Monday, April 29, 2013

While Cohen's Operative - Gianelli a/k/a The 14th Sheepdog Continues To Criminally Harass Me Over My Appeal, Etc. - My Attorney & I Are Working On The Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Perjury, Lies, Concealment, Fraud, Etc.

Our state Constitution guarantees that a person improperly deprived of his or her
liberty has the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  California Constitution, Article I; People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474.
Appellant Kelley Lynch was arrested on March 1, 2012 for violation of a California domestic violence restraining order registered on May 25, 2011. Her trial ended in a conviction.
The prosecution’s theory of the legal issues in the case, stated during trial proceedings and announced in opening and closing statements, was straightforward:  “One, whether or not there was a valid and lawfully issued restraining order and whether over approximately a 14-month period on several occasions Ms. Lynch violated that validly and lawful issued restraining order.  Two, whether or not over a one-year period Ms. Lynch either via email or phone calls made annoying and harassing phone calls that included obscene language or threats for no good reason, not in good faith.”  (RT 562)
Respondent’s Brief:  To the extent appellant is attacking the statute on its face, her argument must also be rejected.  Citing authorities interpreting “the statute prohibiting obscene electronic communications made with the intent to annoy, appellant seems to claim 653m(b) requires certain words be used to prove a violation.  Specifically, appellant defines “obscene,” then states:  “In the instant case, Ms. Lynch did not use any such words that would violate the statute.”  (AOB)  However, appellant’s claim is without merit; no particular words are required to support a conviction under 653m(b), nor is there any requirement that the communications be obscene.  Appellant may be referring to Penal Code 653m(a) which prohibits obscene telephonic or electronic communication made with intent to annoy.  
It seems obvious to Petitioner that the prosecutor was arguing the elements of 653m(a) after Petitioner was charged with 653m(b).  Perhaps that’s why the AOB addresses particular words required to support a conviction.  
The defense’s theory of the case, stated during trial proceedings and announced in opening and closing statements, was equally straightforward:  The relationship between Mr. Leonard Cohen and Ms. Kelley Lynch, it’s a long history.  They started working together in 1988.  (RT 44)  There were questions about the IRS and taxes.  And so he panicked.  (RT 45)  The plan was to get Ms. Lynch to work with Mr. Cohen and to pin the blame on his financial consultant.  But Ms. Lynch refused to go along with that plan.  She said no, I’m not going to falsify anything.  I’m not going to go out and do what you tell me to do, and she refused.  (RT 45)  They said, well she’s not going to help us, that means she’s going to hurt us.  So they went after Ms. Lynch the best way they knew how.  Using the legal process.   (RT 45)  Because if they ruin her credibility, well, that helps Mr. Cohen.  And they have done everything in their power to hurt Ms. Lynch’s credibility.  (RT 45)  And yet they wanted to go and they went and tried to hurt her economically and to put a restraining order on her so they couldn’t have any contact during the litigation.  That was their intent.  That was their purpose.  (RT 46)  You’re going to see that a lot of this is asking for legitimate purposes to get legitimate information that she needed for her taxes, information that his attorneys did not want to give to her.  (RT 46)   He’s a celebrity.  He’s a performer.  He’s an entertainer.  That means - that means he’s charismatic.  He knows how to get people on his side.  (RT 47)  
The jurors were regaled with testimony admitted on a common design or plan theory to the effect that Lynch allegedly began a campaign to “annoy” Leonard Cohen after they parted ways in October 2004.  There is a wealth of evidence, much of it intentionally concealed or suppressed, supporting the conclusion that Ms. Lynch did not intend to annoy Leonard Cohen and did not willfully or knowingly violate a restraining order.  As Ms. Lynch’s counsel told jurors in his opening statement:  There were questions about the IRS and taxes.  (RT 45)  You’re going to see that a lot of this is asking for legitimate purposes to get information that she needed for her taxes.  Information that he did not want her to have.  Information that his attorneys did not want to give her.  (RT 46)  
Given the powerful proof that Ms. Lynch was retaliated against for reporting Cohen’s tax fraud to the IRS; unconscionable and abusive legal tactics were used against her attempting to conceal Leonard Cohen’s theft and criminal tax fraud - including a lawsuit and judgment she wasn’t served and highly abused restraining orders - the prosecution was unwilling to rest its case on the evidence concerning the events that unfolded between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Cohen.  Instead, they used classic character assassination and deception.  Despite the statutory prohibition on character evidence (Evidence Code Section section 1101(a)), the prosecution sought to plug the critical gaps in its case with evidence of whom Ms. Lynch allegedly was -- evidence of her character and propensities.  Throughout this trial, the court permitted the prosecution to assert that appellant had a common “plan” and scheme with respect to Leonard Cohen and thus should be convicted based on her alleged bad character and evil propensities.  That plan and scheme, according to the prosecutor, included Leonard Cohen’s publicly documented history of drug use and abuse.  It is a testament to the strength of the exculpatory evidence the prosecution concealed (through evidence suppression, a fictional narrative,  and the use of false testimony) that after being inundated with an avalanche of “bad character” allegations, the jury decided to convict.  
