Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Introduction - Kelley Lynch's Declaration - Motion to Vacate Leonard Cohen's Fraudulent & Retaliatory Lawsuit


    Kelley Lynch, Leonard Cohen’s personal manager for approximately 17 years, is a party to the above-entitled action. She was not served or notified of the Summons & Complaint in this matter and the proof of service is evidence of extrinsic fraud. On May 12, 2006, a default judgment (that she was neither served nor notified of) was entered against her.

    Ann Diamond’s article, written for Rolling Stone, provides an overview of what has generally occurred since she and Cohen parted ways in the fall of 2004.  Once this article was published this article on the internet, Cohen threatened the journalist with litigation and made an extraordinary flight from Europe (where he was in the midst of a tour) into Boulder, Colorado to obtain yet another fraudulent restraining order against Lynch.  Leonard Cohen has used abusive restraining orders against Defendant and has availed himself of the legal system in order to obtain orders, judgments, and verdicts via fraud, perjury, and concealment.  It is Lynch’s opinion that all of this was done in an attempt to obstruct justice.


    There is also no doubt that this activity was undertaken to silence Lynch; conceal what has actually occurred; prevent her from requesting information she requires to file her 2004 and 2005 federal and state tax returns; prevent her from amending those returns that the default judgment fraudulently altered; undermine her credibility and discredit her; and, for other reasons. Cohen has also used fraudulent restraining orders to prevent her from participating in litigation matters.  Leonard Cohen also used the present legal situation to retaliate against Lynch for reporting his tax fraud, that she was told is criminal, to the Internal Revenue Service.


Thursday, July 3, 2008
Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch by Ann Diamond


    In June 2005, Neal Greenberg, Cohen’s investment and financial adviser, filed a lawsuit against Leonard Cohen and his lawyer/manager, Robert Kory. Allegations of blackmail, insurance fraud, conspiracy, and extortion were raised: “After an unpleasant brush with celebrity, a Boulder investment banker files suit against Leonard Cohen. [Greenberg] filed suit in Boulder District Court, claiming that Cohen and his attorney, Robert Kory, had conspired to falsely blame him for Cohen's financial woes and had threatened to use Cohen's celebrity to extort money from Greenberg. Leonard Cohen, a conspirator? The artist who lived for five years as a Buddhist monk? ... The claims in the case -- on all sides -- get even more disturbing. The lawsuit alleges that Cohen and Kory employed 'tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage' Lynch if she didn't take Cohen's side against Greenberg. One of the suit's wildest-sounding charges accuses the pair of instigating an incident in which the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT Team descended on Lynch's home and arrested her in her bathing suit; later, Lynch was involuntarily admitted to a psych ward and drugged." Lynch supplied documents and information to support Greenberg's case against Cohen and Kory.  Lynch believes Cohen, Kory, and others, conspired to have a SWAT team descend on her home; assisted with coordinating a custody matter; and have engaged in other unconscionable activity with respect to her and members of her family.  She cannot explain why she was taken to King Drew, questioned about Phil Spector, or why the entire King Drew file is fraudulent.


    On Aug 17, 2005, immediately after Cohen filed this lawsuit against Kelley Lynch, an article entitled “A Devastated Leonard Cohen” appeared in Canada’s MacLean’s Magazine. Cohen had evidently prepped one of the journalists for the upcoming mud-slinging.  This article highlights the sordid tale involving a “broke” Canadian music icon, lawsuits that were flying, allegations of extortion, SWAT teams, forcible confinement, betrayal, and, tax troubles.


    What most of these articles failed to mention is the fact that Lynch had reported the allegations of Leonard Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to the Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005 and Cohen retaliated against her after spending months attempting to force her into a settlement that would presumably involve testifying that his advisers defrauded him, fraudulently induced him, and so forth and so on.  Leonard Cohen was by no means broke. In the fall of 2004, he received $1 million advance for the delivery of his studio album, Dear Heather, was contractually committed and planned to tour; pursued a multi-million lithograph deal Lynch had been negotiating; was planning to release Book of Longing, and, had many other lucrative opportunities.  Cohen also had the option of repaying the loans and/or advances he took from Traditional Holdings, LLC and other entities.


