Saturday, April 4, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To IRS Asking Them To Confirm That They've Cleared Leonard Cohen Of All Wrong-Doing Re. The Criminal Tax Fraud

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Subject: Re:
To: Jeffrey Korn <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, sedelman <>, JFeuer <>,, "" <>, Sherab Posel <>


I have a proposition.  If you have cleared Leonard Cohen of all wrong-doing and decided that 1) he didn't have to declare the Sony sale income on the 2001 TH tax returns; 2) was permitted to extinguished my promissory note from the 2002 TH tax returns; 3) was permitted to extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2003 tax returns; 4) he can willfully disregard all corporate records and agreements, stock units, etc.; 5) he doesn't have to repay the nearly $6.7 million in loans (or expenditures) he took from TH; etc. then hit reply all and confirm that.  And please explain, at the same time, how Cohen and his tax lawyer secretly rectified a mistake about my ownership interest without my participation and why filing fraudulent tax returns is acceptable.

I never handled tax matters and Cohen's Objections document is very clear that I have no expertise to even discuss tax matters, tax fraud, etc.  That's because it happens to be the case and I wrote Cohen and Westin (and others) about this many times.  I also wrote that I didn't handle corporate records, tax documents; loan documents; accounting; legal matters - because I didn't.  Cohen and Westin acknowledged receipt of those email discussions the three of us (and others) had.  

You won't however be able to sign off on the fraud tax refunds.  I have challenged them and am about to file a federal lawsuit over that - and many other issues.  These issues have not been litigated so res judicata will not apply.  Furthermore, I was NOT served Cohen's lawsuit and LA Superior Court did not have a right to utter my name from my perspective and expose me to the insanity I am now dealing with.  That includes the insanity with the City Attorney and the criminal stalkers.

Finally, if you would confirm that IRS believes Cohen does NOT have to provide me with IRS required tax information for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 (or thereafter - but the "judgment" evidently covers periods from May 2006 onwards), do confirm that as well.

This shouldn't cause any privacy concerns for anyone - Cohen and Kory testified about some of these matters; presented the City Attorney with an "IRS Binder," and Gianelli is writing people and slandering me by saying IRS cleared Cohen.  There is no evidence [to support] that allegation.  And none of these parties speak for IRS.  This seems like a reasonable approach.  If criminal tax fraud is cool with IRS - sobeit.  Who am I to argue?

All the best,

Friday, April 3, 2015

Was Lana Clarkson A Prostitute Who Played With Guns? That Is Clearly Relevant Evidence Re. Phil Spector

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:05 PM
To: ASKDOJ <>, "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, sedelman <>, JFeuer <>,


This post from the Darwin Exception is interesting.  Raoul Julia Levy filed a State Bar Complaint against Jackass for misconduct in the Phil Spector matter.  He evidently has some details about Clarkson.  For instance, she tried to throw herself off a balcony and played sex games with guns.  He also apparently knew that she was depressed and suicidal.  I think Baby Doll Gibson is relevant.  If Clarkson was a prostitute, Phillip wouldn't have to shoot her for sex.  The theory is insane anyway.

I'm putting together an evidence package for federal court.  I want the federal court to understand how extensive this criminal harassment with respect to me is.  I want the court to understand that Kelly Green has been online spewing vitriolic comments about Spector, his wife, and Cutler since 2007.  

The Criminal Stalkers continue to target me and others.  That evidence will be presented in a supplemental filing to Judge Hess and then a federal court.

