Saturday, January 12, 2013

Kelley Lynch - Leonard Cohen - Appeal: Draft Introduction

To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>
Cc: "SandraJo.Streeter" <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, "Hoffman, Rand" <>, "harriet.ryan" <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, ajackson <>, "Truc.Do" <>, wfrayeh <>, jthompson <>

To the DOJ,

I'm working on my Introduction.  I'm using Streeter's Opening and Closing Arguments and my testimony, etc.  I'm getting this in order now and there are extremely serous issues here with respect to exculpatory evidence and Sandra Jo Streeter.  Also, as you can see, this entire matter is about Cohen's criminal tax fraud and Phil Spector.  You just have to strip away the gossip, hearsay, lies, fraud, concealment, perjury, and attempts to obstruct justice.  Their motives are entirely clear.  

All the best,


The prosecution’s theory of the case, stated during trial proceedings and announced in opening and closing statements at appellant Kelley Lynch’s trial, 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)

Prosecutor Streeter thus informed the the jury in opening statements:  “So the people believe that the evidence will show in the case of People of the State of California vs. Kelley Lynch that during the 80s, Mr. Leonard Cohen, who was a singer ... struck up a relationship with Ms. Lynch.  They had a brief intimate relationship, and then at some point after that the relationship ended in the late 80s when Mr. Cohen’s business manager died, Mr. Cohen hired Ms. Lynch, first as his personal assistant, and then ultimately as his business manager.  But unfortunately around 2004 or so, things started to go not very well between Mr. Cohen and (RT 37) Ms. Lynch.  And Mr. Cohen ended the business relationship that he had with Ms. Lynch.  Unfortunately, that was not the end of it for Ms. Lynch, the evidence will show.  The evidence will show that shortly after the termination of the business relationship by Mr. Cohen that Ms. Lynch began an onslaught, a campaign of harassment on Mr. Cohen, and that harassment -- that harassment has continued or did continue up until February 29, 2012. (RT 38)  But during this campaign, the evidence will show, that Ms. Lynch started against Mr. Cohen, she did not just limit her contact toward Mr. Cohen.  (RT 38)

Kelley Lynch:

I began working as Mr. Cohen’s personal manager in April 1988 after Mr. Machat’s death.  (RT 448)

Leonard Cohen hired a business manager by the name of Rich Feldstein.  (RT 450) ... And his recommendation cam from an artist by the name of Don Was, of the band Was Not Was, who’s a mutual friend of Mr. Cohen and mine because Leonard Cohen felt that his tour manager was stealing from him.  And so he asked me to find a business manager.  (RT 450)

Our agreement was this:  when the last deal that Mr. Cohen testified to yesterday that he was examining doing, we were going to do that deal.  Mr. Cohen wanted to do it.  It was with Sony.  And at that point we would do what is called an actual forensic accounting on [NOT?] a ledger, taking into consideration all income, all assignments.  I had assignments to me, they’re no revocable for intellectual property dating back to 1967.  Any so-called advances I may have received on my intellectual property.  We would take into consideration corporate distributions, which were to be recharacterized by his tax lawyer.  I do not know what that means.  Anything I paid out for Mr. Cohen, anything I paid out for his children.  I managed his son, Adam.  Also any monies that I owed Leonard Cohen personally and any money which Leonard Cohen owed me.  We were going to do a complete accounting.  Not forensic, actually - an accounting.  That was our agreement.  At that time, we would take into consideration that my management agreement went back to 1988 and it was indeed 15 percent.  (RT 451-452)

Q: Okay.  Now, during that time, from the fall of 1988 to 2004, how often would you communicate to Mr. Cohen?

A: About 50 times a day.

(RT 452)

Q: We heard emails and voice mails talking about you needing to get paid.  What were you referring to in those emails?

A: My commissions that were withheld on “Dear Heather.”  My commissions that were withheld on “Book Of Longing.”  My commissions that were withheld on the deal he stopped that we had worked on for years.  My commissions on a lithograph deal.  These are millions of dollars in commissions.  My commissions, actually.  I should have had on the tour itself, merchandising, etc.  

(RT 457)

Q: Why did it [business relationship] end?

A: 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)

Meeting with Kory:

Witness: What we were going to talk about, about Leonard Cohen and myself.

So I went to lunch, and what we discussed were various issues.  I was told by Mr. Kory there’s fraud, tax fraud, on every entity:  Blue Mist Touring, Traditional Holdings, LC Investments.  There were problems with the Stranger Music deal that had tax issues.  The IRS would demand information going back years, and the holding periods with respect to copyrights that were sold are illegeal.  I said I had wondered about that.  His lawyer had worked on that.

We talked about -- he asked me if I would mediate with Mr. Cohen in a private mediation on Mr. Cohen’s side against his advisors.  Particularly they wanted to go after Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin and their insurance companies.  Mr. Kory told me that Allen - I mean Arthur Indursky, Don Friedman, and Stuart Fried of Grubman, Indursky firm committed fraud in the inducement, as did Greg McBowman.  That I had a lawsuit they would help me witih against every single one

(RT 459)

of Leonard Cohen’s advisors.  That I was used horrendously as a pawn, and he told the waitress that we were there about a divorce and serious tax problems.

Q: Were you ever asked to give false information that would hurt Mr. Greenberg and help Mr. Cohen?

A: 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.  

Q: Did you ever agree to any of that?

A: No.  I felt I was being asked to participate in criminal conduct.

(RT 460)

 Custody Matter:

Q: And when was this custody issue with Ray, regarding Ray?

A: It began on May 25, 2005.

Q: Okay.  What happened on May 25, 2005?

A: A SWAT team came to my house.  I guess.  I was told it was a SWAT team.

(RT 461)

Q: At any point, did you actually have a legal custody battle regarding Ray? ...

A: Yeah, the next day.

Q: Okay.  And what was that custody issue?

A: That I was taken to King Drew by LAPD.  I lived in Brentwood.  And when I was released 24 hours later a custody matter had been filed.

Q: Okay.  Now, are you aware whether or not for that custody battle, one day after that incident with the police, did Mr. Kory have a declaration in that case?

A: The same day, May 25, 2005.

