Saturday, June 6, 2015

Kelley Lynch Was Not Leonard Cohen's "Lover

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 4:46 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch Was Not Leonard Cohen's "Lover"
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, "" <>, Feedback <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>

Hello CIA, NSA, and FSB,

This is my latest Press Release.  What do you think?  Wish me luck.

All the best,


"[Kelley] Lynch's Press Release" leaves no doubt that the legally and factually frivolous 2015 Motion was a sham filing and was not meant to assert any legitimate legal claim or right."
Singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen & His Lawyers


Los Angeles Superior Court
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 N. Hill Street
Department 24
Los Angeles, California 90012
Hearing:  8:30 AM

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

Truth Sentinel Episode 40 (Phil Spector, truth, lies, guilt and innocence, murder trial) Leonard Cohen, truth, lies, guilt, innocence, law, MK ULTRA)

Leonard Cohen & His Two Law Firms Attempt To Conceal The Truth & Facts - His Good Rock 'n Roll Stories About Kelley Lynch & Phil Spector Were Working So Beautifully With The News Media; The Truth Has Inconveniently Intruded On His Plans

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Case No. BC338322
To: Dan Bergman <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, "" <>, Feedback <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>

Dan Bergman,

You continue to be as predictable as the day is long.  I asked if, as a courtesy, you would email me MY redacted declaration.  Do you consider what I witnessed covered by the attorney/client privilege shared by Cohen, Westin, and Greenberg that I was specifically excluded from?  You mentioned my blog.  I removed the link from the source - Scribd.  Why not have the courtesy to at least pretend you are interested in something of substance rather than attempting to silence me and obstruct justice?  There is a crime fraud exception as well.

I found the hearing the other day rather vague apart from Cohen's lawyers laughing throughout it.  I found that rather sophomoric.  

Is there an actual order that can be read?  Was their any basis for this decision or was it just due to the fact that Judge Hess hadn't read the documents?  What do you believe?  

You used this tactic to destroy my son's life.  Nothing will ever change that fact.  Read his declaration again - Gianelli, who has targeted me over Cohen, Lindsey, et al., made my son physically ill with his slanderous, vile emails.  Why was my son, as a minor, exposed to these criminals?  

It's clear to me that LA Superior Court accepts any type of conduct.  For the record, a Motion for Terminating Sanctions is a remedial motion - not a request to rehash or reconsider matters.  

Kelley Lynch

Case Number:  BC338322
Filing Date:  08/15/2005
Case Type:  Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 05/09/2006

Future Hearings 

06/23/2015 at 08:33 am in department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Sanctions(termination)

COHEN LEONARD NORMAN - Plaintiff/Petitioner
EDELMAN SCOTT A. ESQ. - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn
KORN JEFFREY W. ESQ. - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn
LUCAS NANCY E. ESQ. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
LYNCH KELLEY A. - Defendant/Respondent
MICHELLE RICE - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
WESTIN RICHARD A. - Defendant/Respondent

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
05/29/2015 Ex-Parte Application (to grant plaintiff's motion to seal portions of the court record )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
05/29/2015 Order (granting plaintiff's exparte application to seal portions of court record )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
05/29/2015 Opposition Document (to exparte application )
Filed by Defendant & Defendant in Pro Per
05/29/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 24, Robert L. Hess, Presiding
Future Hearings 

06/23/2015 at 08:33 am in department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for Sanctions(termination)

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To IRS Re. Federal Tax Matters Before LA Superior Court - Case No. BC338322

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Federal Tax Matters re. Default Judgment
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, "" <>, Feedback <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>,,


I would like an IRS opinion on all federal tax matters raised during my so-called 2012 trial.  That would include, but is not limited to, the prosecutor's absurd position that federal tax information might conceivably by on the District Attorney's website.  I cannot imagine what the City Attorney thought it was doing apart from sabotaging IRS and discrediting me.  

In any event, the matter before Judge Hess is clearly a federal tax matter.  Very serious issues related to criminal witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and a willful attempt to conceal evidence are being addressed.

All the best,


There is – the evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was upset and Mr. Cohen and fought with the District Attorney’s office, the LA County District Attorney’s office didn’t fie charges against Mr. Cohen.  And some of those emails that were sent to Mr.  Cooley, the email will say “Execute Steve Cooley.”  RT 40  [Parody emails]  The evidence will show the evidence stopped, virtually stopped.  None from Ms. Lynch.  When did they start back up?  About the time Mr. Cohen’s world tour was over in 2011.  RT 40

Ms. Rice, one of Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, decided to send out a letter, okay?  Perhaps it might have appeared a bit forceful.  But the evidence will show Ms. Rice has a job to do to protect her client’s interest, share a letter in February 2011 reminding Ms. Cohen [sic] that there’s a permanent Colorado restraining order.  And that the California courts will enforce that restraining order.  (RT 40-41)  [Michelle Rice lied in her February 14, 2011 email and KL confirmed this fact with LA Superior Court at that time; contacted Boulder Court, yet again, and was advised that the order expired on February 15, 2009.]