All the best,

CA vs. Spector – Spank My BabyDol and Call me Julia

Posted by thedarwinexception on July 18, 2007
Lots of interesting “side issues” today in and out of court, starting with the strange and complicated story of Raul Julia Levy.
Raul Julia Levy was a potential witness for the defense. He was actually in the courtroom last week ready to take the witness stand. It is rumored that he will testify that he had an intimate relationship with Lana Clarkson, and that she was depressed and suicidal and that she once tried to throw herself off of a balcony while in his presence. Supposedly he would also testify that Lana was fond of guns and often used them as a tool for sexual foreplay. Of course, these were statements made by Anita Talbert, who is a self professed supporter and admirer of Phil Spector.
But, if true, one can understand why the defense would want to call him.
But, there’s a slight problem with Raul Julia Levy.
Raul Julia Levy claims that he is the eldest son of Raul Julia, he of “Addams Family” and “Kiss of the Spiderwoman” Fame. Julia Levy claims that Raul Julia abandoned him and his mother when Julia Levy was very young. He says that his mother is Margaret Levy, the daughter of Abraham Levy, he of “Levi Strauss” fame.
Last week when the defense had Julia Levy in the wings ready to testify, the defense asked the prosecution why they hadn’t turned over, as is required, their discovery materials on Raul Julia Levy. The prosecution asked for an  ex parte hearing in the judges chambers because of the sensitive nature of the material and that they were conducting an ongoing investigation of Mr. Julia Levy the contents of which wouldn’t be appropriate for open court. When the parties got back on the record after the in camera hearing, the judge agreed that the prosecution could have an additional week to turn over their discovery materials, and that the contents and results of this hearing, if proven to be true by the prosecution, could “irreparably harm” the defense’s case, and that the defense should be very glad that the judge ruled the way he did.
Today the defense got to look at the 10 inch thick discovery report of the prosecution and one wonders if they are indeed glad. If they knew nothing about Julia Levy’s background, I’m sure they were quite surprised. But a cursory Google search should have told them more than they wanted to know. And it would also uncover the fact that most mentions of Raul Julia Levy with any biographical materials are self edited sites such as Wiki and My Space.
In a scenario truly worthy of “Six Degrees of Separation” Raul Julia Levy is not who he claims to be – or at least, who he claims to be is certainly contested. There are several gaping holes in Julia Levy’s story, starting with the fact that Abraham Levy, who Julia Levy purports to be his grandfather, died without ever fathering any children. Julia Levy also claims that Abraham Levy “his beloved grandfather”, died when Julia Levy was 16. The only problem with that is, according to his stated birth date of 1971, that would put Abraham Levy’s death sometime in 1987 – Abraham Levy died in 1980. Julia Levy also claimed for quite a while on his website (since closed) that he met his father while the elder Julia was filming the movie “Kiss of the Spiderwoman” in Mexico. Only the movie wasn’t filmed in Mexico, it was filmed in Brazil. Julia Levy has since amended his story to say that he met his father while the elder Julia was filming a different movie – this time one that actually *was* filmed in Mexico.
The kicker, though, is that Raul Julia Levy was not born as Raul Julia Levy – he is actually Salvador Alba Fuentes, a petty criminal with a rap sheet from Mexico. And he didn’t go to Harvard, either, as he claimed on his “official website”. And most likely he was not, as he states on his “My Space” page, “The Howard Hughes of Mexico” nor is he involved in “Other business endeavors include working  to revive and expand the Mexican airlines,  Aerolineas Internacionales and, with his  family, restoring the San Felipe Villas resort located by the Sea of Cortez.  Beginning in January 2007 Julia-Levy,  along with his brother Jose Levy  (Attorney and Politician) established  The National Foundation for Education  of the Indigenous. The foundation  provides scholarships to various indigenous groups throughout Mexico. He will continue to volunteer his  time and resources to various  humanitarian efforts in the Los Angeles area.”
The elder Raul Julia left a widow – and two sons, one who is actually Raul Julia, Jr. and it was out of concern for this son and the confusion that Salvador Alba Fuentes could cause by claiming to be Raul Julia, Jr., that Merel Poloway Julia, the elder Julia’s widow, hired a private firm to investigate the background of this man she considered to be an imposter. She demanded that he submit to a paternity test, but he stalled this request by claiming that any tissue samples she might have to compare his DNA to wouldn’t be able to be confirmed as the elder Julia’s, nor could she confirm chain of custody. Merel Julia then  suggested that he submit to a Y chromosome paternity test using samples from her own two sons. Raul Julia Levy again stalled and said that he still had no idea if these were indeed his half brothers. Merel Poloway then offered to have her deceased husband exhumed, thinking that this, at least, would get rid of this imposter. Raul Julia Levy again declined, stating that no good DNA samples could be obtained from a corpse 11 years in the ground.
I am quite sure that all of this information (and much more) has been uncovered by the prosecution. One would assume they had access to the investigative reports that Merel Poloway Julia’s private team submitted, as well as Raul Julia Levy’s  rap sheet and true educational and biographical records.
And I’ll bet three Thanksgiving Punkin Pies that he nor his family have anything at all to do with Levi Strauss. Or that he went to Harvard. And I’ll also bet he never knew Lana Clarkson, intimately or otherwise. I mean, you would think if he *did* know Lana so well, he’d have a picture of her, and that it would be festooned and flashing with a neon banner on his My Space page. After all, he has a picture of himself with Kato Kaelin. And Kaelin is *so* “trial of LAST century”. Stupid ass.
The next interesting side issue today was Baby Dol Gibson, who the judge dragged into court to admonish. She is there with her lawyer, who argue to the court that Miss Gibson should not be subject to the court’s blanket gag order on all witnesses, since her testimony has been determined by the court to be inadmissible. Her lawyer explains that BabyDol Gibson has to make a living, and the way she does that is to write books and market them to the press through interviews and media articles, and that this gag order has put a crimp in all that. He tells the judge that her livelihood depends on whether or not she can contact and talk to the media. And, you know, it occurs to me that what better way is there for her to publicize her books than to stroll into court and ask for permission to publicize them?
Mr. Rosen confirms that the defense is not going to call her. The judge says that the parties had earlier discussed that if Spector took the stand and testified, that Gibson’s testimony could very well become relevant. Without Spector’s testimony, Gibson’s testimony is irrelevant. He asks Mr. Rosen if Mr. Rosen is now prepared to affirm to the court that Mr. Spector is not going to testify. Mr. Rosen says that he is not prepared to make that statement at this point.
Mr. Rosen then puts on the record that the defense team does believe that parts of Gibson’s testimony are relevant whether or not Spector testifies.
The judge points out that this has nothing to do with his ruling, and when the prosecution declines to comment on the matter.  the judge makes his ruling.
The judge then tells the court that he
“doesn’t care if Miss Gibson promotes her book – but that she’s not going to do it by bringing Ms. Clarkson into it – that’s real simple. As long as this trial is in existence, if you go out and promote your book, and you mention Lana Clarkson in any way, shape fashion or form, while this case is ongoing, I am ordering you not to do that – it is inappropriate, you are a potential witness in this case despite the comments that were just made, all witnesses are ordered not to talk to the media, especially since your testimony at this point. is inadmissible, it would be nothing but an attempt, in my view, to influence the jury, even though they are under an order not to read articles, but there’s a possibility that they do, so if you want to sell your book about your life, that’s fine, but you’re not going to mention Lana Clarkson, and if you do, you will be in violation of my order, and I will hold you in contempt, it’s that simple. Do you understand?”
Gibson then tells the judge that she understands and it was never her intention to disobey the court, that she was under the assumption that she was completely excused.
The judge says that’s fine, glad she understands, but he reiterates to her that he has no problem with her promoting her book, that he has no problem with whether she does or doesn’t, but that she may not in any “way shape form touch upon come close to or talk about Lana Clarkson or anything regarding the Phil Spector case. Other than that, you may talk about what you want. ”
Her lawyer, who must be fucking deaf, dumb or both, then asks the judge “well, what if in promoting her diaries someone points out or asks about Lana Clarkson’s name?” I guess “you may not  in any way shape form touch upon come close to or talk about Lana Clarkson or anything regarding the Phil Spector case” just wasn’t exactly clear as a fucking bell to him.
The judge tells him “Then she is to say to the reporter ‘I’m sorry, I cannot talk about that while the trial is ongoing.’.” And the lawyer nods his head like this had never occurred to him.
Which must remind the prosecution of something, because they then ask for a moment and come out of huddle with the information that any entries in Babydol’s book, according to their own investigation, have patently been doctored. They are forgeries, and that the prosecution would like a specific order that she not give any interviews regarding this trick book.
The judge says “I said anything to do with this trial and that would include any documents.”
Alan Jackson then goes on to point out that if an interviewer asks to see the book and the book opens up to that page, that would be inappropriate, to which the judge agrees, and says that “if she tries to do something like that…”
At this point, seeing her gravy train pull out of the station, Gibson pipes up with the fact that “Those documents” her “trick book”,  has been in the possession of law enforcement and under a chain of custody since 1999, so this allegation is really one against the people, and the chain of custody that law enforcement and the sense of scrutiny the evidence room maintains.”
The judge, clearly not giving a flying fuck about Gibson and her trick book, says “Well, I’ll leave that for others, I’ve been given a lot of information which is in my ruling and it’s all under seal, I don’t think I’ll make any comments at this time. You’ve made your statement, and that’s my ruling”.
Babydol’s lawyer then pipes up with “Well, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the people to make allegations of altering….that’s slanderous towards my client and totally inappropriate….”
The judge tells him “You can handle that somewhere else, I’m only concerned about the sanctity of my trial. Everyone understands and is on board. That’s it, thank you for coming down.”  (Get the fuck out of here was not actually said, but was clearly implied.)
And so we can finally get back to witnesses. James Pex, a blood spatter expert called by the defense was on the stand when the judge felt compelled to take a break to allow for his little spanking of the Babydol. Guess she could only stop by for a few minutes in between interviews. Pex retakes the stand after she goes off to find Entertainment Tonight reporters.
And James Pex is interesting in that one wonders if he is supposed to be Henry Lee version 2.0. He says upon taking the stand initially that he and Linda Baden Kelly just met 2 weeks ago, which would coincide with the whole Lee fiasco and when Lee could have first told the defense that their piddly ass case wasn’t worth tarnishing Lee’s reputation.
Pex is also interesting because he was one of the investigating officers for the Oregon State Police Department in the Dianne Downs murder case when she shot her three kids in the backseat of her car. He analyzed the blood spatter in the car and after determining that there was no blood on the steering wheel and determining the spatter on the seats in the car he concluded that the shootings could not have happened the way Downs reported.
Linda Kenny Baden leads the witness through direct testimony, where she has him testify that he had problems with the Luminol testing, and whether or not they were done correctly. One of the reasons he is concerned is because there was no presence of blood detected underneath the gun as it lay under Lana’s leg on the carpet. Pex states that there should be blood under the gun, which is rather confusing to me, because I think that is assuming an awful lot. It’s coming to a conclusion based on an assumed premise. Assuming that Lana was the only one who touched the gun that night, and that where it was found was exactly where it had been all night after she was shot, then yes, I would think that there should be blood on the carpet underneath the gun. But since we know that Phil Spector held the gun that evening *after* Lana was shot, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that he didn’t pull the trigger, we still know that he was holding the gun at *some* point, according to the testimony of DeSouza, who saw him with the gun in his hand, and the physical evidence of the blood in his pants pocket being consistent with a gun being placed inside of it.
And armed with this information, that Spector held the gun after she was shot, then I think that whether or not there is blood under the gun is irrelevant and proves nothing.
Linda Kenny Baden then employs a bit of sleight of hand and sneaky tactics.
She shows a picture to the witness of a very small piece of wire. This wire is from the taser gun that was unsuccessfully shot at Spector when the stormtroopers stormed the castle. In the picture the wire is visible under the right heel of Lana Clarkson, implying that the body – or at least the legs and/or feet – of the deceased were moved *after* the stormtroopers entered the premises, therefore calling into question any evidence of blood spatter, the placement of the gun and other physical elements of the crime scene.

