm would come to her, and
assured her that nothing in the King Drew report could cause her to lose custody of her child.
The following day, she was released after nearly 24 hours in the psych ward.
Back home, Lynch learned that while she was being held at the hospital her younger son's father,
Steven Clark Lindsey, had filed for custody of her son Ray Charles Lindsey and obtained a
restraining order denying her access to the boy. She says Lindsey attempted to convince doctors
at King Drew that she was dangerous, in order to have her committed, She says Lindsey also
threatened the psychiatrist who had her released.

On that same day, Cohens attorney Robert Kory filed a Declaration in the custody matter, as
did Betsy Superfon (a friend of Cohen, Kory and Lindsey who had befriended Lynch a few
months earlier ). Superfon later told Lynch she didn't realize what she was signing, and that
Cohen had offered Lindsey money or something else to take Ray away from Lynch.
Her older son alleges Lindsey offered him money to go to Leonard Cohen's lawyer's office and
transfer or sign over Lynchs house to Cohen or his attorney Robert Kory. Rutger refused and
phoned his own father, who advised him to contact a lawyer.
Two weeks later, in early June, as she drove down her street to buy dog food, a Mercedes sped
out of a neighbouring driveway and rear-ended her car, Lynch was thrown forward, fracturing
her nose against the steering well, and was knocked unconscious. Later, she says, as she drove
back up the hill to her home, the same driver was standing in his driveway and called out: We
are watching you as she passed.
Seeing his injured, bleeding mother enter the house, her older son again phoned his father, who
may have called 911. Accounts vary as whether the call referred to an incident of "domestic
violence" or a "drug overdose." Either way, police arrived at Lynchs door for the second time in
two weeks. Over the protests of her son, they entered while she was on the phone to a friend,

Dr. Wendi Knaak who stayed on the phone talking with Rutger while police again handcuffed
Lynch. This time they took her to UCLA hospital where her obvious head injuries were ignored.
Instead, she was once again drugged and placed in the psychiatric unit where she remained for
several days.
Lynch and her advisors maintain these events were coordinated by Cohen, Kory and Lindsey,
with the help of former LA District Attorney Ira Reiner in a well- orchestrated plan to
traumatize and discredit her paving the way for media stories which accused her of skimming
millions from Cohens retirement fund.
In the summer of 2005, as Lynch was struggling to save her home and protect her child from a
father her friends describe as "viciously anti-social" and violent, reports of Leonard Cohen's
financial troubles hit the press. They alleged the 70-something singer had been scammed by his
personal manager, Kelley Lynch, who colluded with an advisor at the AGILE Group in
Colorado to send him false financial statements while emptying his accounts of millions of
dollars.
Although listed as the owner of Traditional Holdings, the entity in question, Lynch says she
never received any statements from the AGILE Group -- who instead had been sending them to
Cohen -- having changed her mailing address to Cohen's home in Los Angeles. She has since
filed a complaint with the US Post Office for mail tampering.

NOTE: It actually appeared to be Leonard Cohen who changed Lynch's mailing

address (or attempted to) as USPS advised her that someone was attempting to have it
changed to from her home to Cohen's home address in Los Angeles.
She insists Cohen sued her because she went to the IRS about his tax situation. She says he is
not, and never was, "broke" and that missing funds went to buy homes for his son Adam Cohen
and girlfriend, singer Anjani Thomas, ex-wife of Robert Kory. Noting Cohen is famous for his
financial largesse and once gave Zen Master Sasaki Roshi $500,000 as a gift, Lynch also cites
hefty payments to advisers, various transaction fees, personal taxes, and other monies which may
have been sent offshore.
While Cohen and Lindsey attempted to persuade others, including LA Superior Court, that she
intended to flee to Tibet or another non-extradition country, Lynch was isolated and penniless
and still in Los Angeles. Lynch was former personal secretary to the late Chogyam Trungpa
Rinpoche, a flamboyant Tibetan spiritual teacher who founded Naropa Institute in Boulder,
Colorado in the 1970s, and died in 1987. She says various Tibetan lamas are praying for her
safety.

