Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Kelley Lynch Motion to Vacate Leonard Cohen's Fraudulent Domestic Violence Order - Filed 07.28.15

Kelley Lynch
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California  90028
Telephone:  323.331.4250

In Propria Persona


LEONARD COHEN, an individual,                          Case No.  BQ037717 (Domestic Violence)
                                                                                    NOTICE OF MOTION;
Plaintiff                                   MOTION TO SET ASIDE DOMESTIC
vs.                                                        VIOLENCE ORDER; MEMORANDUM;
KELLEY LYNCH, an individual                               Hearing Date:  September 1, 2015
                                                                                    Time:  8.30 AM 
                                    Defendant                               Civil Petition filed:  May 25, 2011 


NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 1, 2015 at 8.30 AM, in Department 7 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, 111 North Hill Streeter, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, Defendant Kelley Lynch will, and hereby does, move to vacate and set aside the domestic violence order entered against her on May 25, 2011.
The motion will be made on the grounds that the Colorado foreign order was invalidly registered in California using domestic violence form DV-600 and, due to the lack of findings related to domestic violence in both the original Colorado and with respect to LA Superior Court Case No. BQ037717, and the failure to notify Lynch of the newly created domestic violence order, the May 25, 2011 order is void.
The Motion is based on the this Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Points & Authorities served and filed herewith, accompany declarations and exhibits attached, the Court records and files,
and upon such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.

Dated: 27 July 2015                                        Respectfully submitted,


                                                                        Kelley Lynch, in Propria Persona


For the past 10 years, Leonard Cohen has used the restraining order process as a litigation tactic and to discredit Defendant Kelley Lynch.  Kelley Lynch worked as Leonard Cohen’s personal manager for approximately 17 years.  At no time were they involved in an intimate “dating” or “engagement” relationship. 
On or about July 25, 2004, April 15, 2005, and thereafter, Kelley Lynch reported allegations related to Leonard Cohen’s potential criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities. 
On October 14, 2005, after failing to serve Lynch the summons & complaint (Case No. BC338322), Leonard Cohen filed a Complaint in Case No. BS099650.  This was the first restraining order Leonard Cohen obtained against Kelley Lynch.  Cohen and his representatives steadfastly refused to communicate with Lynch, who has been representing herself since 2005, and used this as an opportunity to claim they were harassed.
On November 3, 2005, Los Angeles Superior Court granted a civil non-domestic restraining order against Lynch.  Lynch was not present for the hearing and is unaware of the allegations and/or Court’s findings in that matter.  During Lynch’s 2012 trial, for violating the restraining order and intending to annoy Leonard Cohen, Cohen testified that his 2005 declaration (used to support the initial restraining order) about the custody matter of her younger son; a May 25, 2005 SWAT incident; and, the fact that Lynch was taken to King Drew following that incident.  Exhibits A, B, and C:  Declarations of Kelley Lynch, John Rutger Penick, and Paulette Brandt attached hereto and made a part hereof.
On September 2, 2008, Leonard Cohen obtained a Boulder, Colorado non-domestic violence civil harassment order (Boulder Court Case No. C0072008C 00076) against Lynch.  Exhibit D:  Boulder Combined Court Verified Motion, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
On August 19, 2008, in the midst of his European tour, Cohen made a desperate flight into Boulder, Colorado, a jurisdiction where he had not even minimal contacts, to attend an ex parte hearing in support of his Verified Motion.  Notably, Cohen did not apply for the order based upon domestic abuse [13-14-101(2) C.R.S.].  In his application, Plaintiff falsely advised the Boulder Combined Court as follows:  “The threat of violence, stalking, slander, and harassment has been ongoing since approximately April 2005, subsequent to Ms. Lynch being terminated from her job for cause.  Additionally, there is an outstanding judgment against Ms. Lynch of approximately $7.3 million as a result of the lawsuit [Case No. BC338322] filed against her in the State of California by Mr. Cohen.”  Some of the events leading up to the Boulder, Colorado restraining order are addressed in the Declaration of Ann Julia MacLean.  Exhibit E:  Declaration of Ann Julia MacLean, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
On May 25, 2011, Leonard Cohen, through his attorney Michelle Rice, registered the foreign Colorado order with LA Superior Court using form DV-600.  This wrongfully modified and transformed the Colorado order into a domestic violence order.  Exhibit F:  California Registration of Colorado Order, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Defendant contends that the California domestic violence order is void as the Court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction. 

            Lynch’s motion to set aside the domestic violence order is brought on the grounds that Leonard Cohen does not qualify as a protected party according to the California Domestic Violence Protection Act; the foreign Colorado order was not a domestic violence order; Lynch and Cohen were not in a statutory required “dating” or “engagement” relationship; there were no findings whatsoever at the Colorado hearing including and specifically with respect to domestic violence; the order does not meet the requirements of VAWA (in that a foreign civil harassment order, not based on a finding of domestic violence or abuse, cannot be registered in a sister state as a domestic violence order); and, Lynch was not notified and did not have an opportunity to be heard or respond to the newly created California domestic violence order. 
Under the California Domestic Violence Protection Act, a court may issue an order “with or without notice, to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of domestic violence and ensuring a period of separation of the persons involved, if an affidavit or, if necessary, an affidavit and any additional information . . . shows, to the satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” (§ 6300.)  If a TRO is issued under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) without notice to the responding party, the applicant must serve the order to show cause and supporting papers at least five days before the hearing. (Fam. Code, §§ 240, subd. (c) & 243, subd. (b).) If the applicant fails to comply with the service requirements, the TRO must be dissolved. (Fam. Code, § 243, subd. (d).)   No proof of service dated May 25, 2011 is attached to the registration of the Colorado order in California. 
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."  Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).  See also Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996) (res judicata may not apply where taxpayer who challenged a county's occupation tax was not informed of prior case and where taxpayer interests were not adequately protected).
California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) provides: “The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”  A judgment is void if the court rendering it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the parties. Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the inherent authority of the court involved to deal with the case or matter before it.  Lack of jurisdiction in this fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.  In a broader sense, lack of jurisdiction also exists when a court grants relief which the Court has no power to grant.  Where, for instance, the court has no power to act except in a particular manner, or to give certain kinds of relief, or to act without the occurrence of certain procedural prerequisites, the court acts without jurisdiction in this broader sense. Carlson v. Eassa (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 684, 691 [62 Cal.Rptr.29 884.] 
Courts generally refer to jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in any action as “fundamental jurisdiction,” and where this is lacking there is an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case.  Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 538 [66 Cal.Rptr.3d 175].  Under such circumstances, “an ensuing judgment is void, and ‘thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.’”  People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660 [16 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 93 P.3d 1020].
Additionally, “a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction of the person where there is no proper service of process on or appearance by a party to the proceedings.”  David B. v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 586].) Knowledge by a defendant of an action will not satisfy the requirement of adequate service of a summons and complaint.  Waller v. Weston (1899) 125 Cal. 201 [57 P. 892]; Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1152-1153 [20 Cal.Rptr.3d 603].)  Because a “total absence of notice in any form cannot comport with the requirements of due process,” (In re B. G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 689 [114 Cal.Rptr. 444, 523 P.2d 244]), it has been said that a judgment of a court lacking such personal jurisdiction is a violation of due process, (Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., Marin County (1990) 495 U.S. 604, 609 [109 L.Ed.2d 631, 110 S.Ct. 2105]), and that “a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute [to establish personal jurisdiction] is void.”  Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 746].
A judgment or order may be set aside pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), but the motion must be made within six months after entry of the default. After the time for requesting statutory relief under section 473 has passed, as in the present case, the court may set aside the judgment on equitable grounds.  Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981 [35 Cal.Rptr.2d 669, 884 P.2d 126].  A judgment that is void on its face may be set aside at any time.  Nagel v. P & M Distributors, Inc. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 176, 179-180 [78 Cal.Rptr. 65].)  See also Madison, Iyer & York v. Black, 176 Cal.App.4th 36 (2009).
“The court ... may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (§ 473, subd. (d).)  “A judgment void on its face may be set aside on motion without any time limitation.”  Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1, 19 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 715]. 
If a party did not have actual or constructive notice of the lawsuit then the judgment or order is void.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a void judgment must be set aside regardless of the merits of the underlying lawsuit.  “Where a person has been deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process, it is no answer to say that in his particular case due process of law would have led to the same result because he had no adequate defense upon the merits.” Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 US 80, 86–87, 108 S.Ct. 896, 900.  “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections.”  Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950). Failure to give notice violates “the most rudimentary demands of due process of law.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 550 (1965). See also 85*85 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 291 (1980); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 333 (1976); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100, 110 (1969); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 733 (1878).

California Family Code Section 6211 defines “domestic violence” as “abuse perpetrated against” a certain category of persons.  An alleged domestic violence victim is a “protected person” under the Domestic Violence Protection Act and thus entitled to the benefit of a DVPA order only if he or she fits one of the descriptions contained in California Family Code § 6211 providing that domestic violence is “abuse” perpetrated against specified classifications of persons.  The person seeking a DVPA remedy as a “protected person” must fall into one of the categories described in Ca Fam § 6211:  Spouse: A spouse or former spouse. [Ca Fam § 6211(a)]; Cohabitant: A cohabitant or former cohabitant--meaning a person who regularly resides (or formerly regularly resided) in the household. [Ca Fam § 6211(b);Ca Fam § 6209 (defining “cohabitant” under DVPA)]; Dating Or Engagement Relationship: A person with whom the respondent (alleged perpetrator) is having or had a “dating or engagement relationship.”  [Ca Fam § 6211(c)] As defined by the DVPA, a “dating relationship” means “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.”  [Ca Fam § 6210]; Co-parent: A person with whom the respondent (alleged perpetrator) has had a child . . . where, pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act, the male parent is the presumptive father of the child of the female parent. [Ca Fam § 6211(d)]; Child: A child of a party or a child who is the subject of a Uniform Parentage Act action, where the presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child to be protected. [Ca Fam § 6211(e)]; and/or, Blood Relatives: Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree. [Ca Fam § 6211(f)]
The Court may issue a domestic violence order only if the judicial officer finds that reasonable grounds have been asserted to believe there is an immediate and present danger of domestic violence, child abuse, child abduction, stalking (as defined in Ca Penal § 646.9), or elder or dependent adult abuse (as defined in Ca Wel & Inst § 15610.07); and an emergency protective order is necessary to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of domestic violence, child abuse, child abduction, stalking, or elder or dependent adult abuse. [Ca Fam § 6251(a) & (b); Ca Penal § 646.91(d)].  The orders must be personally served to be effective. 
The purpose of California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), is “to prevent the recurrence of acts of violence and sexual abuse and to provide for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable these persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence.”  California Family Code § 6220.  Leonard Cohen and Kelley Lynch were not in a statutory required “dating” or “engagement” relationship; there were no findings related to domestic violence; and, Lynch was not served the newly created domestic violence order or given an opportunity to be heard.
The constitutional command of full-faith-and-credit, as implemented by Congress, requires that “judicial proceedings ... shall have the same full-faith-and-credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such state . . . from which they are taken.”  Accordingly, it has been held that state courts must recognize and enforce the judicial proceedings of other states.  The Colorado order was not a domestic violence and therefore did not meet the full faith and credit requirements when registered in California as a domestic violence order.  In this case, the Boulder Combined Court granted a non-domestic violence civil harassment to Leonard Cohen on September 2, 2008.  On May 25, 2011, Leonard Cohen registered the foreign order with the Los Angeles Superior Court using domestic violence form DV-600.  A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is absolutely void since such a judgment is said to deny due process to the individual as there was no full litigation of the issues. 
The question of subject-matter jurisdiction is one that is always open to inquiry and provides an exception to the general concept of full faith and credit. Thompson v. Whitman (1873), 85 U.S. 457, 21 L.Ed. 897. If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to render judgment on an action, then that court’s proceedings are void ab initio and the Full Faith and Credit Clause would not apply.  Underwriters Nat. Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Guaranty Assn., 455 US. 691, 705,102 S. Ct. 1357, 71 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1982).
 A protection order without a finding of domestic violence is an order issued by a court without subject matter jurisdiction, and is therefore invalid.  Catherine F. Klein & Leslye E. Orloff, Providing Legal Protection for Battered Women: An Analysis of State Statutes and Case Law, 21 HOFSTRA L. REV. 801, 849-50 (1993). See also Broaca v. Broaca, 435 A.2d 1016, 1018 (Conn. 1980); People v. Wade, 506 N.E.2d 954, 956 (Ill. 1987); Robertson v. Commonwealth, 25 S.E.2d 352, 358 (Va. 1943); 46 AM. JUR. 2D Judgments § 24 (2005) (“When a suit is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, rulings on the merits rendered prior to the dismissal are nullities, void ab initio. . . . A judgment rendered without jurisdiction may be attacked and vacated at any time, either directly or collaterally.”).  See also Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 39 (holding that the trial court correctly dismissed the application under the DVPA for lack of jurisdiction.)
Protection orders issued without findings violate the Violence Against Women Act’s (VAWA) full faith and credit provisions and are unenforceable across state lines.  When a judge issues a protection order without a finding of domestic violence, the order is unenforceable because the court does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to issue the order.  Bryant v. Williams, 161 N.C. App. 444 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (vacating protection order where woman consented to order, but court had dismissed domestic violence complaint because no domestic violence found cannot approve even a consent order because order is to make domestic violence cease); El Nashaar v. El Nashaar, 529 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (granting husband writ of prohibition where civil protection order granted by lower court because no findings accompanied civil protection order, so no basis for civil protection order); Price v. Price, 133 N.C. App. 440 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) (reversing civil protection order because no evidence/findings of violence, only suspicion of husband); John P.W. ex rel. Adam W. v. Dawn D.O., 214 W. Va. 702, 707 (W. Va. 2003) (issuing civil protection order at father’s request without findings of domestic violence- reversed); Brandon v. Brandon, 132 N.C. App. 646 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) (reversing civil protection order because accompanied by unclear findings of fact); See also Capron v. Van Noorden, 6 U.S. 126, 126 (1804); 20 AM. JUR. 2D Courts § 99 (2005) (“jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be affected by agreement or consent”).
When there is no jurisdiction for a court to have issued a protection order, the order can be reversed.  Courts throughout this country have addressed this issue rather extensively.  In Andrasko v. Andrasko, 443 N.W.2d 228, 230 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that “the trial court erred by failing to make findings regarding domestic abuse” and reversed the civil protection order.  Similarly, the court in Bryant v. Williams stated that under North Carolina law “the court’s authority to enter a protective order or approve a consent agreement is dependent upon finding that an act of domestic violence occurred and that the order furthers the purpose of ceasing acts of domestic violence.” 588 S.E.2d 506, 508 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003); Ditlefsen v. Feyereisen, No. 86-1151, 1987 WL 267486 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 1987) (“without findings on the criteria set out in, there is no basis for determining subject matter jurisdiction”). Similarly, in Sandoval v. Mendez, 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (1994), the court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to enter a civil protection order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because a necessary statutory provision had not been met.
The evidence does not support a finding of domestic violence or an intimate dating or engagement relationship.  The domestic violence order is clearly erroneous and an egregious mistake has obviously been made. 