Now, if you look closely at this picture, you can *barely* see the very thin wire underneath the heel of her right shoe. But this picture and the angle of this picture is quite misleading. It would appear from this angle that the right heel is flush with the floor, therefore making one assume that the leg would have had to have been moved in order for the wire to get underneath the heel. And we know she didn’t move the leg herself.
But if we look at the same thing from a different angle

it is much easier to see that actually, the toe of the foot was raised, as was a portion of the heel. It is much easier to imagine that the wire could have been inadvertently kicked or moved underneath the heel with no movement of the feet or legs. So this issue again, proves absolutely nothing once you are armed with all of the facts and the evidence.
Linda Kenny Baden also asks the witness about kinetic energy and “Stokes Law”, which is about as foreign to me as the earlier testimony from that creepy DiMaio about “Boyle’s Law”. But I do wish I had paid attention in Physics, because all of this testimony might make a lot more sense to me. And it might even make it more interesting, but I’m not putting any money on that last sentiment, because I can’t imagine Kenny Baden livening up anything she was questioning a witness about. I find myself distracted by her almost neon yellow hair color, her glasses that just don’t fit her face right, her strange accent and speech patterns and her almost eerie resemblance to a pug faced dog my grandmother used to own named “Tippy”.
On cross examination Alan Jackson doesn’t really need to do a lot, since the witness has already testified, during direct no less, that he has “not been to the scene of the crime” and that he “has not seen the physical evidence”. So, basically, the witness can only really testify with any authority in generalities. But Jackson does question the witness about his concerns with the way the Luminol testing was done, and the witnesses astonishment that there was no blood on the carpet underneath the gun. Jackson asks the witness if he would expect there to be blood on the carpet underneath the gun if the gun had been wiped down, greatly increasing the drying time of any blood that was left on the gun, and if the gun had been placed underneath the victim’s leg after it had dried.
The witness concedes that if these things were so, then, No, he would not expect to find blood underneath the gun, and that if the blood on the gun had dried then if the gun had been moved, he would expect to find “flakes” of blood on the carpet if the gun were later moved. Which leads Jackson to ask him if the gun *had* been moved, say, kicked across the carpet, after the blood on the gun had dried, then would the witness expect there to be “flakes” of blood consistent with this across the carpet. When the witness agrees that yes, he would expect to find these flakes, Jackson then asks that if there was no presence detected with luminol of any streaks or flakes across the carpet, if the witness would then assume that the gun was *not* kicked across the carpet, the witness says that this could be one interpretation.
Jackson then turns to the wire underneath Lana’s heel. Although I really thought he would just put up on the Elmo the other pictures showing the different angles of the foot, and ask the witness to determine if there were sufficient room for a wire to be kicked underneath the foot, Jackson instead uses his co-counsel as an exhibit, and has Dixon sit in his chair comfortably with his legs extended. Jackson then places a wire in front of Mr. Dixon, kicks it and has it land underneath Dixon’s shoe. I think the pictures from an alternate angle would have been more telling.
Jackson then gets into testimony concerning Velocity and then heat resistance. When the testimony moves towards any specific physical objects from the Spector crime scene, the witness has a more difficult time being pinned down, and his stock answer is “I didn’t see the physical evidence” or “I would have to examine that item more closely before rendering an opinion”. Which only highlights the fact that he isn’t Henry Lee, who actually did have access to the crime scene and the physical evidence.
But., in a nutshell, this witness could not really be relied upon to definitively offer an opinion on *this* case, since he did not have access to the physical evidence or the crime scene and wasn’t familiar with many of the prior witnesses testimony.
Although Linda Kenny Baden did ask him what color blood was, and he answered “red”. She also asked if a bullet comes out of the barrel of the gun, and he answered “yes”. And she described inflated cheeks as “chipmunk cheeks”. Since none of these things were challenged by the prosecution, I think we can assume they are definitely so.
And I, for one, am glad we finally got an expert opinion on the color of blood.
Dr. Joseph Anselmo, an oral surgeon and forensic odontologist who retired from the LA County Coroner’s office in 2004. He was first contacted in this case to confirm that the teeth at the scene were actually Lana’s and to determine if there was any soft tissue damage around the lips and so forth and if there was any evidence of blunt force trauma to the teeth. He says that he found no evidence of blunt trauma or soft tissue damage. He also says right off the bat that he is not qualified to comment on any aspect of the ballistics involved or the trajectory or path of the teeth that were affected by the bullet. All he can testify to is the trauma to the teeth themselves and the identification of teeth matter as teeth.
And then court ends.
For the rest of the week.
No more evidence will be presented until Monday.
But remember, blood is red.

Sprocket said

Last night, my husband wanted a recap of yesterday’s trial coverage. Weeks behind, and very tired, I just read him your coverage, lol!
You do a great job, each and every time. Btw, I gave you a shout on one of my recent entries.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To IRS, FBI & DOJ Re. Her Comments On The MacLean's Article She Attached As Evidence To Her Latest Motion

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:30 AM
To: "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>,  "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, sedelman <>, JFeuer <>,, Jeffrey Korn <>

Hello IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Given the fact that I attached the MacLean's article (that Cohen initially used to advance his tax fraud defense and fabricated narrative), I have drafted some comments to the allegations raised.  I will attach the final document (with comments) to a supplemental declaration I intend to file with Judge Robert Hess.  The hearing is schedule for June 23, 2015 so I have time.  When I file that supplement, I will print out and attach every single email the Criminal Stalker is now sending me, Paulette Brandt, my son, and possibly others.  This will also form the basis for the defamation issues I intend to address in federal court as this is now a new article based on Leonard Cohen's entirely fraudulent and self-serving slanderous statements.  In the meantime, I will continue to send you the Moonlighting Stalker's harassing emails privately and have no intention of addressing them publicly in any venue other than a court of law.  He is, of course, posting comments with "Kelly Green" who has been online slandering Phil Spector, his wife, and Bruce Cutler since at least 2007.  

All the best,


August 17, 2005

A 'devastated' Leonard Cohen

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

Leonard Cohen was not broke.


I said there's been a flood
I said there's nothing left
-- Leonard Cohen, from The Letters, on his album Dear Heather

Take an iconic artist, mix in missing millions, hints of tantric sex, a lawsuit replete with other salacious details, and a ruptured relationship with a long-time, trusted associate, and you've got the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster. Except in the case of Leonard Cohen, it's a true tale, with the bizarre twist of a Tibetan Buddhist suing a Zen Buddhist, Cohen. For the 70-year-old poet, singer and songwriter, it's a nasty, rapidly escalating legal battle that on the one hand accuses him of conspiracy and extortion, and on the other has him accusing both his highly trusted personal manager and long-time financial adviser -- the Tibetan Buddhist -- of gross mismanagement of his financial affairs. The case exposes not only private details of Cohen's finances, but also a dramatic tale of betrayal. 

No money was missing.  Leonard Cohen did not need anything to prepare an actual accounting.  He was in possession of all royalty statements, bank and corporate statements, financial statements, agreements, and other records.  Leonard Cohen failed to report his nearly $6.7 million in loans/expenses re. one corporate entity alone.  That does not address other monies he raided with respect to his so-called pensions.