Q: Okay.  Now, how well, do you know or did you know Mr. Kory?

A: I don’t know Mr. Kory at all.

(RT 462)

Q: So the person that you had met three times in your life wrote a declaration in your custody battle that happened one day after the police came?

A: Yes.  Stating that he was writing it on behalf of himself and Leonard Cohen.

(RT 463)

Q: Now you mentioned earlier about IRS and tax situation.  Were you ever contacted by any tax authorities regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes?

A: I don’t know if I was contacted regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes.  As I reported the tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer, I was working on paying my own taxes, and he suggested that I contact the Fraud Unit with anything I had to report,.  And so I contacted the Fraud Unit by ph9one and then I filed a complaint online with the IRS.  And I also called the IRS in Washington.

Q: When were you told to contact the Fraud Unit?

A: I spoke to Agent Bill Betzer on April 14th, 2005 after I paid my taxes in full.

(RT 463)

Q: What did you tell these authorities when you spoke to them?

Streeter objects.  Relevance.
Court sustains.

Q: You heard voice mails regarding IRS; is that correct?

A: Right.

Q: Can you tell us what you meant?

A: What I meant by the IRS?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, I did receive an email - I mean I did receive a phone call from Agent Kelly Sopko of the Treasury regarding this matter  And I did meet with her and her partner, whose name is Brandon.

Q: What year was that?

A: That was 2007.

(RT 464)

Q: What did you write about in those emails?

A: Well, I think I attached Agent Sopko’s email to me; saying that she found an appropriate individual for me, which is Agent -- to report this to, which is Agent Luis Tejeda of the IRS Unit in Los Angeles.  And to go to Agent Tejeda with whatever information and evidence I had regarding this tax matter.

Q: Did you ever notify Mr. Cohen or any of his representatives about this tax issue?

A: Well, they have a copy of the email to me from Kelly Copko.  So yes, I did.

(RT 464-465)

Streeter objects.  Nonresponsive.
Judge overrules.

Q: Now, after you sent this email regarding your conversation with Agent Sopko -- 

A: Right.

Q: -- Did Mr. Cohen ever get a restraining order against you in the State of California?

A: You know, I’m a little unclear about the restraining orders in California.  My answer right now is yes, because it’s obvious he did.,  But I have a lot of confusion about it.

(RT 465)

Q: Now, during these voice mails and emails, we heard about Phil Spector.  What’s your knowledge about Phil Spector?  How do you -- where did that come from?

A: When Marty Machat died -- Marty Machat represented Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector.  When he died, I ultimately became Leonard Cohen’s personal manager and I interned with Phil Spector.  For -- especially for 1988 and 1989.  Thereafter, I worked for him from time to time. 

Q: Now, we heard evidence about an interview that Mr. Cohen had with the Los Angeles Police Department.

A: I believe it was actually the Sheriff’s Department.  I thought it was LAPD too.

Q: Well, were you present for this interview?

A: I was present beforehand with my attorney, Steve Cron.

(RT 466)

Q: Okay.  And what happened after you were present?

A: I explained to Steve Cron that the detectives had asked me to arrange an appointment with Leonard Cohen and I did not want to be dragged into Phil Spector’s matter.  I thought it would affect the custody of my child to some degree, and I just really did not want to be dragged into it.  So Mr. Cron advised me to leave the house before the detectives came.  I was leaving and ran into Detectives Tomlin and Fournier out on the steps of Leonard Cohen’s house.

Q: You heard the story about Phil Spector putting a gun to Mr. Cohen’s head?

A: Well, I’ve heard that he put a gun to his neck and I’ve heard he’s put a gun to his head.

Q: Now, is this what you learned from Mr. Cohen prior to that interview with the police?

A: No, it is not.

Streeter.  Objection.  Relevance.

Witness:  I was not under the impression,, I was told.

Court:  Sustained.

Q: Now, you heard voice mail and emails regarding the Phil Spector issue, and you mentioned in the email about -- something about a Grand Jury.  What did you mean in those emails?

A: What I meant is that Mick Brown of the UK Telegraph wrote me --

Streeter objects.  Relevance.
Court overrules.

Witness: -- and advised me that he was writing a book on Phil.  That he had Grand Jury testimony, and that Leonard Cohen had testified against Phil Spector.  He later wrote, recently, and said he was confused.  It wasn’t actually testimony -- this was in the past couple of days, a few days, and it wasn’t actually testimony.  Statements were given of Leonard Cohen’s to the Grand Jury.  So I was confused, and because Mr. Brown felt that Leonard Cohen had given testimony, I thought he testified and was shocked.  

(RT 467-468)

Q: Now, we also heard evidence about a default judgment in 2005.  Are you familiar with that?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: Now, did you ever receive any summons regarding the lawsuit?

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

Witness:  I as never served with a lawsuit.

Court:  Overruled.

Q: Did you ever get any discovery about the lawsuit?

(RT 468)

A: I believe one document request from Gibson, Dunn, and I didn’t realize it was from another lawsuit.  I didn’t realize until Ken Freeman, Judge Ken Freeman’s court transcriber/reporter called me recently and told me that there are two lawsuits and not just one.  So I received a document request is what I’m stating, and that’s what I recall.

Q: Dod upi ever get the complaint in that case?

A: No.  I read the complaint when it was put online in April of 2010 and was astounded at the allegations.  

Q: Did y9ou ever appear in court in that case in 2005?

A: No, I did not.  I was not notified as to any hearings.

Q: Were you ever represented by an attorney in that case in 2005?

A: I was not.

Q: Did you ever present your version of the story or the account of that case to anyone in 2005?

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.
Court:  I’ll allow this question.

A: Well, I mean, to the news media.

Q: But to court anytime during the legal proceedings?

(RT 469)

A: No.

Q: Now, you also mentioned in your emails and voice mails something about working pro9 bono for Mr. Cohen.  What did you mean in those boice mails and emails?

A: Well,, no.  My wages were garnished this past September 2011 by the state.  And they want my 2004 and 2005 tax returns, which is what I hvae been fearing.  As does the IRS now.

And what I am saing is that I said that I was confused about how to file my tax returns.  Because Leonard Cohen has gone into court and stated, I believe - if my interpretation is correct, his allegations that if he deposited his royalties into his personal account I was not entitled to my commission.