    The MacLean's article goes onto address details of the Greenberg lawsuit against Cohen and Kory:  It accuses Cohen and his lawyer Robert Kory of conspiracy, extortion and defamation. It alleges that Cohen and Kory threatened to besmirch Greenberg's reputation and concocted a plan to force Greenberg to give Cohen millions of dollars. The suit paints an almost preposterous picture of Cohen as an artist who led a lavish celebrity lifestyle and then turned bitter and vindictive.  For example, the suit quotes Lynch describing how Cohen demanded she discuss business matters while he soaked in a bubble bath, and how later he was somehow involved in calling a SWAT team to her home, where she was handcuffed and forcibly taken to a psychiatric ward while in her bathing suit.   Two intellectual property transactions were pursued on Cohen‘s behalf: one in 1997, the other in 2001, with Sony Music. From the sales, Cohen transferred monies to accounts and funded charitable remainder trusts that Greenberg had been enlisted to manage. The tax planning Cohen, Greenberg, and Westin came up with was meant to protect Cohen from an upfront tax hit. “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.’ But he [Cohen] ran into a glaring, immediate problem: had he done nothing … he'd owe millions in taxes ..."

    These articles continually raise Leonard Cohen’s tax troubles which are the driving force behind his targeting of Lynch. "I'm not accusing her of theft" Cohen advised MacLean's and yet, the Complaint filed on August 15, 2005 with LA Superior Court, accuses Lynch of, among other things, “misappropriation.”   The lengths Leonard Cohen, and his representatives, have gone to target Lynch are extraordinary. Leonard Cohen testified, at a March 23, 2012 hearing during Lynch’s 2012 trial, that she stole nothing from him but his “peace of mind." Leonard Cohen is the individual who has stolen from Kelley Lynch. He falsely accused her of receiving "overpayments" with respect to her commissions as his personal manager and obfuscated the details of their agreements with respect to other services and compensation of intellectual property she received.  Cohen’s lawsuit also concealed Lynch’s ownership interest in his intellectual property.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who has engaged in theft and/or misappropriation.

    Theft is defined as "the illegal taking of money or property with the intent to deprive the owner of it." (W. Lafave, Criminal Law section 8.5, at 721 (2d Ed. 1986)). Theft includes, but is not limited to, larceny, embezzlement, and robbery. (Reg. Section 1.165-8(d)). Under California State Law, California Penal Code Section 484(a) theft is defined to include fraud: "Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designed by, any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft." Leonard Cohen has fraudulently appropriated Lynch's property via the default judgment.

    Approximately six months prior to obtaining the default judgment in May 2006, Leonard Cohen (according to his and his lawyer’s testimony at Lynch’s 2012 trial) applied for and received a refund from the Internal Revenue Service for a “theft loss” based on an entirely fraudulent and highly misleading “expense ledger” prepared by Kevin Prins of Moss Adams.  That “expense ledger” supported the default judgment in this matter.  Lynch has now formally challenged Cohen’s refund as fraud.  Leonard Cohen applied for and obtained his refund based on fraud, perjury, and concealment of evidence including, but not limited to, corporate books and records, stock certificates, agreements, and other documentation.  Leonard Cohen sustained no loss whatsoever and both the IRS refund and this default judgment were obtained by fraudulent means and false pretenses.  Leonard Cohen did not have a theft loss and had no legal right to deprive Lynch of intellectual property rights she owns, corporate ownership interests, and/or commissions due her for services rendered.  The default judgment and the IRS refund were used against Lynch in the related 2012 trial.