Exhibit:  Michelle Rice February 14, 2011 email.
And in that month of February, when emails were being sent by Ms. Lynch before the letter to – letter from Ms. Rice, Mr. Kory Mr. Cohen’s other attorney, and Mr. Cohen were the only people getting emails from Ms. Lynch … Let’s talk again about that Colorado restraining order that the evidence will show Ms. Lynch agreed to.  It’s not just that the Colorado Court said, “Stay far, far, far away from Mr. Cohen.”  No.  That’s not just what it says.  It says “Do not contact Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, Michelle Rice and Robert Kory.”  That’s what it says.  [The Colorado order does not say that; it notes that the “place of business” re. Kory law offices is to be avoided.]  RT 42  Emails again to Steve Cooley, FBI, [Agent] Sopko [U.S. Treasury.]  You name it, she sent it.  Everybody, same type of things.  RT 42  [The Colorado order says NOTHING about Kory/Rice]

Now, in some of the emails there are mention by Ms. Lynch of failed business agreements and failure by Mr. Cohen to live up to his agreement of what she believed their business relationship was.  And indeed one of the things, the evidence will show, that she talks a lot about is tax fraud and the need to have the tax return.  But the People will submit to you or show to you that this so-called business relationship, or not honoring their business relationship, indeed the most important thing that she mentions every so often the tax statement is merely a ruse.  For example ... the evidence you will see ... that Ms. Lynch specifically asked for her K-1 form ... Let’s talk a little bit about Ms. Lynch’s need for the tax form or tax returns -- the evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was Mr. Cohen’s business manager.  The evidence will show that Mr. [sic] Lynch -- Mr. Cohen has no clue as to what a W-2 form is, a 1099 9is, a K-1 form.  The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch is the one that had all of that information, knew all that information.  Mr. Cohen did not have it, does not have it and does not understand what it means.  Okay.  (RT 42-43)

Streeter:  So 2006, thereabouts, Mr. Cohen also got a restraining order in California against Ms. Lynch.  And you will see from the email she acknowledges the California retraining order, as well as the Colorado restraining order.  RT 43

[Kelley Lynch was unaware of the fraud California order so she didn't acknowledge the California order.  The Court itself, in 2013 advised her that it was a "domestic violence" order which is further evidence of fraud before LA Superior Court.]


Public Defender:  This case is very much about relationships and how relationships can often get messy.  You’re going to hear about a messy personal relationship.  Kind of interweaved with a messy professional relationship.  That’s when you’re going to hear that once money became involved, well then attorneys became involved.  And once attorneys became involved, there is a lot of finger pointing.  That’s what this case is truly about.  Now there is, As Ms. Streeter mentioned, the relationship between Mr. Leonard Cohen and Ms. Kelley Lynch, it’s a long history.  They started working together in 1988.  And you’re going to hear that they had a very successful working relationship for many – most of those years.  In 1988 he gave her a raise and gave her more responsibilities.  During that time when it became more than just a business relationship.  It also became a sexual relationship.  You’re going to hear, even though Ms. Streeter said it was a brief encounter, that this was a longstanding intimate relationship.  And then around 2005, that’s when things began to change.  Mr. Cohen found himself in a bit of a financial crisis. (RT 44-45)  

NOTE:  This information about a “sexual relationship” was pulled from LAPD’s report.  There was never a “sexual relationship,” Lynch has no idea what a “sexual relationship” is, and she advised her lawyers that in addition to a business relationship she and Cohen had a personal friendship.  The relationship wasn’t messy.  Leonard Cohen heard Lynch intended to report what she felt was tax fraud to IRS.  Cohen didn’t give KL a raise in 1988.  She didn’t work for him at that time; she worked for his attorney and personal manager.  When this individual passed away, Cohen hired Lynch.  Cohen did not find himself in a financial crisis and this information appears to have been picked up from news accounts and Neal Greenberg’s lawsuit.

Like Ms. Streeter mentioned, there were questions about the IRS and taxes.  And so he panicked.  He got his attorneys involved and the finger pointing started.  The plan was to get Ms. Lynch to work with Mr. Cohen and to pin the blame on his financial consultant.  But Ms. Lynch refused to go along with that plan.  She said no, I’m not going to falsify anything.  I’m not going to go out and do what you tell me to do, and she refused.  And so what his attorneys did at that point, well, they said, well she’s not going to help us, that means she’s going to hurt us.  So they went after Ms. Lynch the best way they knew how.  Using the legal process.  As Ms. Streeter mentioned, these are his attorneys.  They have one job and one job only.  To protect their client at all costs.  That’s what the evidence is going to show happened here.  (RT 45)  

Since that day, you’re going to find out that the attorneys have done everything in their power to harm Ms. Lynch.  That she’s lost everything.  Her job, her money, her child, all orchestrated and involved with the attorneys in this case.  They are involved in that entire process.  Because if they ruin her credibility, well, that helps Mr. Cohen.  And they have done everything in their power to hurt Ms. Lynch’s credibility … And yet they wanted to go and they went and tried to hurt her economically and to put a restraining order on her so they couldn’t have any contact during the litigation.  That was their intent.  That was their purpose.  (RT 45-46)  