The conflict, which Cohen and others have tried to keep out of public view, has left him virtually broke -- he's had to take out a mortgage on his house to pay legal costs -- and facing a multi-million-dollar tax bill. But the artist, who is soon to release a new album with his collaborator -- and current girlfriend -- Anjani Thomas, is today remarkably calm about the potentially embarrassing conflict. Still, when he discovered last fall that his retirement funds, which he had thought amounted to more than $5 million (all figures U.S.), had been reduced to $150,000, he wasn't so sanguine. "I was devastated," Cohen says. "You know, God gave me a strong inner core, so I wasn't shattered. But I was deeply concerned."

Leonard Cohen understood Kelley Lynch reported the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005.  After his investor filed a public lawsuit, accurately accusing him of a variety of highly illegal actions, Cohen granted MacLean’s an interview, moved offensively in the press, fabricated a narrative, and willfully disregarded corporate ownership interests, etc.  Leonard Cohen was not broke.  He just received $1 million advance against his studio album; had borrowed (expended) approximately $6.7 million from one corporate entity alone (his alleged “retirement” account), and understands his motive – “a multi million tax bill.”  Why would Leonard Cohen be shattered when he personally owes one entity $6.7 million with interest that does not belong to him?

Leonard Cohen pursued a multi-million lithograph deal Lynch was negotiating; he decided not to pursue a multi-million deal he testified he was examining; and Leonard Cohen was not broke when he and Lynch parted ways.  He also planned to tour which is precisely why he and his lawyer were threatening to slander Neal Greenberg to the news media (while Cohen toured) as of 2005.

So far, only one formal court filing involving Cohen has been made. In June, Boulder, Colo.-based Neal Greenberg, Cohen's investment adviser of almost a decade, launched a hyperbole-laden claim in Colorado against Cohen, who lives in both Los Angeles and Montreal. The suit accuses Kelley Lynch, who was Cohen's manager and is also named in the suit, of siphoning money from the songwriter. It also accuses Cohen and his lawyer Robert Kory of conspiracy, extortion and defamation. It alleges the two, in an attempt to recover at least some of Cohen's lost money, threatened to besmirch Greenberg's reputation and concocted a plan to force Greenberg to give Cohen millions of dollars.

Kelley Lynch siphoned nothing from the “songwriter.”  However, Kelley Lynch agrees with Neal Greenberg that Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, engaged in a legal conspiracy that involved extortion, defamation, witness tampering, bribery, an attempt to procure false testimony, etc.  Leonard Cohen attempted to (and did) benefit from his wrongdoing.  

The suit paints an almost preposterous picture of Cohen as an artist who led a lavish celebrity lifestyle and then turned bitter and vindictive when he discovered the money had run out. For example, the suit quotes Lynch describing how Cohen demanded she discuss business matters while he soaked in a bubble bath, and how later he was somehow involved in calling a SWAT team to her home, where she was handcuffed and forcibly taken to a psychiatric ward while in her bathing suit.

Leonard Cohen did live somewhat extravagantly providing the Zen Center with a gift of $500,000, buying homes for his son and girlfriend, giving gifts of $17,000 statues and $18,000 baby grand pianos, drinking 3-4 bottles of $300/bottle Chateau LaTour per night (at one point), etc.  Leonard Cohen did demand that Kelley Lynch read business and legal documents while he soaked in a bubble bath and exposed himself to his female personal manager.  Neal Greenberg’s lawyer confirmed for Kelley Lynch that they have evidence proving that Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey, Robert Kory, and Betsy Superfon conspired to have Kelley Lynch falsely arrested by a SWAT team.  LAPD advised Lynch’s son that they were there because her “dog” was her hostage and they were taking precautions.  One of those “precautions” evidently involved taking her approximately 3 hours from her house to the most dangerous mental hospital in the United States, King Drew, and questioning her about Phil Spector.  That doesn’t explain the entirely fraudulent King Drew report.  

None of the allegations have been proven in court. Cohen is expected to file a countersuit this week. More lawsuits are likely to join the fray. And Lynch, who has sent turgid, raw and wrathful emails hither and yon, is threatening to sue just about everyone.

It’s very difficult to prove anything in Court when you are forced to fight for your right to be heard, were not served, and Cohen’s perjury and fraud are egregious and all-encompassing.  Kelley Lynch will be filing a federal lawsuit against Leonard Cohen and others.  She is now waiting for Judge Robert Hess (LA Superior Court) to explain precisely how much perjury and fraud is acceptable to this Court.  Kelley Lynch will not be sending thank you notes and flowers.

The conflict was triggered last fall when Cohen was tipped off by an insider that a lot of money was missing from his accounts. All that remained of his retirement savings was the $150,000, funds that today he can't get at as a result of the tangled legal web he finds himself in. Greenberg's suit portrays the soulful songwriter as an artist who paid little attention to his financial affairs and so was easily duped by a conniving personal manager. Cohen says he tried quietly, and confidentially, to find out from his various managers where the money had gone. Cohen calls the case "a tragedy," suggesting he was exploited by trusted advisers. He uses words like "greed, concealment, and reckless disregard," and says firmly he did nothing wrong. "I can assure you, within reason, I took every precaution except to question the fidelity of my closest associates."

There was and remains no “informant.”  Leonard Cohen heard that Kelley Lynch changed accountants, discussed reporting what she felt was tax fraud to IRS, and hired lawyers to represent her.  After spending a considerable amount of time (with his tax lawyer) evading Lynch’s lawyers phone calls, Cohen showed up at a meeting Lynch refused to attend.  At that meeting with her lawyers, Leonard Cohen came up with a novel (and probably illegal) defense:  willfully disregard all corporate books, records, stock units, assignments of intellectual property, agreements, and federal tax returns in order to falsely accuse Kelley Lynch of receiving “overpayments” in connection with her services as Cohen’s personal manager.  The narrative has become even more highly embellished.  Cohen was a micro-manager who controlled every aspect of his personal and business affairs.  He has even given interviews where he discusses his own personal role in negotiations, meetings with his record label to discuss finances and contractual terms, etc.  Leonard Cohen only had to look at the monies he personally borrowed from one entity alone and then he would realize that the actual account balance should have been approximately $6,850,000 plus the interest due on the loans he took totaling (at this time) approximately $4 million bringing the balance to $10 million.  Those loans/expenditures have not been forgiven and will be addressed in Lynch’s federal lawsuit. 

Untoil Cohen fired her last fall, Kelley Lynch had been his personal manager for almost 17 years. Back in 1988, she'd been working as an assistant to his then-manager, who died that year. Because she was knowledgeable about Cohen's business affairs and recording contracts, he had her take over. Over the years, the two developed a personal and professional relationship. Fifteen years ago, they had a brief affair. "It was a casual sexual arrangement. It was mutually enjoyed and terminated," he says. "I never spent the night." The end of the affair didn't affect their bond. "We were very, very close friends," Cohen says today. "I liked her immensely. Our families were close -- she was helpful when I was raising my daughter; I employed her father." He even named her in his living will, giving her the power to decide, in certain circumstances, if he would live or die. He handed her vast powers of attorney. He trusted her implicitly. And he believed the relationship was mutual. "She wrote dozens of emails to me, thanking me for my help. We used to correspond regularly, relentlessly." He says that in 2004, while he was recording his most recent album, Dear Heather, with a small team at his home-recording studio, Lynch would come by almost daily. "People were very tight. Kelley was taking care of business, I was producing the album. It was all taking place in this little duplex and the garage that was converted into a studio. Kelley would come over, and I would generally prepare lunch for everyone."