NOTE: Kelley Lynch was a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, His Holiness
Kusum Lingpa's personal assistant, and is His Holiness Kusum Lingpa's lineage holder
and chos kyi dags mos.

Journalists covering the story were either unable, or didn't bother, to track Lynch down, and
most reported Cohen's statements as fact. The NY Times contacted Kelley for a quote which
they never printed
By July 2005, Lynch had lost her custody battle and Ray went to live with his father. On
December 28, she and Rutger were evicted from the house in Brentwood, and ended up
homeless in Santa Monica, which has no resources for the homeless. The Police Department
gave her no help and, she claims, laughed when she brought in evidence that she was being
stalked by a known serial killer while she camped on the beach.
In 2006, Cohen was awarded a symbolic $9 million settlement in a civil suit against Lynch, who
still does not have a lawyer representing her. Corporate books and other evidence of fraud
appear to have been overlooked by Judge Ken Freeman in his judgment, Lynch says, although
she admits she has not read the court documents and was never served a summons. At the time
of the decision, she told reporters she lacked the money to make a phone call. That same year,
her older son lost his fingers in an accident with a meat grinder while he was working at Whole
Foods in Los Angeles and Lynch could not afford a bus ticket to visit him in hospital.
Lynch heard through a journalist that Cohen later testified for the District Attorneys office in a
secret grand jury relating to the Phil Spector case with former District Attorney Ira Reiner acting
as his lawyer. Reiner is a personal friend of Cohen, and as D.A. presided over some high-profile
cases including the Night Stalker serial killer and the McMartin Day Care scandal.
Recently, on June 17, 2008, Cohen's lawsuit against the Agile Group was thrown out of court for
lack of evidence. In response the AGILE Group dropped its counter-suit accusing Cohen of
defamation and fraud. AGILE still claims to be shocked that a singer of Leonard Cohen's talent
and stature would engage in false accusations against his own representatives.
Lynch believes Cohen and AGILE colluded to defraud her. She continues to deny all allegations
against her, and remains hopeful that Phil Spector's lawyer, Bruce Cutler, will represent her in
recouping damages to her livelihood and reputation. She now lives in another state and recently
learned her younger son, 15, whom she has not seen since July 2005, stopped attending school
last January.
These days Cohens fans seem to have expended their rage at Kelley Lynch for driving their idol
into bankruptcy. Some now say she unwittingly did them a service -- by forcing him to go on
tour for the first time in nearly two decades.
At 74, singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen continues to ride a wave of sympathy, gathering wide
support from the music world and even some British royalty. Unquestionably, his career and
finances have benefited from news reports that he is too impoverished to retire.
From his tower of song, Cohen has written:
I smile when I'm angry

I cheat and I lie

I do what I have to do
To get by
And Im always alone
And my heart is like ice
And its crowded and cold
In my secret life
My Secret Life. Leonard Cohen
His many admirers need to listen closely.

NOTE: KL and Cohen were never lovers.

EXHIBIT B
Layton at 80: singing songs of love
Ann Diamond

Going to interview Irving Layton, I had the feeling I was about to meet my maker. It's almost
the same feeling I qet when I see my bank manager. In both cases, the question of debt arises.

If there had been no Irving Layton back in the `60s when I was deciding what to do with my life
I might have gone straight into real estate with barely a qualm. But as it happened, our country
was suffering a poetry craze, the like of which has never been seen before or since. Long before
I reached the age of reason, I decided to reverse the usual Anglo-Saxon order, and put
"imagination" ahead of "survival" on my priorities list. In part, Layton is responsible for my
having made this fatal mistake.

