Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Opposition to Leonard Cohen's Retaliatory Sanctions Motion Filed in Bad Faith & to Harass Kelley Lynch

Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions is frivolous, was submitted in bad faith, and based on the unfounded argument that Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions allegedly violates California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 and is legally and factually frivolous in violation of CCP 128.7(b)(2) and 128.7(b)(c).  Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is not a motion to reconsider – it is a motion specifically addressing fraud upon the Court; does not violate CCP 1008; is neither legally nor factually frivolous; and does not warrant sanctions.  Courts, including those in California, have the inherent authority to vacate their judgments for fraud upon the court.  The decision Lynch’s motion challenged was the January 17, 2014 denial of her August 9, 2013 Motion to Vacate.
As with all of their arguments and defenses, Plaintiffs argue that Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions was filed for the improper purpose of harassment of Plaintiff and his attorneys in violation of CCP 128.7(b)(1).  According to Plaintiffs, this is evidenced by:  1) the voluminous nature of the filing itself; ii) the intentional disclose of Cohen’s attorney-client privileged communication; iii) the false imputation of criminal conduct to Cohen; iv) the false imputation of criminal and unethical conduct to Cohen’s current attorneys; and v) the wholly pretextual use of the sham filing as a vehicle to continue her public campaign of harassment of Cohen as evidenced by her May 7, 2015 “press release” published on her internet blog.
Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions addressed the fact that Lynch was not served, the judgment is void due to lack of service, and confronted the excessive lies, fraud, and perjury submitted to this Court in Plaintiffs’ replies to her Motion to Vacate.  “A judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction of the person where there is no proper service of process on or appearance by a party to the proceedings.” David B. v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 586].
Knowledge by a defendant of an action will not satisfy the requirement of adequate service of a summons and complaint.  Waller v. Weston (1899) 125 Cal. 201 [57 P. 892]; Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1152-1153 [20 Cal.Rptr.3d 603].  Because a “total absence of notice in any form cannot comport with the requirements of due process,” (In re B. G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 689 [114 Cal.Rptr. 444, 523 P.2d 244]), it has been said that a judgment of a court lacking such personal jurisdiction is a violation of due process, (Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., Marin County (1990) 495 U.S. 604, 609 [109 L.Ed.2d 631, 110 S.Ct. 2105]), and that “a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute [to establish personal jurisdiction] is void.”  Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 746]. 
Plaintiffs ongoing fraudulent representations about service do not change the fact that Lynch was not served the summons and complaint in this matter.  In their reply documents, Plaintiffs attempted to reargue their case, raised issues that may technically be viewed as fraud of an “intrinsic” nature, and forced Lynch to confront their false allegations and fraudulent representations to this Court.  Plaintiffs’ argument is criminal in nature, as they have falsely alleged that Lynch “misappropriated” considerable sums from Leonard Cohen and LC Investments, LLC – who do not own the corporate assets at issue - and therefore she has every right to confront those accusations based on the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution.  Leonard Cohen’s testimony, during the March 23, 2012, that Lynch never “stole from him” – just his peace of mind – is highly material and relevant given the fact that it essentially undermines his entire case against Lynch.  As Plaintiffs raised this issue in their reply documents, Lynch had every right to confront and refute these false accusations.  The exclusion of critical and reliable defense evidence violates Lynch’s rights to due process.  See Kelley Lynch Declaration (Motion for Terminating Sanctions), Exhibit F (March 23, 2012 hearing transcript).

The right of confrontation is “one of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty . . . long
deemed so essential for the due protection of life and liberty that it is guarded against legislative and judicial action by provisions in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitutions of most if not of all the States composing the Union.”  Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 55, 56 (1989), Cf. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404-05 (1965). 
