Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Kelley Lynch's Email To Her Son Re. The Stalker's Email To The State Of Kentucky's Tax Ombudsman Slandering Her, LA Superior Court's Dangerous Views On Email Authentication (Without A Warrant), Cohen's Financial Adviser, Etc.

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re:
To: Rutger Penick, cc:  Multiple Parties


The Stalker continues to criminally harass me and is now quoting you, an individual he does not know.  See the email he grabbed from my blog.  I did not include the "to" email addresses so he doesn't have that on the email he has pretended to include as a forwarded email.  I would like to point out, first of all, that LA Superior Court does not require email authentication or a subpoena for law enforcement to review emails.  They are easily altered and Gianelili has altered emails he sent me.  I do not know the man and view him as a truly dangerous psychopath.  Any individual, including Cohen (who testified that I am "the enemy") can create an email account, set someone up, and take the stand and testify that they know who owns the account they received emails from.  Very dangerous level of evidence standards.  In any event, I have NOT bcc'd this Stalker, copied this Stalker, or communicated with this Stalker.  He went to my blog, saw an email to the State of Kentucky's Tax Ombudsman and wrote to them slandering me.  I am addressing very serious federal tax and corporate matters but this man has motive and he is a proxy.

Neal Greenberg's lawsuit (attached please find the allegations in that case that I wholeheartedly agree with which will be submitted to LA Superior Court, signed, as a Schedule to my Motion).  I was NOT Greenberg's friend.  I knew his ex-wife, Karen, and his stepdaughter and stepson.  Greenberg flew to Los Angeles to meet His Holiness Kusum Lingpa (who did call Leonard Cohen an "asshole who is going to hell" - not I), personally met with Cohen, and Cohen hired him.  He also met Oliver Stone and others.  In fact, Oliver Stone was quite clear, after a visit to our home, that I have nothing but disdain for Neal Greenberg.  That is factual.  Douglas and I referred Cohen to the Penick Family's investment adviser at Dean Witter.  Cohen hired the man.  Cohen then personally hired Greenberg and used him.  When Douglas moved away from Greenberg as an investor, I advised Cohen to.  He refused.  I met with City National Bank and others in an attempt to find a reliable investor.  You personally met Greenberg's lawyer, when he visited our house with Scott, and felt the "enemy" was in our home.  I believe the man used me horrendously.  I permitted him to review three huge boxes of evidence, when he worked at Boies Schiller, and the document he submitted to the Court was highly slanderous.  In any event, he did write that Boies Schiller felt Cohen and Kory were attempting to engage me in criminal conduct and advised me to go wired to my meeting with Cohen/Kory.  I did email Boies Schiller what was unfolding at the time - including with respect to your brother's custody matter, SWAT, Cohen and Kory's communications, Cohen's offer of 50% community property; the fact that Lindsey asked you to go in and sign over my house to Cohen while I was being taken to King Drew (smart of you not to return his call); etc.  Their Complaint did not come from my meeting with Norman Posel.  It came from evidence I provided them and they are clear that other witnesses confirmed this information.  Posel wrote me, and Cohen included that email in his latest replies to my legal filings, that he had evidence that Cohen/Kory planned to destroy me and my children.  

Please do not communicate with this criminal.  He is dangerously obsessed with us, Chad, and others.  He continues to criminally harass Paulette Brandt as well.  

I just want you to have the facts rather than his slanderous harassment.  What occurred between Greenberg and the SEC has nothing to do with the facts and evidence that were memorialized in his lawsuit.


Li'l Red by PhillyBoyWonder (print image)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:50 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>


From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM
Subject: Re:
Email to Hailey Branson, LA Times

Hi Hailey,

Your article is now being used to slander me to the State of Kentucky's Tax Ombudsman.  Strange.  I've addressed the facts with CIA.  I can assure you that I am not wearing the tin foil hat but have asked FBI to hand over any DNA evidence they have supporting my theory that there was a Roswell invasion in Los Angeles that may explain this situation.  

Kelley Lynch

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello CIA,

Evidently the way you can prove I am "mentally ill," according to the Criminal Stalker (who has lied to CIA about me as well) is due to my emails to CIA. The Criminal Stalker has also slandered me to the FSB.  He has lied to IRS, FBI, DOJ, FTB, and others.  The IRS blocked his harassing emails and FBI asked him what federal matters he is contacting them about.

Gianelli has now sent Hailey's slanderous article to the State of Kentucky Tax Ombudsman although he was NOT copied on that email and I did not bcc him or forward an email to him.  He has now decided to continue criminally harassing Paulette Brandt.

First of all, Neal Greenberg's June 2005 lawsuit against Cohen and Kory (related to conspiracy allegations, blackmail, witness tampering, witness intimidation, blackmail, extortion, etc.) clearly states that Cohen planned to use retraining orders to discredit me.  I did not attend the 2005 hearing and have no idea what he alleged.  I am aware of his testimony and he perjured himself when he said I phoned the police during SWAT.  I have Lindsey's declaration and he is very clear that he phoned LAPD and he states that my neighbors called as well.  No neighbor I know phoned LAPD and my next door neighbor advised me, after the SWAT incident, that they wouldn't permit LAPD's Chief of Police on their property based on what unfolded.  We shared a driveway and approximately 25-30 armed men were on that property.  They ultimately advised my son that my dog was my hostage and they were taking precautions.  My son was very clear with them that he had taken his brother down the street, had just been with me, and I was in the house alone.  The situation, and Killer King incident, demands an investigation.  Homeland Security, and others, felt the Los Angeles DA was conceivably behind the SWAT/Killer King incident.  I have repeatedly attempted to determine the facts of that situation - including in this letter hand delivered to DA Steve Cooley and Spector prosecutors Alan Jackson and Truc Do.  See attached.

Let's look at the slander and misinformation in Hailey's article.  I was NOT Leonard Cohen's business manager.  I was his personal manager.  The Boulder, Colorado order is NOT a domestic violence order but I was arrested and convicted for violating a domestic violence order and the domestic violence statute was used.  Leonard Cohen and I were not in a statutory required "intimate dating relationship."  Many emails were concealed from the jurors but I will point out that LAPD's report states that my alleged emails, which were not obtained via subpoena, were generally requests for tax information.  Detective Viramontes, LAPD's TMU, advised me that Cohen was not comfortable with my requests for tax information and advised me that IRS would have to obtain the tax documents and information I require.  It is legally impossible that a local, county, or state order would subvert IRS reporting requirements.  In any event, although Vanderet would not permit Agent Tejeda/IRS to testify, I gave Viramontes Agent Tejeda's number and Detective Viramontes evidently left him a phone message.

I didn't see any remorse on Vanderet's part for lying about me and not permitting my lawyers, who advised me of this, to attack the restraining order.  Paulette Brandt has now testified that she too was told, by the Boulder Combined Court, that the original order I requested expired on February 15, 2009 and I now have information (that I diligently pursued for two years) confirming that the Boulder order is NOT domestic violence and explaining the 2/15/2009 expiration date.  I can assure you that Vanderet will not express "remorse" for his unconscionable role here.  I am the victim who has been targeted so I believe Vanderet is truly twisted.  In fact, the ongoing criminal harassment is the reason I am writing this email.  My sons have been relentlessly targeted as have many others but Leonard Cohen is wealthy, has a team of lawyers willing to do anything for him, and - as the prosecutors continually noted to judges - this case is unusual because it involves a "celebrity."  In any event, the fact pattern is complex - not starstruck prosecutors.