Q: Okay.  Did you work pro bono at any time?

A: No, and that’s what Doug Davis of the Franchise Tax Board said to me:  You didn’t work pro bono for Mr. Cohen, did you?

Q: Who is Doug Davis?

A: Doug Davis is a tax advocate that was assigned to me to remove the lien while I attempted once again to get the tax information I needed to file my returns.

(RT 470)

Q: Now, you said something about Rutger losing his fingers.  Now, is there any reference to this in the emails that you’ve heard?

A: I believe there is, yes.  I think Leonard Cohen testified to something about it.

Q: And did you ever say that Mr. Cohen cut off Mr. -- or your son’s fingers?

A: No, I did not.

Q: What did you mean when you talked about blaming Mr. Cohen?

A: I don’t blame Mr. Cohen.  My son, Rutger, personally believes that if I had not gone to the IRS, reported this tax fraud, created a contentious situation with Leonard Cohen, that he wouldn’t have lost his fingers.

Streeter objects.
Court sustains.

Q: You’ve never accused Mr. Cohen for being responsible for cutting off --

Streeter objection as to --

A: Well, he doesn’t have a meat grinder at Whole Foods, so it would be impossible.

Streeter objects.  Nonresponsive.
Court sustains.

(RT 472)

2008 Boulder Order.

Q: -- Did you ever waive an evidentiary hearing in that case?

A: I most certainly did not.

Streeter objects.  Relevance.
Court overrules.

Witness:  Absolutely not.

Q: Did you ever present evidence in that 2008 hearing?

A: No one did.

Streeter objects.  Vague as to which hearing.
Court overrules.

Q: You mentioned that you had asked to be a protected party on that order.

A: I asked Judge Enichen, I told her Leonard Cohen was dangerous to me, and I asked her if the restraining order would protect me.

(RT 474)

Q: Okay.  And what were you under the impression of?

A: That this man has tried to destroy my life, and I felt I should be protected by a restraining order.

Q: Did you believe that that order was protecting you?

A: I don’t really believe restraining orders protect anyone, to be honest with you.

Q: Did you believe --

A: But I hoped that it would stop some of the insanity.

Q: Okay.  Were you -- did you ever contact any authorities regarding Mr. Cohen?  Any law enforcement?

A: Yes, actually.  Repeatedly.

Q: And when did you do that?

A: For a number of years.  I’ve contacted LAPD for years about Leonard Cohen.  I’ve contacted the District Attorney’s office.  I’ve filed a complaint with the District Attorney’s Major Fraud Unit.  I’ve kept the District Attorney copied in eon emails, you know, so that no one can deny later that I have attempted to report these types of tactics that have been used against me.

I’ve contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation about it.  I’ve contacted Agent Sopko of Intelligence with the Treasury, with the IRS.  

(RT 475)

Q: You mentioned earlier also about the tax information that you learned about regarding -- or after your conversation with Doug Davis.  What exactly did you -- what kind of tax information were you looking for?

A: Well, Doug Davis was a very kind man and agreed to remove the tax lien.  Because I would have ended up homeless again.  But he told me he would give me 60 days to obtain -- first of all, we went over the fact that I was confused about what to call, what I thought were my commissions on Dear Heather because Leonard Cohen said if he deposited it into his personal account, I wasn’t entitled to it.  I have evidence proving otherwise.

But I’m concerned about filing anything that could be construed as fraudulent, and because of the tactics used against me in the legal issues where everything is twisted, I don’t want to file anything that’s confusing.

So he told me they don’t believe I did charitable or pro bono work.  So Doug Davis told me to report that as income, and I told Mr. Davis this has been since 2004, I would call City National Bank to see if I could get copies of my bank statements, even though I don’t have the money.  He said they probably wouldn’t have them any longer.  

So, they didn’t call me back, they refused to call me back.  I called their Legal Department also.

Streeter objects.  Nonresponsive.
Court:  Let’s wait for a question.

Q: You mentioned something about City National Bank.  What did you do to contact City National Bank?

A: I called their Legal Department to ask for my bank statements.

Streeter objects.  Relevance.
Court sustains.

(RT 477)

Q: What tax information were you requesting?

A: I am trying to determine the total amount that I was given as a commission in the year 2004.  Not just for Dear Heather.  There were other royalties.

Q: Okay.  Did you try to get this information from other sources?

A: Well, I tried to get it from City National Bank, which would be the only other source.

Q: Did you actually have those actual physical records in your possession?

A: No.  I’ve lost everything.

Q: When did you lose everything.

Streeter objects.  Nonresponsive.
Court overrules.

A: So I have nothing.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever receive the documentation that you were requesting from Mr. Cohen?

(RT 478)

A: No, I have not.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever receive that tax information you were requesting from Mr. Kory? 

A: None of it.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever get the tax information you were requesting from Ms. Rice?

A: No.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever get any of the tax information you needed by any accountant of Mr. Cohen’s?

A: No, I did not.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever get any of the tax information that you needed from anyone related to Mr. Cohen?

A: No, I did not.  I’ve been told that --

Streeter objects.  Nonreponsive.

A: -- the restraining order now prohibits it.

Streeter:  No question pending.
Court:  Sustained.

Q: ... Did you write these emails?

A: Well, I've written emails, I'm not going to give a blanket statement that I've written all the emails.  I will go through every one of them and say whether or not I did.

(RT 479)

Q: Why did you include so many people in those emails? ...

A: Because I was advised to document everything in emails, and I was advised to copy witnesses in.  And so some of those witnesses are, I felt, the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, Agent Sopko.  Now Mr. Doug Davis.  

I felt because I don’t have a lawyer and I was told I might probably be a witness in Phil Spector’s matter, that I should copy in Dennis Riordan, possibly Bruce Cutler.  Clearly the District Attorney’s office.

It’s a very serious matter and I don’t have legal representation.  So I felt it would be good -- instead of someone later saying this is hearsay or she told me this, she told me that, that all parties would be copied in so I couldn’t be accused of anything that looked like a disparity later.  

(RT 480)

Q: Did you send all of those emails within that thread to everyone?