Leonard Cohen did not fire Lynch in the fall of 2004.  Kelley Lynch refused to meet with Cohen and his tax lawyer, Richard Westin, who planned to fly into Los Angeles the last weekend of October 2004.  She refused to privately hand over the corporate books and records and, in the alternative, had her lawyers transmit them to Cohen’s lawyers at the time.  Kelley Lynch also refused to meet with Cohen and his tax lawyer to unravel their handiwork.  Lynch and Cohen never had a “casual sexual arrangement.”  It wasn’t “mutually enjoyed and terminated.”  There was no affair so that might explain why Cohen was unable to answer her lawyer’s question about when it ended and came up with some inane comment about it simply dissolving.  Fifteen years ago would be (from the date of this article) 1990.  At that time, Kelley Lynch was seriously involved with record producer Steve Lindsey and Cohen was engaged to or dating Rebecca DeMornay.  However, Lynch’s alleged prosecutor advised the jurors in Lynch’s show trial that the alleged statutory brief intimate dating relationship took place in the mid-80s.  Leonard Cohen, being one to embellish stories about CIA MKULTRA and the Bay of Pigs, somehow felt the need to insinuate that Lynch had the power to decide if he would live or die.  Lynch, months before Cohen and she parted ways, handed over that honor to Cohen’s girlfriend and family members.  Kelley Lynch has authorized the Internal Revenue Service to review every single email she and Cohen wrote to one another as well as all emails between her and every one of Leonard Cohen’s representatives. 

The cosy arrangement was shattered one day last October when a young man, the boyfriend of a casual employee of Lynch, spoke to Cohen's daughter, Lorca, who owns an art deco furniture store and who lives downstairs from her father in the L.A. duplex he owns. "Your father really ought to look into his accounts, because he might be surprised at what he finds," he said. Lorca told him that her father trusted everyone involved and that besides, "he's about to retire, anyway." As Cohen senior tells the story, the young man replied, "He won't be able to retire."

Kelley Lynch has spoken to all her employees, who were closely supervised, and not one of them agreed that they were an “informant” or had the expertise to prepare a forensic accounting after reviewing corporate records, agreements, royalty statements, financial statements, etc.  That information also wasn’t available to her casual employees.  Leonard Cohen has now told many versions of what actually happened.  The above version is simply one.  Others involve Cohen descending from Mt. Baldy to find that he was broke.  Cohen left Mt. Baldy more or less permanently in or around late 1998 and he and Lynch did not part ways until October 2004.  Kelley Lynch will now compile all the versions Cohen has told of this situation and submit those versions to a federal court with the hopes that a federal judge will have some insights into which version is the real and accurate version of events.  Leonard Cohen could retire if he had repaid the approximately $6.7 million he owed the entity that allegedly had a “retirement” interest for him.  Leonard Cohen willfully and steadfastly refuses to address those loans/expenditures even though Kelley Lynch is in possession of emails/letters from his lawyer noting that they could be “problematic.”  

Alarmed, Lorca called her father, who was in Montreal. Within a couple of days, he returned to Los Angeles and immediately went to his bank. There he discovered, as he puts it, "improprieties." Lynch had linked her American Express bill directly to his personal chequing account, he says, and just days before his visit to the bank, he'd paid a $75,000 Amex bill on her behalf. He never learned what purchases the card had been used for, but says the credit card company reimbursed him. Cohen immediately removed Lynch's signing powers on the accounts. The next day, Cohen told Lynch she no longer had access to the bank accounts and he fired her. That afternoon, Cohen says the bank notified him that Lynch went to a different branch and attempted to withdraw $40,000 from one of his accounts. He then called a lawyer and brought in a forensic accounting firm, Moss-Adams, which, in an investigation of all of Cohen's holdings, discovered "massive improprieties." In all, the accountants discovered about $8.4 million had over time disappeared from his holdings, Cohen says. His retirement funds had been virtually depleted.

Kelley Lynch’s Amex bill was not linked directly to Leonard Cohen’s bank account and he did not pay $75,000 on her behalf.  If the credit card company reimbursed him for anything then this is evidence of fraud that Lynch intends to uncover.  Leonard Cohen did not fire her.  She refused to meet with him and his tax lawyer.  Lynch did not attempt to withdraw anything and her declarations address this fabricated incident as well.  Moss Adams prepared a fraudulent ledger that is evidence of financial and accounting fraud.  There are no “massive improprieties” apart from the massive financial and accounting fraud.  The numbers related to the depleted funds are always in flux, ever changing.  Leonard Cohen’s desperation is shocking and his greed is astounding.

Neal Greenberg, a banker with a thriving investment firm, had been brought in by Lynch to manage Cohen's money in 1996, two years after Cohen went up Mount Baldy to study to be a Rinzai Zen Buddhist monk. But now, he was worried. Over two decades, Greenberg had built a successful company, the Agile Group, and managed more than half-a-billion dollars of other people's money. He enjoyed, as he says in his suit, a "spotless professional reputation." And suddenly, here was Leonard Cohen, not just a prized client but one with a high profile, suggesting that Greenberg was party to the disappearance of Cohen's retirement savings.

Leonard Cohen and Neal Greenberg personally met in 1996 and Leonard Cohen, after extensive discussions with Greenberg, hired him to be his investor and financial adviser.  Kelley Lynch suspects the SEC does not agree that Neal Greenberg’s professional reputation is “spotless.”  After all, they sued him for fraud and other matters related to his mismanagement of his clients’ accounts. Corporate assets are not Leonard Cohen’s assets and Leonard Cohen doesn’t appear interested in repaying his loans which might have transformed those amounts into embezzled corporate assets.

Over the years, he says, he warned Cohen that his funds were being rapidly depleted, but it seemed the artist paid no heed. And now, Cohen and his lawyer, Kory, claims the Greenberg suit, were threatening "that Cohen would go out on tour to promote his new album and give interviews to reporters in which he would insinuate that he was touring because he had been bankrupted by improprieties by Greenberg and other financial advisers." Greenberg must have envisioned his business and his career in absolute tatters. He sued.

Greenberg did not warn Cohen that his funds were being depleted.  He warned Cohen that he was spending too much money for a man who had not delivered a studio album since 1993, was not touring, had taken and spent advances against contractually obligated albums, etc.  Cohen and Kory were threatening, as of 2005, that Cohen would go on tour to promote his new album and slander others.  That now includes Kelley Lynch.  Leonard Cohen understands the news media and decided to portray himself as a victim while benefiting from his own wrongdoing and even converting Kelley Lynch’s property to himself.  He now has a team of lawyers (who serve in the dual role as paid witnesses) willing to do his bidding and he cannot be bothered to show up for hearings.  Leonard Cohen, who failed to serve Lynch the summons & complaint, has used nothing but tactics against Lynch and the situation now involves proxy stalkers who are strangers that have slandered Kelley Lynch for six straight years while criminally witness tampering with many witnesses.  That would include, as she advised Judge Robert Hess, all the parties who have provided declarations to the Court in connection with Lynch’s recent Motion addressing Cohen’s excessive use of fraud, perjury, and tactics to obtain judgments, orders, and verdicts in numerous jurisdictions.

Greenberg's lawsuit lays out the business background to the dispute. Cohen's success as a singer and songwriter generated millions in royalties, the suit says, and in the 1990s, Lynch, as Cohen's trusted personal manager, began to investigate auctioning his intellectual properties, including copyrights to his song catalogue and continuing royalties for his songs. Lynch, along with a tax consultant named Richard Westin, arranged two deals for Cohen's properties. The transactions were eventually completed, one in 1997, the other in 2001, with Sony Music. From the first sale, about $5 million was transferred to trusts that Greenberg had been enlisted to manage and that would protect Cohen from an upfront tax hit. Greenberg says he invested the proceeds wisely, making lots of money for the trusts. But Greenberg also claims that Cohen's "consistent and prolific spending" to support "his extravagant 'celebrity' lifestyle" eroded the gains he had made on his client's behalf.