            The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution mandates that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”  U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 1.  Full faith and credit means that “the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.”  N. Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist., 685 N.E.2d at 685 (quoting Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. N. Carolina Life and Accident and Health Insurance Guar. Association, 455 U.S. 691, 704, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982).)
In making protection orders enforceable across state lines, Congress limited full faith and credit protections to orders that meet the following requirements: 1) a pleading has been filed; 2) the restrained party was provided notice and an opportunity for a hearing; and 3) the order was based upon findings that the restrained party had committed acts deemed domestic violence under the protection order statute of the state issuing the order.  Congress took this approach to assure that the restrained party had been provided due process before a protection order was issued and to deter the practice of courts issuing mutual protection orders restraining both the abuser and the victim.  When judges issue “no findings” protection orders, they are contrary to VAWA and unenforceable beyond the boundaries of the issuing state, and risk rendering the legal order ineffective.  U.S.C. §2265(a)-(b).
Domestic violence is defined in California’s Family Code section 6211 as abuse perpetrated against specified persons. Thus, the petitioner must plead and prove the requisite relationship as well as a past act or acts of abuse for the court to have authority to issue temporary or more long-term orders under the DVPA.  Leonard Cohen did not plead and/or prove the requisite relationship or past acts of abuse. 
Under VAWA’s full faith and credit provision, the “issuing” state is the state that determines, according to its laws, the parties eligible for protection, the length of time the order will be valid, and the issues covered.  The “enforcing” state is the foreign state that enforces the order. 
VAWA only applies to certain types of relationships between the petitioner and the person against whom the order is sought.  Plaintiff and Defendant’s relationship was not the type of relationship that would qualify for domestic violence protection under either the DVPA or VAWA.  The relationship was a professional business relationship dependent upon financial considerations. 
The California DVPA, Section 6210, defines “dating relationship” as “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.”  The DVPA authorizes the issuance of various orders to prevent the occurrence, or recurrence, of violence among defined classes of persons.  Among the classes of persons entitled to seek protective orders under the Act are persons in a “dating relationship.”  This definition differs from the Colorado statute.  It also differs from the VAWA relationship definition.
Colorado law [C.R.S. 18-6-800.3(2] defines an intimate relationship as:  “a relationship between spouses, former spouses, past or present unmarried couples, or persons who are both the parents of the same child regardless of whether the persons have been married or have lived together at any time.”
The trial court lacked authority to issue a domestic violence restraining order.  There was insufficient, or a complete lack of, evidence to show the parties had a statutory required dating relationship.  When no DVPA-defined relationship is established, the trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter.  O’Kane v. Irvine (1996) 47 Cal.App. 4th  207, 54 Cal.Rptr. 2d 549)  In Oriola v. Thaler, (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 397, the reviewing court found no dating relationship existed between the litigants.
At no time were Leonard Cohen and Kelley Lynch in any type of relationship as defined in accordance with VAWA, California’s DVPA, or Colorado’s domestic violence laws. 
On March 1, 2012, Lynch was arrested in Berkeley, California for willfully and knowingly violating the domestic violence order.  At the March 23, 2012 bail hearing, prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter informed the Court that the specific order Lynch violated related to Case No. BQ033717.  In her sentencing memorandum, the prosecutor argued:  “The victim would be described pursuant to Family Code 6211(c ) as someone “with whom the [defendant] is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship,” Penal Code Section 1203.097 is applicable for sentencing.” 
At the end of Lynch’s trial in April 2012, the judge issued protective orders under Penal Code Section 136.2.  An order issued under section 136.2, commonly called a “criminal protective order,” prohibits a defendant from intimidating or harming witnesses and victims for participating in criminal proceedings.  No such allegations with respect to intimidating or harming witnesses participating in this trial were raised during this trial.  Section 136.2, subdivision (a) states: “Upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, any court with jurisdiction over a criminal matter may issue orders including, but not limited to, the following:  Any order protecting victims of violent crime from all contact by the defendant, or contact, with the intent to annoy, harass, threaten, or commit acts of violence, by the defendant.”
Lynch contends the court erred because a protective order under Penal Code section 136.2 may not continue past the end of the criminal proceedings from which it sprang.  People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153 (Stone), and People v. Selga (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 113.  The order is operative only as a prejudgment order during pendency of a criminal proceeding. (Selga, at pp. 118-119.) Stone addressed this issue as follows:  “Although Penal Code Section 136.2 does not indicate on its face that the restraining orders it authorizes are limited to the pendency of the criminal action in which they are issued or to probation conditions, it is properly so construed.  It authorized injunctions only by courts with jurisdiction over criminal proceedings and it is aimed at protecting only “victims or witnesses,” an indication of its limited nature and focus on preserving the integrity of the administration of criminal court proceedings and protecting those participating in them.”  Protective orders were issued, during Lynch’s sentencing hearing, under Penal Code Section 136.2, to Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, and Bruce Cutler (who did not request such an order).  These protective orders would normally expire upon the termination of the criminal proceedings against Lynch.  Penal Code section 136.2 orders are only operative prejudgment, and a three-year order is not authorized by section 136.2 if the duration of the order extends beyond the imposition of sentence.  Section 136.2 is designed to protect witnesses and victims from being intimidated to give testimony. 
This type of postconviction protective order is only authorized in domestic violence cases pursuant to Penal Code section 136.2, subdivision (i)(1).  Section 136.2(i)(1) states:  “In all cases in which a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence as defined in Section 13700 . . . , the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim.”  Thus, Section 136.2(i)(1) authorizes a postconviction restraining order (1) when the crime qualifies as a “domestic violence” crime, and (2) the protected person qualifies as a “victim.”  The code defining “domestic violence” referenced in section 136.2(i)(1) states that domestic violence includes abuse committed against a person with whom the defendant has had a dating relationship. (§ 13700, subd. (b).)   Section 13700, subdivision (b) defines domestic violence as including “abuse committed against an adult . . . who is a . . . person with whom the suspect has had . . . a dating . . . relationship.”

Lynch’s constitutional rights were further violated when this order was registered in California as a domestic violence order.  California and federal law both prohibit people with domestic violence convictions from possessing guns.  If an individual is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, they are prohibited under California law from possessing a gun for ten years. Penal Code 29805 PC.  Under federal law, most domestic violence convictions trigger a lifetime firearms ban. See 18 United States Code 922(g) [federal firearms ban]. 
The original Colorado clearly states that:  “The Court finds that the defendant is not governed by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922(D)(8) and (g)(8).” 

Based upon the foregoing facts and authorities, Defendant Kelley Lynch respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion to set aside the improper registration of the Colorado foreign order and California domestic violence order.  The issuance of the California domestic violence order violated Lynch’s rights to due process, does not meet the requirements of VAWA, and should be set aside. 
Dated:  26 July 2015                                                   Respectfully submitted

                                                                                    Kelley Lynch, In Propria Persona

Motion Exhibit A:  Declaration of Kelley Lynch

[Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Domestic Violence Order]