I find him at home with his fifth wife, Anna Pottier, in a happy expansive mood. He's just been
inducted into Italy's prestigious Institute Pertini, whose members include the great names in
world literature and politics: Solzhienitsyn, Dubcek, Saul Bellow. The news arrives as Layton is
firming up plans to go to Italy in April where he will launch a bilingual edition, in English and
Italian, of his book The Baffled Hunter.
It turns out that Irving and I have something in common besides poetry. We both went to
Baron Byng High School. He entered in the fall of 1925, and 40 years later it was my turn. My

suburban neighborhood in the mid-'60s had no Protestant high school, so we commuted to

Baron Byng. That's how I was first inoculated with the smells, the peculiar energy of St. Urbain
St. and its displaced Mediterranean cultures: the school was then divided among Jews, Greeks
and francophone Moroccans, who moved in separate, but mutually respectful worlds. To me it
was exotic and a far cry from the `burbs, and once I'd gained entry I was reluctant to come back
out.

It was during Grade 8 at Baron Byng that I first heard of Irving Layton and Mordecai Richler,
two writers who were helping to create a new, cosmopolitan Canadian literature. So it's strange
to think of Irving Layton turning 80 on March 6. Or is it March 12?

I decide it's time to resolve the mystery surrounding Layton's birth. "When is your birthday,
Irving?"

"My birthday is on the 6th of March but Stalin died on the 12th and since he's been my bete
noire for a long time, I like to celebrate both at once."

Come to think of it, Layton has always celebrated things that others prefer to keep in the closet.
After all, it's the poet's job and he's been at it for 65 years.

"The true poet is absolutely tenacious," says Layton. "He's like a sentinel. He doesn't abandon
his post.

He continues to speak the truth, just like the prophets. That's my religion."

Certainly no one can match his singleness of purpose. Layton calls his poetic output "an all-time
record."

He has written 60 books, and a bibliography of his work, soon to be released, runs to 700 pages.
Are his poems really bits of divine revelation? To sit across the table from him is to entertain
that possibility very seriously. To drink from his silver teapot is to catch some of his enthusiasm
as he reads poems that still resonate from some ancient place of exile where a biblical harp keeps
chiming and God plays an intricate chessgame with words.

Since Layton's heyday, unquestionably, love of poetry has receded in our country. In the early
'60s, poetry in Canada outsold fiction and non-fiction. People by the hundreds flocked to
readings. In the '90s, despite government funding, the audience for poetry continues shrinking.
Many would say poor quality is to blame. The current cult of "self-expression" banalizes poetry
as therapy or consolation.
"At one time," Layton recalls, "there was a lot of ferment and poets were at the centre of it.
Myself and Leonard Cohen and Louis Dudek and Eli Mandel from Toronto and Phyllis Webb
who'd come in from Vancouver. A nice happy band of happy warriors.

"We felt we were changing things. We were bringing down the stale Victorianism that had
dominated this country for over half a century. We were liberating energies, freeing the
imagination. There were people opposed to us of course, people who felt we were treading on
their orthodox toes and were furious about it."

Banned in Ontario

Some of Layton's books were banned in Ontario. "I think there's no higher compliment than
that," he says. The poet's job, as he sees it, is always to destroy complacency and his
commitment to contradiction remains immense. He fulminates, he pontificates, but he's also a
passionate listener.

I bring out my Big Question. Are the Victorians back in control of Canadian poetry?

"They may be," he concedes. "But basically the poets have lost their elan. They're not writing the
kind of work that stirs people or quickens their pulse in any way. They're not writing the kind of
poetry that challenges economic and political and social and religious and sexual taboos. What
they're writing I call kitchen- sink poetry, and it springs from the fact that people are so
frightened about the future and about the present, they're so uncertain about themselves, that
they can't think deeply and freshly about the problems confronting them."

He names exceptions: David Solway, Anne Cimon, Michael Harris. But he sees contemporary
poetry taking the place of organized religion as a provider of comfort and reassurance. "Real
poetry, like true religion, does the opposite. It tells people that precisely because you're suffering
and in turmoil, that's good. It means you're not dead."

The interview has ended, or at least the tape has run out. We rewind it so Irving can hear how he
sounds these days. With obvious delight, he listens to his own voice describing the Grade 6
teacher, Miss Benjamiri, who inspired his first poem. He lingers on details, her tight blouse and
lush breasts, which inspired his 12- year-old lust. If I were an unmitigated Puritan, like some of
his critics, I suppose I might attack him for this, but who can deny that it's touching and true?

