Sunday, November 23, 2014

Kelley Lynch Email To IRS, FBI, & DOJ Re: Leonard Cohen's False Testimony & Perjured Statements

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:01 AM
To: IRS, FBI, DOJ cc:  Multiple Recipients

Hello IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Very disturbing situation with the people who have provided me with declarations being targeted by the Proxy Stalker.  This is blatant criminal witness tampering and intimidation.

This section of the transcript begins with Cohen's cross-examination.  Having testified, on direct, that he recalled everything, he suddenly has a terribly faulty memory.  He lied about being copied on emails including the very disturbing April 18, 2011 email (and his testimony).  

What I want to point out however is his perjury.  Leonard Cohen testified that "NO" I was not his personal manager.  However, he had written Streeter (April 5, 2012) that I was both his personal and business manager.  His latest round of documents submitted to the Court confirm that I was his personal manager.  Please review the CAK declaration (attached).  Cohen was very clear in 2000 that I was his personal manager, he was exceedingly clear that he was pursuing these deals and kept entirely informed about them, and he understands that he generates substantial royalty income.  However, Cohen and his representatives are now claiming that a declaration he personally signed and submitted to a Court is "hearsay."  

I was never Leonard Cohen's business manager but Rich Feldstein was so please speak to him.  Leonard Cohen will say anything and change his testimony and/or statements as he pleases.  His fabricated narrative continues to remain in flux.  One lie is being told after another.  Fortunately, for Cohen, LA Superior Court does not require evidence or evidence authentication.  How can he testify in one courtroom that "NO" I was not his personal manager and then submit documents in another stating that I was.  Do you have any thoughts on that matter?  I did not handle Leonard Cohen's taxes, finances, investments, accounting, corporate matters, or legal issues.  He had a team of professionals who handled those matters and I was very clear about that in my January 2002 email to Cohen with Westin copied in.  When the issue re. the Sony $7 million 1099 to Cohen arose in 2002, I was very clear that should IRS investigate the situation, people would begin blaming one another.  That is precisely why I summarized everything in those emails.  I also advised Cohen (with Westin copied in) that I did not handle loans or loan documentation.  No amount of criminal harassment will change that fact.

All the best,


PD:  I wanted to start, basically, where we left off in talking about certain emails.  Ms. Streeter asked you about certain emails.  Do you remember that.  Cohen:  Yes, she asked me about many.  PD:  Now, one of thee emails that she mentioned was sent on April 18, 2011 at around 8.11 AM … Do you remember testifying about that email? Cohen:  Yes, I believe I did.  Kelly:  Okay.  And when you testified about that email, you said that you remember receiving that email?  RT 265  Cohen:  I think I did.  Kelly:  Can you point out where exactly on the list of recipients that your email address shows up?  Cohen:  Perhaps I missed this one.  Kelly:  Okay.  But you did testify, though, that you remember receiving that email, correct?  Do you remember testifying to that?  Cohen:  I believe I did.  Kelly:  Okay.  Were you wrong when you -- did you misspeak when you said that?  Cohen:  I haven’t checked every address.  Kelly:  Okay.  You can take a moment -- Cohen:  It’s very small.  Kelly:  Take all the time that you need.  Cohen:  If you say it’s not here, I understand what your point will be … PD:  And so you’ve had a chance to look over that email, the recipients?  Cohen:  Yes.  PD:  And your email is not on that, correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  RT 266

 PD: Now, you also mentioned that you remember receiving an email on July 20th, 2011 at about 7.16 PM.  Do you remember testifying to that email that you’re looking at right now?  Cohen:  I don’t remember testifying to every – the details of every email.  No, I don’t.  PD:  Okay.  Do you want to take a look at it and see if it’s the same email that you looked at yesterday?  Cohen:  I can’t be certain if it is the same email I looked at yesterday.  PD:  Okay.  So you don’t remember yesterday that you [testified that you] remember receiving an email that was sent on July 20th, 2011 at about 7.16 PM.  Cohen:  With all due respect, I was asked to verify many emails.  I can’t testify in truth that I remember every one that you’re bringing to my attention.  PD:  Okay.  Well, you remember saying – at one point, you looked at the jury and said Oh, this one is a long one.  Do you remember that?  Cohen:  Yes, I do remember that.  PD:  Would it be fair to say that this is the email that you were referring to when you said it?  Cohen:  I can’t say for sure if it is.  PD:  But this is a long one, correct, the one that you’re looking at right now?  Cohen:  Yes, it’s a long one.  PD:  And, on – now you said about 50 pages, correct?  Cohen:  I don’t know how many pages it is.  PD:  Okay. Can you estimate how many pages it is?  Cohen:  How many pages it is?  PD:  Do you remember saying that it was around 50 pages?  Cohen:  No, I don’t remember saying that.  I said it was 47 pages, the other one.  PD:  Okay. Now, of those 47 pages – Cohen:  I don’t know if it’s 47 pages here.  I’m sorry.  PD:  How many pages does it look like to you?  Cohen:  I can’t estimate how many pages … I can’t estimate how many pages.  There is a number of pages.  PD:  Of those pages, how many of them are the actual new email that was sent?  Streeter:  Objection; vague as to which email.  Cohen:  I don’t understand the question.  PD:  Okay.  Do you – do you understand that with emails, sometimes you said there were threads of emails?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  And what did you mean by threads of emails?  Cohen:  I mean emails that were attached to one another.  PD:  Okay.  And the other emails that were attached, would they be previous emails, correct – Cohen:  Yes.  PD:  -- that were attached?  Now, of those pages that you’re looking at, how many are the new email, not a previous email, of the pages that you have on that page?  Cohen:  Well, Sir, I’d have to examine every page to be able to.  PD:  Go ahead and, if you can, do that.  And I’ll stop you right now.  Isn’t it true that on that first page – it starts talking – it starts – on the bottom of that first page, it references – it starts going to another previous email in the thread?  Cohen:  I’m sorry, Sir.  I’m confused as to what you’re trying to determine.  PD:  Okay.  On the email that was dated July 20th, 2011 – Cohen:  Yes.  PD:  -- It starts, the current email starts with “Hello Sharmapa,” correct?  Now, how long does it go until you see the very end of that email that says, “Love, Kelley?”  RT 270

Review this evidence.  It doesn’t seem as though Cohen was copied in.

PD:  Do you remember yesterday, you were testifying as to the dates that you received certain phone messages, correct?  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.  PD:  And you remember that you were listening to one that was from March 12, 2011, correct?  Cohen:  I believe so.  But, again, there were so many.  To identify them, each one, I can’t testify to the accuracy of my memory.  PD:  Okay.  Well do you remember testifying to one that you said was March of 2012 and in fact it was March 2011?  RT 270  Cohen:  It may be so.  PD:  You don’t remember testifying to that?  Cohen:  It’s very difficult for me to recall … PD:  Okay.  And you don’t remember saying perhaps I got it wrong?  Chen:  Yes.  Perhaps I got it wrong.  RT 271

PD:  Now I want to talk to you a little bit about your relationship with Ms. Lynch.  Now, you – actually, you hired her to be your personal manager in 1988, correct?  Cohen:  No.  PD:  Well, when did you hire her?  Cohen:  I hired her to be my business manager.  PD:  In what year?  Cohen:  I think it was 1988 or ’89.  RT 270