The cumulative prejudicial impact of the trial court’s errors in admitting the evidence of uncharged offenses and acts cannot possibly  be deemed harmless, particularly given the inflammatory and lurid manner in which the prosecution  made use of the material throughout the trial and in closing argument.  Furthermore, the prosecutor compounded the prejudicial effect of all of these errors with vituperative attacks on appellant‘s character, that included outright lies, eliciting perjured and false statements, concealing exculpatory and impeachment evidence, and generally engaged in egregious prosecutorial misconduct.
On or about January 5, 2012, the People charged Petitioner Kelley Lynch with having committed violations of Penal Code sections 273.6(a) and 653m(b).  The People failed to notify Petitioner of these misdemeanor charges.  She was subsequently arrested in Berkeley, California on March 1, 2012.  On March 23, 2012, appellant pled not guilty to all counts.  (Clerk’s Transcript 23).  On April 4, 2012, trial commenced.  
The court dismissed Counts Four and Five on April 5, 2012 pursuant to Penal Code Section 1385.  The jury returned verdicts of guilty on all counts on April 12, 2012 (CT 115).  The court sentenced appellant on April 17, 2012. Notice of appeal was filed on May 7, 2012.  Appellant’s Opening Brief was filed December 17, 2012.  Respondent’s Brief was filed February 14, 2013.  Appellant filed an Abandonment of Appeal on March 3, 2013 which was denied.  Oral arguments are currently scheduled for May 9, 2013.   Petitioner is currently restrained by both probation requirements and unconscionable fees.
Prosecutor:  In the late 80s when Mr. Cohen’s business manager died ... Mr. Cohen hired Ms. Lynch..  (RT 37)  Lynch:  I began working as Mr. Cohen’s personal manager in April 1988 after Mr. Machat’s death.  (RT 448) Public Defender:  Why did it [business relationship] end?  Lynch:  Well, it’s a complicated answer, but I would say because Leonard Cohen heard I was going to the Internal Revenue Service about what I was told is criminal tax fraud.  (RT 458)  Around 2005, that’s when things began to change ... There were questions about the IRS and taxes.  And so he panicked.  He got his attorneys involved and the finger pointing started.  The plan was to get Ms. Lynch to work with Mr. Cohen and to pin the blame on his financial consultant.  But Ms. Lynch refused to go along with the plan.  She said no, I’m not going to falsify anything.  I’m not going to go out and do what you tell me to do, and she refused.  (RT 45)  Were you ever asked to give false information that would hurt Mr. Greenberg and help Mr. Cohen?  I don’t know if I would characterize the conversation that way.  I was asked to testify that Neal Greenberg defrauded Leonard Cohen, and I most certainly do not feel that Neal Greenberg defrauded him.  I feel that Leonard Cohen, Neal Greenberg, and Richard Westin were wrapped in attorney/client privilege and they all defrauded the U.S. government.  Did you ever agree to any of that?  No.  I felt I was being asked to participate in criminal conduct.  (RT 460)
Prosecutor:  The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch ... fought with the District Attorney’s to file charges against him.  Was upset with the District Attorney, the L.A. County District Attorney’s didn’t file charges against Mr. Cohen.  (RT 40)  
Ms. Rice, one of Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, decided to send out a letter, okay?  Perhaps it might have appeared a bit forceful.  But the evidence will show Ms. Rice has a job to do to protect her client’s interest, share a letter in February 2011 reminding Ms. Cohen [sic] that there’s a permanent Colorado restraining order.  And that the California courts will enforce that restraining order.  (RT 40-41)
And indeed one of the things, the evidence will show, that she talks a lot about is tax fraud and the need to have the tax return.  But the people will submit to you or show to you that this so-called business relationship, or not honoring their business relationship, indeed the most important thing that she mentions every so often the tax statement is merely a ruse.  For example ... the evidence you will see ... that Ms. Lynch specifically asked for her K-1 form ... Let’s talk a little bit about Ms. Lynch’s need for the tax form or tax returns -- the evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was Mr. Cohen’s business manager.  The evidence will show that Mr. [sic] Lynch -- Mr. Cohen has no clue as to what a W-2 form is, a 1099 is, a K-1 form.  The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch is the one that had all of that information, knew all that information.  Mr. Cohen did not have it, does not have it and does not understand what it means.  Okay.  (RT 43)
The evidence proves that Leonard Cohen does indeed know what IRS forms 1099 and K-s are.  Regardless of what the prosecutor stated in opening, Leonard Cohen does not have the information Petitioner has been requesting.  All employers are required to provide their employees with tax documents at the end of each year - and that would include the City Attorney of Los Angeles.  The information the prosecutor advised the jurors Cohen did not and does not have would appear on royalty statements he received, his bank statements, etc.  