As to Plaintiffs’ specific arguments:  i) Lynch filed the evidence necessary to confront and address the false allegations and fabricated representations in the reply documents Plaintiffs presented to this Court in response to her Motion to Vacate.  It is their lies that are voluminous and required the submission of substantial evidence.  Corporate documents, proving ownership interest, are neither Cohen’s property nor “salacious” in nature.  (ii)  Lynch did not intentionally disclose Cohen’s “attorney-client privileged communications with his former and current attorneys.”  The documents are not privileged, were sent to Lynch, are evidence of her ownership interest in numerous corporate entities, and/or relate to matters reported to Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities.  Lynch was specifically excluded from attorney/client privilege.  This matter is now under appeal.
Lynch has not falsely imputed criminal conduct to Cohen.  Lynch’s lawyers and accountant, who worked for Internal Revenue Service, advised her that Cohen’s tax fraud was criminal.  Perjury is also criminal.  iv) Plaintiffs argue that Lynch has falsely alleged that Cohen’s current attorneys have engaged in criminal and unethical conduct.  Lynch has addressed these matters, including their use of perjury in documents submitted to this Court by “officers of the court,” in her Motion for Terminating Sanctions.  (v)  Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is a “wholly pretextual use of the sham filing as a vehicle to continue her public campaign of harassment of Cohen.”  Leonard Cohen’s “harassment” argument is thoroughly without merit, sophomoric in nature, and absurd.  It has, however, permitted Cohen and his attorneys to relentlessly malign, discredit, and target Lynch.  Leonard Cohen failed to serve Lynch the summons and complaint.  Lynch and her family, friends, and others have been relentlessly targeted, harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, and slandered over Leonard Cohen and these legal issues for years.   

            Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is not a motion to reconsider and CCP 1008 is wholly
immaterial, irrelevant, and inapplicable.  A motion addressing “fraud upon the court” is not a motion to reconsider.  Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions asserted that the Court has the “inherent equitable power” to vacate a judgment that has been obtained through fraud on the court.  The specific judgment Lynch referred to in her Motion for Terminating Sanctions was the Court’s January 17, 2014 order denying Lynch’s Motion to Vacate.  Lynch did provide the Court with new evidence (Cohen’s March 23, 2012 testimony that Lynch never “stole” from him) but this was submitted for the sole purpose of proving Cohen’s use of fraud and perjury in this case. 
The court in Televideo Systems, Inc. vs. Heidenthal (9th Cir. 1987) 826 F.2d 915, 917) concluded that the appellant’s “elaborate scheme involving perjury clearly qualifies as a willful deceit of the court” and noted that “it infected all of the pretrial procedures and interfered egregiously with the court’s administration of justice.”  The same is true here.  The Court sanctioned Heidenthal not merely to punish him, but to enable the court to proceed to hear and decide the case untainted by further interference and possible further perjury on the part of Heidenthal.  All statements that Lynch was served are fraudulent as she was not. 
Lynch is currently appealing the Court’s denial of her Motion for Terminating Sanctions and the Court’s position that it had no basis to vacate the January 17, 2014 order.  Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions addressed fraud upon the court and sought terminating sanctions.  This is not the relief sought in Lynch’s Motion to Vacate.  In her Motion to Vacate Lynch argued that the May 15, 2006 judgment was void due to lack of service and the court had not obtained jurisdiction over her.  The Court’s January 17, 2014 decision has not changed that fact.  See Declarations of John Rutger Penick, Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, Paulette Brandt, and Joan Lynch (submitted with Motion for Terminating Sanctions).  The limited powers of attorney, and original signature pages, have now been submitted to this Court as well.
One procedure for obtaining relief is to invoke the inherent power of a court to set aside its judgment if procured by fraud upon the court.  Lynch invoked the inherent power of the court specifically with respect to its January 17, 2014 denial of her Motion to Vacate.  In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the United States Supreme Court held:  Fraud on the court (other than fraud as to jurisdiction) is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself.  The basic decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to “fraud upon the court” are Throckmorton, Hazel-Atlas, and Universal Oil Products. These cases considered the basic issues raised in cases to set aside judgments and demonstrate with Marshall v. Holmes141 U.S. 589, 12 S.Ct. 62, 35 L.Ed. 870, the nature of the fraud and the proof required for relief.  There is also a diversity of jurisdictional issues related to the May 15, 2006 Default Judgment with respect to the corporate entities – including Traditional Holdings, LLC and Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. – inserted into the judgment. 