In or around 1994, Leonard Cohen asked Kelley Lynch to meet with Eric Kronfeld (CEO of PolyGram) to examine the possibility of an intellectual property deal.  Cohen was the driving force behind those deals.  Kelley Lynch and Richard Westin did not arrange for the two deals and Leonard Cohen appears to want to willfully disregard his own role; the fact that Greg McBowman and Lynch met with him and advised him NOT to sell the intellectual property; the declaration he provided a Court in connection with certain litigation over his decision not to pursue a bond deal; and other evidence.  $5 million was not transferred to the two charitable remainder trusts from the first sale and Leonard Cohen seems to forget things like his $500,000 gift to Mt. Baldy from that sale; the approximately $1 million in fees he incurred (according to his various lawsuits); etc.  Greenberg immediately began advising Leonard Cohen personally that he was spending far too much money based on the manner in which they planned to handle the investments – including those in charitable remainder trusts.

The second sale of Cohen's intellectual property, in 2001, was for $8 million. With Westin, Lynch put that money into a newly formed company named Traditional Holdings LLC that also was intended to shield Cohen's earnings from a major tax hit. Lynch was named as owner of 99.5 per cent of the company, leaving Cohen holding just 0.5 per cent. Greenberg alleges that Cohen, well aware of the structure and its dangers, signed off on it. Westin had explained to Cohen, the suit says, that "the plan would only work if Cohen and Lynch maintained (as they had in the past) a long-term relationship of personal and professional trust." Traditional Holdings could also issue loans to its owners, Lynch and Cohen.

Leonard Cohen is going to explain why he has willfully concealed the fact that of the $8 million gross (which was NOT paid through by Sony) deal, he personally borrowed and/or caused to be expended approximately $6.7 million.  Lynch has no idea what the sham entity was meant to do and from her perspective the corporation had no business purpose other than Cohen’s willful attempt to evade “ordinary income taxes” something he repeatedly advised Lynch was his goal.  Leonard Cohen signed off on every aspect of these deals.  Many documents are notarized and Cohen might have an impossible time explaining his one page stock unit that indicates his percentage in Traditional Holdings, LLC as of April 2001.  This is a highly literate individual and there is ONE LINE WITH WRITING ON IT that indicates that Cohen had a .5% interest in this entity.  Cohen understood why – to avoid IRS allegations that he engaged in self-dealing.  Nevertheless, Cohen did have an annuity agreement but that required his repaying his $6.7 million in loans/expenditures.  His lawyer, however, extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2003 federal tax return.  Lynch’s accountant and lawyers brought this to her attention and it was one of the issues they asked to speak to Cohen and Westin about when they showed up with their novel defense that involved positioning Leonard Cohen as the “alter ego” of certain corporate fictions who engaged in self-dealing and tax fraud.  Cohen understood that he could take loans.  He understood they had to be documented.  And, he understood he had to repay those loans within three years at 6% interest.  Instead, Leonard Cohen decided to commit further fraud by filing a retaliatory lawsuit against Lynch, rushing to the IRS with the Complaint (a default was not entered for approximately six months thereafter), and using a fabricated narrative and fraudulent financial ledger (some version of it) to obtain fraudulent refunds from IRS that Lynch has now challenged as fraud and will litigate in federal court as a predicate act per RICO.  Kelley Lynch didn’t discover Cohen’s fraudulent refunds until April 2012 when the alleged prosecutor in her trial handed her lawyers a federal file marked “IRS Binder” causing Lynch to issue a subpoena to Agent Luis Tejeda, head of fraud for IRS in Los Angeles.  

As soon as the new company was in place, "Greenberg was immediately alarmed by Cohen's desire and tendency to treat this company [Traditional Holdings] like his personal piggy bank," the lawsuit alleges. It goes on to claim Cohen took a $1-million advance on the second sale of assets to Sony, Lynch took a commission of $1.1 million, and fees for lawyers and accountants ate up another $714,000. And then, over the next few years, Lynch regularly borrowed money from the Traditional Holdings account in amounts of tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes for herself, sometimes acting for Cohen. The lawsuit claims that while Greenberg sent a monthly email statement to Cohen, it was always Lynch who told Greenberg to release the loans.

Leonard Cohen did treat these companies as his personal piggy banks.  Cohen did indeed receive a $1 million advance on the second sale.  Lynch didn’t “take” a commission.  Leonard Cohen signed a letter authorizing payment of certain of his personal transaction fees from the corporate entity.  Leonard Cohen personally hired his lawyers and accountants who worked on numerous deals, and not simply this one deal, and were entitled to be paid.  That’s why Leonard Cohen and his lawyers/royalty consultant (accountant) personally entered into retainer agreements that did not involve Kelley Lynch.  Leonard Cohen is not going to be victorious in his argument that Kelley Lynch authorized loans; he took them; but he is not obligated to repay them which is what the above paragraph sounds like.  Neal Greenberg sent formal monthly financial statements that Cohen reviewed.  The monthly emails were a courtesy showing the TH account balance with “shareholder loans” (as Cohen’s representatives wanted distributions – including those for corporate tax payments – characterized).  Since Leonard Cohen personally authorized his personal transaction fees, house purchases for his son and girlfriend, personal tax payments, etc. it was NOT always Lynch who told Greenberg to release the loans to Leonard Cohen.

The Greenberg suit claims Lynch, always acting as Cohen's agent, told Greenberg what to do regarding the funds. For instance, Lynch instructed Greenberg to send Cohen the monthly email status reports, but Greenberg says she directed him to leave out day-to-day activities and the status of Traditional Holdings loans. Because the loans were to be repaid, Greenberg included them in the statements as assets, which meant that it appeared as though nothing had been taken out.

Leonard Cohen’s own declaration confirms that he advised Greenberg to send him monthly courtesy statements.  Greenberg is the individual who felt the shareholder loans should be handled as assets and informed Lynch that Westin agreed with this.  She has no idea what he personally discussed with Cohen whose declaration states that he and Greenberg privately discussed the courtesy emails.  Loans are assets.  It doesn’t make anything appear that nothing was taken out.  It makes it appear that there are corporate assets totaling a certain amount and this is an apples and oranges argument that has nothing to do with one another: there are corporate assets (that include loans) and there are loans that had to be repaid.  There were also corporate distributions in accordance with the corporate books and agreements.

Greenberg, who declined to comment for this article, claims in his suit he repeatedly stressed to Cohen that his spending was seriously draining his investments. In one warning letter, Greenberg told Cohen that Traditional Holdings had only $2.1 million left. Considering how quickly the money was leaving the account, Greenberg wrote, "I think you should consider your situation quite desperate." It's not clear if Cohen ever received this letter. On this, Cohen and Greenberg agree: they say many of Greenberg's attempted communications with Cohen were intercepted by Lynch.

Leonard Cohen received this and other letters that contained “IRS DANGER warnings.”  His response?  He advised Lynch and others not to inform Greenberg when he received future income.  Nothing was intercepted.  There was no informant.  Lynch did not have a “gigolo.”  And she does not poetically accuse Cohen of being the “author of her misfortune.”  These are merely Cohen’s carefully crafted sound bites.