A: Yeah.  If what you’re saying is -- the emails might have gone on for a month.  It might be one thread.  And what I would do, for instance, if I was writing about an issue that I felt dealt with the IRS, I would write to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.

If I was writing something having to do with, I felt, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which they told me, let the IRS take the lead, we will be brought in with respect to criminal witness and evidence tampering, I would copy in the FBI.

If I felt it had to do with something relating to Phil Spector, I would copy in Dennis Riordan, at a time Doron Weinberg, Iris Keitel, Mr. Spector’s former manager at ABKCO Records.  Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, Truc Do, William Frayeh, who is an investigator, and John Thompson who came to meet with me.  I filed a complaint about the DA with Internal Affairs.  

(RT 481)

Q: Was it ever your intent to harass any of the recipients of the email?

A: No, it was not.

(RT 482)

Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.

Karma Never Misses Its Mark

Public Corruption - It's The FBI's Top Priority Among Criminal Investigations - and for good reason!

It’s our top priority among criminal investigations—and for good reason.
Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected…to verdicts handed down in courts…to the quality of our roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions in tax dollars every year.
The FBI is singularly situated to combat this corruption, with the skills and capabilities to run complex undercover operations and surveillance.

Public corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices. It’s also the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. To explain why the Bureau takes public corruption so seriously and how we investigate, we talked with Special Agent Patrick Bohrer, assistant section chief of our Public Corruption/Civil Rights program at FBI Headquarters.
Question: Why is public corruption so high on the FBI’s list of investigative priorities? 
Answer: Because of its impact. Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society. For example, a border official might take a bribe, knowingly or unknowingly letting in a truck containing weapons of mass destruction. Or corrupt state legislators could cast deciding votes on a bill providing funding or other benefits to a company for the wrong reasons. Or at the local level, a building inspector might be paid to overlook some bad wiring, which could cause a deadly fire down the road.
Q: Can you describe the kinds of public corruption that the FBI investigates? 
A: It really runs the gamut. Bribery is the most common. But there’s also extortion, embezzlement, racketeering, kickbacks, and money laundering, as well as wire, mail, bank, and tax fraud. Right now, based on our intelligence on emerging trends, we are focused specifically on several major issues: corruption along our national borders; corrupt officials who take advantage of natural disasters or economic crises to divert some of the government’s aid into their own pockets; and a myriad of officials who may personally benefit from the economic stimulus funding.

Q: Where do you find this corruption?
A: Just about everywhere—at the federal, state, and local levels throughout the country. And I should point out, the vast majority of our country’s public officials are honest and work hard to improve the lives of the American people. But a small number make decisions for the wrong reasons—usually, to line their own pockets or those of friends and family. These people can be found—and have been found—in legislatures, courts, city halls, law enforcement departments, school and zoning boards, government agencies of all kinds (including those that regulate elections and transportation), and even companies that do business with government.

Q: How does the FBI investigate public corruption?
A: We’re in a unique position to investigate allegations of public corruption. Our lawful use of sophisticated investigative tools and methods—like undercover operations, court-authorized electronic surveillance, and informants—often gives us a front-row seat to witness the actual exchange of bribe money or a backroom handshake that seals an illegal deal…and enough evidence to send the culprits to prison. But we have plenty of help. We often work in conjunction with the inspector general offices from various federal agencies, as well as with our state and local partners. And we depend greatly on assistance from the public. So let me end by saying, if anyone out there has any information about potential wrongdoing by a public official, please submit a tip online or contact your local FBI field office. Your help really makes a difference.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Brian Johnson's Interview With Cohen - August 2005 - Tends To Prove That Cohen & Streeter Have Lied, Concealed Information, Etc.

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Subject: Sandra Jo Streeter's "Theory" Of The Intent To Annoy Case Doesn't Synch Up With The Interview Cohen Gave In 2005
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>
Cc: "SandraJo.Streeter" <>, ajackson <>, "Truc.Do" <>, wfrayeh <>, jthompson <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, "Hoffman, Rand" <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "harriet.ryan" <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>

To the IRS and FBI,

Working on the Introduction to my Appeal right now.  I do think you should review Cohen's August 2005 interviews with Brian Johnson.  Cohen contacted him, months earlier, with the understanding that he had serious legal issues and a major tax hit.  That's his motive.  Brian Johnson, who interviewed him, understands that I was Cohen's personal manager.  Streeter has said that I began this campaign of harassment.  First of all, in 2004 and 2005, my lawyers were dealing with Cohen and Kory.  When Cohen heard I reported his tax fraud to Agent Betzer/IRS he evidently freaked out and filed the retaliatory lawsuit and gave these desperate interviews.  Cohen
began the campaign of harassment with respect to me and not the other way around.  I didn't limit my contact, according to Streeter, to Cohen.  That's correct.  The IRS Commissioner's Staff have been copied in on my alleged emails since 2005.  How does Streeter explain that?  In any event, in one article, Cohen confirms that he's not accusing me of theft and testified - at the March 23rd bail hearing - that I have never stolen from him.  So, why was Streeter lying to my jurors?

All the best,

Prosecutor Streeter thus informed the the jury in opening statements:  “So the people believe that the evidence will show in the case of People of the State of California vs. Kelley Lynch that during the 80s, Mr. Leonard Cohen, who was a singer ... struck up a relationship with Ms. Lynch.  They had a brief intimate relationship, and then at some point after that the relationship ended in the late 80s when Mr. Cohen’s business manager died, Mr. Cohen hired Ms. Lynch, first as his personal assistant, and then ultimately as his business manager.  But unfortunately around 2004 or so, things started to go not very well between Mr. Cohen and (RT 37) Ms. Lynch.  And Mr. Cohen ended the business relationship that he had with Ms. Lynch.  Unfortunately, that was not the end of it for Ms. Lynch, the evidence will show.  The evidence will show that shortly after the termination of the business relationship by Mr. Cohen that Ms. Lynch began an onslaught, a campaign of harassment on Mr. Cohen, and that harassment -- that harassment has continued or did continue up until February 29, 2012. (RT 38)

But during this campaign, the evidence will show, that Ms. Lynch started against Mr. Cohen, she did not just limit her contact toward Mr. Cohen.