There is a wealth of evidence, much of it intentionally concealed or suppressed, supporting the conclusion that Ms. Lynch did not intend to annoy Leonard Cohen and did not willfully or knowingly violate a restraining order.  As Ms. Lynch’s counsel told jurors in his opening statement:  There were questions about the IRS and taxes.  (RT 45)  You’re going to see that a lot of this is asking for legitimate purposes to get information that she needed for her taxes.  Information that he did not want her to have.  Information that his attorneys did not want to give her.  (RT 46)

You’re going to see that a lot of this is asking for legitimate purposes to get legitimate information that she needed for her taxes, information that his attorneys did not want to give to her.  (RT 46)

Ms. Lynch is presumed innocent.  That means every single time she takes that chair she is presumed innocent.  And it’s the burden of the prosecution -- Streeter:  Objection; argumentative.  Court:  Overruled.  (RT 47)  You find out it’s their burden to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  That’s what their job is.  And unless they can meet that job, you must go with that presumption.  Streeter:  Objection; argumentative.  Court:  This is argument.  (RT 47)

What we’re going to ask is that you keep an open mind.  That you don’t just take Mr. Cohen’s word for it.  He’s a celebrity.  He’s a performer.  He’s an entertainer.  That means - that means he’s charismatic.  He knows how to get people on his side.  (RT 47)  Because it’s their burden to prove every single element beyond a reasonable doubt.  (RT 47)

Kelley Lynch Cross:

Streeter:  You mentioned that you were trying to contact Mr. Cohen in reference to tax information you needed, right?  That your 1099 or K-1?  Lynch:  Many different tax and accounting and financial information I required to deal with my federal and state tax returns ... Now, once you were released from or quit Mr. Cohen’s employ, at some point later the IRS was of the opinion that money that was missing out of his account, that was income to you, correct?  Lynch:  I’ve never heard that.  I’ve met with the agents for the Treasury and I’ve never been told that, ever.  Streeter:  Well, you mentioned -- Lynch:  I talked to Agent Tejeda, I’ve never heard that.  Streeter:  Well, you mentioned that the IRS came after you -- Lynch:  They didn’t come after me.  (RT 495)  Streeter:  Okay -- did the IRS ever contact you?  Lynch:  No.  Streeter:  I haven’t finished my question, your honor.  After you quit Mr. Cohen’s employ, did the IRS ever contact you about paying back taxes?  Lynch:  No, I’ve never heard from the IRS that I owed the money.  Streeter:  And the IRS never contacted you about any back taxes that you owe?  Lynch:  I don’t owe any money.  Streeter:  So it’s your testimony that no one associated with Mr. Cohen, Mr. Kory, Ms. Rice or any of his business people ever gave you the information, the tax documents that you are requesting?  Lynch:  For the years 2004 and 2005, that’s correct.  And they’ve testified to that as well.  Streeter:  Now, you mentioned that the reason that you continued to contact Mr. Cohen was solely for business purposes, that it was to get the information for the tax documents?  Lynch:  Did I say solely for business purposes?  Kelly:  Objection; misstates the evidence.  Lynch:  I don’t recall that.  Streeter:  Is that the reason why you continued to contact him, is that you needed -- Lynch:  One of the main reasons I contacted Leonard Cohen is for -- I have K-1s that were transmitted to the IRS that do not belong to me. , I was not a partner on LC Investments.  That causes tremendous confusion with my taxes.  I have a default judgment where two companies have been -- Leonard Cohen said he’s the beneficial owner.  That is not factual.  I have the evidence.  This caused my federal tax returns that were filed to be altered.  This causes confusion for me.  Streeter:  Okay.  Lynch:  I have tried to get all of this clarified.  I’ve asked for -- there is not a forensic accounting.  There is a ledger.  (RT 497)  Dear Heather, Leonard Cohen testified, the income and royalties were on the accounting ... (RT 498)  Streeter:  So --- And it’s also your testimony that the emails you sent, you didn’t feel that those were harassing, right, Ms. Lynch?  Lynch:  Asking for information for my federal tax returns and state - including when I’ve been garnished is harassment?  Streeter:  Right:  That’s what you’re saying, none of the emails were harassing.  Lynch:  I was also given legal advice that no one can prevent me from requesting that information from Mr. Cohen.  Streeter:  It’s your position that the emails that were sent -- Lynch:  No.  I feel like I’m being harassed by not being given the information.  So that's a no?  (RT 498)  Lynch:  That’s my answer.  (RT 499)

Streeter:  And then the first part, the subject it says, re: Marty Machat letter to Cannon Carter/Irving Trust re. his share of the Stranger Music, Inc., right?  Lynch:  That’s correct.  Streeter:  Okay.  There’s no mention in that about request for tax document in that -- Lynch:  No, but this is information that I feel that Leonard Cohen sold something that I was part of the deal.  This has to do with a very serious business matter that I would like to put on the record, my feeling about.  I was not told -- advised at the time by Mr. Cohen that Steven and Marty Machat owned 15%.  So that’s why that is here.  (RT 499)  So it wasn’t just taxes that you contacted Mr. Cohen about, there were other things -- Lynch:  Other fraudulent matters.  Streeter:  That had nothing to do with -- Lynch:  This may have to do with tax matters, yes.  As I told you, Robert Kory told me that there were problems with Stranger Music and taxes, and this is Stranger Music.  Streeter:  But on that there’s nothing about taxes, correct?  Lynch:  But Stranger Music in a tax problem, and I’ve gone to the IRS on that as well.  So that is a tax matter, yes.  (RT 500) 