I was clear that the prosecutors carried out a "vicious attack" on me.  The prosecutor, Sandra Jo Streeter, also lied extensively about me; lied about IRS and federal tax matters; and retaliated.  I am very confident about that.  Cohen testified that he hasn't seen me in 7 or so years.  If the man has delusions that I might drive by his house there's nothing I can do about that.  My medical doctor just asked me, after hearing about GIanelli and the ongoing insanity, if Cohen has a history of drug abuse.  He has a long and publicly documented history of drug abuse.  I wasn't "willing" to go to "anger management."  It's a domestic violence statutory requirement and there was NO "domestic violence."  Cohen merely perjured himself on the stand and acknowledged changing his testimony.

I didn't contact Cohen with an intent to annoy; the statute is unconstitutionally vague; there are outstanding and legitimate federal tax and corporate issues; and whether or not Cohen was annoyed is not an element of this farcical "crime."  The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that annoyance statutes are unconstitutional and now it has been used against me with respect to the "government" who appears to have worked with Gianelli to arrest and prosecute me on at least two occasions; advised him to continue criminally harass me; and instructed him to communicate official messages from their City Attorney Office to me.  Hailey is clear - the prosecutor "displayed' thick binders and was well aware that Hailey was present.  What is a business and personal relationship?  I was Cohen's personal manager and believed we had a friendship but we evidently did not.  Well, His Holiness Kusum Lingpa did call Cohen "an asshole who is going to hell" and Cohen did read that to the jurors so I suppose he used an obscenity.  That's perfectly acceptable in Tibet.  Yes, allegations related to tax fraud were one of the main issues in my trial.  Cohen testified that I assailed his reputation by asking "Are you still on drugs?"  However, he was almost simultaneously giving interviews to Sylvie Simmons confirming his long history of dabbling in drugs such as LSD, meth, etc.  Cohen did NOT fire me in 2004.  I refused to meet with hm and his tax lawyer, unravel these structures, hand over the corporate books and records to him personally (and chose instead to have them transmitted to his lawyers by mine), etc.  I did quote Dennis Riordan when I advised Vanderet that I evidently had "engaged in excessive and unauthorized rambling."  I know Mr. Riordan felt Barry Bonds had when he responded to what I viewed as an incoherent question by a prosecutor.  I don't want to own any guns.  There's far too much violence in the United States but that was not part of the original Boulder, Colorado order so that's a serious federal matter now.

Hailey addresses all the requirements of the domestic violence statutes:  anger management, psychological training (although that was not an issue), alcohol education (although the prosecutor understood I was stone cold sober and advised the jurors of that fact so go figure what these people are thinking apart from slandering me), and a mental health evaluation.  Judge Vanderet confirmed he did not require one.  Barela did the same.  Evidently that wasn't a requirement but I think it should be for the people who have lied about me, falsely arrested and imprisoned me, and continue to criminally harass me.  

Did Cohen "fear" I would contact him as soon as I was released?  Well, that must be a lie or wishful thinking because I have not and never will.  I have NO INTEREST in this vile and vulgar man.  I am dealing with serious federal tax and corporate matters.  As a lawyer just wrote me - the issues make one's head spin.  Believe me, Cohen liked seeing me shackled to a chair.  Don't fall for his carefully crafted speech.  He's really quite deranged.  Well, the IRS should speak to my lawyer who understood my emails contained requests for tax documents.  Cohen's lawyer lied - neither IRS nor I have the IRS required form 1099; Cohen has not rescinded the LCI illegal K-1s; etc.

Hailey is clear:  Leonard Cohen believes corporate assets belong to him - including, but not limited to, his nearly $6.7 million in loans from TH which he refuses to address.  He signed the Annuity Agreement acknowledging that he could receive loans/advances and was required to repay those within 3 years at 6 percent interest.  The Corporate Tax Matters Partner Demand letter just addressed that fact.  See attached.  Yes, the judge entered a fraudulent judgment against me; wrongfully converted my property to Cohen's; and illegal financial interest continues to accrue.  

I was taken to Killer King, after the outrageous SWAT incident (where LAPD concluded that my dog was my hostage and they were taking precautions; I was in a leopard string bikini and they had seen me).  The entire Killer King file is fraudulent - including the illegal use of someone else's social security number and medical number.  

There is no truth in any of this.  There are merely vicious and abusive tactics.  The Criminal Stalker who has been criminally harassing me, my sons, sister, friends, etc. is in no position to tell anyone they are mentally ill.  In any event, it is not a defense to the allegations re. Cohen's criminal tax fraud, theft, etc.  It doesn't matter if I'm Mother Teresa or Satan which is how Steven Machat views Cohen's lawyer, Robert Kory.  He views Cohen and Kory as evil liars.  So do I.  Maybe Hailey was impressed with, as Boies Schiller said about Cohen, another Hollywood fraud.

Why are my emails to the CIA evidence of mental illness?  I asked Detective Viramontes, re. the Valentine's drone card to FBI and DOJ, if he thinks Streeter has psychiatric problems?  I've asked CIA to address the disposition matrix and Streeter's position that my email to FBI and DOJ was a threat to her.  She isn'[t mentioned in the image someone else created.  She was mentioned in my P.S. to FBI and DOJ re. the type of insanity that is taking place in LA Confidential.

For the record, I am NOT bccing Gianelli; not forwarding him emails.  He did, however, just contact the State of Kentucky to slander me over my legitimate request for information related to Cohen's testimony that Westin "rectified" something re. the TH entity that appeared to involve my ownership interest.  I have also contacted CIA re. my FOIA request regarding Leonard Cohen's fabricated stories about his role in the Bay of Pigs; Castro's forces capturing and interrogating him; and, his plan to join the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War.

All the best,



I, Kelley Lynch, agree with the following factual statements and was a witness to much of what was addressed in Neal Greenberg’s Amended Complaint (Denver District Court, Case No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB).  Therefore, Neal Greenberg and I are in agreement with respect to the following facts.  See Neal Greenberg Amended Complaint & Exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Kelley Lynch opposes all statements raised in Greenberg’s Complaint and not contained in the following excepts taken directly from the Amended Complaint.  See Amended Complaint attached hereto and made part hereof.

Dated:  23 October 2014

Kelley Lynch

Neal Greenberg. Vs. [HEADING]
Denver District Court, Case No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB
Judge Lewis Babcock

Defendant Leonard Cohen (“Cohen”), a noted recording artist, acting directly on his own behalf, and through his agent and attorney, Robert Kory (“Kory”), has threatened to take or has taken, improper and unlawful actions, including bribery and intimidation of a witness, subornation of perjury, defamation

Cohen’s extortion scheme was eventually exposed by Lynch and ultimately frustrated
Cohen has made clear that he asserts rights over certain investment funds that belong to Traditional Holdings, LLC (“Traditional Holdings”), a dissolved Kentucky entity that was managed and 99.5% owned by Lynch and 0.5% owned by Cohen.

From the early 1990s, impressed with a new strategy used by other Hollywood celebrities to cash in on their future revenue streams from IP rights and increase short-term income (called a “Pullman
 or “Bowie” bond, after the artist David Bowie who first used it), Cohen … worked aggressively with advisors, including Greg McBowman, to auction off portions of his IP to the highest bidder. 

Lynch arranged for Cohen to have a first meeting with Greenberg in 1996 to discuss Cohen’s investment options for the proceeds from the anticipated First Sony Sale.

During this meeting, and at Cohen’s request, Greenberg suggested ways in which Cohen could structure the investment of his proceeds from the First Sony Sale so as to reduce tax consequences and generate substantial income.

Cohen worked with, and began to be represented by, a creative tax attorney and law professor from the University of Kentucky, Richard Westin (“Westin”).  Cohen also had other advisors and consultants working with Lynch on his business, music and tax matters, including Greg McBowman … Ken Cleveland, as well as Stuart Fried and other attorneys at the law firm of Grubman Indursky & Schindler, P.C.