A 'devastated' Leonard Cohen
The Canadian music icon is broke and the lawsuits are flying. It's a sordid tale involving allegations of extortion, SWAT teams, forcible confinement, tax troubles and betrayal.

...  his highly trusted personal manager ... 

,... and facing a multi-million-dollar tax bill ... 

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.

Kelley Lynch had been his personal manager for almost 17 years. Back in 1988, she'd been working as an assistant to his then-manager, who died that year. 

From the first sale ... Greenberg had been enlisted to manage and that would protect Cohen from e had her take over. an upfront tax hit. 

But he ran into a glaring, immediate problem ... he'd owe millions in taxes ...

On other points, Cohen disagrees. He was vitally interested in his financial affairs, he 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." 

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, and "paying two paroled convicts to make statements that they had observed Lynch's older son brandishing a gun and threatening to kill someone."

"I'm not accusing her of theft," he says of Lynch.

"Face up to it, Neal," the email continues, "and square your shoulders: You were the trusted guardian of my assets, and you let them slip away . . . Restore what you lost, and sleep well." In his sign-off, Cohen delivered as much a piece of advice as his own philosophy: "Put this behind you and it will dissolve."

Up close and personal
Cohen's lifestyle seems anything but lavish
BRIAN D. JOHNSON | Aug 17, 2005

Through interviewing him over the years, I've developed a bit of a relationship with Leonard Cohen. We stay in touch by email, and if I'm in Los Angeles or Montreal, the two cities he calls home, I might look him up. A few weeks ago, I joined him for dinner at his house in L.A. ... 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.

Now, after reading the pre-emptive lawsuit filed against him, a 34-page screed that reads like a salacious tabloid, I know what he meant.

But his chronic depression, which lifted more than a decade ago on Mount Baldy, has not returned. With monastic discipline he gets up at 4 a.m. to write, and clings to the peace of the morning before the lawyers' phone calls and emails break the spell. 

Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Leonard Cohen's Three Versions Of The Phil Spector Gun Story Before LA Superior Court - Two Of Them Are Perjured. Which One Does The Government Believe Is True? I've Asked Alan Jackson.

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:35 PM
Subject: The Three Leonard Cohen Embellished Phil Spector Gun Stories Before LA Superior Court
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>
Cc: "SandraJo.Streeter" <>, ajackson <>, "Truc.Do" <>, wfrayeh <>, jthompson <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, "Hoffman, Rand" <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "harriet.ryan" <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>

Alan Jackson,

I'm working on my Opening Brief and Writ with respect to the absolutely insane "intent to annoy" Leonard Cohen trial.  Sandra Jo Streeter noticed many things - tax fraud, illegal K-1s, my need for a 1099; and Mick Brown's position that Leonard Cohen's statements were presented to Phil Spector's Grand Jury.  Mick has seen the transcripts and there was some confusion about testimony vs. statements but Streeter had the alleged emails and that is a very clear issue.  

What Streeter seemed to conceal from my jurors was the fact that she was in possession of an email where Cohen advised her that Phil Spector held a gun to his neck.  On the stand, Cohen testified that the gun was pointed at his head.

Please see the four Leonard Cohen gun stories about Phil Spector below.  I've included the version that has the bottle of wine.  That's a slight variance of the one you used.

Judge Fidler's clerk advised me to write the DA about this matter.  When I told her the DA's office has threatened me, etc. she advised me to copy in Judge Fidler.  I will do so once my Brief is complete because I want to provide him with a copy.  

I have a question for you - which version of the Leonard Cohen embellished gun story does the government believe is truth and which two before LA Superior Court does the government believe are perjured?

Kelley Lynch


See Cohen and Streeter’s email re. another version of this story.  Streeter concealed that from the jurors.



Page 308:

Q: Okay.  Now 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?

A: I certainly did.

Q: 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 abou talk,ing to the LAPD.

NOTE: It was actually LASD.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you talked to the LAPD with your attorney, correct?

A: With an attorney present, yes, sir.

Q: And that’s when you asked that -- or your attorney -- someone asked that Ms. Lynch leave?

A: The attorney asked that Ms. Lynch leave.

NOTE:  I explained to Steve Cron, who had previously represented me so he could NOT represent Cohen, that I knew Phil Spector and did not want to be dragged into his insane matter, Steve suggested that I leave before the detectives arrived.  I left.

Q: So when Ms. Lynch left, you started talking about an interview or a story about Phil Spector, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: 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?

A: That’s correct.

Q: 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?

A: I don’t remember, sir.

Q: Was he hostile at the time?

A: Not to me.

Q: Okay.  But he actually put a gun to your head; is that correct?

A: That’s correct.

Q: It was a revolver?  

A: No, it wasn’t a revolver.  It was an automatic.

Q: But you weren’t actually -- you didn’t feel threatened when he put a gun to your head?

A: No, sir.


BBC Interview.

[Don't Go Home With Your Hard-On]

Leonard Cohen

That happened at a very curious time in my life because I was at a very low point, my family was breaking up, I was living in Los Angeles which was a foreign city to me, and I'd lost control, as I say, of my family, of my work, and my life, and it was a very very dark period. And when he got into the studio it was clear that he was an eccentric, but I didn't know that he was mad. He's not mad any longer, I've spoken to him on the phone recently, he's really quite reasonable and calm, but we were, you know, I was flipped out at the time and he certainly was flipped out, my flipped out was, you know, the expression was withdrawal and melancholy, and his was megalomania and insanity, and the kind of devotion to armaments, to weapons, that was really intolerable. With Phil, especially in the state that he found himself, which was post-Wagnerian, I would say Hitlerian, the atmosphere was one of guns, I mean that's really what was going on, was guns. The music was subsidiary an enterprise, you know people were armed to the teeth, all his friends, his bodyguards, and everybody was drunk, or intoxicated on other items, so you were slipping over bullets, and you were biting into revolvers in your hamburger. There were guns everywhere... And at a certain point Phil approached me with a bottle of Manishewitz kosher red wine in one hand and a 45 in the other, put his arm around my shoulder and shoved a revolver into my neck and said, "Leonard, I love you". I said, "I hope you do, Phil".