A serial monogamist?

Afterwards he beams. "I believe I have to be the last love poet anywhere. Love has always been
the very foundation of my work."

"Don't forget rage," I remind him.

"Love and rage and - sex. What else is there?" To prove his point, he'll be launching Dance With
Desire, his collected love poems, at Magnum Bookstore in Ottawa tomorrow. That's
International Women's Day.

This coincidence of dates brings us to the thorny issue of Layton's record in relationships, a sore
point with feminists. I ask him point blank if he's a serial monogamist.

"Yes." he says. "But I have yet to be convicted."

"And I'm his latest victim," Anna chimes in, smiling radiantly.

Says Layton in self-defence, "I like to leave them happy, rather than dead."

In Canada, the verdict still isn't in on Irving Layton, and some would say there isn't a jury in the
country that could give him a fair trial. Attempts to put him in his place or "expose" him all
stumble against the reality of his achievement. Elspeth Cameron's notorious portrait did much
to prove that there is still little room in our country for a poet of his range and stature.

You can accuse a poet of the most heinous crimes and personal failings without doing the
slightest damage to his reputation. Perhaps some day Canada's army of critic/moralists will
realize that they've missed the 20th century. We don't need poets to live exemplary, much less
conventional, lives. We need them to write great poems. Irving Layton has kept his side of the
bargain.

When I finally leave, I have the impression that I've been taken in again - duped into believing in
poetry by someone who calls himself Irving Layton.

And the funny thing is, I'm grateful.

Ann Diamond is a Montreal poet.

EXHIBIT E
ROBERT KORY MEDIATION MEMORANDUM
DATED JANUARY 14, 2005
To:

Dianne DiMascio, Esq., David Berardo, Esq., and Dale Burgess, CPA

From:

Robert Kory

CC:

Ira Reiner, Esq., Kevin Prins, CPA

Re:

Cohen v. Lynch, et al.

Open Accounting, Tax Issues, and Legal Issues

Date:

January 14, 2005

Kelley Lynchs comments are in bold red.

Following is a summary of issues in anticipation of our conference call at 3PM today to discuss steps
toward mediation of the above matter. Needless to say, the information in this memo is preliminary
and provided in the context of settlement negotiations. It should not be construed as an admission
as to any matter referenced herein. It shall also not be admissible at trial should a settlement not be
forthcoming.
I.

Accounting
A.

Cash Flow Analysis - Cohen

Need documentation re. 5 unidentified transactions re. Traditional Holdings

totaling $464,000 from Greenberg.
Need documentation re. 6 unidentified transactions re. The Cohen Family Trust
totaling $245,000 from Greenberg.
Royalty summary since 1997
Publishing (sold through 1997)
Writers
Artist record (sold through 2001)
Has Cohen (and his entities) been paid all royalties due to him?
1996 and 1997 analysis of Cohen Family trust assets moved from Dean Witter to
Greenberg.

Where are Cohens expenses, loans (totaling $6.7 million approximately with respect to
Traditional Holdings, LLC alone); why was she unable to obtain information related to 5
unidentified wire transfers. W hat are they? What are the 6 unidentified wire transactions re.
the Cohen Family Trust? There was and remains no Greenberg/Cohen Family Trust

account and the Greenberg accounts were not assigned to the revocable trust for estate
planning purposes.
Cohens account with Dean Witter (who Lynch referred him to) were not moved to
Greenberg.
B.

Cash Flow Analysis Lynch

Why does Cohen need Lynchs bank details to prepare an accounting re. royalty income,
etc? Where are Cohens bank statements that should have been transmitted to Lynchs
lawyers to prove what he received (including for assets owned by BMT), etc. Why does
Cohen need Lynchs checks/wires. He was not her husband and he expenditures are not
his business. What real property does Cohen own?
See the Management Agreement. Theres nothing vague or misleading about it although
the two separate paragraphs, with distinct language (further addressed in Westins March
2002 letter Lynch had him prepare, was fraudulently addressed in Cohens lawsuit. Cohen
managed to solve all of these questions including re. Lynchs ownership interest in
numerous entities via his fabricated, fraudulent narrative used to obtain fraudulent tax
refunds and defend himself with IRS re. the allegations that he committed criminal tax
fraud.