    In the case of Gerstell (Petitioner) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Respondent) 46 T.C. 161 (Docket No. 4299-64, filed May 4,1966) (Exhibit “2”), the Court States (at Page 7): Section 165 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides for the deduction of losses arising from theft. The term Theft . . . converting any criminal appropriation of another’s property to the use of the taker, particularly including theft by swindling, false pretenses, and any other form of guile. Edwards v. Bromberg (C.A. 5) 232 F. 2d 107, Perry A. Nichols, 43 T.C. 842 (appeal dismissed C.A. 5) See also Sec. 1.165-8(d), Income Tax Regs. The parties are not at odds on this respect. Indeed, the Respondent concedes on brief that losses sustained by reason of criminally false pretenses are deductible under Section 165 of the Code. Whether a loss arises from theft depends upon the law of the jurisdiction where the loss was sustained. Edwards v. Bromberg, supra. And it has been held that a criminal conviction is not a necessary element in a Taxpayer’s proof that a theft loss has been sustained. See: Michele Montelone 34 T.C. 688; Paul C.F. Vietzke 37 T.C. 504. 

    IRC § 165(a) provides as a general rule that “any loss sustained during the taxable year” may be deducted if it is not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. Section 165(a), however, limits this broad rule by restricting an individual’s deductions to: 1. Losses incurred in a trade or business or a transaction entered into for profit; and 2. Losses “from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from theft.”  During Lynch's 2012 trial in the related case, she discovered evidence of a refund Cohen obtained in or around December 2005. The IRS binder contained, among other documents, the following:

Excerpt of Information in the IRS Binder

Tab 2 - Letter from Robert Kory to Internal Revenue Service dated December 13, 2005 regarding Tentative Refund Application 1037704856. This letter - to IRS/Fresno - confirmed receipt of Form 6762 regarding the Request for Missing information to Complete Tentative Refund Application.

Tab 3 - Letter 662C from IRS dated February 3, 2006 confirmed Tax Refund for Leonard Cohen for tax periods December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003.
This form confirmed that the IRS was processing Cohen’s request for adjustment, dated December 13, 2005. The IRS enclosed copies of the corrections made to Cohen’s form 1045 (Application for Tentative Refund). It confirmed that Cohen would receive the following refunds - $557,196.00, $56,725.00, and $50,919.00 within 4 to 6 weeks.

Tab 4 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda/Internal Revenue Service Fraud Unit Division of the Western United States dated March 9, 2007.

In response to Agent Sopko’s March 6, 2007 email to Kelley Lynch, Robert Kory contacted Agent Tejeda/IRS and followed up his phone call with a letter. Agent Sopko’s email reads as follows:

Good afternoon Ms. Lynch,

Per our meeting last week, I have found a solid IRS contact that will be better able to assist you. His name is Luis Tejeda, and he is the head of a fraud group at IRS. I spoke with him today and advised him that I would be passing on his contact information to you.

Office phone and address redacted.

He emphasized that you will need to put something in writing - a summary of all important details, with as much specificity as you have. (For example if you have copies of any paperwork involved, or social security numbers of people involved …) Once you pass the information on to him, he will review it and proceed accordingly. As standard practice, you will not get confirmation that your information was received. However, you may contact Tejeda to follow-up.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. If there is anything else I can assist you with, please be sure to let me know.

Kelly A. Sopko
Special Agent
Treasury IG for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
Special Inquiries & Intelligence Division

    Agent Sopko was addressing the fact that she advised Lynch to report the allegations of Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to Agent Luis Tejeda, Internal Revenue Service.  After meeting with Agent Sopko, and receiving this email, Lynch reported Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Tejeda.  Robert Kory noted, in his letter, that while Petitioner had publicly alleged that she was reporting Cohen to the IRS for tax fraud, that was merely a “nuisance” but the situation had changed once Lynch met with and received Agent Sopko's email.  “Ms. Lynch has managed to obtain a return email from Special Agent Kelly Sopko, the contents of which” Kory apparently read to Agent Tejeda.  In this letter, Kory goes onto falsely state that Petitioner was using communications from the Internal Revenue Service to defame Mr. Cohen and used the threat of an IRS investigation to attempt to “extort” resolution of civil claims.  Lynch has never attempted to “extort” anything from Cohen - including a “resolution of civil claims” but Leonard Cohen, on the other hand, has wrongfully converted Lynch’s property to himself via the default judgment in this matter.