With respect to partnership form K-1, Petitioner doesn’t require Leonard Cohen to provide her with anything - she has repeatedly requested that Leonard Cohen rescind the illegal K-1s issued to her by LC Investments, LLC for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005, and transmitted to the State of Kentucky and IRS.  The evidence will not show that Petitioner was Cohen’s business manager because Petitioner was Leonard Cohen’s personal manager.  This has been well documented, for years, in the news media.  The requests for tax, financial, accounting, and business information were not a ruse and that would include - but is not limited to - requesting payment for monies Cohen owes me when my son was injured and hospitalized.  The City Attorney of Los Angeles has a very twisted and distorted view of what legitimate is and that includes their attempt to involve my older son on their so-called intent to annoy argument.  Rutger Penick was involved in a horrifying accident that left him maimed; Leonard Cohen owes Petitioner money; and, Petitioner has a legitimate right to ask to be paid and/or compensated for work she has done, corporate ownership interests, and intellectual property she owns.
Leonard Cohen Direct:  Q: Now, there is a mention of the K-1.  The People ask you about some other documents.  Do you know what a W-2 is?  A: W-2?  No, I don’t.  Q: How about a 1099?  A: A 1099, yes, is issued by an employer to an employee.  RT 83/84:  
Leonard Cohen Cross-Examination:  Q: Okay.  Now, do you know what a K-1 is now?  A: I have a perfect -- a sense of what it is, but I wouldn’t be able to teach it.  Q: Okay.  And is it fair to say that you’ve gotten emails through the years referencing a K-1.  A: That’s correct.  (RT 280)
When Mr. Cohen went on tour in 2010.  No emails.  No voice mails ... in 2011, when the emails and voice mails and onslaught started again, the evidence will show.  Ms. Rice, one of Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, decided to send out a letter, okay?  Perhaps it might have appeared a bit forceful.  (RT 40) ... Share a letter in February 2011 reminding Ms. Cohen [sic] that there is a permanent Colorado restraining order.  And that the California courts will enforce that restraining order.  (RT 41)  
My wages were garnished this past September, 2011, by the state.  And they want my 2004 and 2005 tax returns, which is what I have been fearing.  As does the IRS now.  And what I am saying is that I said that I was confused about how to file my tax returns.  (RT 457)
Let’s talk again about that Colorado restraining order that the evidence will show ... it’s not just that the Colorado court said ... it says, “Do not contact Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, Michelle Rice and Robert Kory.”  That’s what it says.  And she said okay.  (RT 41)
Leonard Cohen Cross:  Public Defender:  I want to talk to you a little bit about -- you said that you felt threatened some of these times.  Do you remember saying that?  Cohen:  I certainly did.  Public Defender:  Now I want to talk to you about what you mean by threatened.  You actually -- you were telling us about Phil Spector.  You were testifying about talking to the LAPD.  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.  Public Defender:  And you talked to the LAPD with your attorney, correct?  Leonard Cohen:  With an attorney present, Yes, Sir. (RT 308)  Public Defender:  And how he would oftentimes have guns when you were producing an album, correct?  He would have guns in the studio when he was producing an album with you?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  Public Defender:  And, in fact, one time you told the detective that, quote -- well, before I go there, was Mr. Spector -- was he drunk at the time when he had these guns?  (RT 309) Cohen:  I don’t remember, Sir.  Public Defender:  Was he hostile at the time?  Cohen:  Not to me.  Public Defender:  Okay.  But he actually put a gun to your head; is that correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  Public Defender:  It was a revolver?  Cohen:  No, it wasn’t a revolver.  It was an automatic.  Public Defender:  But you weren’t actually -- you didn’t feel threatened when he put a gun to your head?  Cohen:  No, Sir.  (RT 309)  
Leonard Cohen, an individual in this case with bias and motive, did not feel threatened when a gun was pointed at his head (or neck, if the email he sent the prosecutor during the trial was the accurate version, or chest, if you believe the version Phil Spector’s prosecutors used  in his trials - which are readily available in motions on LA Superior Court’s website) but feels alarmed when he fantasizes about Petitioner possibly driving down his street.  No evidence supports any such incident,  In fact, Leonard Cohen testified that he has not seen Petitioner in approximately 7 years.  Leonard Cohen has a long and very well documented history of psychiatric ailments, violent emotions, drug abuse - including prescription and non-prescription meth, alcoholism, and embellished stories that involve Phil Spector, the Yom Kippur War, the Bay of Pigs, and Janis Joplin.  These are Leonard Cohen’s good rock and roll stories.  These elements of Leonard Cohen’s personality need to be taken into consideration when reviewing his testimony - as does his motive:  his major tax hit;  and, probable criminal tax fraud.  


To Be Continued ...