I, KELLEY LYNCH, declare:
1.        I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California.  I am over the age of 18 years.  I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2.         I worked as Leonard Cohen’s personal manager, and in other capacities - although never as a business manager – from approximately April 1988 until October 21, 2004.  Leonard Cohen and I parted ways due to the fact that he heard I was reporting allegations that he committed tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.  On October 27, 2004, my lawyers sent a letter to Cohen’s personal tax and corporate lawyer, Richard Westin, asking him to explain my ownership interest in numerous entities and any liability I was exposed to.  Cohen and Westin had previously attempted to avoid my lawyers calls.  Richard Westin planned to travel to Los Angeles to meet with Cohen the last weekend of October 2004.  Prior to parting ways with Cohen, I refused to privately meet with him and Westin to unravel their handiwork with respect to these entities and certain business transactions that involved the sale of intellectual property.  Leonard Cohen came up with a novel defense.  He and his representatives falsely accused me of receiving overpayments for my fees as his personal manager although my ownership interest in numerous entities had nothing what to do with my compensation for services rendered as Cohen’s personal manager.
3.         For approximately 7 straight months, Cohen and his representatives attempted to force me to enter into a settlement agreement with Cohen.  As I was legally owed monies for my services and value of intellectual property assets, and felt Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, were attempting to force me to provide false testimony against Cohen’s representatives, I refused to enter into any type of negotiations.  It was my understanding that Cohen wanted me to mediate with him against his representatives.  I was advised that Cohen wanted me to testify that he was defrauded by his representatives which was not my experience of what had transpired.  I was, at times, offered 50% community property, the value of my 15% ownership interest in all Cohen related intellectual property, commissions due for services rendered, and other substantial offers.  I refused to entertain any type of deal that attempted to coerce me into testifying against Cohen’s representatives. 
4.         By May 2005, Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory understood that I had reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud (which was confirmed for me by my lawyers and account) to the State of Kentucky, Internal Revenue Service, and others.  I reported these allegations to Internal Revenue Service on July 25, 2004, April 15, 2005, and thereafter, and have documented everything I have gone through since that time in emails to IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others. 
5.         In June 2005, Cohen’s investor filed suit against him and Robert Kory in the U.S. District Court in Colorado.  The Complaint raised issues related to legal conspiracy, extortion, blackmail, witness tampering, bribery of a witness, witness intimidation, retaliation, and other very serious legal issues.  I am the individual who was the subject of the allegations related to witness tampering, bribery of a witness, and witness intimidation.  The Complaint stated that Cohen and Kory vowed to “crush” and “destroy” me.  Some of the tactics they employed were addressed.  That would include, but is not limited to, a SWAT incident in May 2005 that led to what most definitely appears to be a custody matter coordinated by Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Steve Lindsey (my younger son’s father), and possibly others.  The Complaint also confirmed that Cohen and Kory, months before they obtained the November 5, 2005 restraining order against me, planned to use restraining orders to discredit me and prevent me from serving as a credible witness in that and other matters.
6.         Leonard Cohen and I were never in an intimate “dating” or “engagement” relationship.  We had a professional business relationship and what I felt was a friendship that was familial in nature.  I was evidently quite wrong about the friendship because, based upon the tactics Cohen has employed against me, I cannot imagine his ever genuinely perceiving me to be a friend of his or his family’s. 
7.         For years, I felt increasingly uncomfortable with Leonard Cohen’s sexual advances, sexual harassment, being forced to read business and legal documents to him while he soaked in bubble baths and exposed himself to me, and decided never to be alone with him after he looked at people defecating on one another online in front of me.  This is completely inappropriate conduct on the part of someone with respect to their female colleague.  For reasons I cannot imagine, Leonard Cohen circulated stories in the news media that he and I were lovers.  It has occurred to me that he moved offensively in the news media after his investor addressed the fact that I was forced to read legal and business documents to him while he soaked in a bubble bath.  Leonard Cohen is an extremely calculated, manipulative, and strategic individual.  He knows how to manipulate the news media and knows what stories sell.  For instance, for years Leonard Cohen has circulated stories in the news media about an alleged incident that involved Phil Spector and a gun, his being arrested and interrogated during the Bay of Pigs, and his plan to join the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur without any prior military training.  Cohen always assured me, due to the contradictory and highly embellished versions of these stories, that they were nothing other than good rock ‘n roll stories. 
8.         Leonard Cohen has fabricated a deceptive narrative creating a disgruntled ex-lover, who merely harassed him and was not in need of IRS required tax and corporate information, who may have been interested in attending his concert in Colorado.  The mere notion is farcical.  I am most definitely in need of IRS required form 1099 for the year 2004; IRS required tax and corporate information for the years 2004, 2005, and 2005; an actual accounting (corporate); corporate financial statements; and other relevant tax, corporate and financial information.  I have also repeatedly asked Leonard Cohen to rescind illegal K-1s transmitted to State of Kentucky and IRS indicating that I am a partner on his solely owned entity, LC Investments, LLC.  This information was transmitted to State of Kentucky and IRS for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005.  IRS, FTB, and State of Kentucky have continuously advised me to contact Cohen for the tax and corporate information and to request that he rescind the K-1s LC Investments, LLC transmitted to IRS and State of Kentucky indicating that I am a partner when I am not.  Michelle Rice, the attorney of record in this case, advised me that I had to use the Los Angeles Superior Court discovery process to request IRS required tax and corporation documents.  The IRS, on the other hand, has advised me that Leonard Cohen is obligated to provide me with this information.
9.         Leonard Cohen retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to IRS and other tax authorities by filing a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC338322.  He failed to serve me the summons and complaint and willfully refused to address that fact.  His lawyers refused to communicate with me about this matter.  That seemed to be the plan.  As of December 2005, Cohen used the Complaint to file his 2005 tax returns, amend his 2003 and 2004 returns, and apply for and receive fraudulent tax refunds from IRS and FTB.  Since discovering these tax refunds in 2012 and 2013, respectively, I have challenged them as fraudulent with IRS and FTB.
10.       In November 2005, Leonard Cohen applied for a non-domestic violence civil harassment order against me.  I did not attend the hearing and have no idea what the allegations or findings were.  Based on Leonard Cohen’s testimony at a hearing in 2012, I am aware that my younger son’s custody matter and a rather outrageous SWAT incident were somehow raised as issues when Cohen submitted his declaration in support of his application for the initial restraining order.  My son, John Rutger Penick, has addressed what he witnessed with respect to the custody matter, SWAT, and King Drew incidents in his declaration attached to the Motion to Vacate the domestic violence order.
11.       On September 2, 2008, Leonard Cohen obtained a Boulder, Colorado non-domestic violence civil harassment order me in Colorado.  On August 19, 2008, in the midst of his European tour, Cohen made a desperate flight into Boulder, Colorado, a jurisdiction where he had not even minimal contacts, to attend an ex parte hearing in support of his Verified Motion. 
12.       On May 25, 2011, Leonard Cohen registered the foreign Colorado order with LA Superior Court using form DV-600.  This wrongfully modified and transformed the Colorado order into a domestic violence order.  The Colorado order was not based on a finding of domestic violence.  In fact, there were no findings.  I found the hearing to be absurd, given the tactics used against me and my sons, advised the judge that I thought these individuals were insane, and asked her to enter the order.  No one testified other than I testified.
13.       After the hearing, I returned to the Boulder Combined Court and reviewed the file.  I had been shocked to learn that Cohen actually flew into Colorado to attend the ex parte hearing.  This followed his threat to sue journalist Ann Diamond over her article “Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch” although the article was entirely factual.  I discovered that Leonard Cohen had submitted a declaration that was replete with perjured statements and filed a motion to quash the permanent order.  The judge ultimately reminded me that I agreed with the permanent order.  I most certainly did not agree to the entry of any order based on fraudulent representations and perjured statements under oath.  Cohen would later testify that he was concerned I might attend his concert which was scheduled for nearly a year later in the Denver, Colorado area.  I left Colorado in December 2008 and the concert was scheduled for July 2009.  I have no interest in seeing Leonard Cohen, communicating with him, attending his concert, or hearing about him for that matter.  Ann Diamond’s Declaration addresses some of what led up to the Boulder, Colorado restraining order and her own experiences with Leonard Cohen.  They were actually in a “dating” or “engagement” relationship.  Cohen has falsely accused her, to me and others, of harassing and stalking him.  Leonard Cohen has a pattern of falsely accusing others.  He has previously blamed others, including his former managers/attorneys Machat & Machat, of ripping him off to breach contracts.  Exhibit A:  Declaration of Ann Julia MacLean, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
14.       On March 1, 2012, I was arrested for willfully and knowingly violating the domestic violence order in Case No. BQ037717.  The prosecutor provided this case number to Judge Samuel Mayerson during the bail hearing in this matter.  At that hearing, Leonard Cohen testified that we were in a purely business relationship and confirmed that I never “stole” from him – just his peace of mind.  He was clearly not coached properly for that hearing.  The attempt to rehabilitate his testimony about our relationship was absurd – Leonard Cohen’s excuse for allegedly perjuring himself at the March 23, 2012 hearing was due to the fact that I deny we were “lovers.”  This individual was on the witness stand attempting to have me prosecuted for violating a restraining order and has falsely accused me of misappropriating monies from him but expects me to believe that he lied because I deny his obscene position that we were “lovers.”  We were not lovers.  We were not in a dating relationship and Leonard Cohen seems to think he can say whatever serves his self-serving purposes – whether he is under oath or not.
15.       In the Spring of 2013, I phoned LA Superior Court in an attempt to obtain information about the restraining order.  At the time of my arrest, I was unaware that there was a valid restraining order in place.  From 2009, the Boulder Combined Court advised me and others that the permanent Boulder, Colorado order expired on February 15, 2009.  They also advised me and others that my motion to quash the permanent order was granted and entered on January 12, 2009.  Los Angeles Superior Court asked me “Is Leonard Cohen your boyfriend” after I provided them with Case No. BQ033717.  I could not imagine why I was asked this question and it was at this time that I was informed that Cohen had obtained a California domestic violence order against me. 
16.       I attempted to contact the Boulder Combined Court for written information that the Boulder, Colorado order was not a domestic violence order.  As I was not at the ex parte hearing, I thought perhaps Cohen had testified about the nature of our relationship.  Due to the fact that Leonard Cohen intentionally bankrupted me, withheld commissions due for services rendered, and has relentlessly targeted me and destroyed my reputation, I was unable to afford to pay for copies of the file and/or a recording of the August 19, 2008 ex parte hearing.  On April 10, 2014, Boulder Combined Court emailed me and confirmed in writing that the order was not a domestic violence order.  They provided me with a copy of the Verified Motion and pointed out that Cohen failed to check the box related to “domestic abuse” when applying for the order.  Exhibit B:  Boulder Combined Court email; Boulder Combined Court Verified Motion, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
17.       After diligently pursuing this matter for nearly two years, I was finally able to locate the court reporter and obtain a copy of the transcript of the March 23, 2012 hearing where Cohen testified that we were in a purely business relationship.  I received the transcript on August 14, 2014.  Exhibit C:  March 23, 2012 hearing transcript, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
18.       On April 12, 2012, I was convicted of violating the order in this case.  I did not willfully or knowingly violate the restraining order because 1) I was repeatedly advised that the permanent Colorado order expired on February 15, 2009 and 2) was unaware of the California domestic violence order.
19.       On April 17, 2012, I was sentenced for violation of this order and sentenced under domestic violence statutes that included fines/fees for domestic violence, mandatory classes, and the Court issues domestic violence related orders to Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, and Phil Spector’s trial attorney, Bruce Cutler.  I was unaware of this fact until January 2014 when Leonard Cohen filed his Opposition to my Motion to Vacate (Case No. BC338322).  Robert Kory and Michelle Rice serve as Leonard Cohen’s paid lawyers, managers, and witnesses.  I attempted to contact Phil Spector but did not have my address book in jail.  Because his address was on a piece of paper in the possession of my public defenders, I wrote Bruce Cutler.  The reason for this is the fact that former DA Steve Cooley publicly aligned himself with Leonard Cohen in targeting me and, during my 2012 trial the prosecutor elicited testimony about an alleged gun incident that involved Phil Spector and Leonard Cohen.  Phil Spector is an old friend of mine.  I was dragged into his legal matters when the DA’s office received an “anonymous tip” about my friendship with him at some point in 2005.  During my 2012 trial, Leonard Cohen testified that Phil Spector held an automatic to his head.  This contradicted statements used by the prosecutors in the Phil Spector case and also contradicted a version Cohen sent the prosecutor during my trial.  There are now three versions of Leonard Cohen’s highly embellished good rock ‘n roll gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court.  It is of interest to note that my trial coincided with the election of a new Los Angeles District Attorney.  At no time did I harass Bruce Cutler.  I personally believe Phil Spector had a right to know what was unfolding with respect to him during my trial.  My public defender eventually googled the addresses for Phil Spector and Dennis Riordan and I wrote them directly from jail.  I received a letter from Phil Spector personally and believe it is safe to say that he would agree that he had a right to be informed about these matters.
20.       Beginning in the fall of 2014, I began researching the registration of sister state orders in California.  I researched the history of DV-600 and VAWA requirements.  It was difficult to obtain any information about the use of DV-600 to register a foreign non-domestic violence order.  I contacted, and heard from, the California Department of Justice.  I was advised that one could not transform the nature of a foreign order by registering it in California as a domestic violence order.  Finally, in April 2015, I contacted the Chief Justice’s Office of the California Supreme Court.  I had previously contacted the Judicial Council and felt that the Chief Justice’s Office might be able to assist me in researching these issues.  On April 14, 2015, I spoke with Ah Moi Kim, the Senior Executive Judicial Assistant to the Chief Justice who was gracious enough to assist me.  Miss Kim actually contacted the Judicial Council.  I had left a message earlier and Miss Kim confirmed that my call was on the record and the Judicial Council would have an appropriate individual attempt to assist me.  I received a call from Gabrielle Selden of the Judicial Council.  Miss Selden explained that DV-600 was originally used to register tribal orders with California courts.  She confirmed that one cannot register an out-of-state non-domestic violence order using form DV-600 as that relates specifically to domestic violence.  Miss Selden followed up and informed me that she was unable to locate a mandatory form equivalent to DV-600 for the registration of an out-of-state civil harassment order and confirmed that the manner in which a foreign civil harassment order is entered into CLETS is a matter of judicial discretion.  I was extremely appreciative of the assistance the Judicial Council was able to provide me.  This has been a thoroughly frustrating situation.  Exhibit D:  Emails (Chief Justice’s Office and Judicial Council), attached hereto and made a part hereof.
21.       I also visited LA Superior Court and spoke to numerous individuals in the Family Law Division.  I was consistently advised that a foreign non-domestic violence civil harassment order cannot be registered using DV-600.  In fact, one individual at the Assistance Desk advised me that the mere registration of the foreign order as a domestic violence order was not technically problematic but if I was served or the domestic violence order was used against me in any manner, it would become a “huge problem.”  I appreciated her forthrightness. 
21.       I plan to address the wrongful restraint related to the Colorado order in a federal lawsuit but do feel it would be appropriate for this Court to vacate the registration of the foreign Colorado order as a domestic violence order at this time. 
22.       I would also like to note that I have been relentlessly harassed over this order, my intention to vacate it, and other legal matters related to Leonard Cohen.  My sons, John Rutger Penick and Ray Charles Lindsey, have been relentlessly targeted for over six straight years.  The same is true for other members of my family, friends, business associates, and my very dear friend, Paulette Brandt, who was Phil Spector’s personal assistant and girlfriend for years.  The issues we are being harassed over involve Leonard Cohen, IRS and tax matters, the domestic violence order, and Phil Spector.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.  My appellate attorney, Francisco Suarez, was harassed for over a year regarding his representation of me and other related matters.
23.       My son, Ray Charles Lindsey, advised the individuals who were harassing him (including a Bay Area lawyer, Stephen Gianelli, and Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh), that their emails were making him physically ill.  Many people have advised these individuals, who have felt comfortable at times copying in Michelle Rice, to cease and desist.  For some reason, they feel entitled to harass, stalk, threaten, intimidate, and slander people without fear of consequences for their actions.  I have contacted LAPD’s TMU, IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, City Attorney, District Attorney, and others about this ongoing criminal conduct.  I would like this Court to understand that my younger son has been targeted since he was a minor.  Exhibit E:  Declaration of Ray Charles Lindsey (submitted in another related case), attached hereto and made a part hereof.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
This declaration is executed on this 28th day of July 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