Phil Spector: Prosecution's Motion to Admit Evidence of Other Crimes

Here it is folks. This motion to admit evidence of other crimes was filed on Monday by the prosecution. It looks like AJ will be arguing to get in not only the latest sixth PBA 1101(b) witness Norma Kemper, but also the incident when he put a gun to Leonard Cohen's head as well as Debra Strand and a few others.

Page 3
District Attorney of Los Angeles County
Deputy District Attorney
Deputy District Attorney
Major Crimes Division
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
210 W. Temple Street, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Case No. BA255233


Date: August 14, 2008
Time: 1:30 PM
Court: Department 106

Defendant Phillip Spector has built a history, spanning some 40 odd years,of using gun-related violence when confronted with a situation when he feels a loss of control, or a threat to his control. Pursuant to CAl. Evid. Code § 1101(b), the People seek to admit evidence of the following uncharged crimes.


On February 3, 2003, Defendant Phillip Spector shot Lana Clarkson to death in the foyer of his Alhambra home. After the shooting, Spector opened the back door to his house, stood in the doorway and told Adriano DeSouza, his driver, "I think I killed somebody." Only Spector and Clarkson were in the house at the time. Within minutes, the police were on the scene, and Spector was eventually taken into custody ... 


On February 17, 2005, the People filed a motion in limine to admit evidence of other acts committed by Spector. Under that separate cover, the facts of the following incidents were set forth in detail and in their entirety. Thus, in an effort towards brevity, only a short recitation of such incidents will be discussed below.

Spector has a long history of resorting to gun-related violence to exert his will when he does not get his way. Int begins in 1972 and continues to the present ...


C. The 1977 Brandishing on Leonard Cohen

1977, Spector produced musician Leonard Cohen's record album, "Death of a Ladies man." during production of the record, Cohen and Spector, who were friends, were taking a break in the lobby of the music studio. Spector walked up to Cohen, placed on arm around Cohen's shoulders, and pointed a semi-automatic pistol at Cohen's chest with his other hand. Spector told Cohen, "I love you Leonard." Cohen looked at Spector and said, "I hope so, Phil." Spector then walked away from Cohen.

The Rock’s Backpages Flashback: What Happened When Phil Spector Met Leonard Cohen?
By Harvey Kubernik (1978) – Fri, Apr 17, 2009 3:09 PM EDT

It was over 30 years ago that two of rock's legends joined forces in the studio to produce an album called Death Of A Ladies' Man. Harvey Kubernik was there to witness the combustive meeting of minds.--Barney Hoskyns, Editorial Director, Rock's Backpages

Leonard Cohen--singer, songwriter, guitarist, poet, novelist, and sometime straight-faced spokesman of the hilarious ironies of the human condition--walks into the dimly-lit recording studio control booth. The place is called Gold Star, and it is a shining capital of musical energy in the midst of a dying neighborhood in a particularly faded part of Hollywood...

Cohen lets a hint of a smile cross his face, but nothing more. He is not one to demonstrate elaborate emotional feeling in a personal situation. He sports a finely tailored dark blue blazer and well-cut grey slacks, and he radiates a poise uncommon to the environment at hand. His charm is substantial, and it isn't hard to fathom why at least some people find themselves so wholly taken with his art. It's not so much what he is about that is important, but what he seems to be about--not so much what he says, but what he implies.

As Cohen sits down in the booth, a voice screams out of the dark silence: "This isn't punk rock! This is ROCK PUNK!" Then the first notes of a rhythm track drive through the monitors.
The voice belongs to Phil Spector. Imposing, like a king dethroned, he sits behind the mixing board, incessantly fondling an empty bottle which once contained 32 ounces of pure Manischewitz Concord Grape Wine. He wears a sharp, severe black suit, a green shirt, and a very expensive pair of shiny black leather boots--boots which are presumably made for rockin'.
In a year of unlikely artist/producer combinations--Reddy/Fowler, Flack/Ezrin, Grand Funk/Zappa, etc.--this is perhaps the most unlikely: Phil Spector, demon genius of the rock-and-roll production number, producing Leonard Cohen, ascetic prophet of acoustic disaffectedness, with the final product to be known as Death Of A Ladies' Man.

"We've made some great f***in' music on this album," Spector says, his voice assuming a high-pitched urgency, a blend of Arnold Stang and Jerry Mathers . With that, he leaps from his chair and hugs everyone in the room. He is very happy with his work , and he wants everyone to know it.

The '70s have been a strange decade for Spector. At the beginning of the period, he made two splendid albums with John Lennon. Then came interesting but generally disappointing projects with Harry Nilsson and Cher. When Spector produced a Dion LP for Warners at great cost last year, the company decided not even to release it in the U.S.

The worst blow came, in a sense, though, when Warners agreed to release a definitive Phil Spector anthology, an attractive, well-researched package (with notes by Ken Barnes), made with Spector's full co-operation. It was an incredible collection of music, and a beautifully presented one--but Phil Spector 's Greatest Hits didn't even make Billboard's Top 200 album list.

Insiders could probably explain away the LP's low sales: Warners probably didn't ship more than 30,000 units at release, thereby marking the album as a sort of "labor-of-love" LP intended only for hard-core Spector fans or Spector supporters within the music industry. The record company didn't even allocate a complete disc-jockey service nationally. It certainly wasn't intended to be a major commercial release effort.

Nevertheless, there have been three albums since it was released--Then I Kissed Her, Da Doo Ron Ron, and Be My Baby. Michael Lloyd and Jimmy Ienner will no doubt continue to find it an insatiable source of future cover tunes for their boppers well into the '80s. Thus, while the album was hardly a moneymaker in terms of actual units sold, it has proven and will continue to prove to be a veritable gold mine of publishing royalties.

But that is hardly enough for Phil Spector--whose brilliance only starts with the songs he writes, but really gets to shining when he gets those songs into a studio. And so it is obvious that the Leonard Cohen sessions have been important to him--almost therapeutic. He certainly seems to be taking his work extremely seriously: He has been decidedly less theatrical in the studio of late; the usual Spector circus atmosphere seems to have been replaced at least in part by a rediscovered, or new interest in the music itself. And that seems to be very good medicine, both for Spector and for Cohen.