Kelley Lynch Cross:  It has nothing to do with your taxes, correct?  No, it doesn’t.  It has to do with the fact that I think Leonard Cohen has lied about Phil Spector holding a gun on him.  So as I said, I’m copying everybody so we are all on the same page.  So it wasn’t just the taxes.  No, it wasn’t just the taxes.  It’s a very serious matter where I’m not represented by a lawyer … It’s primarily the taxes.  Where there’s matters with -- I think a Phil Spector murder trial is a deadly serious matter, as does the DA, I believe, and so anything that I am discussing Phil Spector, and anything where I feel Leonard Cohen lied about that, yes I have copied the DA in, I’ve copied other people like Dennis Riordan, as I said earlier.  I’ve copied Leonard Cohen in so that everybody is on the same page and I cannot be accused later of saying one thing to one person and another thing to another person.  (RT 502)  I had filed a complaint with the Major Fraud Unit of the District Attorney’s office about all of that … Mr. Cooley’s website says that they handle fraud over $300,000, and it goes into great detail about how they treat victims.  And they have a fraud complaint that you can file, which I did, with the Major Fraud Unit, and apparently they will then investigate.  (RT 503/504)  Do you consider that annoying, Ms. Lynch?  I have no idea.  I would consider it annoying to have to ask for tax informatiĆ³n for six years.  (RT 508)  Because he went into my son’s father’s office and -- alter we parted ways, and said I had sex with Oliver Stone, which I did not.  Do you think that’s annoying?  No, I think it’s outrageous that he would go in and lie about that.  (RT 509)  It was indeed annoying to me.  Unbelievable.  (RT 509)  Why would Mr. Cohen accuse me of having sex with his tax lawyer and Oliver Stone and be annoyed?  It seems like I should be annoyed since he lied.  (RT 510)    Do you remember telling Mr. Cohen, sending him a number of emails saying I’m gong to take the DA down, the District Attorney down?  I think the DA should be investigated for what’s gone on here.  So that’s a yes?  That’s my personal opinion.  So that’s a yes?  Yeah.  Yeah, I think he should be legally taken down and investigated.  I’ve been very clear about this.  And you don’t think that Mr. Cohen should feel any -- I don’t think Mr. Cohen should feel anything about what I say about Steve Cooley.  He doesn’t know the man … So what?  Why would that annoy Leonard Cohen?  Is he protecting Steve Cooley?  That seems like a real stretch.  (RT 510/511)  But you didn’t appeal?  I actually filed a motion to vacate with Judge Enichen after I went back and realized that Leonard Cohen’s perjury and fraud was excessive.  Do you have that document?  I believe my attorneys requested that.  Mr. Cohen’s lawyers were served with that document.  (RT 512)  So do you have the document?  No.  I was arrested in Berkeley, and I haven’t had access to any of my documents.  They are all in Berkeley right now.  But I have the copy -- (RT 512)  

Streeter:  But you didn’t appeal?
Lynch:  I actually filed a Motion to Vacate with Judge Enichen after I went back and I realized that Leonard Cohen’s perjury and fraud was excessive.
Streeter:  Do you have a document for that, Ms. Lynch?
Lynch:  I believe my attorneys requested that.  Mr. Cohen’s lawyers were served with that document.  RT 512

The question the people have is, when you were at the hearing in Colorado you were specifically asked whether or not you were served with a California restraining order, correct? … Yeah.  I asked Sergeant Fernandez to throw it in the trash can.  That’s correct.  (RT 514)  And during the middle of the questioning about your understanding of the restraining order, you decided that this is okay, I’ll agree to the restraining order, correct?  I said this is insane.  He wouldn’t OR couldn’t answer a question about indirectly, and that the restraining order had expired so I was really clear about what was gong on there.  Okay.  I mean, it was rally irrelevant to me to badger me about so meeting that had expired … I asked what indirectly meant, yes.  