                                                            Kelley Lynch


KL Declaration Exhibit A:  Declaration of Ann Julia MacLean


1.                 I am a citizen of Canada. I also am known by the literary pseudonym Ann Diamond. I
have known Leonard Cohen for approximately thirty-eight years.  I have known Kelley Lynch since approximately 2008.  I am over the age of 18 years.  I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2.                 In May 2008 I received an email from Kelley Lynch, who was then living in Colorado.
I had read the 2005 news stories alleging she had stolen Cohen’s retirement fund. Knowing Cohen, I had always wondered about her side of the story. Over the next few weeks we corresponded. She came across as sensible and rational, but clearly furious about the accusations of embezzlement which she denied. She was sending out hundreds of emails to the media, FBI, DOJ, IRS etc. and copied some of our personal emails to her internet audience. Since her working relationship with Cohen in 1988 began at approximately the time I stopped seeing him, she filled in some blanks and provided some insight into problems I had subsequently had. I identified with her to the extent that it seemed we had both been close to Cohen at one time, but had serious disagreements with him. When we ‘mutinied’ he used his personal power, oratorical skills and media contacts to damage us professionally and personally. Because Lynch’s side of the story had been ignored in the media, I ended up writing an account (“Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch”) which I posted on my blog in August 2008. Two weeks later I received a letter from Robert Kory demanding I take down the blog or be sued for libel. Because I was far away in Greece, and did not know Kelley Lynch personally, I felt I had to comply. Kelley continued circulating the text of my article over the internet and many people have now read it. A paraphrased version appears in Sylvie Simmons’ biography of Cohen, I’m Your Man, where my article[Ann Diamo1]  is credited in the footnotes.  See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (“Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch”).
3.                 I met Leonard Cohen through a mutual acquaintance in Montreal in November 1977,
when I was 26 and he was 43. He was still married, but legally separated, from his wife Suzanne with whom he had two children. Leonard Cohen was known as a ladies’ man around our neighbourhood of Montreal, but he had just brought out a new record, Death of a Ladies’ Man (with Phil Spector) and a book of poems (Death of a Lady’s Man) which seemed to send a message he was turning over a new leaf. We saw each other a few times over the next two years, on occasions when he came into Montreal from Los Angeles. Our relationship was more than a friendship. There was a strong sense of personal connection. Early on, I realized I was interested in him as a mentor or teacher, not necessarily as a lover or boyfriend.  Soon after we met, he introduced me to his “old friend” Hazel Field, a woman about my age, who acted as if she was in charge of Leonard’s relationships with women. This resulted in my seeing him mostly in private, rather than joining his circle of friends.
4.                 In 1979 I travelled to Greece, where he had invited me to meet him on the island of
Hydra. I was on Hydra for three and a half months, thanks to a small arts grant from the Canadian government. In 1980, I received another arts grant and was on Hydra writing a novel from December to September 1981. Leonard was also there for the entire year. In the fishbowl of Greek island life, I observed his complicated relationships with women younger than myself. However when I went out with other men, he began telling me we were getting married. This became a “theme”, although it seemed more like a way to make sure I didn’t wander off. He spoke with great conviction, making it hard to know what to believe.
5.                 In 1982 he suggested I go to Mount Baldy Zen Center, outside Los Angeles, to meet
Zen Master Sasaki Roshi. By then I was ready to move on and end our relationship, which had become ambiguous and confusing. He had hinted he was interested in sado-masochistic sex, which did not interest me. I was disturbed by his secret world that involved lots of deception and emotional cruelty. The Roshi (who initially told me I should “marry Leonard Cohen”) was helpful and encouraged me to think Leonard was still a “good friend.”
6.                 I returned to Montreal where a friend had offered me an apartment he was giving up.
It was small, pleasant, with incredibly low rent. My friend was not aware he was living next door to Leonard Cohen. Montreal’s economy was depressed and low rent was a big factor in allowing me to survive on a freelance income over the 12 years I lived there, especially after I quit my teaching job. During those years I saw Leonard only occasionally, usually by accident in the street, but sometimes he phoned or I phoned him. Our relationship was distant but cordial, but there also were a few tense incidents. His daughter Lorca was a concern. At age 10 she asked me to help her write a book about her father. When Leonard found out he banned me from talking to her. Another source of tension was Hazel Field’s presence on the block. Hazel is a famous gossip and spread damaging rumours about me that no one would ever repeat to me. Leonard remained generally friendly to me and once assured me if I was the subject of gossip it was just due to “jealousy.”
7.                 In March 1992, for the Montreal Gazette I interviewed Leonard’s close friend,
Canadian poet Irving Layton on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Before I left Layton remarked that he was pleasantly surprised to meet me and “find out you’re nothing like the violent, psychotic woman I’ve been hearing about all these years.” He first denied, but later admitted the source was Leonard Cohen. This came as a shock. I sent Leonard an angry fax, then regretted it and phoned to apologize. It was the first and only time I ever telephoned his Los Angeles number, but he accused me of being the anonymous caller who had been harassing him for weeks. He avoided answering my question. I was left with the impression that he had told certain people I was a “dangerous psychotic” while allowing me to think nothing was amiss. From then on, I realized he had a higher-than-average capacity to deceive people, even those he called ‘friends.’ Perhaps he liked pandering to people’s fantasies, or maybe he liked creating chaos. Or maybe this was his way of controlling people by divide-and-rule.
8.                 In autumn 1993 his daughter Lorca, then 19, was enrolled in the BA program at
Concordia. She was living in Leonard’s building on the corner of our street with a group of her friends. Soon after she arrived she knocked on my door and asked if she could speak to me about something important. I hadn’t seen her in five years, and she looked drastically different from the last time: she was covered with tattoos and piercings and had dyed her hair black and purple. I had a deadline to meet, so I asked her to come back another time but she never did. A few months later I met her with Leonard in the park. She was returning to Los Angeles. Later I was told she had overdosed on heroin and had dropped out of university, but I had been unaware of all these problems when they were happening.
9.                 In summer 1995, Freda Guttman, who had been Leonard’s first girlfriend when they
were both teenagers, stopped me in the street and asked point-blank if I thought Leonard had REDACTED his daughter from the age of four, as Lorca had told her friends. Based on things I had witnessed over 8 years, I thought it was possible. I went home and didn’t get out of bed for two days – the only time in my life that I experienced that kind of emotional paralysis. I suddenly realized the wild, extreme stories circulating about me were probably a tactic to discredit and isolate me in case I ever talked about Lorca. In fact, I knew very little about Lorca because I almost never saw her, but Leonard feared she had confided in me. He had set me up as a female bogeyman as a useful distraction. The stories about me had spread far and wide, thanks to Hazel’s media contacts including with a gossip columnist. The publishing industry was going through a major spasm from which it has never recovered and I become one of many journalist-casualties.
10.             In May 1996, I travelled to Los Angeles and stayed at Rinzai Ji Zen Center for six
months. I had a grant to write a novel (Dead White Males, DC Books, 2000), which I did while staying in a house across the street from the Zen Center. I also hoped to talk to Leonard and resolve some issues – I later realized this was naïve. This visit to Roshi’s centre was different from other times when I stayed as a practicing, rent-paying resident. Many of the monks and nuns seemed to have abandoned the Roshi (then 89) and gravitated to Leonard Cohen, who had moved into a cabin on Mount Baldy. I gathered he was seen by some as a possible dharma successor to the Roshi. The atmosphere had also changed for the worse. After Leonard spoke to her about me, a nun rushed at me in the kitchen and physically pushed me out the door. During the six months I was there, I never made a phone call or any attempt to speak to Leonard about the unresolved business between us that included child abuse and destructive slander. The atmosphere was instantly so tense, I decided to do nothing.  I rode my bike around Los Angeles and worked on the novel. Nevertheless, Leonard reported to the center director that I was now “phoning him every day from Culver City.” This was not the first time he assumed I was harassing him when I was not: I didn’t even know where Culver City was. Without any evidence, people believed Leonard. His word is the Gold Standard for Truth with his followers. Wherever he goes, from Greece to Montreal to Los Angeles, he finds people who are willing, even eager, to work for him without compensation, and will obey his instructions blindly in return for the honour of knowing him. His persuasive gifts and charm are well-known and can be hard to resist.
11.             Those who mutiny, like Kelley Lynch and me, receive the opposite treatment. Nothing
I say or do has been a match for the cliché of the “Scorned Woman” – or “jilted ex” who goes on a rampage to avenge her rejection. As Goebbels said, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth. I have learned the hard way that Leonard Cohen is a very gifted and skilled fabricator who does not back down even when confronted with evidence of his lying. His manipulative skills are exceptional and almost suggest early training in psychological warfare, including strategies such as putting people in “double-bind” situations so they will discredit themselves.  As a friend, he can be very kind and generous, but soon becomes utterly fixated on control. He demands total loyalty. He is a master manipulator. Once he has decided you are too “mutinous” and a potential future threat, he becomes ruthless and will go to great lengths to see you neutralized and destroyed. Like his neo-con heroes, he believes in and practices “pre-emptive strikes.”
12.             In 2001, I wrote a book-length blog which I posted on line. This was due to my being
targeted for years by false stories that I had stalked and harassed Cohen who allegedly did not even know me. I felt my 20-year history with him made for a memoir which was also a documentary of the post-60s era and the transition to conservative values, in which Leonard Cohen had played a part. I posted this 300-page, detailed narrative and added internal links which were hard to navigate. I installed hit counters on every chapter so I know with certainty of 6000+ who found the book, only about 70 read to the end where I mentioned my chance meeting with Freda Guttman who repeated Lorca’s allegations that her father had REDACTED her. In summer 2003, I received a letter from Leonard’s lawyer Van Penick asking me to remove the paragraph, which I did. A few months later, I deleted the entire blog.
13.             Did Kelley Lynch rob Leonard Cohen of millions, and if so, how did she end up
penniless and bit homeless? I can’t believe Leonard Cohen – a shrewd judge of character -- would employ a personal manager for 17 years, form a close relationship with her and her family, put his children in her care, and appoint her to deal with his daily business, unless she was diligent, extremely intelligent and impeccable in her conduct. His version requires us to believe he is a trusting, incompetent fool, which he is not. In my view, baseless slander and outrageous gossip have played a huge role in what should have been a straightforward legal matter.
14.             In my experience Leonard Cohen draws on a pool of unstable, addicted, celebrity-
worshipping acquaintances who serve as his unofficial bodyguards and ‘back-up band’ to his fanciful tales and ambiguous statements. Long ago, I came to the conclusion there are two distinct Leonard Cohens. The secret Leonard Cohen has doubtful ethics, and lives off the brilliance and charm of the public personality.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated:  25 April 2015                                                 _______________________________
                                                                                    ANNE JULIA MCLEAN

Boulder Combined Court email; Boulder Combined Court Verified Motion

From: xie, feng <>
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: Boulder Combined Courts – Records Request
To: Kelley Lynch <>

Thank you,

You may refer to the attachment (ICON) and Motion for Civil Protection Order I have sent you to verify my answers. I will not charge you for this document.