Spector and Cohen, despite their obvious surface differences both in personal style and in musical direction, share one, all-powerful element of musical taste--a love for rock-and-roll. It is deeply rooted in them, and it pervades the work they do together. It is their shared medium, their common ground. A mutual affection for rock's basic greatness has bound the two men together, and made their collaboration work.

"Working with Phil," says Cohen nonetheless, "I've found that some of his musical treatments are to me. I mean, I've rarely worked in a live room that contains 25 musicians--including two drummers, three bassists, and six guitars."

The track Cohen and Spector are particularly interested in listening to right now is "Don't Go Home With Your Hard-On," the album's all-out stomper, with hosts of loud horns and pulsating beat that's hammered all the way home by dual drummers playing in perfect synch. Above it all, comes Cohen's menacing, gritty vocal work, which holds center stage in a most unexpected but effective way. "I can really belt 'em out, you know," says the singer, as he takes a swig of Jose Cuervo from the bottle.

Cohen and Spector first met late in 1974, when Cohen was in Los Angeles for a rare club appearance--a two-night gig at the Troubadour. After the last show on the second night, Spector hosted an informal reception for Cohen at his home--a Spanish-style mansion in the grand, excessive Southern California tradition.

Cohen was brought to Spector's attention, and vice versa, by Martin Machat--who had independently become lawyer and business manager for both men. Machat took Spector to see Cohen perform. Throughout Cohen's 90-minute show, Spector sat quietly, very still, immediately impressed (he later said) by Cohen's mystery and his technique (or maybe the mystery of his technique...or the technique of his mystery...)

The two men got on well at the post-Troubadour reception, and kept in some sort of loose touch thereafter. Late in 1976, when Cohen visited Los Angeles again, Spector invited him to be his houseguest. The first night, the two worked out a new version of Patti Page's "I Went To Your Wedding"; by breakfast, they'd co-written two new songs--Cohen the lyrics, Spector the music (picked out on the piano). The seed was sown for what ultimately became Death Of A Ladies' Man.

Cohen is said to have remarked of Spector that "Phil is not a great songwriter, but he's a bold one. He's bold enough to employ the most pedestrian melodies, and yet somehow make them absolutely successful. That is why his compositions are brilliant." Cohen is especially impressed by Spector's early work--"To Know Him Is To Love Him," "Lovin' Feeling," etc. "In those songs, the story line was as clear as clear could ever be. The images were very expressive--they spoke to us all. Spector's real greatness is his ability to induce those incredible little moments of poignant longing in us."

Cohen's own images are expressive, too, of course. On Death Of A Ladies' Man, they seem particularly direct. "This is the most autobiographical album of my career," he says. "The words are in a tender, rather than a harsh setting, but there's still a lot of bitterness, negativity, and disappointment in them. I wish at times there was a little more space for the personality of the storyteller to emerge, but, in general, the tone of the album is very overt, totally open."

He goes on to say, "I was a little off-balance this year." Songs like "Iodine," "True Love Leaves No Traces," and the album's title track mirror his situation. All the usual Cohen concerns--lost love, personal chaos, doubt, romantic dilemma, alienation, lust, etc.--are present in strong force. "And don't forget humor," Cohen adds. He also says, "I worship women," and suspects that, with the release of this album, "Everybody will now know that within this serene Buddhist interior there beats an adolescent heart."

By 6 A.M., Spector and Cohen are still listening to one rough mix after another. Bob Dylan appears somewhere in the midst of Spector's huge, complicated sounds. So do Hal Blaine, Jim Keltner, Nino Tempo, Jesse Ed Davis, Allen Ginsberg, Art Munson, Ray Pholman, and Dan and David Kessel--sons of jazz guitarist Barney Kessel. The music is hard and solid and soulful. There is, above all, nothing "El-lay" about it.

To this day, Spector meets people who can't believe that all his great hits were cut in Southern California. "They thought Gold Star was in New York," he says. "Of course, what I do is hardly typical California stuff. There are no four-part harmonies on my records... Maybe 32-part harmonies..." He looks around the room. "Anyone here who plays Asylum records, please leave. Anybody laid-back in this room, get the f**k out of here!"

Cohen likes Los Angeles. A native of Montreal, who has spent much of his time in recent years in the South of France and in other European hideaways, he has now moved to Southern California himself. "I like it," he says. "It's so desperate here that it's really not bad at all. And, besides, this is the only city in the world where I've ever written a song while sitting in a driveway in a parked car."

Later in the morning, back at Spector's mansion, as the jukebox plays the psalms of Elvis, Dylan, Waylon, Otis, and the Drifters, Spector muses about his own life. "It didn't take extraordinary strength for me to change the way I was," he claims. "What I was doing just had to stop. It isn't hard to see that, especially after you've gone through a couple of windshields at high speeds.
"I have to admit that I did enjoy it to a certain extent--being rich, a millionaire in his mansion, and dressing up like Batman...But now I can see beyond that, and see just how unhealthy and unproductive it became.

"I'm ready for anything now. Nothing frightens me. I feel I can do more now than I could ever do before. I feel extremely ready musically. I'm more comfortable, more relaxed, more together. I understand what I want to do, and I'm going to do it. It's time to get serious again."
Then he says, "Come into the other room. I want to play you some more of the Leonard Cohen tracks."

And as he punches up "Don't Go Home with Your Hard-On" once again, the tight strung, perfectly conceived production fills the air, he says "Ain't none of us ready for the glue factory yet. I'll go one-on-one with any producer in the world, anytime ." He smiles. "We can still kick ass!"

NOTE:  Hal Blaine never saw Phil Spector, in 37 years, in the studio with a gun.  Janice Zavala Spector has never seen Phil Spector with a gun.  

Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.

Leonard Cohen's Perjury

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:37 PM
Subject: Leonard Cohen Perjury
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>
Cc: "SandraJo.Streeter" <>, ajackson <>, "Truc.Do" <>, wfrayeh <>, jthompson <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, "Hoffman, Rand" <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "harriet.ryan" <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>

Sandra Jo Streeter,

Would you direct me to my testimony that you appear to be quoting in your questions that are clearly an attempt to rehabilitate
Cohen after he committed perjury in one of his answers.  See below.  Who charges people with perjury in these matters?  You
are a prosecutor, no?

