From: Kelley Lynch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:46 PM
To: Jeffrey Korn <email@example.com>, "irs.commissioner" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Washington Field <email@example.com>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <firstname.lastname@example.org>, fsb <email@example.com>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, rbyucaipa <firstname.lastname@example.org>, khuvane <email@example.com>, blourd <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Robert MacMillan <email@example.com>, moseszzz <firstname.lastname@example.org>, a <email@example.com>, wennermedia <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mick Brown <email@example.com>, woodwardb <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "glenn.greenwald" <email@example.com>, lrohter <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Harriet Ryan <email@example.com>, "hailey.branson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "stan.garnett" <email@example.com>, sedelman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, JFeuer <JFeuer@gibsondunn.com>, "kevin.prins" <email@example.com>
I don't [understand] what kind of game you are playing here but I would like to point out that the IRS requires Cohen provide me with a 1099 for the year 2004. If you don't handle this matter, I believe you should advise me who does. This is a highly legitimate matter and it is a legal requirement.
Additionally, I have attempted to address K-1s related to LC Investments, LLC and Traditional Holdings, LLC. These are documents (and you can Google this easily) indicating that someone has a partnership interest in an entity. The fraudulent default judgment did not resolve this matter because IRS received K-1s from LCI and TH indicating that i am a partner and they view me as a partner. LA Superior Court has no jurisdiction over federal tax matters. And I tend to doubt the judgment would be legally binding given the corporate records, stock certificates, signed and notarized documents, and tax returns.
Regardless of your client's testimony, I am not in receipt of IRS required form1099 for the year 2004. The LCI K-1s appear to be illegal because I was not a partner in this entity and cannot imagine why these were transmitted to State of Kentucky and IRS for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. I would like to point out, once again, that the LCI K-1s transmitted to IRS show $0 income while the ledger indicates income. Both have been provided to IRS. Both cannot be accurate. I am not going to rely on a meaningless list of numbers. At times, Cohen's son's house, Anjani Thomas' house, and other Cohen expenses/purchases were in my column. An accounting is not a meaningless list of numbers and does not replace corporate records with a fabricated narrative.
Some of the income shifted to me but not distributed is addressed on K-1s related to Traditional Holdings, LLC. If I was not a partner, why did I pay taxes and why isn't that addressed on the ledger?
I would appreciate a response to this matter. I also believe due to the fact that I was made a partner on TH (and Cohen would have received an annuity obligation regardless of the ownership interests), that he should address his nearly $6.7 million in loans he took and expenses he caused to be paid. See the Annuity Agreement where Cohen agreed to repay these monies within 3 years with interest. His personal tax lawyer extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2003 tax return. The income from the Sony sale was not reported on the 2001 returns. My promissory note was extinguished from the 2002 returns. This was all brought to my attention by my accountant and lawyers in the fall of 2004. Cohen then came up with a novel legal defense: that I received overpayments re. my fees as personal manager and willfully disregarded corporate books and records.
Westin himself addresses why I was to receive $240,000. He worked for Cohen and this is in writing. I've given that to IRS. However, Prins willfully ignored corporate records and distributions - including as they relate to taxes.
There are many other issues that have arisen due to this entirely fabricated and fraudulent lawsuit. One of those issues has to do with a fraudulent domestic violence order. The Boulder Combined Court was clear: it's not a domestic violence order. They then emailed me Cohen's original Motion for the TRO and it was very clear - he wasn't worried about his concert nearly one year later. He was concerned about my online posts and communications with journalists and others. I have all the evidence to support everything I'm saying. I have no personal interest whatsoever in your client and find that as insulting as his attempt to turn sexual harassment and indecent exposure into a statutory required intimate relationship. It is pathetic.