Tab 5 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda dated March 11, 2007 re. allegations made by Kelley Lynch against Leonard Cohen.  Excerpt:  “While I understand that you must be open to Ms. Lynch’s allegations, I would ask that you take whatever steps might be in your power to limit communications that she can then use to further ‘defame’ Leonard Cohen.”

    As noted above, Lynch discovered the fraudulent refund Cohen obtained from the IRS on or around April 9, 2012.  During that trial, the prosecutor and Cohen alleged that the IRS upheld the default judgment.  No evidence exists supporting those accusations and testimony. 

QUOTE Sandra Jo Streeter:  RE. IRS HOLDING
Leonard Cohen Testimony:

Robert Kory Cross: All I know is the -- she writes in her emails and she complains that the IRS and the FTB are pursuing her relentlessly. So I don’t know the -- I suspect, but don’t know the substance of why they’re pursuing her. (RT 423) What I saw is a request that we change the forensic accounting. That we withdraw a K-1. These are fairly sophisticated concepts. Because she saw that we were reporting, that we had reported to the IRS that money that Mr. Cohen had paid taxes on he did not receive. And therefore, Mr. -- when we reported that to the IRS we declared a theft loss. Mr. Cohen got a tax refund. (RT 426) As I read them I was reading a formidable, intelligent person with sophisticated tax knowledge who had the forensic accounting and the K-1s and all the tax information in her possession, and she was requesting that we somehow modify what we had reported. (RT 426).

Robert Kory Cross: Public Defender: In 2005 a lawsuit was brought against Ms. Lynch where a default judgment was entered. Are you aware of that lawsuit, Mr. Kory? Kory: Yes. Q: And can you explain to the jury what a default judgment is? Streeter: Objection; relevance. Court: Sustained. RT 418

Kory: I sent him the file on -- this occurred in, I think, if I recall, March of 2007, and I think -- I think March 23, 2007, I sent Mr. Tejeda the -- all the documents so that the IRS could look into the entire matter. RT 423 All I know is the -- she writes in her emails and she complains that the IRS and the Franchise Tax Board are pursuing her relentlessly. So I don’t know the -- I suspect, but don’t know the substance of why they’re pursuing her. RT 423 What I saw is a request that we change the forensic accounting. That we withdraw a K-1. RT 426 Because she saw that we were reporting, that we had reported to the Internal Revenue Service that money that Mr. Cohen had paid taxes on he did not receive. And therefore, Mr. -- when we reported that to the IRS we declared a theft loss. Mr. Cohen got a tax refund. RT 426 I was reading a formidable intelligent person with sophisticated tax knowledge who had the forensic accounting and the K-1s and all the tax information in her possession, and she was requesting that we somehow modify what we had reported. RT 426 Showing knowledge of the forensic accounting, the implications of the forensic accounting, and the problems because we reported it all to the IRS. It’s a Zero Sum Game. If somebody gets a tax refund, somebody else has to pay taxes. RT 427 Public Defender: But at some point in some of the emails she wrote to Mr. Cohen which you were copied on, she requested tax information ... Kory: I -- I suppose - you know, I’d have to look at specific emails, but I always recall that those requests to him, as what I thought were part of a ruse. RT 427 I directly gave documents -- I gave all the documents required for her tax information when she was fully represented in January -- January, February, March, April 2005. By then we had completed our forensic accounting, all the information was given to her. RT 428 Public Defender: It says, "And I am litigating this in a court of law.” Do you remember hearing that on the voice mail? Kory: Yes. RT 430

    It is now 2013. The IRS recently advised Lynch that they are not in possession of a Leonard Cohen 1099 with respect to her for the year 2004. The IRS also advised Lynch to file fraud form 3949(a) with respect to the 2004 and 2005 K-1s that Leonard Cohen/LC Investments, LLC issued her. That form has also been filed with the IRS Commissioner’s Staff in Washington, DC.

    Judge Robert Vanderet, who essentially deprived Lynch of a defense, ultimately decided not to permit Agent Tejeda, Internal Revenue Service, to testify during her 2012 trial.