Streeter:  They’ve destroyed my life -- They’ve destroyed my life.  They’ve terrorized me.  Robert Kory has a declaration in my son’s custody matter.  Correct?  Isn’t that what you said?  Lynch:  Yes.  Streeter:  There was no mention that this -- that particular hearing in that particular hearing that you had any problems, right?  Lynch:  What are you talking about?  (RT 518)  Okay.  Do you recall later asking Ms. -- the judge, may I attack this later -- this later as fraud and perjury?  Do you remember that?  Yeah.  Then ultimately she said she is not a lawyer and she cannot give me advice.  Isn’t that what she said?  (RT 518/519)  Do you remember that the court’s answer was no?  But doesn’t it go on and say she can’t give me any legal advice?  May I - do you recall saying to the court, may I sue later if it’s fraud and perjury?  Do you remember asking the court?  Yes, I do.  Do you recall the court saying, no, I’m not living you legal advice … And at that point the court grants the order right, Ms. Lynch?  I suppose so, yes, indeed.  Yeah.  In fact, when I filed the motion to vacate, she told me -- she reminded me that I asked for the restraining order.  (RT 520)  

Kelley Lynch Cross:  Well, this is a lot and I’ve been through a lot.  And, you know, I actually really do feel quite tormented by this, and I think the tactics used against me have been unconscionable, and from my perspective, all I’ve done is to be honest about what I feel about Phil Spector.  I didn’t want to be dragged into that matter.  I have nothing to offer, and I feel like Leonard Cohen has thrown me under a bus.  I haven’t seen my young son for seven years.  Streeter:  Objection.  (RT 523)

Streeter:  Do you recall asking Ms. -- the judge, may I attack this later -- this later as fraud and perjury?  Do you remember asking that?
Lynch:  Yeah.  Then ultimately she said she is not a lawyer and she can’t give me advice. RT 519
Streeter:  Do you recall saying to the court, may I sue later if it’s fraud and perjury?  … Do you recall the court saying, No, I’m not giving you legal advice … RT 520

Ms. Streeter also mentioned this judgment … do you remember this?  Yes, I do.  Did you ever get this on or about May 15, 2006?  I couldn’t have.  I was homeless.  Okay.  So on that date or around that date you didn’t have a place to live?  No, I did not.  Anywhere on this paper that she gave you that stated that you actually received this document?  No there’s not.  (RT 525)

Public Defender:  Of a potential witness that we had mentioned.  I believe we’ll wrap this up.
Court:  IRS.  What is the status.
Public Defender:  We weren’t able to hear back from him.
Court:  Who is this person?
Public Defender:  Mr. Luis Tejeda [Internal Revenue Service, head of fraud Western Division of the United States] was mentioned.
Court:  Your client has had knowledge of him for quite some time.  It’s not a surprise; that should have been taken care of.  I’m not going to delay the case for now.  RT 528

Sidebar - SWAT - LAPD May 25, 2012:  Kelly:  The other potential witness I’ve been trying to speak with is her son Rutger.  He’s tried to get out of work today but says he’s off tomorrow.  Court:  And what testimony can he offer?  Kelly:  He’s listed pretty much on every email as well.  Court:  That doesn’t -- so are a lot of people.  So is Cooley.  Kelly:  I guess the big portion of his testimony is he was present during that 2005 incident with the SWAT team.  Court:  I think that is very, very tangential.  Kelly:  Okay.  Court:  Okay.  (RT 529)

Lynch:  But Stranger Music is a tax problem, and I’ve gone to the IRS on that as well.  So that is a tax matter, yes.  RT 500

Streeter:  Where on the first page is there any mention about taxes?
Lynch:  It’s on the second page.
Streeter:  But on the first page.  RT 507
Lynch:  The SWAT incident on the first page.
Streeter:  That has nothing to do with your tax issues?
Lynch:  But it has to do with criminal activity I believe.  RT 507

[Robert Kory}  He called the father weeks later and he filed a strategic and malicious declaration in the custody matter which resulted in my client losing her son.  This was part of the plan, ladies and gentlemen.  RT 589
Streeter:  Where on the first page is there any mention about taxes?
Lynch:  It’s on the second page.
Streeter:  But on the first page.  RT 507
Lynch:  The SWAT incident is on the first page.
Streeter:  That has nothing to do with your tax issues?
Lynch:  But it has to do with criminal activity I believe.  RT 507

Sidebar - Agent Tejeda:  Kelly:  Defense is asking to withhold resting until the morning.   Court:  For the reason?  Kelly:  Of a potential witness that we had mentioned.  I relieve we’ll wrap this up.  Court:  IRS.  What is the status?  Kelly:  We weren’t able to hear back from him.  Court:  Who is this person?  Ramnaney:  Mr. Luis Tejeda was mentioned.  Court:  Your client has had knowledge of him for quite some time.  It’s not a surprise; that should have been taken care of.  I’m not going to delay the case for now.  (RT 528)

Public Defender:  The other potential witness I’ve been trying to speak with is her son Rutger.  He’s tried to get out of work today but says he’s off tomorrow.
Court:  And what testimony can he offer?
PD:  He’[s listed pretty much on every email as well.
Court: -- So is Cooley.
PD:  I guess the big portion of his testimony is he was present during that 2005 incident with the SWAT team.
Court:  I think that is very, very tangential.  RT 529

NOTE:  What is not tangential is the fact that Rutger was then asked to go in and sign over/transfer my house to Leonard Cohen & Robert Kory.