1. The Order regarding the motion to dismiss PPO was denied on 1/12/09.

2. The temporary restraining order expired on that date (2/15/09) and the PPO was granted on 9/2/08.

3. This case is not a domestic violence case which can be verified on the top right of the first page of the ICON;  noted as “Type: Protection Order”. On the motion for civil protection order, the Petitioner only checked off Stalking and Physical Assault, Threat, or Other Situation but not Domestic Abuse.

4. I cannot verify when the PPO was received from any other agencies besides the Court. Again the court granted the PPO on 9/2/08.

5. The PPO hearing was held on 9/2/08 and will cost $35 for an audio recording. If you require a written transcript you will need to go through Tami with CTS West and her contact number is 720-922-3581.

6. If the PPO has restricted you from filing your taxes then you would need to motion the court to request specifically what you need or require to complete your taxes. The motion will then be determined by the Judge to either grant or dismiss the motion.

I will waive the request fee as this was completed in November of 2013. If you require anymore documents from this case I will need to charge you  a $5 research fee and $.25 per copy.

Thank you,

Feng Xie
Judicial Assistant – Research
20th Judicial District

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:20 PM
To: xie, feng; irs.commissioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Kelly.Sopko; Doug.Davis; Dennis; wfrayeh; stan.garnett; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; moseszzz; a; wennermedia; Hoffman, Rand; Mick Brown; woodwardb; glenn.greenwald; lrohter; harriet.ryan; hailey.branson
Cc: Paulette Brandt
Subject: Re: Boulder Combined Courts – Records Request

Hello Feng,

There are several pieces of information I need.  My friend, Paulette Brandt, and I have been told (on approximately six occasions) that Leonard Cohen’s restraining order expired on February 15, 2009.  We were also advised that a Motion to Dismiss was entered on January 12, 2009.  I was not a resident of Boulder, Colorado when this restraining order was granted and left shortly after the hearing.  I may not have received certain documents.  I am requesting the following:

1.  Information regarding the Motion to Dismiss that was entered (and appears in the computer database) on January 12, 2009.

2.  Information regarding the expired restraining order (and appears in the computer database) on February 15, 2009.

3.  Any and all information that would establish that this order (originally granted based on a business relationship) was modified and re-issued as a domestic violence order.

4.  The date this order was entered into any federal, state, or local database.

5.  The amount it would cost to acquire a copy of the “secret” hearing Leonard Cohen attended that led to the judge issuing a temporary restraining order.

6.  Any information that would support Leonard Cohen’s legal position and testimony that Judge Enichen had jurisdiction to prevent me from requesting information needed to file my federal and state tax returns.  That is how this order has been used and there is testimony to support this.  I am unclear how a local order can override IRS rules and requirements.

What I would like to know is how much it will cost to obtain this information and hearing CD.

Thank you,

Kelley Lynch


Emails (Chief Justice’s Office and Judicial Council)

From: Kim, AhMoi <>
Date: Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Subject: DV-600 Inquiry
To: “” <>

Hello Ms. Lynch:

I contacted the Judicial Council staff about your inquiry and they already had your call on record.  They are in the process of transferring your request to the most appropriate person who will try to assist you.

Thank you,

AhMoi Kim
Sr. Exec. Judicial Assistant
   to the Chief Justice
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA  94102

From: Selden, Gabrielle <>
Date: Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Information and resources for your family law case
To: “” <>

Ms. Lynch,

Further to our conversation today, I am sending some information and references to California statutes that you may wish to research in connection to your case.

For legal advice, you may wish to contact:

Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, at or

Lawyer Referral Service of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, at They offer a low-cost 30 minute legal consultation about many subject areas.

Gabrielle D. Selden, Attorney                                                                                                                                      
Center for Families, Children & the Courts  Operations and Programs Division
Judicial Council of California 
455 Golden Gate Avenue,  San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 
415-865-8085 | |

From: Selden, Gabrielle <>
Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: Information and resources for your family law case
To: Kelley Lynch <>

Ms. Lynch,

I am going to research our Judicial Council report archives to see what information I can find about the registration of out-of-state restraining orders.  That form might go back to the early 1990’s.

I don’t find any other form that we have for the registration of any other type of restraining order issued by another state. So, I need to verify if  there is only one form because the Judicial Council adopted it for use by ALL courts.

I will send you whatever report or information I find in this regard. I hope to have it by this afternoon.

Gabrielle D. Selden, Attorney                                                                                                                                     
Center for Families, Children & the Courts  Operations and Programs Division
Judicial Council of California 
455 Golden Gate Avenue,  San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 
415-865-8085 | |

From: Kelley Lynch [] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 11:05 PM
To: Selden, Gabrielle
Subject: Re: Information and resources for your family law case

Ms. Selden,

I’ve been doing some research this evening.  Would one use CLETS-001 to enter a foreign non-domestic violence order into the CLETS system?

I would appreciate any information you have on the proper registration of a non-domestic violence order.

All the best,
Kelley Lynch
From: Selden, Gabrielle <>
Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: Information and resources for your family law case
To: Kelley Lynch <>


I see that you have also been researching.

First, I want to answer your question about CLETS-001. This form is not relevant to your issue. It is required to be filed by a party seeking a temporary domestic violence restraining order in family court.

I have confirmed with my colleagues who specialize in civil court matters and forms that the Judicial Council has not adopted a mandatory form equivalent to DV-600 for the registration of an out-of-state civil harassment order. This does not mean that the out-of-state order cannot be entered into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). It just means that the method of achieving entry of the order into CLETS is a matter of judicial discretion.

I regret that I am not able to refer you to the correct form, but I hope this information will be helpful to you in deciding your course of action.


Gabrielle D. Selden, Attorney                                                                                                                                     
Center for Families, Children & the Courts  Operations and Programs Division
Judicial Council of California 
455 Golden Gate Avenue,  San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 
415-865-8085 | |

From: Kelley Lynch [] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:46 PM

To: Selden, Gabrielle
Subject: Re: Information and resources for your family law case

Dear Ms. Selden,

Thank you.  I was at the Court today and was told DV-600 is domestic violence and that wouldn’t be the form.  I appreciate the assistance so I can attach the proper form to the Motion I mentioned I was submitting to the Court.  I do know that DV-600 used to be 1296.45.  1296.45 was called “Registration of Foreign Domestic Violence Restraining Order.”  

I appreciate your assistance.

All the best,
Kelley Lynch



I, Ray Charles Lindsey, declare as follows:

1.    I am over the age of eighteen.  The following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.

2.    I am a resident of California.

3.    Since approximately 2009, I have been receiving emails from Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh (Leonard Cohen’s fan), and others.  Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, was copied in on some of these emails..  Apart from Leonard Cohen, I do not know these people and have never met them.  These individuals were also posting on the internet about my mother.  Most of the emails related to matters involving Leonard Cohen, IRS, and Phil Spector.  

4.    My mother was Leonard Cohen’s personal manager for approximately 17 years.  They had a falling out in the fall of 2004 to my knowledge. My mother is also a friend of Phil Spector. 

5.    On or around May 6, 2013, Ray Lawrence began privately emailing me.  I don’t not know him and have never met him.  He made serious accusations about my mother and was angry with my Aunt Karen.  Karen is my mother’s sister. 

6.    While Ray Lawrence was in Minnesota, my mother lived with his roommate, Michael Ingrassia.  My mother moved out of their house on June 4, 2013 and shortly thereafter I began receiving an onslaught of emails from him, Stephen Gianelli, and Susanne Walsh.  My mother was the target of those emails.  Ray Lawrence accused my mother of many things, including stealing Michael Ingrassia’s computer.  My mother then sent out an email from Michael Ingrassia confirming that he had given her the computer. 
The accusations were confusing and disturbing.  Whenever one of these individuals accused my mother of something in their mass emails, she would refute them, asked Gianelli, Walsh, Lawrence, and others, to stop emailing her, asked them to stop contacting her sons, family members, and friends, and/or advised them to cease and desist.

7.    On or around June 18, 2013, I wrote Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and Ray Lawrence advising them to stop contacting me and my immediate family because their emails were making me ill.  See Exhibit A.

8.    On June 21, 2013, my brother, Rutger Penick, responded to these emails and addressed the fact that he felt Stephen Gianelli was picking on my mother because she is poor.  He sent a copy of that email to Ray Lawrence and Susanne Walsh.  My mother and I were copied in as well.  See Exhibit B.

9.    At some point, Ray Lawrence’s emails made demands on my mother about property and evidence she left at his house with his permission.. He began threatening to destroy them, sell them, or provide her documents to Leonard Çohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice.  Gianelli and Walsh also sent emails advising Lawrence to send my mother’s evidence and paperwork to Michelle Rice.  This was upsetting to my mother and she emailed the recipients of the emails the agreement she and Lawrence had entered into permitting her to store her belongings at his house.

9.    The emails from Ray Lawrence were extremely slanderous and accusatory with respect to my mother and were upsetting and confusing.  For the time being, they seem to have stopped.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July 17, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.

Ray Charles Lindsey 

EXHIBIT 1 (Ray’s declaration)

From: Ray Lindsey
Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Subject: I'm getting physically ill
To: Susanne Walsh <>
Cc: Ray Lawrence <>, "STEPHEN R. GIANELLI" <>

Please discontinue contacting anyone in my immediate family. This is causing me to become ill as a result of the consistent bullshit. I just want everything to stop. I know I've added my share to the pool, but this is getting too much for me. I'm getting in over my head and it's hurting my heart to have to see my mother go through as a result of her own actions and the actions of others.

Can't we all just practice compassion for one moment, please.

EXHIBIT 2 (Ray’s declaration)

From: Rutger Penick
Date: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: I'm getting physically ill
Cc: Kelley Lynch <>, Ray Lawrence <>, Susanne Walsh <>

Stephen shut up already. Live the rest of your worthless life without picking on the poor. I am sure that makes you feel superior.


