Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Kelley Lynch - Oral Arguments May 9, 2012 - Re. Leonard Cohen, the City Attorney, the District Attorney, Etc.

1.        Kelley Lynch was not served or notified of the California order registered on May 25, 2011.  There is no evidence proving otherwise.  Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, fraudulently advised Lynch in an email dated February 14, 2011 that the California order was registered.  That was a material lie addressed with Rice on the witness stand.  Lynch immediately phoned LA Superior Court and was advised that no such order had been registered.  It is clear that this order was registered in May 2011 and Lynch was not served or notified because the intention was entrap Lynch.  The Trial Court had no jurisdiction over Lynch with respect to the restraining order.  The fact that the order was not served was raised, on cross, and in closing argument.  I have no idea why my lawyers didn’t file a motion to dismiss based on this issue.
2.        Lynch asked that the Boulder civil harassment be made permanent in September 2008.  In or around 2010, the Boulder County Court Clerk’s office advised Lynch that the order expired.  Lynch relied on that and ultimately had her wages garnished in the fall of 2011.  Leonard Cohen has steadfastly refused to provide Lynch with IRS required Form 1099 for the year 2004.  He and his lawyer, Robert Kory, testified that they provided Lynch with all necessary tax documents but the IRS recently confirmed that they are not in receipt of this 1099 for the year 2004.  They also advised Lynch to file fraud form 3949(a) with respect to Cohen’s fraudulent refund and the illegal K-1s Lynch has received.  In any event, Lynch and Cohen were not in a dating relationship.  At the March 23, 2012 hearing, Leonard Cohen testified that they were in a purely business relationship and confirmed that two additional times in his testimony.  This became an issue during the trial and Cohen then testified that he changed his story from the March 23, 2012 hearing. Therefore, the only testimony with respect to the required Domestic Violence restraining order “dating relationship” is conflicted and perjured and both should be regarded.  Leonard Cohen and Kelley Lynch were never in a dating relationship of any type whatsoever.  LA Superior Court advised Lynch that a civil harassment order cannot be registered as a domestic violence order.  And yet it was.
3.  There is a tremendous amount of concealment and fraud in this case.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the IRS and FTB (as both Cohen and his lawyer testified) are pursuing Lynch or that she owes taxes.  The only evidence - and this is in the IRS binder Streeter blindsided my lawyers with (so a discovery violation should be raised) - from the IRS or Treasury with respect to anything related to me or Leonard Cohen is Agent Kelly Sopko/Treasury’s  March 2007 email to me (following our meeting) advising me to report the allegations of Leonard Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to Agent Luis Tejeda/head of a fraud group at the IRS in Los Angeles.  The jurors, in debriefing, advised my lawyers that they wanted to hear from the IRS.  One juror advised my lawyers that he relied on Streeter’s accusation that Leonard Cohen only had $100,000-$150,000 left.  That is a bald-faced lie and his loans from one corporate entity alone were millions.  Here is a quote from Robert Kory’s February 11, 2005 email to my lawyer, Dianne DiMascio:  “I do not believe Leonard has any material exposure, though depending on how we handle Traditional Holdings, he may have some tax liability if and when loans to him from Traditional Holdings are forgiven.”  The loans will not be forgiven and Traditional Holdings issued Cohen a 1099 in 2008 (contained in the IRS binder) for $8 million.  That is the total amount of the Sony deal re. Traditional Holdings (and includes monies - ie. $1 million down ayment Cohen received personally in 1999; recoupment amounts;  his loans and transaction fees; his investor’s transaction fees - 35% of the deal, etc.).
4.        Cohen testified at the March 23, 2012 hearing that I stole nothing from him but his “peace of mind.” This is further supported by his interview (around the time he filed his retaliatory lawsuit against me in August 2005 that I was not served).  Lynch was asked to assist Cohen with the TH deal so that the IRS would not view his activity (solely intended to avoid ordinary income taxes) as self-dealing, which is was.  Leonard Cohen was indeed well aware of the structure of this deal.  He just lies and commits perjury when he sees fit.
“The second sale of Cohen's intellectual property, in 2001, was for $8 million. With Westin, Lynch put that money into a newly formed company named Traditional Holdings LLC that also was intended to shield Cohen's earnings from a major tax hit. Lynch was named as owner of 99.5 per cent of the company, leaving Cohen holding just 0.5 per cent. Greenberg alleges that Cohen, well aware of the structure and its dangers, signed off on it. Westin had explained to Cohen, the suit says, that "the plan would only work if Cohen and Lynch maintained (as they had in the past) a long-term relationship of personal and professional trust." Traditional Holdings could also issue loans to its owners, Lynch and Cohen … On other points, Cohen disagrees. He was vitally interested in his financial affairs, he says. "It wasn't that I wasn't involved - on the contrary, I took great pains to pay these professionals well and to solicit their advice and to follow it," he insists … Greenberg's lawsuit becomes more disturbing as it describes what happened after Cohen realized he'd lost millions of dollars. Greenberg says Cohen pressured him to go after his firm's insurance company for the money to repay him. "Be a man," Cohen told Greenberg, the suit says. By threatening his reputation, it appeared to Greenberg that Cohen, on Kory's advice, had decided to target Greenberg's and his insurance company's deep pockets. Then, alleges the lawsuit, Cohen and Kory began to pressure Lynch to join them in "their extortion scheme." From November 2004 to April 2005, the lawsuit says, Kory repeatedly let Lynch know, sometimes directly, sometimes through friends or other intermediaries, that Cohen was ready to "forgive" Lynch's obligations to him, and that she in fact could receive a hefty cut of "whatever funds could be extorted from Greenberg and other advisers with her co-operation." … Greenberg's suit alleges that when Lynch refused to participate, Kory and Cohen vowed to "crush her." It goes on to say their "tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage Lynch" included threatening her that she would go to jail … "I'm not accusing her of theft," he says of Lynch.