Information re. Lynchs bank accounts, brokerage accounts, investments, real

property, etc. in order to determine what Lynch received from Cohen entities
and how funds used. Bank statements
Checks and wires
Deposit records
Telephone transfers
Real property ownership
What are management fees due from Traditional Holdings and how do those
fees relate to the commission arrangement?
Does Kelley Lynch have an equity interest in Leonard Cohen i.e., anything he
has created? Is that equity claim continuing as to assets or rights sold after
termination?
See corporate records re. Lynchs ownership interest in assets.
Did Kelley Lynch have any rights to take funds from personal accounts? Cohen
Family Trust investment accounts?
Yes. That would include her commissions that Cohen has now alleged
she misappropriated. Lynch has evidence in the form of emails from
Cohen confirming her commissions. He deposited record royalty
income, etc. into his personal bank account although the assets are owned
by BMT.
How do the parties reconcile their intentions as to Kelley Lynch compensation in
light of the conflicting and incomplete documentation related to Traditional
Holdings, LLC, Blue Mist Touring [Company], Inc. and LC Investments, LLC
and aborted CAK bond financing transaction?

C.

There is no conflicting documentation. Lynch has a 15% ownership

interest in BMT and 99.5% in TH (Cohen asked for her assistance; she
asked for an Indemnity Agreement). Lynch has no ownership interest in
LCI regardless of the fact that Cohen transmitted illegal K-1s to IRS
stating otherwise. Cohen decided to abort the CAK bond deal. See his
declaration available publicly through the Southern District of New York
but sealed by LA Superior Court.
Which company owns what assets?
Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. Cohens Complaint verifies that the
transaction was not unwound; he signed the non-revocable assignments;
Cohen dictated language in the minutes. Etc.
Were any asset transfers valid and enforceable under applicable corporate law? If
so, which one(s)?
How were assets sold by Traditional Holdings to Sony? Is Lynch asserting
transaction invalid and should be rescinded?
Good question since TH doesnt own them.
How to explain Cohen and Lynch participation in multiple conflicting asset
transfers?
Seems simple. Cohen hired Westin and Lynch followed their directives,
instructions, etc.
What are Kelley Lynch compensation rights, if any, under LC Investments and
ongoing writers royalties?
The assets are owned by BMT. Lynch has a 15% ownership interest. LCI
is now embezzling (or has) the income. The fraud expense ledger is very
clear about that fact.
How to reconcile aborted bond financing involving CAK in 1999 and various
entities?
See Leonard Cohen since he decided to abort the bond deal and proceed
with a Sony transaction.

Lynch compensation rights under Traditional Holdings (Kory Doc labels this
as B Lynch has corrected lettering throughout document)

How does Lynch right in 15% commission paid at closing reconcile with other
rights to ongoing compensation?
Apples and oranges. Cohen owed Lynch a 15% commission. Her
agreement was with Cohen. She has a 99.5% interest in TH and 15%
interest in all intellectual property (dating back to 1967). Whats the issue?
Zia Modabber was clear that there needed to be corporate accountings.
Sales price represents discounted value of royalty stream?
Lynch was not involved in the present day valuing of the IP assets. She
and McBowman advised Cohen not to sell IP. Cohen demanded these
complex stock deals; wrote that HE DECIDES when these entities are
created; and was concerned about the music industry and digital
downloading.