April 11, 2012 Sidebar: Court: What are your plans at this point? Public Defender: Our plans are we want to find out about Agent Tejeda. The Court: I will tell you my strong view is I’m not going to delay the trial for Agent Tejeda. You guys, whether you knew his name or not, you were well aware of the relationship, if any, and I think it was quite tangential of the merits of the IRS thing long before the trial, and I’m not going to delay at this point the trial. Public Defender: What we would ask is he said he was going to call during the lunch hour and find out if there’s an answer that we can -- Court: Okay. Well you can let me know. Public Defender: Your ruling is not that he’s not precluded from testifying; it’s that you won’t delay the trial. Court: I won’t delay the trial. I’ll reserve judgment on whether I allow him to testify. RT 432

    Leonard Cohen, his representatives, and others, knowingly and designed by false and fraudulent representation and pretense, defrauded Petitioner of real or personal property through fraudulent means and representations

April 11, 2012 Sidebar: Public Defender Ramnaney: There is one other issue about scheduling. We received a binder (IRS Binder) from Ms. Streeter that was provided to her by one of the witnesses that includes, you know, we believe a highly relevant witness that goes to Mr. Kory’s anticipated testimony based on what she provided us. He’s an agent of the IRS and we have subpoenaed him. We received that information on Monday. We subpoenaed him, he’s received that subpoena, but pursuant to Federal Regulations he has to clear that before he can testify with the appropriate authorities. I spoke with the agent this morning. That request is being considered and evaluated by their attorneys, and as I said, they’ll give me an answer by this afternoon regarding whether or not he will be able to testify and as to what he will testify to. Based on the fact that we received the binder on Monday, I think me and Mr. Kelly -- The Court: What does his testimony go to? Ramnaney: We believe it goes directly to the level of a specific intent element, your Honor. That Ms. Lynch’s communications were not made with any intent to harass or annoy, and they were made in good faith. Based on the actions taken by this agent, they fully corroborate Ms. Lynch’s intent. We also think that on the secondary corollary matter, they go to the vice motivation of the people’s witnesses. The Court: Okay. Well, I will consider that after I hear your information this afternoon. Ramnaney: Okay. RT 384/385.

    On August 17, 2005, MacLean’s ran a companion interview, entitled “Up Close and Personal: Cohen's Lifestyle Seems Anything But Lavish,” written by awe-inspired journalist, Brian D. Johnson:  Through interviewing him over the years, I've developed a bit of a relationship with Leonard Cohen.  That night he told me what he'd hinted at months earlier in an email -- that he'd been stripped of most of his assets, and was mired in a legal battle with his money managers, who would accuse him of extortion. He said it would get nasty and personal, and that his name would be dragged through the mud. 


    Cohen, a man with access to the news media, is an expert at manipulating the press and dazzling adoring fans, sycophants, and others. Pico Iyer, who interviewed Cohen for the Shambhala Sun’s September 1998 edition, describes some of the tricks Cohen uses with the news media: “I could see the coyote trickster who’s been working the press for three decades or more. I felt disconcerted, almost, by his very niceness, his openness, his courtesy, as he continually kept thanking me for ‘being kind enough to come here,’ and tended to my every need as if I were the celebrity and he the poor journalist and referred to ‘what you’re nice enough to call my career.’ I felt there was something excessive to his modesty, his unusually articulate and quick-witted sentences bemoaning his lack of articulateness and sharpness (‘I’m sorry. You get this kind of spaciness at moments in retreats. They say zazen brings short-term memory loss.’), his claiming not to know, after twenty years in L.A., how long it takes to drive to Santa Barbara.” These are the tricks of Cohen’s trade and they work well in courts of law, with law enforcement, jurors, and others. People are usually spellbound by Cohen’s exceedingly studied “courtly good manners.” He uses manners and props to disarm people. Some of those props include: popsicles, tuna fish sandwiches, a stick of incense, his modest abode, worry beads, matzo ball soup, Zen robes, expensive liquor, his valise, the word “darling,” and Joshu Sasaki Roshi.