On other points, Cohen disagrees. He was vitally interested in his financial affairs, he says. "It wasn't that I wasn't involved -- on the contrary, I took great pains to pay these professionals well and to solicit their advice and to follow it," he insists. "And, I was receiving a report every month from Neal Greenberg indicating that my retirement savings were safe." Cohen insists he was not made aware that Lynch had been named the majority owner of Traditional Holdings; instead, he says that in an early description of the company's structure, he had been told that his two children, Lorca and Adam, would be its principal owners. He says he was shocked to learn that Lynch had almost complete ownership. The mistake Cohen admits to is that "I paid close attention to everything except the possibility that my closest associate would embrace any irregularities in the discharge of her duties."

Leonard Cohen was indeed vitally interested in his affairs.  However, corporate entities are not Cohen’s personal affairs.  Leonard Cohen simply needed to repay his loans/expenditures totaling approximately $6.7 million and he would have no problems with his so-called retirement account which involved a private annuity obligation that his personal tax lawyer extinguished from the federal tax returns.  Kelley Lynch intends to litigate issues related to the fraudulent federal tax returns Leonard Cohen caused to be filed with the Internal Revenue Service.  He has now testified that Kelley Lynch’s ownership interest in at least one entity was a “mistake” that was “rectified.”  Leonard Cohen evidently wants that mistake to remain secret although Kelley Lynch was and remains a partner on certain entities; received partnership tax documents prepared by Cohen’s tax lawyer for his benefit; and paid taxes.  Leonard Cohen has simply decided to lie his way out of his own wrongdoing.  He is evidently unable to live in Canada due to tax and residency issues; has slandered Lynch horrendously; and seems to think that calling her a drunken slut who wants to attend one of his concerts (a farcical narrative) will resolve these very serious outstanding legal and tax matters.  He is quite wrong about that fact.  Kelley Lynch, her sons, and others, have been criminally harassed over this situation.  That would include by an alleged Bay Area lawyer who appears to be moonlighting for the Spector prsosecution who has stalked and slandered Lynch since May 2009 when he heard from Cohen’s representatives.  He worked in tandem with Spector’s personal assistant, Michelle Blaine (who stole $1 million from Mr. Spector) and Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, who frequently copied Cohen’s lawyers on her harassing emails to Lynch, her sons, and others.  Paulette Brandt, Lynch’s friend and Phil Spector’s former personal assistant, is now being slandered and criminally harassed by these same individuals.  Leonard Cohen signed many agreements related to these entities.  Many of those agreements were notarized.  

Cohen also says he learned only recently that the two sales of his intellectual property to Sony were unnecessary. He understands now that those properties earned roughly $400,000 a year, before taxes. That was plenty for him to support what he calls his modest lifestyle. Cohen accuses Lynch of creating the deals in order to boost her own income. He paid her 15 per cent of his income, which generally earned her $90,000 a year, he says. With the sales of his intellectual property bringing in revenue in the millions, it boosted her income to seven figures.

Leonard Cohen provided a court (in 2000) with a declaration confirming his substantial royalty income – totaling well over $400,000 and detailing his personal role and decisions with respect to these deals.  He is now attempting to argue that the declaration is “hearsay.”  Leonard Cohen did not have a modest lifestyle.  Leonard Cohen has also used this situation as an opportunity to convert Lynch’s personal property to himself.  He has withheld commissions due her.  Leonard Cohen did this to Machat & Machat after Marty Machat’s death.  He has also evidently sold Phil Spector’s master to Sony.  Leonard Cohen falsely accuses his representatives of ripping him off to breach contracts.  

Greenberg's lawsuit becomes more disturbing as it describes what happened after Cohen realized he'd lost millions of dollars. Greenberg says Cohen pressured him to go after his firm's insurance company for the money to repay him. "Be a man," Cohen told Greenberg, the suit says. By threatening his reputation, it appeared to Greenberg that Cohen, on Kory's advice, had decided to target Greenberg's and his insurance company's deep pockets. Then, alleges the lawsuit, Cohen and Kory began to pressure Lynch to join them in "their extortion scheme." From November 2004 to April 2005, the lawsuit says, Kory repeatedly let Lynch know, sometimes directly, sometimes through friends or other intermediaries, that Cohen was ready to "forgive" Lynch's obligations to him, and that she in fact could receive a hefty cut of "whatever funds could be extorted from Greenberg and other advisers with her co-operation."

Leonard Cohen’s conduct, and that of his lawyers, is indeed disturbing.  Leonard Cohen didn’t lose millions of dollars.  That is simply a fabricated narrative.  Leonard Cohen did indeed pressure Greenberg to go after his insurance company for money to pay him knowing that he personally borrowed (expended) millions of dollars from that entity.  MacLean’s seems to think an “extortion scheme” involving millions of dollars is a common event.  Most insurance companies do not.  Leonard Cohen offered Lynch a variety of settlements including 50% community property.  Lynch simply had to provide false testimony that Cohen was defrauded by his representatives.  That is not what Lynch witnessed and she refused to enter into a settlement agreement.  Cohen’s lawyer has now fraudulently written the IRS, knowing that Lynch refused to enter into a settlement, advising them that Lynch has attempted to “coerce” a settlement out of Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen and his lawyers will say and do anything.  LA’s celebrity justice program, and LA Superior Court’s tolerance of fraud and perjury, have aided and abetted Leonard Cohen in his attempts to conceal his criminal tax fraud and attempts to obstruct justice.  LA Superior Court appears to have a rampant problem with a failure to have people properly served and forces regular citizens to fight for a right to be heard.  As Leonard Cohen intentionally bankrupted Kelley Lynch, she is not in a position to send a team of lawyers willing to say and do anything into court with endlessly creative tactics and ploys.

Greenberg's suit alleges that when Lynch refused to participate, Kory and Cohen vowed to "crush her." It goes on to say their "tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage Lynch" included threatening her that she would go to jail, and "paying two paroled convicts to make statements that they had observed Lynch's older son brandishing a gun and threatening to kill someone."

Lynch has no idea if Cohen offered to pay anyone to make statements about her son but she is in receipt of his email (concealed from her jurors) noting that he sees her son copied in.  Kelley Lynch’s son was asked to go in and sign over/transfer Lynch’s home to Leonard Cohen although he does not own her home.  That issue will be litigated in federal court as well.  Leonard Cohen didn’t simply threaten Kelley Lynch with jail, he took the witness stand, lied excessively, acknowledged perjuring himself, and had a prosecutor willing to do his bidding – all to ensure that Lynch went to jail.  Of course, Lynch didn’t knowingly violate the fraud restraining order the City of Los Angeles targeted her over and she has put the City and County on notice that she intends to sue these entities.  Her Criminal Stalker is now copying the City Attorney on emails criminally harassing Lynch and others after advising her that he personally worked with them on two occasions to have her falsely arrested.  

Lynch's response, to all of this has been bitter, scattered and in some cases difficult to comprehend. In a rambling exchange of emails with Maclean's last week, she denied any wrongdoing. She also declined to discuss the Agile Group's lawsuit, describing it as "bogus" and "slanderous," while promising to file her own complaints against Cohen and other principal players in the case. She added her phone had been disconnected because she lacked money to pay the bills.

Kelley Lynch will not be sending thank you notes or flowers to anyone over this situation.  Some other fraud can engage in that type of psychotic response if this happens to them.  

In the meantime, she's been showering Cohen and others with invective-laden emails that alternately voice misery and hurl accusations at friends and former colleagues. Many of these lament losing custody of her 12-year-old son, Ray, to his father, music producer Steve Lindsay. A few devolve into the outrightly bizarre. One missive, sent July 17 and obtained by Maclean's, invites Greenberg in highly explicit terms to Lynch's home for an evening of tantric sex. "First I want to study the inner channels with you," it says. "Why not -- let's see who is better at tantric sex -- you or me."