Does payment of commission on closing satisfy 15% commission rights as to all

revenues from those assets?
Lynchs commission has nothing whatsoever to do with the intellectual
property assets she owns.
What is Kelley Lynch due under the Management Agreement?
See the Management Agreement and Westins March 2002 letter that
Lynch had him prepare for Cohen and herself.
Is the Management Agreement valid and enforceable?
It should be. Lynch most certainly didnt create it or even request one.
Westin decided, as a piece of house keeping to move this item outside
the corporate records for tax reasons. Its out of profit so whats the issue?
Profit sharing is addressed in the corporate records
Was Kelley Lynch authorized to make loans? Yes and the corporate records
are quite clear about this. Cohen also signed an Annuity Agreement
confirming that he was entitled to take loans but had to repay them within
3 years with interest. This issue was addressed with Cohen and his
representatives ad nauseum. Westin, on behalf of Cohen, advised Lynch
that her distributions including for corporate taxes should be handled
as shareholder loans. Greenberg has confirmed this. Westin planned to
recharacterize the nature of these shareholder loans at a later date.
Lynch has no further details about this matter.
To herself?
To Leonard Cohen?

D. Lynch duties and obligations under Traditional Holdings. (Kory Doc labels this
as C Lynch has corrected.)

What were and are Kelley Lynchs fiduciary duties to Leonard Cohen?
What was Cohens fiduciary duty to Lynch and the corporations he is now
arguing that he is the alter ego of?
Did she have a duty to convey Greenbergs letters warning about the dangers of
overspending?
No. However, Lynch reviewed the IRS Danger letters with Cohen that
set forth the fact that Cohens level of borrowing was dangerous to the TH
structure and he had to repay his loans. Cohen informed Lynch and
others not to advise Greenberg of future income, his plans to tour, etc.
Does she have a duty to document loans?
Absolutely not. Lynch didnt handle legal and/or financial matters. See
her February 2002 emails with Cohen and Westin. Westin agreed.
Personal property that may have been purchased with Cohens funds i.e. jewelry.
This might explain why LAPD detectives rolled by and lied to Lynch
about a jewel thief in her neighborhood. What kind of jewelry does
Cohen have? Lynch didnt purchase anything with Cohens funds.
Any loan agreements on behalf of Cohen at CNB or any other institution signed
by Lynch and subsequent use of proceeds.

E.

For what? Adam Cohen? Where are the documents?

Analysis of credit card charges made by Lynch to Cohen credit cards and paid by
Cohen: Citibank 1, Citibank 2, and Amex.
Lets look at everything including Lorca and Adam Cohens charges, and
additional credit cards, on Lynchs cards. Also, items for the Tribute
Album which Cohen was reimbursed for as well as expenses paid on his
behalf. Where are the expenses Lynch for Adam Cohen that Leonard
Cohen promised he would reimburse her for? That would include, but is
not limited to, independent promoters, publicists, etc.
Assets owned or controlled by Lynch or Lynchs parents which could form the
basis of restitution fund.
This is blatant blackmail. What do Lynchs parents have to do with
anything apart from Cohens false accusations that they hid money offshore. A restitution fund for what? Cohens theft? Wheres his restitution
fund?

Reconciliation of Cohen Accounts - Lynch Accounts (Kory Doc labels this as

C) NOTHING FOLLOWS

F. Tax (Kory Doc labels this as D)

Actual income received by entity compared with reported income reported on

income tax returns, including analysis of sources of all income reported on
returns: Cohen, Lynch, LCI, Traditional Holdings
The corporate returns are at issue not Lynchs personal returns. Cohen
is not the IRS. His returns are important because he and LCI are
collecting income for assets belonging to BMT. Where are the BMT
questions? Where are those returns? Lynch had nothing to do with IRS
tax matters, returns, accounting, etc.
Actual monies paid to Lynch compared with reported monies paid and taken as
business expenses on tax returns.
Cohen seems to think he is Lynchs husband; his own accountant told
Lynch that Kory attempted to obtain her tax returns which is illegal.
Actual tax payments v. required payments (all entities).
This information is in Cohens possession. Is there under-reporting?
Impact to the Cohen entities and to Lynch if Cohen agrees to forgive the debt,
if any, owed by Lynch to Cohen or Cohen entities.
Lynch is in possession of a emails/letters from Robert Kory re. Cohens
problematic debt. Its evidently disguised salary or something
according to Greenberg. Cohen is not in a position to forgive nonexistent debt. Hes arguing alter ego of numerous corporate entities.
Impact of phantom income to Lynch from profit allocations without
distributions from Traditional Holdings.
Why would Lynch have phantom profit allocations, without distributions,
if she didnt have an ownership interest? What is the impact?