Rutger Penick | MCTS:Windows 7

Motion Exhibit B:  Declaration of John Rutger Penick
John Rutger Penick
c/o Kelley Lynch
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California  90028
Phone:  323.331.4250


LEONARD COHEN,                                                           
               vs.                                                                    Case No. BQ033717
KELLEY LYNCH, an individual                                                                                                                                                                                      


1.        I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California.  I am the son of defendant, Kelley Ann Lynch.  I am over the age of 18 years.  I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2.         At some point in October 2004, my mother and Leonard Cohen parted ways.  She had worked as his personal manager for approximately 17 years.  It was my understanding that they parted ways because my mother hired a new accountant, was referred to tax lawyers, and issues arose with respect to my mother’s belief that Leonard Cohen had committed tax fraud.  My mother eventually reported those allegations to the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities.  Since that time, Leonard Cohen and others, including my stepfather Steve Lindsey, have engaged in malicious and abusive tactics directed at my mother, me, and my younger brother, Ray Charles Lindsey.
3.         In the fall of 2004 and early 2005, I understood that Leonard Cohen was attempting to force my mother into a deal or settlement.  I heard many conversations about this.  Steve Lindsey actually tried to encourage me to convince my mother to enter into a deal with Leonard Cohen that would be very attractive for her.  She refused to negotiate with Leonard Cohen, although he owed her a tremendous amount of money, because she felt he was asking her to provide false testimony against his representatives. 
4.         Steve Lindsey and my mother separated in 1997.  As of the fall of 2004, my stepfather, Steve Lindsey, was in a new relationship and his girlfriend, Dinah Englund, was pregnant with their daughter.  My mother had sole custody of my brother until May 2005.  The three of us lived together from 1997 until May 2005 when a custody matter was initiated.
5.         By the spring of 2005, Steve Lindsey, who had an abusive personality and temperament, was becoming increasingly aggressive and hostile towards my mother, brother, and me.  At some point, he hired custody lawyer, Daniel Bergman, and they pursued a completely concocted custody matter involving my brother, Ray Charles Lindsey. 
6.         I was present for the hearings in that case and know for a fact that the custody matter was based on lies.  My mother was a wonderful parent, provided us with a great environment, loved us, and was never even remotely abusive to either of us.  Steve Lindsey used fraudulent restraining orders as a tactic against my mother. 
7.           Both Steve Lindsey and Leonard Cohen owe my mother a tremendous amount of money and I believe they coordinated the custody and litigation matters to force her into deals with them.  From approximately May 2005, when the custody matter arose, until my brother was 18, Steve Lindsey failed to have my brother phone my mother although I was present when the Court ordered him to have Ray call her every other night.  Steve Lindsey also prohibited my mother and other members of our family from seeing Ray.  His lawyer, Daniel Bergman, refused to communicate with her although I was present when he was ordered to do so by the court.  It is my understanding that Daniel Bergman now represents Leonard Cohen in a related case.  I would assume he represents Leonard Cohen in order to further distress and harass my mother. 
8.         It is my understanding that Leonard Cohen’s October 2005 restraining order against my mother involved his declaration that addressed my brother’s custody matter and a May 25, 2005 SWAT incident at our home.  I would like to address these matters with the Court based on what I personally witnessed. 
9.         On the morning of May 25, 2005, my mother phoned and asked me to pick my brother up at the house.  Ray did not feel well that day, stayed home from school, and this caused Steve Lindsey to become angry which frequently happened with him.  My mother said Steve Lindsey, Ray’s father, had repeatedly called that morning and was becoming threatening and abusive.  My mother informed me that she did not want Steve Lindsey on our property and asked me to meet Steve Lindsey at the bottom of the hill with Ray.  Lindsey intended to drive Ray to school.  I personally spoke to Steve Lindsey who confirmed this arrangement.  As I was a block away, and Lindsey said he was in Beverly Hills, I immediately drove home, picked Ray up, and drove down the hill.  I was accompanied by my friend, Evan Reiss. 
10.       When I arrived home, my mother and Ray were waiting outside.  Ray was on the phone with his father.  I got out of my car, walked over to Ray, took the phone and informed Steve that I was leaving the house with Ray immediately, and handed the phone to my mother.  When I arrived at the bottom of Mandeville Canyon, Cloris Leachman, rather than Steve Lindsey, was waiting to take custody of Ray.  She waved me over and I dropped Ray off with her.  I then saw Steve Lindsey and approximately 7 or more LAPD squad cars racing up Mandeville Canyon Road.  I turned around, drove up the hill, and saw Lindsey speaking to the police officers.  I believe he was providing them with a lay-out of the property.  I explained to LAPD that my mother was in the house alone; I had just been with her, and confirmed that I had spoken with Lindsey moments earlier and we agreed that we would meet at the bottom of Mandeville where he would pick Ray up.  I also explained that I dropped my brother off with Cloris Leachman who was Lindsey’s girlfriend’s mother.  LAPD was uninterested in what I, and others, had to say and appeared to be relying specifically on what Steve Lindsey told them.  Steve Lindsey had not been to our house and was not in a position to tell LAPD anything.  I heard Steve Lindsey confirm that he called the police.  I later heard that my Aunt Karen, my mother’s sister, phoned LAPD but I have spoken with her directly and she assured me that this was not the case.  At some point, as the situation unfolded, Steve Lindsey received a phone call and left.
11.       The SWAT incident continued to unfold and would last for approximately three to four hours.  LAPD, based on what they were advised by Steve Lindsey, asked if my mother had access to a gun and/or weapon.  I confirmed for LAPD that my mother did not have a gun and/or weapon in her house.  I also confirmed that I, as I was over the age of 18 at the time, owned a rifle that was legally registered.  I explained to LAPD that I lived in a separate guest house on the property; my mother did not have keys to the guest house; the door was locked; and the gun was locked in my closet and locked inside a case.  My mother did not have keys to the guest house, closet or the case. 
12.       LAPD questioned me about our dogs.  I explained that we had two large Akitas.  Throughout the incident, LAPD advised me that they intended to shoot my mother; would let me stay and watch or take me somewhere; and planned to shoot our dogs.  At the end of the SWAT incident, LAPD personally informed me that our dog was the hostage and they were taking precautions.  I was also informed that Inglewood PD was present. 
13.       At no point did LAPD ask my mother to come out; approach our front door; attempt to phone her; or attempt to determine what was actually going on.  Nothing was going on other than the fact that my mother kept my younger brother home sick and Steve Lindsey became angry. 
14.       At one point, LAPD asked me to trick my mother into coming out of the house.  I therefore asked my mother if she would like a cigarette.  I believe LAPD felt that was her “hostage demand” although she did not have a hostage; they understood I had taken my brother down the street; and, she was in the house alone.  My mother came out of the house, with our dog Shadow on a leash, and asked LAPD “Who is my hostage?  My dog?”  My mother was wearing nothing other than a bikini and it was very clear that she did not have a gun or weapon and Shadow was on a leash.
15.       After a considerable amount of time passed, LAPD decided they would enter our house, neutralize my mother, and asked me to lead the way.  There were officers on our hillside and crouched under the windows.  I believe assault weapons and bean bag guns were deployed.  LAPD directed me to lead them into the house.  I followed their instructions and we noticed that my mother was in the backyard.  LAPD rushed through the house into our backyard.  At that time, my mother dove into the pool.  I witnessed this.  When my mother surfaced, she asked an LAPD officer not to “hurt” her and he replied that they were not there to hurt her but were there to help her.  Without questioning my mother or explaining why, LAPD handcuffed my mother.  As she was only wearing a bikini, I went inside, noticed that my mother had locked Shadow in the bathroom, and grabbed a brocade jacket for her.  LAPD then led my mother out front.  Two officers pulled up and my mother was placed into the back of the car.
16.       A woman who identified herself as Erma Oppenhein asked me if I was okay and wanted to know if my mother was on any medications.  I responded that I was okay and informed her that my mother was on heart and asthma medication.  These officers then drove off with my mother. 
17.       Shortly after LAPD left, I received a phone call from Steve Lindsey.  He asked me if I would go into Leonard Cohen/Robert Kory’s office and sign over/transfer our house to Cohen and/or Kory.  I recall Lindsey asking me to have my mother formally committed and he mentioned their wanting me to sign some paperwork to this effect.  I was 18 years old at the time.  I decided to phone my father, Douglas Penick, who advised me to speak to a lawyer first.  I decided not to return Steve Lindsey’s call.  Lindsey also informed me that, if I agreed to sign over/transfer our house to Leonard Cohen and/or Robert Kory, Cohen would provide him with money and they would assist me financially.
18.       When my mother was taken from our house, LAPD informed me that they intended to search the premises.  They did not appear to be in possession of a search warrant for either my mother’s house or my guest house.  I stayed while they searched and found nothing.  They confirmed that there was no hostage.  LAPD also searched my guest house and understood that my rifle was locked in the guest house; locked in my closet; and locked in a case.  LAPD removed my rifle from our property.  They did not give their reasons for doing so.  I later received a call from LAPD advising me that I could pick the rifle up from West LAPD.  My mother and I picked it up and LAPD had removed the lock from the case.           
19.       After the SWAT incident, my mother phoned and informed me that LAPD had taken her to King Drew Hospital in South Central.  I was in shock that LAPD would take my mother to South Central.  UCLA was approximately 10 minutes from our home.  She explained that Dr. D’Angelo, who worked at King Drew, advised her to wait her turn and she would be promptly released.  Dr. D’Angelo also confirmed for me that my mother was being released.  Evan Reiss and I drove to King Drew to pick my mother up.  At the hospital, Dr. D’Angelo came outside to speak to me and confirmed that he was releasing my mother and did not agree with LAPD’s assessment that she was dangerous to herself and/or others.  He also confirmed that there was nothing in the file that would cause my mother to lose custody of my brother.  My mother was concerned that the SWAT incident was being used to coordinate a custody matter.  We would later find out that her concerns were valid.  My mother also informed me that LAPD questioned her about Phil Spector and possible gun incidents on the way to King Drew.  She couldn’t figure out how LAPD understood she knew Phil Spector.
20.       My mother, who was picking up her property while I spoke with Dr. D’Angelo, then walked out of King Drew.  Evan and I drove her home.  Ray called while we were driving home but, at that time, we didn’t realize Steve Lindsey had filed a custody matter with LA Superior Court.  The custody matter was filed due to the SWAT and Killer King incidents.  My mother explained that she was drugged against her will at King Drew and discussed how dangerous the environment was.
21.       At this time, due to the King Drew and SWAT incidents, Steve Lindsey also obtained a restraining order against my mother.  My mother is the individual who was abused by Steve Lindsey and simply did not want him on our property due to his own aggressive behavior.  I do know for a fact that Ray felt tremendous pressure and fear when his father would lose his temper.  I believe the custody matter, SWAT incident, and restraining orders were used tactically to discredit my mother and prevail in numerous lawsuits that would be brought against her by Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey.
22.       Once we learned that a custody matter had been filed, we also discovered that Betsy Superfon, a friend of Steve Lindsey’s, and Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, submitted declarations in that matter.   Betsy Superfon would later inform me personally that she didn’t know what she was signing when she signed the declaration Lindsey provided her.  Betsy also told me she felt my mother, if anything, was too good to me and my brother. 
23.       Robert Kory’s declaration involved allegations that my mother misappropriated monies from Leonard Cohen and addressed the time my mother and brother stopped into his office.  My mother attempted to speak to him about legal and business matters between her and Leonard Cohen. 
During my mother’s 2012 trial, my brother’s custody matter was raised as an issue.  Robert Kory testified that my mother “interrogated” my brother at his office.  I have spoken to my mother and brother about this matter, including immediately after it occurred, and both confirmed that my mother simply asked Ray some questions related to information he had heard about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud, missing state tax returns, her share of intellectual property and commissions due her, and their threats to put in her in jail.  Those threats were repeated to me and my brother in the spring of 2005 by Steve Lindsey who said he would assist Leonard Cohen.  I also personally heard information about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud, missing state returns, my mother’s share of intellectual property and commissions due her, and her requests for tax information.
24.       On April 15, 2005, my mother reported Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Betzer, Internal Revenue Service.  She had previously reported it to other tax authorities. 
25.       Steve Lindsey and Daniel Bergman refused to allow me to see Ray.  The entire custody matter was based on lies and I believe it was meant to crush and destroy my mother.  It was also used to pressure me and Ray. 
26.       Leonard Cohen would also use restraining orders to discredit my mother.  My mother has never threatened Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen and his lawyers have refused to communicate with my mother for approximately 10 street years and I believe it’s to say that the situation is thoroughly frustrating.  I have been copied on her emails since the spring of 2005 and at no time did I read anything that was threatening or harassing towards Leonard Cohen or anyone else.  My mother is the individual who has been relentlessly slandered, harassed, threatened, and intimidated.
27.       In the Spring of 2005, my mother was advised by His Holiness Kusum Lingpa to document everything we were going through in emails with witnesses copied in.  I was frequently copied on those emails.  The primary reason for my mother’s emails was to document everything she had gone through since she reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.  The emails, as my mother has explained many times, are documenting everything for the Internal Revenue Service due to the retaliation over tax matters.  The custody matter was clearly coordinated by Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey, and their lawyers.  It was my understanding that my mother lost the custody matter because, due to her financial circumstances, she was unable to afford a custody lawyer; the tactics used against her have been malicious; and the results of these actions led to a default that caused the Court to give Steve Lindsey custody of my brother.
28.       Leonard Cohen filed a retaliatory with a lawsuit (LA Superior Court Case No. BC338322).  I have submitted declarations to Los Angeles Superior Court confirming that my mother was not served Cohen’s lawsuit; we did not have a co-occupant or know anyone who resembled the individual the process server said he served; my mother did not resemble the individual; no one attempted to evade service; and my mother has relentlessly address this matter for years.  I have also submitted declarations addressing the fact that I was present when my mother asked Chad Knaak, a friend of mine who lived with us at the time, to call Cohen’s lawyer and advise him that she was not served the lawsuit and if he attempted to serve her she would hold him personally accountable for emotional distress.  She also asked Chad Knaak to advise Leonard Cohen’s lawyer that she viewed this lawsuit as Cohen’s attempt to cover up tax fraud.