Greenberg addressed the fact, in his Complaint, that Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey (the father of Lynch’s younger son), Cohen’s lawyer, and others, conspired to create a custody matter.  Lynch is entirely clear about that fact.  Yes, Kelley Lynch thought it was odd that Greenberg called her in 2005 to discuss private annuity obligations and raised “tantric sex” as a topic.  She found it absurd and farcical.  Her challenge as to who is better at “tantra” remains outstanding.

So troubling have the messages become that several people who know Lynch fear she's become unhinged. "I'm afraid she's suicidal," says Lindsay, her ex-husband, adding that in his judgment she's been acting erratically for the better part of a year. Cohen too sent Lynch a message last fall spelling out his concern in verse: You can't tell the difference between a threat / and a helping hand, he wrote. You can't tell the difference between a threat / and a solemn warning / from one of the few people / who still cares about you and your family.

At no time was Kelley Lynch “suicidal” but Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey clearly conspired to advance this theory and destroy the lives of Lynch’s sons.  That is totally irrelevant to the news media, the government actors in Los Angeles, and the criminals who have targeted her sons for approximately six straight years now.  Lynch can tell the difference between a “helping hand” and a “threat” and she also sees right through Cohen’s carefully crafted insanity.  The notion that Leonard Cohen believes he is one of the few people that cares about Lynch or her family is mind boggling and may require a careful psychiatric assessment of this individual that takes into consideration his long history of drug and alcohol abuse.  While Cohen testified that Lynch attempted to assail his reputation with statements about that history he was simultaneously dazzling his awe-inspired biographer with tales of dabbling in meth and LSD.  Leonard Cohen will say anything that serves his purpose.  

Lynch's apparent troubles have had punishing legal consequences. Lindsay has obtained a temporary restraining order that prevents her from visiting her son. Tara Cooper, a former employee of a greeting card company Lynch started while still in Cohen's employ, has taken out a similar order after alleging that Lynch sent threatening emails and harassed her by phone. And two of her creditors -- upscale department stores Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman -- have filed collections claims against her in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Restraining orders are a dime a dozen; litigation advantages; and all one needs is a liar willing to take the stand to testify that they fear for their lives.  Tara Cooper, according to her boyfriend at the time (who has now taken the position that she is a “psychopath”), received advice from her mother:  taking out a fraud restraining order will keep you out of Ray’s custody matter.  In any event, according to Tara Cooper, her mother is a CIA agent who practices tantric sex, naturally.  Lynch’s creditors did obtain liens against her.  That’s what usually happens when people are forcibly bankrupted.

This is the mess that Leonard Cohen -- a man many believe floats a few inches above the ground -- finds himself in. These days, he's Zen-like. In the course of a long interview by phone from his home in Los Angeles, the man sometimes called the poet laureate of pessimism sounded almost bemused. "What can I do?" he asks. "I had to go to work. I have no money left. I'm not saying it's bad; I have enough of an understanding of the way the world works to understand that these things happen."

Leonard Cohen could have repaid his loans to the corporate entity and not stolen from Lynch and slandered her to the news media.  He could have refrained from perjuring himself in numerous courts of law.  He could have paid his taxes.  There are many things Leonard Cohen could have done.  

His first choice of action when he learned his money was gone, he says, was to not do anything. Aware of how painful litigation could be, he says he wanted no part of it. "I said, 'I can walk away with nothing.' I said, 'Let me start again. Let me start fresh at 70. I can cobble together a little nest egg again.' " But he ran into a glaring, immediate problem: had he done nothing, he would have legally been responsible for the funds that had gone missing. And on that money, he'd owe millions in taxes, a sum he no longer had.

Leonard Cohen didn’t learn that anything was “gone.”  However, Leonard Cohen’s motive with respect to this situation is quite glaring – “he’d owe millions in taxes” if he didn’t argue fraud legally and attempt to unwind these transactions with Internal Revenue Service.  Any attempt to unwind these transactions further will be greeted with additional challenges to IRS from Lynch related to fraud and argued in federal court.

His next step, "his second-best choice," was to negotiate with his advisers about the missing money. He approached Lynch, asking her to open her books. "She resolutely and unconditionally refused to open her books to any scrutiny whatsoever and instead began a bizarre email campaign to discredit me in some kind of way, which has gone all over the place," Cohen says, adding that he's launching a lawsuit this week with great reluctance. "I don't want anybody hurt. It's not my nature to pursue and to contend with people that way." Cohen says all he wants is to find out where the money went. "I'm not accusing her of theft," he says of Lynch. Still, his countersuit will likely describe how money was removed from his accounts.

Kelley Lynch didn’t have any books and as of October 2004, her lawyers had transmitted the corporate books to Cohen’s lawyers.  Leonard Cohen and his daughter went into Lynch’s offices, when she was not present, and removed all of Lynch’s business files.  Cohen has simply fabricated yet another fraudulent narrative and seems so earnest in his statements.  Leonard Cohen steadfastly refuses to provide Lynch with an actual accounting that addresses corporate ownership interests, assets, equities, and liabilities.  This is precisely how Leonard Cohen operates.  Leonard Cohen testified before LA Superior Court when asked if Lynch ever stole from him – “just my peace of mind.”  In this interview he is not accusing Lynch of “theft” but, as of the date it was released, Cohen had filed a lawsuit accusing Lynch of theft.  Perhaps a federal court will understand which version is factual and which is a lie.  Leonard Cohen simply needed to look at the documents in his possession, and his own loans, to understand how money was removed from corporate – not his – accounts.  Kelley Lynch has documented everything she has gone through since reporting Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service in emails.  This annoyed the City Attorney of Los Angeles who lied extensively about IRS and federal tax matters to taxpayers serving jury duty.  Those jurors wanted to hear from IRS so clearly they thought they were in a federal court.  The judge refused to permit Lynch to call defense or impeachment witnesses during her trial.  

Cohen appears to have been blindsided by Greenberg's lawsuit. He insists that he and Kory were in the midst of mediation with Greenberg when the financial adviser's lawsuit was suddenly and unexpectedly filed. He says the mediation had been confidential, at Greenberg's urging, as he feared for his reputation. In an email to Greenberg, Cohen urges him to make good. "Dear Neal, I believed in you. I depended on you," Cohen wrote in November 2004. "When things went wrong, does it make any sense that you would make your warnings available to the only person in the cosmos who had an interest in deceiving me? A single, simple email informing me that my accounts were being emptied would have been enough. I answered EVERY SINGLE EMAIL you ever sent me. Fortunately, I have them all.

Leonard Cohen obviously wrote his emails to Neal Greenberg planning to release them to the news media.  Every move he has made is calculated and transparent.

"Face up to it, Neal," the email continues, "and square your shoulders: You were the trusted guardian of my assets, and you let them slip away . . . Restore what you lost, and sleep well." In his sign-off, Cohen delivered as much a piece of advice as his own philosophy: "Put this behind you and it will dissolve." There's an irony here, that a man who has struggled much of his life to distance himself from the material world now, at 70, finds himself in an intense battle with it. Still, he's not defeated. "This has propelled us into incessant work," he says of himself and Thomas. He exudes optimism about their new CD. "It's one of the best albums I've heard." It's not closing time quite yet. 

Neal Greenberg was the guardian of Cohen’s so-called assets.  No, it’s not closing time quite yet.  Kelley Lynch is about to file her federal lawsuit and has just filed a motion asking LA Superior Court to refer Leonard Cohen and his lawyers, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice, to the appropriate authorities for perjury prosecutions and disciplinary action.