Ultimately, Cohen decided to transfer some of the income from the First Sony Sale into charitable remainder trusts. On October 30, 1996, Cohen established three trusts: the Sabbath Day Charitable Trust (the "Sabbath Day Trust"), the Cohen Family Charitable Trust (the "Cohen Family Trust"), and the Cohen Remainder Trust (the "Remainder Trust") (collectively, the “Trusts”).

Cohen … repeatedly withdrew large amounts of the Trusts’ assets. On repeated occasions, TAS notified Cohen (both directly, when possible, and per instruction through Lynch) that Cohen was spending more than recommended from the Trusts, and thus, was draining down the Trusts’ principal.

On one such occasion, on April 13, 2001, Greenberg, on behalf of TAS, wrote to Cohen:  “I am writing to you to discuss the income withdrawals you’ve received from your portfolio and to provide you with some helpful guidelines for the future. When we originally constructed your portfolio in 1997, you may remember that we had extensive conversations about how much you required for your annual living expenses.”

In or about 1999, Cohen put more of his IP up for auction. In 1999, Sony and Cohen … negotiated for a second sale of IP to Sony for about $8 million (the "Second Sony Sale").  The artist royalties to be sold were represented by Cohen as being held by another … entity, Blue Mist Touring Co., Inc. ("Blue Mist").  Cohen was the Chairman, President, and majority shareholder of Blue Mist, owning 425 shares, while Lynch was the Assistant Secretary and minority shareholder of Blue Mist, owning 75 shares, or 15% of the company.

Cohen asked Westin, and in the spring of 2000, Greenberg, to provide advice about how to invest the anticipated proceeds from the Second Sony Sale and minimize the sale’s tax burden.

Cohen leapt at this opportunity to minimize his tax burden [via Traditional Holdings, LLC], just as he had explored all possible means of reducing his taxes in years past, such as by seeking a tax credit for donating his papers to a Canadian museum [University of Toronto], and using artifices in dealing with Sony to avoid paying any Canadian taxes (as a Canadian citizen) on his royalty income earned in Canada.

Westin’s proposed plan had the following basic components: a limited liability company – which eventually became Traditional Holdings – would be created. Blue Mist would transfer certain IP assets to Traditional Holdings in exchange for a deferred annuity, to be paid to Cohen beginning in about 10 years. Traditional Holdings would then sell the assets it received from Blue Mist to Sony. The tax plan prevented Cohen, the annuitant, from owning more than a de minimis interest in Traditional Holdings.  Therefore, Cohen would own less than 1%, and another person – who ultimately was Lynch – would own the remaining LLC interest (more than 99 percent).

Westin outlined this proposal to Cohen and Lynch both orally and in a series of letters and other written communications between October 2000 and December 2000. See, e.g., Exh. 1 attached.

In these written communications, Westin explicitly warned Cohen that since the annuity plan gave significant transactional control to Lynch, and also potentially placed tax and other burdens upon her as majority shareholder, the plan would work only if Cohen and Lynch maintained (as they had in the past) a long-term relationship of personal and professional trust which would secure their mutual obligations as manager of the obligor (Lynch) and annuitant (Cohen). See, e.g., Exh. 2 attached.

Cohen carefully reviewed, understood, and signed off on the ownership structure of Traditional Holdings – including the fact that Lynch would own 99 percent of Traditional Holdings’ membership interests, so as (among other reasons explained by Westin) to avoid any suggestion of self-dealing.

First, Cohen reviewed the Traditional Holdings Articles of Organization, and reviewed and executed the Traditional Holdings Operating Agreement, which set forth in detail the entity’s ownership structure and managerial procedures. See Traditional Holdings Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement (Exh. 3 attached).

Second, Cohen participated, at his request, in conference calls with Westin and Lynch and/or Greenberg during which the structure was carefully reviewed.

Third, Cohen talked about the structure of Traditional Holdings privately with Lynch, including when he forced her to discuss it with him while he took a bubble bath.

Fourth, in addition to several explanatory faxes he received from Westin describing Traditional Holdings, Cohen communicated specific questions, through Lynch, relating to Traditional Holdings’ ownership and transactional structure, which questions Westin answered in a letter written directly to Cohen on December 4, 2000, and faxed (as with his prior memos) directly to Lynch and Cohen. See, Exh. 2.

Moreover, regardless of whether Lynch owned 1 percent or 100 percent of the shares of Traditional Holdings, Cohen knew or should have known that she had or came to have authority – through a durable power of attorney and pursuant to her role as Traditional Holdings’ manager – to act, and give directions, on Traditional Holdings’ and on his own behalf. See, e.g., Exh. 3.

Likewise, no matter who owned the majority of shares of Traditional Holdings, the obligation to fulfill a deferred annuity obligation to Cohen remained the same. Thus, Cohen's interests in the firm (the long term annuity payments) were identical, no matter how his purported ownership interest in the assets were held and invested in the interim.

In December 2000, Westin created Traditional Holdings as a Kentucky limited liability company. Lynch was named as the initial manager in the Articles of Organization, and both Cohen and Lynch were appointed as managers in the Operating Agreement. Id. Also in December 2000, Cohen signed a Private Annuity Agreement with Traditional Holdings which document sets forth Traditional Holdings’ annuity obligations to Cohen. See, Private Annuity Agreement (Dec. 7, 2000) (Exh. 4 attached). Lynch signed the Private Annuity Agreement on Traditional Holdings’ behalf. Westin maintained, and continues to maintain, that the company and its annuity contract with Cohen are legitimate under prevailing interpretations of the federal tax code.

To purchase her ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, Lynch was required to submit to Traditional Holdings a promissory note for $240,000. It was agreed that Lynch would receive a salary and/or distributions from Traditional Holdings sufficient to pay down the $240,000 promissory note and to cover tax liabilities. See, Exhs. 2 and 3.

As set forth in the Operating Agreement, Traditional Holdings was authorized to issue loans to its members, Cohen and Lynch, as long as the loans were paid back before the annuity obligations commenced. See, Exh. 3.

In April 2001, the Second Sony Sale was completed. The gross proceeds of the Second Sony Sale were approximately $8 million, less certain identified costs, expenses, and holdbacks for undelivered work.

Of these proceeds, Cohen had already requested and received $1 million as an advance in November 1999. Cohen was well aware of this $1 million advance because it became the subject of a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service in 2002.

Of the remaining proceeds of the Second Sony Sale, [certain] amounts were paid to cover the costs involved in closing and negotiating the Second Sony Sale:
$350,000 Grubman Indursky & Schindler, P.C. (attorneys for Cohen)
$333,750 McBowman Consulting Group (consultants for Cohen)
$30,450 Epstein Backer & Green, P.C.
$1,101,250 Stranger Management (commissions to Lynch's company)

Kelley Lynch comments in bold:  The following amounts, as confirmed in Cohen’s Complaint, should have been fully addressed in Neal Greenberg’s Amended Complaint.  Cohen’s Complaint, Clause 61, confirms that transaction fees related to the 1st and 2nd Sony deals totaled approximately $4.7 million and listed the following amounts:

$1.2 million – Stranger Management
$350,000 – legal fees (Grubman, Indursky firm)
$350,000 – consultant fees (Greg McBowman)
$500,000 – for federal income taxes and penalties due on Sony’s $1 million advance paid on the sale in 1999.
$100,000 – Richard Westin legal fees
$200,000 – Leonard Cohen’s settlement fees re. failed CAK bond deal

Additionally, Cohen withdrew approximately $592,000 as a “shareholder loan” from the Traditional Holding account to purchase homes for his son and girlfriend.  The Greenberg Complaint confirms that $2,084,518 belonging to Traditional Holdings, LLC was deposited into Leonard Cohen’s account.  Leonard Cohen also personally received $1 million advance on the Traditional Holdings, LLC 2001 sale and failed to transfer this amount to the corporate entity.  The above expenses, loans, income and deposits total:  $6,376,518.00.  In addition to this, a Promissory Note was prepared and signed by Leonard Cohen.  That Promissory Note addressed an additional approximate amount of $355,000 Leonard Cohen owed Traditional Holdings bringing the total to:  $6,626,518.00 with interest in the amount of 6% per annum. 