Impact, if any, the distributions and loans from the trusts have on tax free/tax
deferred status of the trusts.
That seems like a Cohen issue re. his charitable remainder trusts. How
about Ed Deans concerns that personal service contracts were being
assigned to these trusts? Greenberg was clear Cohen related to these
trusts as a piggy bank.
Potential tax liability to Lynch for failing to report all of the monies received
from Cohen entities (assuming she failed to report all the income).
Why would Cohen/Kory assume Lynch failed to report income? Because
they are liars with motive or attempting to elicit illegal information? One
or the other.
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).
Cohens failure to report $8 million in gross income is not Lynchs issue.
There is no delta of $5 million. The approximately $3.3 million
transaction fees are Cohens personal expenses. Cohen personally signed
the fax authorizing Greenberg to pay those expenses. He evidently feels
comfortable lying about this fact.

G. Legal [Kory Doc II]

Lynch compensation Intention of parties.

What is the compensation arrangement between Cohen and Lynch for Kelley
Lynchs services?
What is the commission arrangement
Did she have a duty to discuss ambiguities in Management Contract with
Leonard or his representatives?
No. Lynchs job was not double-checking Cohens lawyers work
obviously. The ambiguities benefitted Cohen although they dont exist.
What is Kelley Lynchs obligation as to annuity? Did she have a duty to preserve
assets in order to pay annuity? Does dissipation of assets constitute anticipatory
breach?
Well, since Cohen and his lawyers extinguished it from the 2003 TH tax
return, Lynch does wonder what this is all about. How could Lynch
preserve assets when she had nothing to do with the investments or the
fact that Cohen borrowed approximately $6.7 million? Hes the individual
responsible for repaying his loans/expenditures.

H. Greenberg duties and potential liability [Kory Doc D, page 4)

Duty of Greenberg to safeguard funds. Did he know or should he have known

about improper dissipation of Cohens assets? In Cohen Family Trust?
Traditional Holdings?

Impact of Greenberg not maintain records expected to be maintained in the

ordinary course of business (i.e. loan documentation including notes and loan
agreements, wire instructions).
Impacting of Greenberg not accurately reporting true condition of the trusts.
Loans were apparently treated as unimpaired assets.
Ongoing and even recent Greenberg emails to Cohen showing $5 million value
in TH.
Failure by Greenberg to make sure that Cohen was aware of two cautionary
letters about spending, particularly in view of monthly positive emails directly to
Cohen and failure to mention in phone calls

I. Westin duties and potential liability [Kory Doc E, page 4)

Duty of Westin to set up Traditional Holdings in manner that includes

elementary mechanisms to safeguard funds? Did he know or should he have
know about improper dissipation of Cohens assets?
Impact of Grubman firms notes about dangers of Kelley Lynch theft.
Significance of role as ongoing tax preparer (i.e. knowledge, duty to assure loan
documentation in place, entity not impaired, etc.)
Did he know about loans, and failure as to preparation of loan documentation by
Greenberg?
Liability for Management Agreement that is manifestly filled with errors.
Liability for attack on Cleveland when Cleveland attempted to raise issues as to
inadequacy of records.

J. Other Issues

Claim by Cohen of fraud in the inducement against Greenberg, Westin,

Grubman, McBowman, and Lynch for failure to advise Cohen that discounting
royalties for sale was ill advised and would serve only to create transaction fees.
Impact of Cohen selling his royalty rights (because he thought he was out of
money) as compared to had he maintained those streams of income.
Damage for lost profits, transaction fees, theft losses, negative tax consequences.
Liability for advisors who failed to show Cohen his income stream of $600,000
annually.
Lynchs unwillingness to live on $90,000 (15% of $600,000).
Advisors cooperation with Lynch and apparent lack of consultation with Cohen.

Procedural (III on Kory doc, page 5)

Agreement to mediate Cohen and Lynch

What form of agreement?
How to address issues raised in this memo and other issues to be identified?
How to exchange information
How to reach consensus as to facts?