Streeter Closing:

This is the other thing the people found a little interesting.  She knows what a 1099 is a K-1 -- a K-1.  Whoever heard of a K-1 before this case?  The FTB and the IRS.  Did anyone know there was a difference between the FTB and the IRS?  Or what the FTB is?  … This is a woman who knows what a K-1 is … RT 566

So this isn’t about Ms. Lynch being angry that she didn’t get her tax documents.  RT 577  So what you have here, what this is proof of is not a woman who legitimately wants her IRS records or documents.  It’s the unraveling of a con.  RT 578

Defense Closing:

She was a whistle blower, reporting what she thought was criminal and fraudulent conduct.  She’s asking for help from Steve Cooley, the DA, the IRS, the FBI, Department of Justice, lawyers she thought might help her.  RT 581

I want to focus on that threatened comment.  He says every time he sees a car slow down, he gets a little worried because of the emails that my client sent him.  This is coming from a man who says he recorded an album with Phil Spector, a man who was constantly drunk in the studio, volatile and always had guns on him.  And a man who once pulled Leonard Cohen, put his arm around him, put a gun to his head.  And what did Mr. Cohen say?  I wasn’t threatened by that.  But he’s threatened by my client sending him email?  Does that sound reasonable and credible to you?  RT 585

Cohen was testifying he doesn’t know what a W-2 form is, he only learned recently that a K-1 form has to do with taxes, and that he only asked two real questions when things come up in his financial and legal affairs:  Is it legal?  Is it safe?  And he doesn’t want to get involved too much in the intricacies of these legal issues because it interferes with his creative process … But when my co-counsel was cross-examining him on issues such as a default judgment entered against Ms. Lynch, all of a sudden Mr. Cohen had details about how a forensic accounting was entered and the judge relied upon that.  He’s won two judgments against her.  He knew details, where just on direct examination he doesn’t get involved in these type of things.  It seems like he has a lot more to say than he was letting on to.  RT 585

In its closing argument, the prosecution proclaimed that “The case is not about -- about the unlawful -- whether or not Ms. Lynch was ever charged criminally with stealing from Mr. Cohen, although it does weigh a bit on her credibility issue.  All right.”  (RT 562)  Ms. Lynch was a “con artist.”  (RT 577) She expanded upon this argument by falsely stating that “This isn’t about Ms. Lynch being angry that she didn’t get her tax documents.  This is Ms. Lynch being angry that Mr. Cohen figured out that she was his mark, that she was taking him to the cleaners before she could get out.  That’s why she’s so angry ... And her fingers were just a bit too sticky or a bit too long before she could get her exit strategy before he found out.  (RT 577)  So what you have here, what this is proof of is not a woman who legitimately wants her IRS records or documents.  It’s the unraveling of a con.  (RT 577-578) 

Public Defender:  [Michelle Rice]  She had an explanation.  Guilty with an explanation … She made a lie, a material misrepresentation in an email to my client.  But she had an explanation.  If she didn’t want to concede it, she shouldn‘t have said that.  Now, Ms. Rice also copied other people in that email.  All the people that -- the government is saying that my client copied on all those emails too.  Ms. Rice replied to all of them.  They were all included in this email which she wrote to my client.  Why?  Ms. Rice had no explanation for that.  RT 587  
A permanent order was issued by a California court.  But that permanent order in California, ladies and gentlemen, it expires in three years even though it’s called permanent.  Now, when Ms. Lynch was in a Colorado proceeding, which seems similar, they issued a permanent order.  Now, in California what we call permanent orders sometimes have an expiration date.  And in this case, an expiration date was given in the California order.  But in Colorado there is no expiration date on the order.  So it is reasonable to believe that someone might think that there was an expiration date on an order that was called permanent in Colorado because there was an expiration date on a permanent order in California.  RT 592  [Michelle Rice]  She believed she could never send documents to Ms. Lynch because that would violate the restraining order.  You may have missed that she said that.  I didn’t believe I could send any tax documents to Ms. Lynch because of the terms of the restraining order … Now, if Ms. Rice, who’s a trained attorney, advocate for Leonard Cohen, doesn’t even understand the terms of the restraining order, how can Ms. Lynch?  RT 593
Now, I also want to talk about knowledge because there is no proof of service of this California order.  RT 593  Ms. Lynch’s signature is not on the sheet.  RT 593  There is no attached proof of service … In California, we have a thing called proof of service … But there is no such proof of service on the California 2011 order.  None at all.  RT 594

Now, this case has nothing to do with Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson or the District Attorney, Steve Cooley.  And I have no idea why the prosecution spent so much time discussing the references to those people in the emails.  It has nothing to do with Oliver Stone.  RT 595

April 11, 2012
Outside presence of jurors.
Judge, Streeter, Kelly, Ramnaney

Note:  Subpoena was issued to Agent Tejeda on April 9th.  IRS binder was handed to us on the 9th.  
Ramnaney:  Your honor, there is one other issue about scheduling.  We received a binder [IRS binder] from Ms. Streeter that was provided to her by one of the witnesses that includes, you know, we believe a highly relevant witness that goes to Mr. Kory’s anticipated testimony based on what she provided us.  He’s an agent of the IRS and we have subpoenaed him.  We received that information on Monday.  We subpoenaed him, he’s received that subpoena, but pursuant to federal regulations he has to clear that before he can testify with the appropriate authorities.