29.       At the time Lindsey filed the custody matter, he owed my mother a tremendous amount of money and that seemed to be part of his motive.  I also understood that he had been meeting with Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory about my mother.  Steve Lindsey refused to pay my mother what he owed her for Ray’s upbringing and support.  He also refused to repay her for monies she expended on behalf of his daughter, Jennifer Lindsey, who lived with us before my mother and Lindsey broke up in 1997.  Leonard Cohen also owed my mother money and, after they parted ways, stopped paying her.  My mother had also loaned Steve Lindsey money.  He simply refused to address these matters and permitted my mother to end up homeless. 
30.       I have addressed the fact that my mother was not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit.  I have witnessed my mother’s attempts to address this with Leonard Cohen and/or his lawyers.  She was always told that they would not speak to her and hung up on her.  They refused to respond to her emails addressing this, requests for tax information, and other business and legal matters.
31.       As of the summer of 2005, my mother’s phone was shut down at some point and many people (including Paulette Brandt, Palden Ronge, Yongzin Rinpoche, Choegon Rinpoche, and Lama Lhanang) kept in touch with us by stopping by the house.  Various people brought food, supplies for our animals, and others items.  As I was forced to take a job at Whole Foods, I also purchased items for my mother.  My mother had no money by this time.  Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey refused to pay her what they owed her.  It was my understanding that Leonard Cohen would pay my mother what he owed her if she testified against his representatives.  It was also my understanding that Sergeant Joe, who monitored my mother’s July 2005 visit at Roxbury Park with my brother (although she was the abused party), advised her to go into Daniel Bergman’s office and make a deal that would make her happy.  She refused to negotiate under these terms and conditions.  I drove my mother to meet with my brother and Sergeant Joe.   
32.       In mid-October 2005, Leonard Cohen’s lawyer showed up at our house with the Sheriff’s Department.  LASD searched our house and took many items.  I was present and they said they were permitted to seize anything with Leonard Cohen’s name on it.  My mother was upset because they took her business and personal files and items.  The Sheriff’s Department returned and seized items that were in our garage since we moved to 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road.  My mother had stored these items as a favor for Leonard Cohen for years. 
33.       For years, my mother stored boxes of old business documents of Leonard Cohen’s in our garage.  He had renovated his garage and my mother agreed to store these items for him.  I have spent a considerable amount of time with Leonard Cohen and my mother – at her office, his home, and at our home.  I also know his son and daughter, Adam and Lorca Cohen.  My mother worked as both Adam and Leonard Cohen’s personal managers.
34.       On December 28, 2005, my mother and I were evicted from our home.  She ended up homeless in Santa Monica.  I went to live with family friends.  For a period of approximately one year my mother was essentially homeless.  I personally believe Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey, together with their lawyers, intentionally bankrupted my mother so she would be unable to defend herself. 
35.       By January 2007, my mother was living with an elderly woman in Santa Ana, California.  On February 3, 2007, I was in a serious industrial accident at Whole Foods.  I was not trained or qualified to work on the meat grinder which we later found out had not been functioning properly for some time.  The safety guard was removed without my knowledge.  This led to the loss of my fingers and part of my hand.  I understand that Leonard Cohen testified, at my mother’s 2012 trial, that she blamed him for this accident.  That is a blatant lie.  My mother understood that Whole Foods caused this accident.  In fact, my mother repeatedly contacted the District Attorney’s office about this matter and asked them to investigate potential criminal negligence. I was copied on some of the emails my mother sent the District Attorney’s office and their failure to investigate upset my mother tremendously. 
36.       My mother was aware that Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey owed her a tremendous amount of money and, if they paid her what they owed her, I would have been in college.  I felt the same way.  I am aware that corporate records exist proving that my mother has an ownership interest in numerous corporate entities and Cohen related intellectual property.  I am also aware Leonard Cohen offered my mother numerous settlements.  I personally heard that my mother was offered many types of settlement offers, including  50% community property, by Cohen and/or Kory.  I am also aware that Leonard Cohen refused to pay my mother for commissions due her.
37.       In the spring of 2007, my mother came to stay with me for a spell.  Yongzin Rinpoche and his wife, Clea Surkhang Westphal, then invited my mother to visit with them at their home outside of Boulder, Colorado.  My mother relocated to Colorado in the spring of 2007.  Eventually my mother took a long term temporary position with Deneuve Construction in Boulder, Colorado which she seemed to enjoy. 
38.       I did hear, from time to time, that Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey, together with their lawyers, continued to harass my mother in Colorado.  I was also copied in on emails throughout this period of time.  Those emails asked Leonard Cohen, or his lawyers, to provide my mother with IRS documentation; a corporate accounting; monies due my mother; and she also attempted to address the fact that she was not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit.  I actually met with my mother’s attorney, David Moorhead, in Boulder, Colorado and confirmed a great deal of this information for him. 
39.       I understand that at some point in 2008, Leonard Cohen flew into Boulder, Colorado to obtain yet another restraining order against my mother.  Leonard Cohen, and his lawyers, have gone to extraordinary lengths to target and discredit my mother.  It is my understanding that the Boulder Court informed my mother that the Colorado order expired in February 2009.  I know for a fact that she believed the original Boulder, Colorado order expired.  She believed this before she was arrested in March 2012.  Apparently Leonard Cohen registered the foreign Colorado order, my mother was unaware of that fact, and this created a new domestic violence order although my mother was never in a dating relationship with Leonard Cohen. 
40.       At some point in 2008, while my mother was still staying with Yongzin Rinpoche and his family, I received a phone call from an insurance company lawyer.  The individual advised me that they represented the insurance company for Thomas Bradshaw.  On June 13, 2005, Thomas Bradshaw rear-ended my mother, knocked her unconscious, broke her nose, caused head trauma, and injured our shitzu, Charlie, who eventually died.  This lawyer informed me that Thomas Bradshaw lied to the police about that accident and they wanted my mother to testify for them and against him.  I called my mother, passed along the message, and provided her with the lawyer’s name and number. 
41.       Immediately following the June 13, 2005 accident, LAPD again came to our house.  Due to the SWAT incident, my friend and I informed LAPD that my mother did not want them to enter our house.  They disregarded our statements, pushed past us, walked back to my mother’s room, demanded that she hang up the phone, and took her out of the house in handcuffs although she was sitting in her room, quietly speaking to her friend on the phone, and was injured and bleeding.  My mother had gone out to buy dog food when she was rear ended on Mandeville by Thomas Bradshaw.  At first, when I saw my mother, I thought Steve Lindsey hit her.  She was completely discombobulated and unclear about what had happened.  I believe she thought I was in the car accident.  I saw the accident site.  This time LAPD took my mother to UCLA.  She was there for approximately 24 hours; I thought she was in the Emergency Room the entire time; and, she was released and came home.  UCLA confirmed that my mother had head trauma due to this accident.  My mother explained that LAPD visited her in the UCLA Emergency Room and confirmed that they understood she had been rear-ended. 
42.       After LAPD left our house this time, I noticed that someone had tried to break into the house, while my mother and I had been out that evening, and the bathroom window and mirror were both broken.  I decided not to contact LAPD about earlier break-in due to their conduct with my mother. 
43.       In or around June 2009, I discovered Blogonaut’s Law Blog, owned by Stephen Gianelli, which appeared to be dedicated to slandering and discrediting my mother.  Stephen Gianelli, an absolute strange, has now spent over six years harassing and stalking me, my brother, mother, other family members and friends.  His obsession with us relates to Leonard Cohen, IRS matters, and the Phil Spector case.  My mother is a close personal friend of Phil Spector’s.  I have known Mr. Spector since I was quite young and last saw him after the incident in his home.  He picked my mother up and took her out to dinner.  Stephen Gianelli, and others, have also harassed my mother over the SWAT and King Drew incidents, Ray’s custody matter, and the incident at Phil Spector’s house.  I have been copied on these harassing emails.  It is my understanding that Phil Spector personally informed my mother that the incident at his house was a suicide. 
44.       Stephen Gianelli seems intent on slandering and discrediting my mother; isolating her from friends and family; scaring people and turning them against her; and harming my mother.  He also appears to intimidate, threaten, stalk, and harass witnesses or people who are supportive of my mother. 
45.       In June 2013, I received a disturbing email from Stephen Gianelli me that my mother had returned to Los Angeles (which I, of course, knew) and explaining that he had communicated with the City Attorney of Los Angeles who planned to arrest my mother again.  By that time, I understood my mother had spoken to the FBI about the situation with Gianelli and LAPD had evidently informed my mother to maintain all emails from Gianelli and Walsh.  I decided to reply to see what Gianelli had on his mind and attempted to be cordial in my response.  His email alarmed me and caused me to become concerned about my mother’s welfare.  Gianelli continued to slandered my mother to me and my brother horrendously and continued to falsely accuse of her of many things.
46.       From approximately November 2012 for nearly two years, Stephen Gianelli (and Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh) wrote the City Attorney’s office falsely accusing my mother of many things, slandering her horrendously, and harassing all of us.  Stephen Gianelli and Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, were essentially using the City Attorney’s office to harass my mother.  I was copied on those emails.  My brother and other members of our family and friends were also copied on these emails.  My mother continuously advised the City Attorney that she did not want to be copied on emails to them.  She was concerned about me and my brother and attempted to address the slanderous allegations made to numerous government officials.  The City Attorney never bothered to respond and we continued to be harassed.  At that time, Ray and I were residents of Los Angeles.  Not too long ago, Stephen Gianelli and Susanne Walsh resumed writing the City Attorney and continued to copy me.  My mother also attempted to refute false allegations and information being presented by these strangers to the Los Angeles City Attorney, District Attorney, and other government officials.
47.       In July 2013, my brother wrote Stephen Gianelli and Susanne Walsh to advise them that their emails were making him physically ill.  My brother has been harassed by these individuals, and others, since he was a minor.  Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, has been copied on some of the harassing emails sent by Gianelli and Walsh.  Following my brother’s email to Gianelli, Walsh, and others, I also wrote Stephen Gianelli to advise him to stop targeting my mother because she was poor and unable to defend herself. 
48.       It is my understanding that Leonard Cohen has somehow obtained a domestic violence order against my mother and testified during her 2012 trial that they were “lovers.”  I spent a tremendous amount of time with my mother – including at her offices – and also worked for Amazing Card Company when it was located one block from Leonard Cohen’s house and in Santa Monica, California.  I would also visit Leonard Cohen’s apartment with my mother.  At no time did I hear or witness anything that would lead me to believe that my mother and Cohen were or had been in any type of dating or engagement relationship.  I always personally felt that Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey were obsessed with my mother and behaved like jealous men towards her.
49.       My mother and I have always been extremely close and she tells me everything.  I know how she felt about Leonard Cohen and she hated to stop by his house alone and frequently complained that he sexually harassed her, exposed himself to her, and once looked at people defecating on one another online in front of her.  She mentioned that last detail to me because she was concerned that Ray might see these types of things online. 
50.       At some point, Steve Lindsey told me personally that Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, came into his office and advised him that my mother had sex with Oliver Stone who is a friend of ours.  I have known Oliver Stone since I was quite young.  He was a friend of His Holiness Kusum Lingpa; helped with His Holiness’ Buddhist center; and spent time at our home.  I have also spent considerable time at events with my mother and Mr. Stone.  One time we attended a private audience with the Dalai Lama together.  Oliver Stone’s wife and baby were with us for that audience and at other times.  At no time did I ever witness anything other than a friendship between Mr. Stone and my mother.  Steve Lindsey was furious about this accusation and I believe it was used to stir up a custody matter.  Steve Lindsey also asked me if my mother’s friend, Richard Rutowski, was my mother’s boyfriend.  Apparently, Leonard Cohen and his lawyer also told Lindsey that my mother and Richard Rutowski were having an affair when they were together.  Richard Rutowski, who was a friend of Oliver Stone’s, was our family friend, also helped with the Buddhist center, and was not my mother’s boyfriend. 
52.       I believe our lives were destroyed because Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey owe my mother money and my mother reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.
53.       I would like to confirm that for approximately 10 years now, my mother has attempted to ask Leonard Cohen for IRS documents she requires.  He has apparently refused to provide her with this information.  This situation has been addressed in countless emails I have been copied on over the years.  My mother has also attempted to refute the slanderous emails sent to me, my brother, her friends, and many others.  She has constantly advised me that Stephen Gianelli is not an attorney of record in any Leonard Cohen matter but he writes as though he is defending Leonard Cohen legally.  I have received countless legal opinions from him regarding Leonard Cohen matters. 
54.       I would like to advise this Court that my mother is a wonderful human being; does not have mental health issues; has never had substance abuse problems; and is the individual who needs protection. 
55.       I offered to testify during my mother’s 2012 trial; was available to testify in the related case she is presently involved with regarding Leonard Cohen; and have provided my mother with declarations. I personally believe this is why I have been relentlessly targeted, stalked, and harassed.
56.       I think it is important for this Court to understand that my mother, brother, I, and many others, have been relentlessly harassed by many parties for years now.  We have specifically been harassed over Leonard Cohen and these legal issues.  I am not a party to any lawsuit related to Leonard Cohen and there is no reason for people to harass me over Leonard Cohen legal issues, IRS matters, or the default judgment he obtained.  At times, Leonard Cohen’s lawyers have been copied on harassing emails sent to me personally. 
57.       At no time did my mother intend to harass or annoy Leonard Cohen.  She has relentlessly advised the parties harassing us to cease and desist.  I have advised them to cease and desist.  My brother asked them to stop sending these emails.  My aunt’s attorney advised Stephen Gianelli to cease and desist.  It is my personal belief that Stephen Gianelli, and others, have intentionally attempted to provoke my mother by harassing me and my brother. 
58.       I  also recall Stephen Gianelli writing Daniel Bergman, now Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, at one point, and advising him that he would be willing to provide a declaration in Ray’s custody matter although this man does not know any of us and has no valid or legal reason whatsoever for contacting us.  My brother was a minor when Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and others began harassing him.  My mother was concerned that some of these adult strangers could potentially be sexual predators and brought this to the attention of the District Attorney, City Attorney, LAPD, and others.  I was copied on many of those emails.
59.       Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey, and others, have used devious tactics with my mother and have continuously benefitted from their deceitful and abusive conduct. 
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
This declaration is executed on this 21st day of July 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