None of these listed expenses had anything to do with either the formation of the annuity plan or
with Traditional Holdings’ dealings … Westin did receive a modest fee for his work on the Traditional Holdings documents, and for consulting with Sony on Cohen and Traditional Holdings’ behalf. 

Agile Group [sent] official monthly statements to Cohen at the Larchmont Address (the record address for Traditional Holdings) setting forth the performance of the Traditional Holdings’ funds invested in the Agile Safety Fund. See, e.g., Exhibit 6 (example of monthly statements sent by independent outside administrator). In addition, Agile Group, LLC sent monthly letters to Cohen which, as a courtesy, summarized the deposits into and withdrawals from the Agile Safety Fund by Traditional Holdings. Id. (example of monthly summaries sent by Agile Group, LLC).

No sooner had Traditional Holdings been funded, however, than Cohen – just as he had done with the Trusts’ assets from the First Sony Sale, and notwithstanding Greenberg’s prior warnings about draining down investment money – began to dissipate the Traditional Holdings funds, jeopardizing his own long-term annuity interests, as well as the company’s legitimacy. Greenberg and others were immediately alarmed by Cohen's desire and tendency to treat this company like his own personal piggybank, out of which he could borrow or take distributions against his annuity benefits.

For example, almost immediately after the funding of Traditional Holdings, Cohen took out a loan for $50,000. This was followed, during 2001 and 2002 alone, by several loans to Cohen … to cover tax liabilities, houses for Cohen's son and his current girlfriend, and living expenses. These 2001-2002 loans to Cohen –amounting to over $1 million – were deposited directly into Cohen’s personal bank account at City National Bank in Beverly Hills, California.

In March 2002, Greenberg [spoke to] Cohen directly by telephone, Cohen “admitted he was spending too much and seemed a little shaken when [Greenberg] reminded him how much he had just spent on gifts to friends."

Lynch repeatedly assured Agile Group, LLC and TAS that the loans from Traditional Holdings were being properly documented with Westin’s assistance. Cohen’s tax attorney, Westin, also was aware of and in regular communication with Lynch [Cohen, Greenberg, and Cohen’s other representatives] concerning the shareholder loans and other aspects of the affairs and management of Traditional Holdings.

The March 5, 2002 Traditional Holdings Board Meeting Minutes, prepared at Westin’s direction, state “that the level of borrowing was undesirable and [the members] expressed their assent that further borrowing was discouraged, even though the borrower’s [Cohen’s] credit and collateral were good.”

Cohen, however, gave no sign that he had any intention of abating his spending habits. In an e-mail to Lynch dated March 4, 2002, Cohen thanked Lynch for “keeping [him] informed,” and instructed her to “give lots of money to everyone.”

Because these shareholder loans were to be repaid, and because it was necessary to protect the entity’s integrity for tax purposes, these shareholder loans were properly characterized, on Cohen’s tax attorney Westin’s advice, as Traditional Holdings assets when calculating the entity’s value.

Lynch, on Cohen’s behalf, sent e-mails to Colorado in response to Greenberg’s warnings, defending the loans, giving assurances that all of the loans were proper and documented, and assuring that they would be paid off when Cohen received the money from another, upcoming Sony transaction. 

In October 2004, Cohen and Lynch had a major falling out, the details of which remain unknown to Plaintiffs. As a result of this falling out, the Third Sony Sale – which appeared to be on the verge of consummation – never happened.

On October 21, 2004, Cohen personally contacted Greenberg by e-mail and informed him that Lynch was “busy with other aspects of [his] career,” and therefore, Cohen had “relieved her of all financial responsibilities.” Cohen further stated that Lynch “need not be copied on your statements or reports,” and that Cohen's new accountant would “be in touch.” 

 On October 22, 2004, Cohen sent another e-mail to Greenberg stating that Lynch “no longer represents me,” and directing Greenberg not to “respond to any of her instructions.” 

On or about October 24, 2004, Cohen again communicated directly with Greenberg by e-mail, stating that his business address was no longer the Larchmont Address or Keniston Address. With allegations flying fast and furious from Cohen – and later Kory – that Lynch was acting without due authority from Cohen, remarkably, a request to change Cohen's record address was left on Plaintiffs’ general voice mailbox by Anjani Thomas. Only later did Plaintiffs learn the identity of Ms. Thomas – Cohen’s current girlfriend, and Kory’s ex-wife.  Thus, Plaintiffs demanded an original signature from Cohen on a document verifying the new address

Given Lynch’s position as manager and 99.5% owner of Traditional Holdings, and learning of the apparent schism between Lynch and Cohen, Agile Group, LLC became concerned about whose directions as to the Traditional Holdings account it was legally obligated to follow. On October 24, 2004, Agile Group, LLC communicated with Westin – Cohen's attorney who had created Traditional Holdings – and inquired: “Does Leonard in your view have equal authority over the accounts that we manage? What if there are contradicting directive on those accounts that we manage? For example if KL says 'take money out' and LC says don’t take money, what is your view . . . .” Westin confirmed that because Cohen held a membership interest in Traditional Holdings, Agile Group, LLC could share information with him about Traditional Holdings’ investments. Westin could not, however, answer the issue of conflicting directives, and instead referred Agile Group, LLC to Traditional Holdings' governing documents (drafted by Westin), which documents provided little, if any, guidance on the issue. 

At or about this same time (October 22-24, 2004), Cohen phoned Greenberg. Cohen said that he thought Lynch had been taking money from Traditional Holdings without Cohen's authorization. He claimed that Lynch was using the money to support a gigolo and to fund shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus, and suggested that Lynch and Westin may have colluded to defraud him.  When Greenberg reminded Cohen that Westin had warned Cohen in 2000 that "the biggest risk" from Westin's tax avoidance plan “was that Lynch would own his [the] assets and he would have lost control,” Cohen stated that he recalled that initial warning. 

According to Lynch, however, Cohen regularly visited his management offices, often in Lynch’s presence, and reviewed and discussed his mail with her, all of which was kept on his desk to facilitate such review, including all correspondence, reports, and statements from the Agile Safety Fund’s independent, outside administrators, and from Plaintiffs.

Cohen then turned to his agent and attorney Kory to deal with Lynch, Westin, and Plaintiffs.

Based on these checks, Agile Group, LLC calculated that, of the loan money withdrawn from Traditional Holdings:

a. $2,084,518 had been deposited into Cohen’s own personal bank account;
b. Lynch personally had outstanding loans of approximately $293,000, which loans she represented had been disclosed to and sanctioned by Cohen;

Her abrupt termination frustrated Lynch's ability to make good on any loans through her share of receipts from the Third Sony Sale, the "Dear Heather" album, a pending sale of original lithographs, or other sources, and left her in a precarious financial position …

In November 2004, Lynch was asked by [Cohen] to appear without the benefit of counsel at a meeting with Cohen, Kory, and …  Greenberg, Glusker law firm acting as legal counsel for Cohen, and to sign certain legal documents related, inter alia, to unwinding Traditional Holdings on the spot [settle with Cohen].  Lynch refused to do so without benefit of counsel, and subsequently received advice from a variety of legal, accounting and tax professionals, including but not limited to Mike Taitelman, Dale Burgess, Dianne DiMascio, and an IRS officer named Betzer, that she was wise not to sign, because such action could have been fraudulent. 

