Saturday, February 28, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To FBI Re: Potential Quid Pro Quo - Leonard Cohen Testimony About Phil Spector During Her 2012 Show Trial

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Leonard Cohen, IRS, 2012 Trial, & Phil Spector
To: Dennis <>, "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, sedelman <>, JFeuer <>, Feedback <>


Still unclear about a potential quid pro quo.  The City Attorney refused to provide me with the required Brady material.  I think it's fairly obvious though.

I've revised this somewhat.

All the best,

During my 2012 trial, where the default judgment was used against me, the prosecutor began eliciting testimony about Phil Spector.  The IRS, Phil Spector, and the default judgment were the key issues throughout this trial.  The prosecutor argued that the default judgment is essentially evidence of “theft using a default judgment entered against me when the Court lacked jurisdiction to do so.  Her closing argument included utterly inane comments about my having “sticky fingers” and not having an “exit strategy.”  The two primary things I didn’t have was an excellent attorney and money.  The fact that I have not been represented throughout this matter, and others, is highly relevant and material as well.  The Complaint and default judgment have been used to prosecute me, destroy my reputation, filed and amend federal tax returns, obtain fraudulent IRS and FTB tax refunds, defend Cohen to the head of tax fraud at IRS in Los Angeles, and is now being used to prevent me from requesting/receiving IRS required tax and corporate information for 2004 and 2005 and thereafter. 

Cohen’s testimony about Phil Spector throughout this 2012 trial shows a pattern that tends to prove he is a chronic liar who may have received some form of quid pro quo from the former District Attorney, Steve Cooley, who elected not to prosecute Cohen after I filed a Complaint with his Major Fraud Unit which was evidently headed by Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson.  The prosecutor advised the jurors that I fought with the DA over this issue.  I’ve spoken to Steve Cooley.  I was extremely upset that the DA’s office refused to investigate and/or prosecute the individuals whose criminal negligence led to my son’s horrify accident at Whole Foods.  I think any parent would be and this was a very serious public safety issue.

Although I have no idea why Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, Phil Spector, and Dennis Riordan, and IRS were constant themes throughout my 2012 trial, the IRS remains a constant theme in the instant matter.  Cohen has advised this Court that the prejudice to him, should the motion be vacated, is the fact that he filed his 2005 tax return and amended his 2004 and 2003 tax returns using the Complaint.  The evidence in the “IRS binder” proves that he did not use the actual default judgment to file his returns, or obtain substantial refunds from IRS, but rather rushed to the IRS with the Complaint.  That’s the primary motive behind this fabricated narrative.

Leonard Cohen testified that he has had no contact with Phil Spector since they worked on the joint album project.  However, in a BBC radio interview, from 1994, he alleges that he and Spector had recently spoken and goes onto say that Spector’s no longer “mad” at him.  Cohen also testified that I accused him of perjuring himself in the Spector Grand Jury.  According to the prosecutor, this was evidently annoying to Cohen.  I have been very clear that Mick Brown, UK Telegraph, advised me that he reviewed the Phil Spector Grand Jury testimony and Cohen’s testimony/statements were presented.  I have spoken with the legal adviser to the Grand Jury who could not advise me what witness presented this testimony or statements.  She advised me to contact Phil Spector’s appellate attorney about the numerous versions of the Leonard Cohen good rock ‘n roll story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court.  Cohen was under oath during my trial when he testified that Spector held a gun to his head and it was an automatic. 

During the trial, the prosecutor (who had DA Steve Cooley’s investigator in the courtroom) elicited testimony about Phil Spector and a gun.  This was confirmed, as well, during the March 23, 2012 bail hearing when Judge Mayerson asked who was in the courtroom.  At that time, I decided to contact Phil Spector through his trial attorney, Bruce Cutler.  This led the prosecutor to consult a “domestic violence” counselor who decided I should be committed to a mental hospital and drugged.  Streeter felt my letters to Cutler were too chatty.  I ultimately did write Phil Spector directly and he personally responded.  After all, Phil Spector has as much right to confront his accuser as I do.

As of April 5, 2012, according to the evidence the prosecutor provided my lawyers during my high profile trial, the prosecutor was in possession of an email from Leonard Cohen regarding Phil Spector, his Grand Jury, and the alleged Spector gun incident.  The prosecutor elicited testimony from Cohen about an April 18, 2011 email I sent Dennis Riordan, Phil Spector’s appellate attorney.  In that email, I confirmed for Mr. Riordan that Cohen told me for 20 years that Spector never held a gun on him.  The prosecutor asked Cohen to review the email and confirm that he was one of the recipient’s.  He confirmed that he was and then read the portion the prosecutor found relevant:  my comments to Dennis Riordan. 

During cross-examination, my lawyers focused on Cohen’s mental state and asked him if he was afraid of Phil Spector when he allegedly held a gun to Cohen’s head.  Cohen testified that he was not.  He was evidently afraid of my emails that LAPD’s report confirms were generally requests for “tax information.”  His testimony about a gun contradicts the version the DA used in motions filed with the Court in the Phil Spector matter. 

Also during cross-examination, Leonard Cohen confirmed that he was actually not a recipient of the April 18, 2011 email.  This email is highly material and relevant.  The reason for this is due to the fact that 1) the prosecutor concealed the elements of the email addressed to Internal Revenue Service and Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, by saying she misspoke when she noted that she misspoke and the time was actually 8.11 AM and concealed the relevant 5.44 AM portions of the email; 2) Cohen’s testimony about the gun and Spector contradicts the version he provided the prosecutor at the beginning of my trial (as well as the version the DA used in the Spector case); and, 3) it proves that Cohen continually lies under oath.  He was not copied in on the April 18, 2011 email and he confirmed that he reviewed it and he was.  Exhibit __:  Transcript – Spector testimony; Cohen’s email to Streeter and hers to him re. Spector; Mick Brown emails re. Cohen’s statements/testimony before Grand Jury; DA’s motion in Spector matter that includes a contradictory Cohen gun story; April 18, 2011 email.

There is – the evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was upset and Mr. Cohen and fought with the District Attorney’s office, the LA County District Attorney’s office didn’t file charges against Mr. Cohen.  RT 40