Kelley Lynch


Leonard Cohen:

Around Page 276:
Q: Okay.  Do you remember testifying on March 23rd at another hearing?

A: March 23rd, yes.

Q: Of this year.  You were in this courthouse testifying, correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Now, you were asked if this was -- if your relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship.  Do you remember that?

A: I did.

Q: And you actually said that it was, yes, purely a business relationship.

Page 277:

A: I have said repeatedly that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady denies it.  So I did not want to insist.

Q: I’m not asking you about what Ms. Lynch said.  I’m asking about what you said.  You said that yes, that it was purely a business relationship, correct?

A: May I explain?

Q: I’m just asking for if that’s what you said on March 23rd.

A: Yes.

Q: In fact, you were asked a follow up question that -- asking you if that was the extent of it, and again you said yes, that was the extent of it.

A: Correct.

Page 319:

Q: And finally, there was a question about a previous relationship you’ve given, the description of your relationship with Ms. Lynch. Why at that hearing did you say that you only had a business relationship with Ms. Lynch and not just once or twice, why did you say that?

Page 320:

A: Because, as it turns out, the friendship that Ms. Lynch displayed was false and deceptive, so it was not really a friendship.

Kelly objects.

Cohen: The intimate relationship we had, she denies.  So I’m not going to insist.  So, therefore, it was not -- from that point of view, there was not an intimate relationship and there was not a friendship; it was all business.  It was all business from the point of view of Ms. Lynch.

By Ms. Streeter:  And in your mind --

Kelly objects.  Speculation as to what Ms. Lynch thought.

Court:  Overruled.  The question was why he did it, and he’s testifying to his subjective reason.

Streeter:  In your mind, if a woman says that you don’t have an intimate relationship with her but you do, why does that matter?

A: I’m sorry, Ma’am?

Kelly objects; vague.
Court sustains.

Streeter:  Why does it matter if - if you’ve had an intimate relationship like with Ms. Lynch, she said you don’t -- didn’t have one, why does it matter?  Why does that impact the answer to the question, that particular question a couple of weeks ago?

Kelly:  Objection; vague.
Court sustains.  I think we’ve adequately covered this.

Streeter:  Okay.  Right.  Perfect.  

Leonard Cohen Re-Cross:

Kelly: When you testified on March 23rd, you said that -- you didn’t give the same answer that you gave now, correct, regarding your relationship with Ms. Lynch?

A: That’s correct.

Q: Okay,.  But you -- when you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raised your right hand, correct?

A: Correct.  

Q: And then the same oath that you just took right now, correct?  Before testifying, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And yet you gave two different answers; yes or no?

A: Correct.

Q: Okay.  And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?

Streeter:  Objection; argumentative.

Court:  Sustained.

Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

IRS Advises Kelley To File Forms 3949(a) Re. Cohen's Fraudulent K-1s, Fraudulent Refund, Illegal Use Of My SSN, Etc.

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:37 PM
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>
Cc: "SandraJo.Streeter" <>, ajackson <>, "Truc.Do" <>, wfrayeh <>, jthompson <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, "Hoffman, Rand" <>, "harriet.ryan" <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>

To the IRS Commissioner's Staff,

I'm reviewing the trial transcript and addressing all fraud, perjury, etc.  In this interview (which is also Cohen embellishing stories and he has left out the bits about threatening Don Ienner, including in faxes) Cohen is clear about his business acumen.  In fact, he says he took over his business management after Marty Machat
died.  He was representing himself.  He was, therefore, his own personal and business manager.  He was negotiating contracts.  

Leonard Cohen cannot stop lying.  

By the way, I am working on the IRS forms 3949(a) with respect to the illegal K-1s Cohen/LCI issued for the years 2004 and 2005 for me and transmitted to the IRS  I will file one re. the illegal refund Cohen obtained and want t know if he fraudulently used my SSN on the refund docs as well.  He did on the K-1s.  I have to call the IRS back tomorrow.  I appear to have received some type of K-1 or partnership doc in 2003 from TH but Leonard Cohen declared (in his declaration re. his fraud and\ retaliatory lawsuit against me in LA) that he's the sole beneficial owner.  I also paid taxes of approximately $165,000. on that entity in the year 2003 and am entitled
to a refund.  I want TH off my tax returns so I will file a 3949A with respect to that entity and note that I was defrauded, Cohen has stolen millions, and his refund should be audited.  I'll quote the pertinent parts of his and his lawyers' testimony.  I'll also note that prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter evidently has evidence that the assets
re. TH only total $150K so clearly Cohen has further defrauded that entity.  Perhaps the IRS can speak to Streeter to see where she came up with those figures.  I will note, on this form 3949(a) that my accountant and Cohen's think the IP that TH sold is still in BMT.  

I'll mail copies of all forms to the address on the form and privately email the IRS Commissioner's Staff, and Agent Tejeda/IRS Unit Los Angeles, copies.

All the best,

Cohen turned in 1992 to his next album, originally titled Be For Real, but released by Columbia on November 24 under the title The Future. For once, his American record company, now run by Don Ienner, seemed to be behind him, though Cohen had been through so many record executives by this time, it was hard to believe.

"[Ienner] said, 'Leonard, you know, we love you more than some groups that sell five million copies,'" he recalls. "I said, 'Please love me less, and sell five million copies.' He set himself up for that one. But he said, 'Your integrity and your artistry is something we cherish very highly.' I said, 'Look, I got that part covered. Just treat me like a commodity. That's what I'm interested in. Whether the stuff is any good or great or not, I wrestle over that material all the time. That's not what I'm here for.'

"I was representing myself at this point. [Cohen took over his own affairs after the death of his lawyer.] That was very refreshing and made them rather uneasy because usually the artists don't come in and negotiate the contract. I started undertaking that function. I found it very invigorating and refreshing. I'll never let a lawyer do that for me again. This is one of the bonuses of the whole enterprise, to actually sit with the guys and talk about how much you're worth."

Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.

Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.