[NOTE:  Lynch did not receive this specific advice from IRS Agent Betzer.  Lynch spoke to Agent Betzer on April 15, 2005 and thereafter about the allegations re. Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud and numerous corporate entities.  Agent Betzer first advised Lynch to bring this matter into the IRS with an attorney and then later instructed her to contact the IRS fraud unit.]

Lynch claimed that she had substantial, unsatisfied interests in Cohen's business entities and/or intellectual property. If Cohen were to attempt to recover money from Lynch, she would likely assert counterclaims alleging that Cohen owes her, and has never paid, substantial amounts of money; and, according to Lynch, and upon information and belief, such possible improprieties included, but were not limited to, the retention by Blue Mist and other persons or entities of IP that should have passed through Traditional Holdings to Sony, the failure to reference or disclose the annuity obligation, loan obligations, and other important matters on Traditional Holdings’ corporate tax returns, and Cohen’s failure to properly document Traditional Holdings’ transactions.

Because any attempt to recover money from Lynch was likely to be both futile and treacherous, Cohen, Kory, and other unnamed co-conspirators (including Steve Lindsay, Betsy Superfon, and John Doe Nos. 1-25) … conspired ...

Thus, for example, although the attorneys and accountants involved in the Second Sony Sale structured and received hefty fees for that transaction, which Kory charged were excessive, Cohen and Kory decided not to pursue any of those persons because they would not be easy targets, and because many of them – principally Sony and its law firm and advisors –continued to do business with Cohen profitably. Instead, Cohen and Kory decided to go after Plaintiffs, none of whom had any role whatsoever in that Sony transaction and/or received any benefit therefrom. 

[NOTE:  In a Memorandum Kory provided to Lynch’s lawyers, Ira Reiner and Kevin Prins, he raised issues related to fraud in the inducement against members of the Grubman firm and Greg McBowman.  Kory advised Lynch’s lawyers that they were considering going after Ken Cleveland.  Kory also advised Lynch that she had a cause of action against every one of Cohen’s representatives and they would assist her with those claims if she provided testimony against Cohen’s representatives and advisers.]

He [Leonard Cohen] told Greenberg to "be a man" and contact his insurance company.  “Please do talk to the insurer. A great deal of suffering can be avoided.”

Cohen with affirmative support from Kory, Steve Lindsay and Betsy Superfon, and John Doe Nos. 1-25, all acting toward a common end and each for his or her own purposes, began to direct an extortion scheme …

Cohen and Kory indicated that, unless Plaintiffs obtained insurance funds … Cohen would go out on tour to promote his new album, and would give interviews to reporters in which he would state or insinuate that he was touring because he had been bankrupted by the improprieties of his financial advisors.

Cohen and Kory knew full well that, from Plaintiffs’ perspective, once a celebrity were to raise such allegations of fraud and breach of duty against them, the damage would already be done, no matter the ultimate outcome.

Cohen and Kory began to pressure Lynch to assist in the extortion scheme against Plaintiffs. Specifically, they requested that she falsely testify … Cohen sought to obtain … testimony from Lynch knowing that the testimony would be false. 

Lynch's cooperation in Cohen’s extortion scheme was critical. Cohen believed that he could not only use Lynch as a witness against Plaintiffs, but could also buy or coerce her silence as against himself at the same time.

Thus, Cohen pressed for private "mediation" as an alternative to a public lawsuit, knowing full well that with Lynch's cooperation and silence, many of the critical documents concerning Cohen's financial affairs – documents that indubitably show … his aggressive tactics to avoid taxes at all costs, and his desire to capitalize on and benefit from all of his intellectual property during his lifetime to fuel an extravagant lifestyle – would not be the subject of discovery

Thus, by deliberate misrepresentations and omissions of critical facts … Cohen could knowingly and deliberately misrepresent his objectives and sophistication as an investor, his long history of aggressive tax management, his long history of exploitation of his IP for immediate gain and profit, his profligacy …

For example, Cohen affirmatively misrepresented to Plaintiffs that Lynch had simply forged his signature on various documents, knowing full well that she had not done so, or had signed with his full authority (as borne out by his subsequent actions – such as purporting to state claims based on agreements with TAS bearing his signature, and revoking a power of attorney bearing his signature that he acknowledged executing).

Cohen likewise falsely asserted that at no time had he authorized any of the shareholder loans from Traditional Holdings, and made various accusations against Lynch for which he had no basis in fact …

As one example, he claimed never to have known, prior to November 2004, that Lynch was the majority shareholder of Traditional Holdings, thereby implying that he had been deceived by Plaintiffs and Westin.  He also denied receiving information about Lynch's role as managing the obligation to pay his annuity, and denied ever receiving any information from Plaintiffs other than some monthly email summaries, even though he was easily able to retrieve Plaintiffs’ other written warnings, reports and correspondence from [Lynch’s] own Keniston office address in 2004, and was reported by Lynch to have regularly visited the office, reviewed his mail, and discussed Traditional Holdings' loans and his other accounts with her on a regular basis.

In particular, starting in March 2005, Cohen began to assert that Plaintiffs were responsible for the loss of $8 million, which figure included many millions of dollars which they knew Cohen had, in fact, received and previously spent in support of his own extravagant lifestyle.

… according to Lynch and others, he was prepared to admit or agree with Lynch that she owed Cohen nothing.

Having garnered the support of Lynch's then-attorney, Dianne DiMascio (“DiMascio”), Cohen felt
confident enough in January 2005 to misrepresent to Plaintiffs’ counsel, through Kory, that Lynch was then of the view that she, along with Cohen, was a victim of the misconduct of Plaintiffs and Westin.

Cohen and Kory continually sought to purchase or coerce Lynch’s cooperation

In a demand letter from Kory to DiMascio, Kory wrote:  I want to reemphasize my position that I am willing to work with you as part of a settlement between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch in going after Westin’s and Greenberg’s insurers as a source of restitution.

Thereafter, on January 11, 2005, Kory wrote to DiMascio, telling her that [Ira Reiner believed] “properly framed letters to Greenberg and to Westin would cause their insurance companies to show up.”

Lynch declined to attend the meeting in person. Instead, DiMascio went to the meeting on Lynch’s behalf in early February 2005, after which she reported to Lynch: “[Cohen and Kory] want your cooperation in pursuing [the Plaintiffs] and Richard Westin. In this regard, they seem to want you to acknowledge that you knew that Neal [Greenberg] and Richard [Westin] wanted to defraud Leonard and that you approved their conduct.”

Repeatedly, from at least November 2004 through April 2005, Kory made known
to Lynch, directly, through counsel, through Steve Lindsay (the father of Lynch’s youngest child
and one of Cohen’s record producers), through Lynch’s accountant Dale Burgess, through
accountant Mike Taitelman, and through others among her friends and relatives, that he had
extraordinary negotiating authority from Cohen to "forgive" any obligations of Lynch, to treat
them as a gift, to make additional payments to her or her family members (including disguised as
"palimony" on the pretext that Cohen is the father of one of her children), to make good on
Lynch's shares of IP rights or legal entities, or even to dedicate a hefty percentage to her of
whatever funds could be extorted from Plaintiffs and other advisors with her cooperation.

Kory tried to do this directly in late spring 2005 when he met Lynch for lunch and tried to persuade her to work with Cohen to “go after” Plaintiffs [and all of Cohen’s representatives].