5.        The prosecutor concealed, from the jurors, an email she received from Cohen on April 5, 2012 at the beginning of the trial.  That email proves Cohen’s testimony about Phil Spector contradicted his own email.  In that email he advised the prosecutor that Phil Spector held a gun to his neck.  On the stand he testified that Phil Spector held a gun to his head.  
6.        The prosecutor and Cohen lied when they advised the jurors that I am in receipt of the IRS 1099.  They lied about the K-1s I received.  I did not request K-1s and the prosecutor misstated this to the jurors.  I asked that three K-1s, related to a company I am not a partner on, be rescinded.  Kory testified that I asked that these be withdrawn and the accounting modified (to include, I might note, my ownership interest in these corporations, my ownership interest in all Cohen’s intellectual property dating back to 1967, assets, liabilities, and equity - the expense ledger is fraud and lists income from LC Investments, LLC - the company I have these K-1s from although the K-1s, transmitted to the IRS - list $0 income for the same periods … 2003, 2004, and 2005).  
7.        Leonard Cohen testified and the prosecutor told the judge that the IRS had a holding with respect to Leonard Cohen’s refund that I was completely unaware of - although he accused me of misappropriation when he received his nearly $700,000 refund from the IRS for theft loss.  There is no evidence of an IRS holding at all.  Cohen’s refund was confirmed in December 2005 and I met with the Treasury agents in 2007 and - thereafter - received an email advising me to report Cohen’s tax fraud (and provide evidence) to Agent Luis Tejeda/IRS.  Agent Tejeda/IRS was himself concealed from the jurors and the IRS binder does indeed contain new evidence.  There is no possible way that I could have discovered Cohen’s refund because the IRS does not share private information about people with other taxpayers.  
8.        The prosecutor stated that I was the only person to testify that I lost my home in December 2005 and, therefore, was not served Leonard Cohen’s default judgment when I was homeless in Santa Monica in May 2006.  My son, Rutger, could have confirmed this.  The judge refused to permit him to testify but permitted Cohen to testify re. his Whole Foods matter where he had three fingers ripped off in a meat grinder he wasn’t trained to use.  I never blamed Cohen for that incident but know I have a legitimate right to request payment for what he owes me and I did so when Rutger was injured and hospitalized on more than one occasion.  This evidently annoyed Leonard Cohen.  
9.        The prosecutor and Leonard Cohen concealed the fact that Mick Brown/UK Telegraph advised me that he reviewed the Phil Spector Grand Jury testimony/transcripts and Cohen’s statements (testimony?) were presented.  Those statements contain a third version of his good rock and roll comments about Phil Spector and these same comments were used in prosecution motions in Phil Spector’s matter.  Those statements involve a gun to the chest and the weapon was a semi-automatic.  At my trial, Cohen testified that the weapon was an automatic.  
10.        Leonard Cohen used, fraud, perjury, concealment and lies to obtain his default judgment against me.  He concealed corporate books, records, non-revocable assignments, stock certificates, memorandums, notarized documents, etc.  I was not served the complaint in that matter and the court - as is true with the restraining order here - had no personal jurisdiction over me.  The proof of service notes that a Jane Doe was served.  I had no female co-occupant in 2005 (or ever) and my son could have testified about this.  
11.        Please do reiterate for the appellate division that I believe I have a constitutional right to abandon this appeal.  
12.        The prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel at my trial is egregious.  Please review the Writ if you need any additional information.
13.        Leonard Cohen’s drug usage was raised as an issue.  Leonard Cohen has a publicly documented history of drug abuse.  He testified that I attempted to assail his reputation which is absurd.  He has a history of prescription and illegal meth use, LSD, mandraxx, etc.  He discussed this recently with his biographer, Sylvie Simmons, but testified that this was allegedly meant to annoy Leonard Cohen.
14.        The emails and voice mail messages (that, according ot LAPD were out of sequence and not date or time stamped) cannot be authenticated.  Cohen couldn’t even remember my email address.  I did not testify that I confirmed sending these emails.  I said it sounded like I did but I would have to review every one of them against the originals.  They should have been obtained via subpoena and my email address should have been confirmed by Google/Gmail. There are serious issues with chain of evidence.  Cohen and his lawyers testified that they either gave the evidence to LAPD’s Wilshire Division or the City Attorney.  Viramontes/LAPD has noted in his report that he was in receipt of the evidence and forwarded it to the City Attorney.  How did he obtain this evidence when he is not at the Wilshire Division?  Viramontes/LAPD also states in his report that my emails were generally requests for tax/financial information.  What probable cause did he have to forward this case to the City Attorney?
I view the entire case as an attempt to sabotage me and the IRS - as well as illegal discovery with respect to the IRS and Phil Spector.  The City Attorney should have provided me with evidence re. why the DA elected not to prosecute Leonard Cohen.  Was there a quid pro quo re. Phil Spector?  I think that’s  obvious.