I spoke with the agent this morning.  That request is being considered and evaluated by their attorneys, and as I said, they’ll give me an answer by this afternoon regarding whether or not he will be able to testify and as to what he will testify to.  

Based on the fact that we received the binder on Monday, I think me and Mr. Kelly -- 

Court:  What does his testimony go to?

Ramnaney:  We believe it goes directly to the level of a specific intent element, your honor, that Ms. Lynch’s communications were not made with any intent to harass or annoy, and they were made in good faith.  Based on the actions taken by this agent, they fully corroborate Ms. Lynch’s intent.

We also think that on the secondary corollary matter, they go to the vice motivation of the people’s witnesses.

Court:  Okay.  Well, I will consider that after I hear your information this afternoon,.

Ramnaney:  Okay.

Excerpt of Information in the IRS Binder

Tab 2 - Letter from Robert Kory to Internal Revenue Service dated December 13, 2005 regarding Tentative Refund Application 1037704856. This letter - to IRS/Fresno - confirmed receipt of Form 6762 regarding the Request for Missing information to Complete Tentative Refund Application. 

Tab 3 - Letter 662C from IRS dated February 3, 2006 confirmed Tax Refund for Leonard Cohen for tax periods December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003.
This form confirmed that the IRS was processing Cohen’s request for adjustment, dated December 13, 2005. The IRS enclosed copies of the corrections made to Cohen’s form 1045 (Application for Tentative Refund). It confirmed that Cohen would receive the following refunds - $557,196.00, $56,725.00, and $50,919.00 within 4 to 6 weeks.  [Fraud refunds now challenged with IRS.]

Tab 4 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda/Internal Revenue Service Fraud Unit Division of the Western United States dated March 9, 2007.

In response to Agent Sopko’s March 6, 2007 email to Kelley Lynch, Robert Kory contacted Agent Tejeda/IRS and followed up his phone call with a letter. Agent Sopko’s email reads as follows:

Good afternoon Ms. Lynch,

Per our meeting last week, I have found a solid IRS contact that will be better able to assist you. His name is Luis Tejeda, and he is the head of a fraud group at IRS. I spoke with him today and advised him that I would be passing on his contact information to you. 

Office phone and address redacted.

He emphasized that you will need to put something in writing - a summary of all important details, with as much specificity as you have. (For example if you have copies of any paperwork involved, or social security numbers of people involved …) Once you pass the information on to him, he will review it and proceed accordingly. As standard practice, you will not get confirmation that your information was received. However, you may contact Tejeda to follow-up.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. If there is anything else I can assist you with, please be sure to let me know.

Kelly A. Sopko
Special Agent
Treasury IG for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
Special Inquiries & Intelligence Division

    Agent Sopko was addressing the fact that she advised Lynch to report the allegations of Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to Agent Luis Tejeda, Internal Revenue Service.  After meeting with Agent Sopko, and receiving this email, Lynch reported Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Tejeda.  Robert Kory noted, in his letter, that while Petitioner had publicly alleged that she was reporting Cohen to the IRS for tax fraud, that was merely a “nuisance” but the situation had changed once Lynch met with and received Agent Sopko's email.  “Ms. Lynch has managed to obtain a return email from Special Agent Kelly Sopko, the contents of which” Kory apparently read to Agent Tejeda.  In this letter, Kory goes onto falsely state that Petitioner was using communications from the Internal Revenue Service to defame Mr. Cohen and used the threat of an IRS investigation to attempt to “extort” resolution of civil claims.  Lynch has never attempted to “extort” anything from Cohen - including a “resolution of civil claims” but Leonard Cohen, on the other hand, has wrongfully converted Lynch’s property to himself via the default judgment in this matter.

Tab 5 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda dated March 11, 2007 re. allegations made by Kelley Lynch against Leonard Cohen.  Excerpt:  “While I understand that you must be open to Ms. Lynch’s allegations, I would ask that you take whatever steps might be in your power to limit communications that she can then use to further ‘defame’ Leonard Cohen.”

    As noted above, Lynch discovered the fraudulent refund Cohen obtained from the IRS on or around April 9, 2012.  During that trial, the prosecutor and Cohen alleged that the IRS upheld the default judgment.  No evidence exists supporting those accusations and testimony.  

THE SENTENCING OF KELLEY LYNCH , I am grateful, Your Honor
... +1'd this publicly. Undo
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
grateful to the LAPD, in the person of Detective Jose Viramontes, who
arranged and executed the arrest of the Defendant, and I thank Mr.
Steve Stevens for his ...

On August 17, 2005, MacLean’s ran a companion interview, entitled “Up Close and Personal: Cohen's Lifestyle Seems Anything But Lavish,” written by awe-inspired journalist, Brian D. Johnson:  Through interviewing him over the years, I've developed a bit of a relationship with Leonard Cohen.  That night he told me what he'd hinted at months earlier in an email -- that he'd been stripped of most of his assets, and was mired in a legal battle with his money managers, who would accuse him of extortion. He said it would get nasty and personal, and that his name would be dragged through the mud.

Tab 5 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda dated March 11, 2007 re. allegations made by Kelley Lynch against Leonard Cohen.