Cohen and Kory also worked indirectly.  For example, they recruited Lynch’s erstwhile friend and longtime “friend” of Steve Lindsay, Betsy Superfon, a person of some notoriety due, among other reasons, to her entrepreneurship in the telephone sex trade. On numerous occasions, Kory [and Cohen] used Lindsay and Superfon to try to “broker” deals with Lynch …

In one such conversation, in May 2005, Superfon, according to Lynch, called Greenberg “the kingpin” and a “criminal” and pleaded with Lynch to cooperate with Cohen for “[her] heart, [her] health, and [her] kids” and recommended that Lynch “get out of this.”  Superfon promised that she could “settle this for [Lynch] immediately,” and stated that “Leonard and Kory [are] trying to get you out of this situation.”

When Lynch requested a settlement agreement in writing during a later conversation, Superfon, according to Lynch, stated that when she asked Kory to fax Lynch a settlement, Kory said “you can’t fax this kind of a deal. It has to be discussed.”  [Superfon advised Lynch that she personally believed the deal they were offering was illegal.]

Through Lindsay, Superfon and other friends, relatives and acquaintances, Cohen and Kory delivered the message that giving in to Cohen’s wishes would be in Lynch’s best interest.

When these tactics to draw Lynch into his extortion scheme proved futile, Cohen and Kory – according to Lynch – turned to far more aggressive means to obtain her cooperation.  Indeed, as heard by other witnesses, Cohen and Kory vowed to “crush her,” and planned to use restraining orders and other means to prevent her from serving as a credible witness regarding both Cohen's affairs and in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without success to draw her.

Consistent with that vow and plan, and according to Lynch and other witnesses, and on information and belief, Cohen and Kory's tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage Lynch have included, inter alia, the following:

a. contacting City National Bank, where Lynch, Lynch’s son .., all had personal banking accounts, and convincing City National Bank to put a freeze on … their accounts;

b. alleging that Lynch's father and mother were depositing funds for Lynch in secret offshore bank accounts … ;

c. threatening Lynch that she would go to jail if she did not cooperate, and having her younger son's father, Steve Lindsay, who was also Cohen’s record producer, repeat these threats in the child's presence;

d. threatening to “go to child services,” encouraging Steve Lindsay to file legal action to remove Lynch’s younger (and his) son from her custody, and submitting affidavits (from Kory and Superfon) supporting that effort;

e. in a coordinated fashion with Lindsay’s child custody petition, encouraging or directing Steve Lindsay to call in a warning to the LAPD (not related to Traditional Holdings, but on some other, unknown pretext) that caused a police team to descend, guns drawn, on Lynch's home, resulting in her being handcuffed and taken involuntarily, in her bathing suit, to a hospital psychiatric ward and medicated without her consent, before being released the next day, during which time Kory attempted to persuade Lynch’s older son, Rutger, to sell Lynch’s house and provide $3 million; and

f. paying two paroled convicts to make [false] statements [about Lynch’s older son].

These and other tactics brought Lynch to the point of … financial ruin.

Cohen’s scheme to force Plaintiffs into a contrived mediation without discovery or publicity might have succeeded, had not Lynch refused to cooperate. Instead, she made the unilateral decision to provide to Plaintiffs' legal counsel a variety of documents and other information that they might not have otherwise seen … See, e.g., Facsimile Message from K. Lynch to S. Posel (March 17, 2005) (Exh. 11 attached).

Fortunately, Lynch [permitted Boies Schiller to review] not only historical files, but also the details of Cohen and Kory's illicit offers made to her through attorney DiMascio, through accountant Dale Burgess, and through other intermediaries, and shared every detail of Cohen and Kory's attempts to negotiate with or threaten her in order to obtain … testimony ...

Cohen and Kory continued to heighten their efforts to bribe or coerce Lynch into giving … testimony … without knowing that Lynch had already exposed their scheme …

Cohen and Kory alleged that Plaintiffs “proposed the sale of Cohen's ‘illiquid assets,’ including Cohen's various royalty interests,” and contended that “Cohen was convinced by [Greenberg] of the financial necessity to sell off his royalty interests during his lifetime . . . .”

Cohen and Kory alleged that Plaintiffs were liable for “actual damages of at least $8 million,” which was an amount even greater than the total proceeds of the Second Sony Sale. In fact, Cohen and Kory made this allegation with full knowledge that Cohen had already received at least $1 million in advance of the Sale closing, that the gross proceeds had been reduced by specific costs and charges, that were well over $1 million had been paid out to third parties to cover closing costs from the Sale, and that Cohen had received at least $2 million of the remainder into his own personal bank account.

Cohen reviewed the Traditional Holdings governing documents (detailing that arrangement), that he repeatedly received and understood both oral and written explanations of this very fact, and that [Lynch was not] behind the formation or structure of Traditional Holdings.

Thereafter, on June 3, 2005, Plaintiffs provided Kory, as promised, a draft complaint … with extensive documentary support … The draft complaint also revealed to Cohen and Kory, for the first time, that Lynch and others had already exposed the extortion scheme. In particular, the draft complaint demonstrated that Plaintiffs were aware of Cohen’s scheme to use economic compensation, emotional intimidation, and other forms of undue pressure to coerce Lynch to provide … testimony …

At all relevant time periods stated herein, Kory acted, at a minimum, as an agent, attorney, joint venturer, and/or co-conspirator of Cohen …

Cohen and Kory knew that the false, disparaging, and defamatory press release was not made in furtherance of any lawful objective or within the scope of the litigation commenced by Plaintiffs, and that the intended recipients were not involved in or closely connected with the litigation.

As a result of Cohen and Kory’s improper and unlawful conduct, the false, disparaging and defamatory press release was immediately published on, inter alia, the following interactive and other websites:

(a) www.leonardcohen.com (the official Leonard Cohen website, which has a link to the chat room for the Leonard Cohen files, where the statement was published);

(b) http://www.cmumusicnetwork.co.uk/daily/050616.html (states that “Kory told CMU” and then quotes the Cohen and Kory press release);

http://xrrf.blogspot.com/2005/06 leonard-cohen-mr.-big.html (referencing the quoted statement as “released by Leonard Cohen’s lawyer” and referring to it as the “Attorney Robert Kory Statement”);

(d) http://blogs.theage.com.au/malcontent/archives/2005/06/leonard_cohen_s.html (also referencing the quoted statement as “released by Leonard Cohen’s lawyer” and referring to it as the “Attorney Robert Kory Statement”; also later reported by MalContent to have been “emailed by
an industry rep to MalContent”); and

Leonard Cohen sued by investment company, alleging civil conspiracy, extortion
June 2005
Musician and legend Leonard Cohen is being sued by a Colorado investment company Agile Group, which alleges Cohen and another person threatened to irreparably damage Agile's reputation in order to extort millions of dollars from Agile and its insurer. The case is related to claim by Cohen that Agile bears responsibility for the alleged misappropriation of Cohen's invested funds by Cohen's former manager. Read it here.
Don's ask me why, but Cohen's classic, Everbody Knows comes to mind.
A statement released by Leonard Cohen's lawyer points to the truth of this sad state of affairs:
"The suit filed by the Agile Group Monday, June 6, 2005 is completely 
consistent with Agile's reckless disregard for its client and his
We had hoped to reach an out-of-court settlement with Agile that 
returned to Mr. Cohen some portion of the retirement money the firm was
authorized to administer on his behalf. Instead, in the middle of
negotiations to determine Agile's responsibilities to Mr. Cohen to
compensate him for money lost under their management, Agile launched a
surprise attack in an effort to besmirch the reputation of one of its
notable clients.
Agile repeatedly failed to alert Mr. Cohen to true account balances 
while allowing improper and unauthorized withdrawals by Cohen's former
business manager. In doing so Agile failed to protect Mr. Cohen's
interests and retirement savings and knowingly misled him by providing
inaccurate financial reports.
We will of course file a counter suit that lays out in detail how Agile 
acted in a reckless way that violated the firm's fiduciary
responsibilities towards Cohen and consequently resulted in the loss of
Mr. Cohen's retirement savings."
·         Posted by: Adrian du Plessis at June 14, 2005 08:07 PM

 (e) http://bcbr.datajoe.com/app/ecom/pub_print_article.php?id=58402 (the website for the Boulder County Business Report, published in Colorado, which references Kory’s posting of the statement on Cohen’s website, and re-publishes the statement).