                                                            JOHN RUTGER PENICK

Exhibit C:  Declaration of Paulette Brandt

DECLARATION OF Paulette Brandt
[Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Domestic Violence Order]

1.        I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California.  I am over the age of 18 years.  I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2.         I have known Kelley Lynch for approximately 25 years.  We first met when she worked for Martin Machat.  Mr. Machat was an attorney and personal manager who represented Phil Spector and Leonard Cohen.  I worked with Phil Spector on and off for years, including from 2002 through 2012, and dated him for a considerable period of time.
3.         Over the years, I have worked for Apple Records, Phil Spector, and Columbia Pictures.  I have been involved in the entertainment industry for most of my adult life.  I am aware that Kelley worked as Leonard Cohen’s personal manager for approximately 17 years.  At some point around 1990, Kelley relocated from NYC to Los Angeles.  She contacted me when she arrived and we kept in touch, and saw one another, throughout the years. 
4.         In the fall of 2004, Kelley and I spoke quite frequently.  She advised me that problems arose with Leonard Cohen because he heard she planned to report what she felt was tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.  It is my personal opinion that Leonard Cohen has relentlessly retaliated against Kelley since that moment in time. 
5.         I am aware that Kelley was not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit (Case No. BC338322).  His lawyers refused to communicate with her and have continuously conducted themselves in what is an unprofessional manner.  I visited Kelley, dyed her hair, and am aware that she did not resemble the individual in the proof of service in the default judgment matter.  Kelley’s son, and another male teenager, were Kelley’s only co-occupants. 
6.         I am also aware that, for approximately 10 years now, Kelley has attempted to obtain IRS required tax information from Leonard Cohen.  I personally, with her authorization, spoke to IRS who confirmed that Kelley should contact Leonard Cohen directly for the 1099 and corporate tax information she still requires.  Additionally, IRS advised me that Kelley should contact Leonard Cohen to ask him to rescind certain partnership documents he transmitted to IRS indicating that Kelley is a partner on a company when she is not.
7.         In April 2005, and at other times, Kelley reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities.  She has been relentlessly harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, and slandered since that time.  Leonard Cohen has spread entirely fabricated stories in the news media about Kelley.
8.         Kelley is my girlfriend and we discuss everything.  She was never in an intimate dating relationship with Cohen.  Over the years, we have discussed the men in her life and Leonard Cohen was not one of them.  Kelley did advise me, many times, that she felt uncomfortable with Leonard Cohen’s sexual advances and harassment.  She explained that he forced her to read business and legal documents to her while he soaked in bubble baths and frequently exposed himself to her.  By the time they parted ways, I was well aware of the fact that Kelley did not want to spend time alone with Cohen.  I can assure this Court that Kelley has no interest in Cohen; does not want to see or communicate with him; and most definitely doesn’t want to attend his concert. 
9.         I have read Leonard Cohen’s remarks in the news media about Phil Spector for years.  I rarely read an article where one version of Cohen’s gun story with Phil Spector is not discussed.  I was actually at Phillip’s house, as his date, the first night Leonard Cohen and his wife came over for dinner when they began working together briefly.  I have spent a tremendous amount of time with Phil Spector in the studio; worked in his home in Pasadena; and have been with him in every imaginable situation.  I have never once seen him with a gun.  I believe many people have used Phil Spector to advance their careers.  I am aware that there are now three versions of Leonard Cohen’s alleged gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court. 
10.       In August 2008, Leonard Cohen obtained a restraining order in Colorado against Kelley.  I have spoken to the Boulder Combined Court numerous times about this order.  I personally was advised, each and every time I called, that the Colorado order is not a domestic violence order; Kelley’s motion to dismiss was granted and entered on January 12, 2009; and the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  I was also advised that the temporary order was vacated in September 2008.  I know for a fact that Kelley did not knowingly and willfully violate the Boulder, Colorado order.  She was told by the Boulder Combined Court, as was I, that the order expired.  Leonard Cohen apparently testified that he was concerned Kelley might attend his Denver, Colorado concert.  I do not believe that any reasonable individual, who actually knows Kelley, would believe she would attend his concert or give him the time of day for that matter.  It is my personal opinion that Leonard Cohen intentionally destroyed Kelley’s life, targeted both of her sons, assisted with a custody matter involving her younger son, and has relentlessly slandered and lied about her.
11.       In May 2005, Leonard Cohen registered the foreign Colorado order as a domestic violence order.  In or around the spring of 2013, Kelley called me in disbelief to explain that Leonard Cohen had somehow managed to obtain a domestic violence order against her.  LA Superior Court asked her “Is Leonard Cohen your boyfriend?” which she found extremely disturbing.
12.       On June 4, 2013, I invited Kelley to reside with me at my apartment in Los Angeles.  She had been living in the Bay Area and I was aware that she was looking for a place to live.  Kelley has been in Los Angeles for over two years now.  This has permitted her to file a motion to vacate the judgment Cohen obtained against her and relate to the numerous legal matters that have arisen since they parted ways.  For approximately a year and a half, I watched Kelley attempt to obtain a transcript of the March 23, 2012 hearing where Cohen testified that she never “stole” from him (just his “peace of mind”) and confirmed that they were in a purely business relationship.  I also attempted to assist Kelley with this and have had my own problems attempting to obtain transcripts.  I actually attempted to obtain a transcript, in an unrelated matter, for well over a year and was never able to.  Kelley and I were told that because Judge Mayerson retired, his transcripts were no longer available.  We were also told that misdemeanor cases are recording but LA Superior Court does not know where the tapes are kept.  At times, we were advised that because Judge Mayerson no longer had a department number, we would be unable to obtain the transcript or locate the court reporter.  In mid-June 2014, Kelley finally located the court reporter who assisted Kelley, was completely professional, and submitted the transcript to her by mid-August 2014.
13.       Kelley has spent a tremendous amount of time devoted to Leonard Cohen related legal matters.  I believe it has been somewhat overwhelming at times.  She has been extremely diligent in pursuing legal remedies to no avail.  Leonard Cohen now has two law firms opposing Kelley, who is representing herself, in the default judgment case.  Obviously, Cohen does not view her motions as “frivolous.”  Kelley spent months researching form DV-600 and registering foreign orders in California.  Approximately one month ago, Kelley received assistance from the Judicial Council who confirmed that an individual may not register a foreign non-domestic violence order in California as a domestic violence order.  I was also with Kelley at LA Superior Court when she was told this while I waited in line to file a document in an unrelated matter with the Family Court. 
14.       Since approximately March of 2013, I have been harassed, stalked, slandered, threatened, and intimidated by Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, a Bay Area lawyer, Stephen Gianelli, and others.  This is a highly coordinated campaign of harassment.  The issues I am being harassed over are Leonard Cohen’s legal issues, IRS and tax matters, and the domestic violence order.  I receive rambling legal opinions from Stephen Gianelli who seems to be on someone’s payroll and seems to be some sort of proxy for Leonard Cohen.  He has attempted to infiltrate my life and actually represented my former roommate, who owned me a considerable amount of back rent, in a Small Claims case I filed.  They successfully defrauded me of approximately $6,700.  These individuals also harass me over Phil Spector.  Phil Spector is someone I care for deeply.  I am devastated that he is in prison and it is extremely upsetting to have vicious strangers target me over Phillip.  I definitely do not want to be harassed over Leonard Cohen.  I find his conduct towards Kelley unspeakably evil.   
15.       I know Kelley’s family and am aware that her sons have been targeted, harassed, slandered, and intimidated for years now.  Stephen Gianelli actually began harassing Kelley by writing the City Attorney and copying her sons, sister, me, and others on those emails.  I have complained about this activity to LAPD’s TMU.  I have spoken with Investigator William Frayeh, Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, and confirmed that we are being harassed.  I have also confirmed that harassment in other declarations. 
16.       I believe Stephen Gianelli, and others, want to threaten and intimidate Kelley in order to silence her; force her to abandon her attempts to address these legal matters; scare and intimidate her witnesses; and ultimately isolate her.  This conduct relates to Leonard Cohen, IRS and federal tax matters, and the Phil Spector case.  Kelley has been quite vocal about these issues and we recently participated in an interview with a small internet radio program which caused the harassment to escalate.  I am convinced that some of the harassment relates to Phil Spector’s case because I know him so well and remain convinced that he is innocent.  As I have known Mr. Spector my since I was a teenager, I feel I am entitled to my personal opinions.  Kelley is also a very close friend of Phil Spector’s.  I know for a fact that she is very important to him. 
17.       The campaign of harassment has also taken place on the internet.  Until recently, Stephen Gianelli had a blog dedicated to slandering Kelley and me.  After we participated in the internet radio interviews, Stephen Gianelli began slandering Kelley on that site as well.  This appears to be his full time job.
Truth Sentinel Episode 40 (Phil Spector, truth, lies, guilt and innocence, murder trial)

Truth Sentinel Episode 39 (Leonard Cohen, truth, lies, guilt, innocence, law, MK Ultra)

17.       Leonard Cohen is not the victim here.  Kelley is.  It is beyond my ability to comprehend why any court would provide this man with additional tools and ammunition with which to destroy Kelley’s life further. 
This declaration is executed on this 28th day of July 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

                                                            Paulette Brandt