Selection of mediator.
Other issues.

K. Agreement to mediate Greenberg Westin, Others (Kory doc, III B, C, & D)

When and how to provide notice of claims?

What form of agreement?
Schedule:
Meditation agreement by January 21
Meeting at D&B January 21 with Cohen and Lynch present to endorse final
agreement and secure full cooperation.
Preliminary and verbal notice to Greenberg and Westin by January 19.
Formal written notice to Greenberg and Westin by January 24.
Mediation target date 90 days or less from date of mediation agreement.

EXHIBIT F
JUDGE BABCOCKS SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, D. COLORADO.
NATURAL WEALTH REAL ESTATE

Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB. (D. Colo. Sep 05, 2008)

Decided September 5, 2008

NATURAL WEALTH REAL ESTATE, INC., a/k/a Greenberg Associates, Inc., d/b/a Agile
Advisors, Inc. a Colorado corporation; TACTICAL ALLOCATION SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Agile
Allocation Services, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; AGILE GROUP, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; GREENBERG ASSOCIATES SECURITIES, INC., d/b/a Agile Group,
a Colorado corporation; and NEAL R. GREENBERG, a Colorado resident, Plaintiffs and
Counterclaim Defendants, v. LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California;
KELLEY LYNCH, a United States citizen residing in California; and JOHN DOE, Numbers 1-25,
Defendants, and, LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California, Counterclaim
Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY BARNETT, a Colorado citizen, Counterclaim Defendant.
Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
September 5, 2008
ORDER
LEWIS BABCOCK, Chief District Judge
This matter is before me on Defendant, Leonard Cohens, Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Plaintiffs Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader[Docket # 185], Plaintiffs
response [Docket # 196], and Cohens reply[Docket # 210]. Oral arguments would not materially
assist *22 the determination of this motion.
The allegations in this case are adequately noted in prior orders of this Court, and I need not repeat
them here. After several years of litigation, each claim and counterclaim in this case with the
exception of Plaintiffs interpleader claim now at issue has been dismissed. Plaintiffs interpleader
claim concerns approximately $154,000 in funds (the funds) belonging to Traditional Holdings
LLC, an investment entity created by Cohen and Defendant Lynch for purposes of managing
Cohens assets. Plaintiffs disavowed any interest in the funds, but requested interpleader for
purposes of settling the conflicting positions of Cohen and Lynch regarding ownership of the funds.
Plaintiffs paid the funds into the Registry of the Court pending resolution of this issue.
On May 12, 2006, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, ruled on the issue of
ownership of the funds, and entered default judgment in favor of Cohen and against Lynch in the
amount of $7.3 million in damages and interest. See Judgment, Cohen v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. BC 338322 (May 12, 2006) [Docket # 186-16]. In rendering judgment, the
California court declared Lynch was not the owner of any assets in Traditional Holdings, LLC and
any interest Lynch had in any other entity related to Cohen . . . she [held] as trustee for Cohens

equitable title. The California court enjoined Lynch from interfering with Cohens right to receive
any such funds or property or in any other way exercising control over any funds or property related
to Cohen. The California court ruling was not appealed and is now final. *33
The final judgment of the California court settles the dispute between Lynch and Cohen over
ownership of the interpleaded funds. As Plaintiffs are no longer exposed to multiple liability,
Plaintiffs interpleader claim is now moot.See FED. R. CIV. P.22(a)(1). When the dispute underlying
an interpleader claim is mooted, the interpleader claim should be dismissed. See Oldcastle Materials,
Inc. v. Rohlin, 343 F. Supp. 2d 762, 787 (N.D. Iowa 2004);Burningtree v. Holland, 760 F. Supp. 118,
119 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader is DISMISSED;
2. Defendant Cohens Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Tenth Claim for Relief for
Interpleader [Docket # 185] is DENIED AS MOOT;
3. The interpleaded funds currently in the Registry of the Court including any accrued interest,
less the Court Registry handling fee shall be disbursed to Defendant Cohen within ten days of
the date of this Order;
4. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs related to this motion.