181. In addition, Cohen made false, disparaging, and defamatory statements and republished
false, disparaging and defamatory e-mails to a reporter for an industry publication known as MacLeans, knowing that the statements would be immediately published by MacLeans to the general public via the internet and other print publications. The MacLeans article, published via the internet on August 17, 2005.  SEE ATTACHED.  [Excerpt:  Cohen wrote (Greenberg) in November 2004 … “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.”]

The wrongful conduct described herein was attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, willful and wanton behavior, and bad faith.

Consistent with their prior threats, Cohen and Kory have knowingly published or caused to be published false information concerning [Lynch and possibly others] in the public domain …

The false, disparaging, and defamatory press release and other statements are not protected by any statutory or common law privilege because the statements were not made in furtherance of any objective of litigation, either lawful or otherwise, and because the intended and actual recipients of the statements were not involved in or closely connected with the litigation.

The … statements, and other defamatory statements, were communicated to and understood by third parties to be defamatory, and have harmed [Lynch and possibly others] reputation in the community.

Cohen and other co-conspirators not currently named as Defendants herein (including Robert Kory, Steve Lindsay and Betsy Superfon) committed one or more unlawful acts in furtherance of these common goals and objectives.

The unlawful goals and objectives of the conspiracy included inter alia the following:  (a) The extortion and/or attempted extortion of money or property from Plaintiffs and their insurers [and others, including Lynch] in Colorado [and elsewhere] to recover alleged losses sustained by Cohen as the result of his own exorbitant spending habits, his own neglect and mismanagement of his financial, legal and personal affairs … The making of substantial threats, that were reasonably likely to induce [Lynch and possibly others] that the threats would be carried out, and would cause
significant economic hardship or damage to the reputation [of Lynch and possibly others] with the intent to induce [certain parties] to perform acts against their will; The offering of benefits [to properly compensate Lynch with respect to her ownership interest in numerous corporate entities; for services rendered; and so forth] to a witness and/or members of the witness’ family with the intent to influence the witness to testify falsely or unlawfully withhold truthful testimony; The use of threats, acts of harassment, or acts of harm or injury to persons [including Kelley Lynch] or property, directed to or committed upon a witness and/or members of the witness’ family to intentionally attempt and/or actually influence the witness to testify falsely or unlawfully withhold truthful testimony;  The intentional attempt to induce a witness to testify falsely or unlawfully
withhold truthful testimony; The generation and dissemination of a false, disparaging and defamatory press release and other similar statements to third persons with the knowledge, intent, and directive that such statements be disseminated by media publication and the internet throughout [the world].

Cohen’s conduct described herein was attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, and willful and wanton behavior.

Cohen and the other co-conspirators not currently named as Defendants herein (including Robert Kory, Steve Lindsay and Betsy Superfon) knowingly conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a “pattern of racketeering activity” … The acts of racketeering activity which Cohen and the unnamed co-conspirators, and the enterprise committed, attempted to commit, conspired to commit, solicited, coerced or intimidated others to commit included, inter alia: (a) Mail fraud;  (b) Wire fraud; (c) Interference with commerce by threats; (d) Criminal extortion; (e) Bribing a witness; (f) Intimidating a witness;  (g) Tampering with a witness.  [The witness is Kelley Lynch]

The predicate acts described herein formed a pattern of racketeering activity, were related to the conduct of the enterprise, and were related to each other as part of the common plan …

Cohen and his agents and attorneys have engaged, and are continuing to engage, in a continuous and relentless pattern of malicious and unwarranted conduct, as described more fully herein [and in Lynch’s legal documents in various related matters and elsewhere].

Judge Babcock’s December 5, 2005 order dismissing Robert Kory from this case [due to lack of personal jurisdiction] contains the following statements.  The tactics and purported thuggery Judge Babcock refers to are ongoing and ineffective:  They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.”

Only the above allegations or statements in Neal Greenberg’s Amended Complaint are factual. 

(D. Colo. Dec 05, 2005)
Decided December 5, 2005
GREENBERG ASSOCIATES. INC., d/b/a Agile Advisors, Inc. a Delaware corporation, TACTICAL ALLOCATION SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Agile Allocation Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, AGILE GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, GREENBERG ASSOCIATES SECURITIES, INC., d/b/a Agile Group, a Delaware corporation, and NEAL R. GREENBERG, a Colorado resident, Plaintiffs, v. LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California, ROBERT KORY, a United States citizen residing in California, KELLEY LYNCH, a United States citizen residing in California, and JOHN DOE, Numbers 1-25, Defendants.
Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB-MJW.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
December 5, 2005

The defendant Robert Kory moves for dismissal of all claims against him on the alternate grounds that I have no personal jurisdiction over him, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against him, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The motion is adequately briefed and oral arguments would not materially aid its resolution. For the reasons stated below, I find and conclude that I have no personal jurisdiction over Mr. Kory and I GRANT the motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).

Because Mr. Kory has contested the Court's jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have "the burden of proving jurisdiction exists." Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995). *22 "Where, as in the present case, there has been no evidentiary hearing, and the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits and other written material, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists." Id.

In resolving factual questions:

The allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits. If the parties present conflicting affidavits, all factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor, and the plaintiff's prima facie showing is sufficient notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving party. However, only the well-pled facts of plaintiff's complaint, as distinguished from mere conclusory allegations, must be accepted as true.
Id. (citations omitted).

I. Allegations The allegations of the Amended Complaint are substantially the following. In 1997, the defendant Leonard Cohen, a resident of California, retained the plaintiffs, directed by the plaintiff Neal Greenberg and headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, to create for him charitable trusts and to manage the assets placed into those trusts. (Throughout the Amended Complaint and their briefs, the plaintiffs refer to themselves individually and in the aggregate as "Greenberg." They do not reveal the nature of their relationships to each other. I have attempted to be as precise as the pleadings and the record will allow.) Mr. Cohen allegedly drew extravagant sums from the trusts, depleting the principal amounts and impeding the plaintiffs' efforts successfully to invest the funds in profitable ventures. The defendant Kelley Lynch, Mr. Cohen's manager, oversaw and had power of attorney over, all of Mr. Cohen's financial dealings. Mr. Greenberg allegedly repeatedly warned Ms. Lynch and Mr. Cohen that Mr. Cohen was spending too much and that, absent a change of habit, he would become destitute. *33 In October, 2004, Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch allegedly parted ways and began to issue competing directives to the plaintiffs. They each blamed the other for Mr. Cohen's financial distress. Mr. Cohen claimed that Ms. Lynch had deprived him of substantial sums of money. Thereafter, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory, Mr. Cohen's personal attorney and a California resident, allegedly conspired to extort the lost sums from the plaintiffs by tarnishing the plaintiffs' reputation, asserting spurious claims, and coercing a settlement from the plaintiffs' insurance carrier. This they intended to accomplish by using Mr. Cohen's fame as a prominent recording artist to publish defamatory statements about the plaintiffs to the press. They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.

