Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Why Was Leonard Cohen On The Witness Stand Testifying About Phil Spector - Will He Use The Alzheimer Defense Re. His Highly Embellished Versions Of His Good Rock & Roll Gun Story About Phil Spector? How Patently Offensive

From: The-14th Sheepdog <thexivthsheepdog@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Subject: Not cover for, defer to
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

“Fascinating.  It definitely gives the appearance that the judges and appellate division cover for the trial courts.”

No, they do not “cover for” the trial court’s, they DEFER TO them.
 I think I am entitled to my opinion.  I think these judges and the appellate division cover for the trial courts.  I've studied many appeals and they definitely appear to have a pattern.  That would include with respect to their unpublished opinions.

In any event, every convicted criminal thinks relatively minor or collateral inconsistencies are earthshaking.
These are not collateral inconsistencies and only a lying lawyer with motive would think otherwise.  The record is replete with lies by the prosecutor; false and perjured testimony etc.  Evidence has been concealed (including with respect to my ownership interest in various corporate entities and the fact that Cohen owes me millions and retaliated against me over the IRS, and possibly Canada Revenue), etc.  I was not served the restraining order and had no idea, until after the trial when I phoned LA Superior Court, that Cohen took out a domestic violence restraining order.  So, that is new evidence to me and we were never in a dating relationship; the notion is absurd; and the testimony on the record proves that Leonard Cohen lies on the witness stand.  

Trust me, variations in Leonard Cohen’s retelling of a 33 year old incident involving a gun pointed at him by Phil Spector are COLLATERAL to his testimony about receiving harassing voice messages and emails from you in 2011 and 2012. 
Nothing about perjury and false statements is collateral or immaterial.  Why was Cohen on the stand testifying about Phil Spector?  Did he think it was also acceptable to lie about me and conceal evidence re. Mick Brown/UK Telegraph's advising me about Cohen's statements/testimony being used in Phil Spector's grand jury?  I also think the non-disclosure of the reasons the DA decided not to prosecute Cohen are extremely relevant and may indicate a quid pro quo on their part.  Cohen also perjured himself when he testified about an email dated April 18th.  He wasn't copied in on that email.  He acknowledged this on cross-examination.  Leonard Cohen also lied about the IRS refund that has now been formally challenged with the IRS.  The IRS did not have a holding on Cohen's default judgment.  The refund pre-dated that fraudulent refund by approximately 6 months and I met with the Treasury agents over a year following that refund - following which I received an email from Agent Sopko/Treasury advising me to report Cohen's tax fraud to Agent Tejeda/IRS.  

Leonard Cohen will clearly say anything.  I wonder if Canada Revenue (who I have spoken with) understands why their National Treasure can't live in Canada?  We did discuss Cohen's residence and tax issues.  Leonard Cohen has bias and motive and will say and do anything it takes to avoid his own wrongdoing.  The fact that he decided to withhold commissions he owed me and steal my share of intellectual property proves - from my perspective - that Cohen planned to profit off his tax fraud matter.  Steven Machat has definitely confirmed that he will take the witness stand.  Cohen, after all, also stole from him and his father.  This was documented in Steven Machat's book and also in the transcript of our conversation that the prosecutor willfully concealed from the jurors.  She lied when she advised the jurors that no one could collaborate what I testified about - and yet she understood we issued a subopena to Agent Tejeda/IRS and also lied about an IRS holding re. Cohen's default judgment to he judge.  The lies in my Stalinesque Show trial are obscene.  I suppose Cohen thinks that a talking dog criminally harassing me will solve his problems.  Perhaps the psychiatric nurse who noted that he has borderline personality disorder and his drug abuse, etc., must be taken into consideration was really onto something.  I think these issues should have been addressed at my trial.  If LA Superior Court thinks lies, fraud, perjury, concealment, etc. are acceptable tools for the justice system, that says more about LA Superior Court than it will ever say about me.  But, Judge Robert Vanderet didn't think Cohen should be forced to admit that he perjured himself on the witness stand and the prosecutor decided not to file charges against him.  Sandra Jo Streeter finally met a celebrity.   

This issue is patently IMATERIAL. 
Only to a bald-faced liar with motive.  In fact, the Grand Jury's Legal Adviser told me to contact Phil Spector's appellate attorney over this matter and Judge Larry Fidler's Clerk (Wendy) advised me to write the DA and copy in the judge.  I decided it would be best to address it all in my Writ so that it's on the record.  I think this is highly material to Phil Spector who should have been permitted to confront Cohen - per the Confrontation Clause - over his testimony.  After all he was being accused by Cohen in a court of law.