Friday, May 17, 2013

Leonard Cohen's Declaration Proves Perjury At My Trial & In His Lawsuit Against Me

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Leonard Cohen's Perjury
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, ASKDOJ <>, Washington Field <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, "Hoffman, Rand" <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>

To the IRS Commissioner's Staff,

I consider this declaration of Cohen's highly relevant and material evidence.  It is signed by Leonard Cohen and was prepared by his litigator with respect to CAK's lawsuit against Cohen re. the failed bond securitization deal.  Leonard Cohen was aware, and declares under perjury, that he received substantial royalties.  He simply lied in court documents and to the news media that I mislead him.  The notion is laughable.  First of all, Greg McBowman flew into LA to meet with us and advised Cohen (with me) not to sell these assets.  Cohen was adamant.  He was concerned about digital downloading and understood that Sony would use The Future income in determining a purchase price and therefore the sales were urgent - for him.  I thought the CAK deal was a good deal.  You can maintain your assets and simply pay your taxes, over the years, as you recoup your royalties.  He made the decision to go with Sony and he's clear in this declaration.  He's also clear, in 2000, that I was his personal manager.  So is everyone in the industry.  And, many journalists are aware of it also. 

Leonard Cohen simply feels entitled to lie in a court of law. 

I have received, and forwarded them to you, two criminally harassing emails from the 14th Sheepdog this morning.  The person is certifiable. Its obsession with me and my family is appalling.  If the lunatic wants to find the Writ that was filed (and I'm sitting here with the judge's order) he should find itself and stop harassing me. 

One thing that is very clear - these liars like to be sticklers about their rules.  They do not care about perjury, fraud, concealment, theft, lies, misstatements of facts, corruption, etc.  Schmitter has also lied.  Who cares if she showed up for oral arguments?  Should we glorify her now?  I asked to abandon this appeal and will litigate this issue.  It is my view that the appellate will sabotage you for the lower court.  That's my personal opinion.  Call it defer if you find sabotage too strong of a word. 

Declaration of Leonard Cohen dated August 30, 2000
UCC Lending Corp/CAK Universal Credit Corp. v. Leonard Cohen
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
00 Civ. 1068 (DAB)


I receive what I view to be substantial royalties, on a regular basis, from sales of my albums and uses of my compositions.

On June 24, 1999, my transactional counsel advised plaintiffs in writing, as follows:  As we discussed earlier today, due to the significant changes concerning the possible loan amount, our client Leonard Cohen and his manager Kelley Lynch have decided to terminate the previous engagement letter with CAK … and to pursue another opportunity.  

My representatives subsequently discussed with Sony Music the possibility of Sony’s acquisition of the Rights … plaintiffs offered to advance $5.8 million as part of a proposed loan transaction.

It is my understanding that in November of 1999, my representatives informed plaintiffs that I was seriously considering selling the Rights to Sony, if acceptable financial and related terms could be reached.  In response, on or about November 8, 1999, plaintiffs wrote to my personal manager and advised her that “In light of the recent events regarding Sony and their potential offer to purchase Leonard Cohen’s assets, we offer an alternative to the proposed Loan structure.”

I ultimately decided not to proceed with the loan and my representatives so advised plaintiffs.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  

Dated:  August 30, 2000
Signed:  Leonard Cohen

Clipped with these papers - other documents related to CAK failed bond deal.  

In order to convict under Section 7201 of the Code, the basic elements that must be proven are (1) the existence of a tax deficiency, (2) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax, and (3) willfulness.