Mr. Kory sent an allegedly defamatory demand letter to Mr. Greenberg's attorney, wrongly accusing the plaintiffs of fraud and various breaches of fiduciary duty. After the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Messrs. Cohen and Kory allegedly published defamatory statements on Mr. Cohen's web site, blaming the plaintiffs for the lost monies, asserting that the plaintiffs had wrongfully permitted Ms. Lynch to withdraw unauthorized sums, and asserting that the plaintiffs had provided Mr. Cohen with fraudulent accounting records. Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch now dispute entitlement to the funds remaining in the trusts. Each seeks immediate acquisition of the funds.
Mr. Kory allegedly submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by his purposeful and repeated written and telephonic communications with the plaintiffs and his direction of Mr. Greenberg's activities, performed in Colorado. Additionally, Mr. Kory allegedly reserved a *44 conference room at the Denver International Airport and scheduled a meeting, which he, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Greenberg's counsel were to attend. Messrs. Kory and Cohen allegedly failed to appear for the meeting, which Mr. Greenberg attended.
II. The record
A. Kory affidavit

Mr. Kory has provided two affidavits replete with refutations of the plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations. He is licensed to practice law in California, where he resides and has his law practice. He last traveled to Colorado in 1985 or 1986 for a ski vacation. He has no business or property interests in Colorado.
In the fall of 2004, Mr. Cohen retained Mr. Kory to investigate suspected losses from an entity denominated Traditional Holdings, LLC ("Traditional"), which the plaintiff, Tactical Allocation Services, LLC ("Tactical") managed for Mr. Cohen under Mr. Greenberg's direction. In the ensuing weeks, Mr. Kory contacted Tactical's Boulder, Colorado office on two or three occasions. Tactical responded by sending information about Mr. Cohen's accounts to Mr. Kory in California. Thereafter, Mr. Kory communicated predominantly with Tactical's legal counsel, Sherab Posel, whom Mr. Kory believed to be resident in New York. Though he engaged in at least one email exchange with representatives of Tactical located in Boulder, Mr. Kory communicated Mr. Cohen's asserted legal claims against Tactical and related requests for information to Mr. Posel, who responded on letterhead imprinted with New York addresses.

In April, 2005, Mr. Kory and Mr. Posel scheduled a mediation for June 5, 2005, which was to occur in Colorado. Mr. Kory reserved a conference room at a hotel near the Denver airport in anticipation of that meeting. After Mr. Posel disputed the veracity of Mr. Cohen's *55 claims and threatened litigation, Mr. Kory cancelled the room reservation in Colorado and remained in California.
B. Barnett affidavit

Timothy Barnett, Tactical's Vice President who works in Boulder, has produced correspondence — emails and letters — between Mr. Kory and representatives of the plaintiffs in Colorado and New York. Numerous emails and letters between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett throughout the period beginning in November, 2004 and ending in June, 2005 addressed Mr. Kory's requests for information about the accounts that Tactical managed for Mr. Cohen and Tactical's efforts to comply with those requests. Contrary to Mr. Kory's assertion, these communications number in the dozens. Many of the communications indicate that copies were sent to Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Posel, among others. Emails exchanged on December 15 and 16, 2004 detailed plans for a conference call involving Messrs. Kory, Barnett, and Posel. The three set up another conference call in March, 2005. Other emails reference telephone calls between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett and calls and conversations between Mr. Kory and Mr. Posel.

In an April 10, 2005, twenty-seven page demand letter to Mr. Posel, Mr. Kory asserted claims against "the Agile Group, Neal Greenberg and his partners" on Mr. Cohen's behalf. Mr. Kory made repeated references to the "several telephone conversations and e-mails regarding" the claims that he and Mr. Posel had previously exchanged. He invited a further response from Mr. Posel. Thereafter, Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett exchanged emails only discussing the scheduling of a mediation meeting for June 5, 2005. Mr. Posel and Mr. Kory continued to communicate in writing about Mr. Cohen's allegations. On June 4, 2005, Mr. Kory wrote to Mr. Posel by email cancelling the mediation, but making no reference to the lawsuit that the plaintiffs had purportedly *66threatened. In a June 9, 2005 email, Mr. Kory expressed surprise at the contents of a draft complaint that Mr. Posel had sent him the day before.

By letter on June 2, 2005, Mr. Kory sent to Mr. Barnett two checks for deposit in Mr. Cohen's accounts. On June 7, Mr. Barnett responded in writing, noting that Mr. Cohen had terminated his relationship with the plaintiffs.
III. Discussion
"To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action, a plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne,46 F.3d 1071, 1074 (10th Cir. 1995). Because, as set forth below, I conclude that the Colorado long-arm statute does not reach Mr. Kory, I need not consider the constitutional question. The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kory has submitted to jurisdiction in Colorado by the "commission of a tortious act within this state." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-124(1)(b). Colorado courts have held that the tort provision of the long-arm statute may be satisfied either 1) when tortious conduct occurs in Colorado, or 2) when tortious conduct initiated in another state causes injury in Colorado. Wenz, 55 F.3d at 1507; Classic Auto Sales, Inc. v. Schocket, 832 P.2d 233, 235-236 (Colo. 1992).

The plaintiffs first argue that Mr. Kory committed tortious conduct in Colorado. Directing into Colorado communications by which a tort is committed constitutes conduct sufficient to satisfy the statute if the tort is completed by the plaintiff's receipt in Colorado of the communications. Id. at 236; Broadview Financial, Inc. v. Entech Management Services Corp., *77859 F. Supp. 444, 448 (D. Colo. 1994). However, merely communicating with a person resident in Colorado is, in itself, insufficient to bring a defendant within the reach of the Colorado statute. Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Lukoil, ___ P.3d ___, 2005 WL 3097588 (Colo. 2005).
Mr. Kory's several communications with Mr. Barnett concerned Mr. Kory's attempts to elicit information from Mr. Barnett that would prove useful to Mr. Cohen. Though the plaintiffs feel that Mr. Kory solicited their cooperation in bad faith — Mr. Kory used much of the information the plaintiffs provided to construct claims against them, even as he repeatedly commended them for their diligence — the gravamen of their claims against Mr. Kory is that he conspired to defame them and to extort money from them by asserting frivolous claims. Mr. Kory directed to Mr. Posel in New York, and not to Mr. Barnett in Colorado, the communications by which he allegedly accomplished those torts. The plaintiffs have not argued — nor does it appear from the record — that the exchange of information and documents between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett was tortious. Nor could the plaintiffs premise liability on Mr. Kory's later-reneged reservation of a conference room in Colorado. I am left to determine whether the plaintiffs have suffered an injury in Colorado as a result of Mr. Kory's allegedly tortious acts. Wenz,55 F.3d at 1507. Tortious-activity jurisdiction obtains under the statute when "the injury itself" occurs in Colorado. McAvoy v. District Court, 757 P.2d 633, 635 (Colo. 1988).

Further, the injury in the forum state must be direct, not consequential or remote, and loss of profits in the state of plaintiff's domicile is insufficient to sustain long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Hence, when both the tortious conduct and the injury occur in another state, the fact that plaintiff resides in Colorado and experiences some economic consequences here is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Colorado court.  Amax Potash Corp. v. Trans-Resources, Inc., 817 P.2d 598, 600 (Colo.Ct.App. 1991) (citations *88 omitted).

The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kory directed the injurious consequences of his wrongful activity toward Colorado because they, who have an office here, were the intended recipients of the harm. They cite D D Fuller CATV Const., Inc. v. Pace,780 P.2d 520(Colo. 1989) for the proposition that Mr. Kory could, therefore, have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Colorado. However, they have not addressed the prior question where the injury occurred. Nothing in the record, Mr. Barnett's correspondence from Colorado included, appears to demonstrate that the plaintiffs suffered an injury in Colorado. Indeed, the only business the plaintiffs are alleged to have lost was transacted with Mr. Cohen, who resides in California. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that

1) Robert Kory's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(2) [13] is GRANTED; and
2) the plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Kory are dismissed.