While I understand that you must be open to Ms. Lynch’s allegations, I would ask that you take whatever steps might be in your power to limit communications that she can then use to further “defame” Leonard Cohen.  

Tab 6 - Letter from Robert Kory to Agent Luis Tejeda dated March 23, 2007 regarding Cohen’s judgment against Kelley lynch for breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, breach of contract, accounting, conversion, and imposition of constructive trust and injunctive relief  

Tabs 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, and 6e are documents from Cohen’s fraudulent and retaliatory lawsuit against me:  Complaint dated August 15, 2005, Case Summary dated August 15, 2005 (only discovered this at trial), Declaration of Leonard Norman Cohen, Declaration of Kevin Prins, Declaration of Scott Edelman.

Tab 7 - Default Judgment against Kelley Lynch dated May 15, 2006

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Kelley Lynch wrote:

Daniel Bergman and Michelle Rice,

I am reviewing Cohen's Opposition and, in particular, the language re. the ambiguous default judgment.  I did not hold my interest in Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and/or Old Ideas, LLC in trust for Leonard Cohen.  I would like to remind you that Cohen's personal tax and corporate lawyer prepared the TH returns as follows:  1)  2001 return failed to report the income from the Sony sale; 2) 2002 return extinguished my promissory note; and, 3) 2003 return extinguished the annuity obligation itself.  You are not sealing my February 2002 letter to Cohen and Westin.  I am not a lawyer, was an independent contractor, and had a right to clarify what I did or didn't handle.  The same is true for my emails with Westin advising him that the corporations did not have offices at my management company's offices.  I also take great offense at your attempts to seal my K-1 partnership documents, etc.  My lawyers and accountant brought the activity re. the TH tax returns to my attention.  

You seem to be unclear that you submitted documents to the Court in response to my Motion to Vacate that I believe were replete with fraudulent misrepresentations, perjured statements, and information was willfully concealed.  There was and remains no accounting.  There is a fraudulent financial ledger that willfully disregards all corporate entities.

Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. owns the assets.  Leonard Cohen and LCI collected royalties re. assets owned by BMT.  

I have illegal K-1s from LC Investments, LLC that were transmitted to IRS and State of Kentucky.  You want these under seal?  Would you like my tax account at IRS sealed?  I wasn't married to Leonard Cohen and we did not have attorney/client privilege.  I was intentionally excluded when Cohen wrapped Greenberg and Westin in a/c privilege.  I do not have IRS required form 1099 from Cohen for the year 2004.  I do not believe, as Streeter suggested, that the 1099 is on the District Attorney's website under Major Fraud Unit.  I found the argument positively deranged.  I do not have the K-1s that IRS requires for all the entities I have (or had - prior to the default in a matter I was not served - See Case No. BC 338322).  I want to remind you that these documents were due me for the years 2004 and 2005 PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT.  The default judgment does not indicate anywhere that it is retroactive.  It cannot possibly subvert IRS reporting and filing requirements.  

You continue to take the position that I am not the rightful owners of these entities or any share of them.  Does that mean I was willfully defrauded?  I would like that clarified.

I will have you served the motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence order and domestic violence related orders for Kory and Rice that are before Judge Hess.  At that time, I will file the motion and document I discussed with the Judicial Commission.  Their lawyer called me after the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court's Assistant contacted them.  However, you are argue that I have animosity towards Michelle Rice.  I find the argument obscene in the extreme.

Kelley Lynch

Like - Click this link to Add this page to your bookmarks Share - Click this link to Share this page through email or social media Print - Click this link to Print this page

Reporting Payments to Independent Contractors

If you pay independent contractors, you may have to file Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, to report payments for services performed for your trade or business. If the following four conditions are met, you must generally report a payment as nonemployee compensation.
  1. You made the payment to someone who is not your employee;
  2. You made the payment for services in the course of your trade or business (including government agencies and nonprofit organizations);
  3. You made the payment to an individual, partnership, estate, or in some cases, a corporation; and
  4. You made payments to the payee of at least $600 during the year.
Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income (PDF), is transmitted with Form 1096, Annual Summary and Transmittal of U.S. Information Returns (PDF), which is similar to a cover letter for your Forms 1099-MISC.

The Internal Revenue Code and related regulations require partnerships to prepare Schedule K-1 forms that report each partner's share of partnership income and losses. I.R.C. § 6031; Treas. Reg. §§ 1.6031(b)-1T(a)(1), (3). For the year 1990, Century and several other partnerships filed returns that included two separate K-1 forms relating to Taxpayer. The first K-1 issued by each of these partnerships concerned Taxpayer in his individual capacity and showed the income and losses that had accrued prior to Taxpayer's filing for bankruptcy. The second K-1 concerned Taxpayer's bankruptcy estate and reported post-petition tax items. The remaining partnerships of which Taxpayer was a member did not distinguish between pre-petition and post-petition items in the K-1 forms they prepared, instead allocating all items to Taxpayer. As to these partnerships, Taxpayer filed Notices of Inconsistent Treatment in which he allocated the tax items between himself as an individual and his bankruptcy estate.