                                                       FRAUD UPON THE COURT        
The Court’s inherent power allows it to vacate its own judgment upon proof that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the court. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246, 64 S.Ct. 997, 1001, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944); Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U. S. 575, 580 (1946). This “historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten judgments,” Hazel-Atlas, 322 U. S., at 245, is necessary to the integrity of the courts, for “tampering with the administration of justice in [this] manner. . . involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.”  Id., at 246.  Moreover, a court has the power to conduct an independent investigation in order to determine whether it has been the victim of fraud. Universal Oil, supra, at 580.
A primary aspect of the Court’s discretion is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Roadway Express, outright dismissal of a lawsuit, which was upheld in Link, is a particularly severe sanction, yet is within the court's discretion.  See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U. S. 626, 370 U. S. 632 (1962) (recognizing the “well acknowledged” inherent power of a court to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices).
Tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society.... The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud.”  See Hazel-Atlas.
All in all, we find it surpassingly difficult to conceive of a more appropriate use of a court's inherent power than to protect the sanctity of the judicial process — to combat those who would dare to practice unmitigated fraud upon the court itself. To deny the existence of such power would, we think, foster the very impotency against which the Hazel-Atlas Court specifically warned.  Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 862 F.2d 890 (1st Cir.1988). 
This inherent power, which is based on equity, see Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., not only springs forth from courts’ traditional powers “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the order and expeditious  disposition of cases,” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co.,but also “furthers the pursuit of achieving complete justice by enabling the court to suspend those judgments whose enforcement leads to inequitable results.”  Hadix v. Johnson, 144 F.3d 925, 937 (6th Cir. 1998).  In Chambers, the Supreme Court observed the inherent power of federal courts includes, inter alia, the power to vacate judgments on proof that a fraud upon the court has been committed.  See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44, 111 S.Ct. 2123.
In Williams v. Reed, 43 Cal.App. 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919), it was held that the trial court has inherent power to set aside a judgment obtained through a fraud upon the court.   It may be observed, in passing, that a court has inherent power to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court, and the right to so act or grant relief is not derived from section 473.”  See also Stierlen v. Stierlen, 18 Cal.App. 609, [124 P. 226]Miller v. Miller , 26 Cal. 2d 119, 121 [156 P.2d 931] held that “there can be no question as to the inherent power of the court to set aside the final decree if obtained by fraud.”  It is a well-recognized principle that a court of general jurisdiction has the inherent power to set aside a judgment obtained through fraud practiced upon the court.  See also McKeever v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. App. 381 [259 P. 373]; McGuinness v. Superior Court, 196 Cal. 222 [237 P. 42, 45, 40 A.L.R. 1110]. 
To determine whether there has been fraud on the court many circuits, including the 9th Circuit, have applied Professor Moore’s definition:  “Fraud upon the court” should, we believe, embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.  Gumport v. China International Trust and Inv. Corp. (In Re. Intermagnetics America, Inc.), 926 F.2d 912, 916 (9th Circ. 1911) (quoting 7 James Wm. Moore et al.); 7 J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice p 60.33, at 515 (2d ed. 1978), quoted in Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir.1989). Thus fraud upon the court includes both attempts to subvert the integrity of the court and fraud by an officer of the court.  The distinction
between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud has been criticized by commentators, 7 J. Moore, supra p. 8, p 60.37, at 60-377 to -380; 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2868, at 240-41 (1973), and the distinction generally does not apply to fraud upon the court, but only to fraud by the parties. 7 J. Moore, supra p. 8, p 60.37, at 60-380, p 60.33, at 60-356 to -357.  The fraud in Hazel-Atlas Glass involved the introduction of fraudulent evidence, and the court did not find it necessary to distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud in setting aside the judgment. There the Supreme Court explained that the inquiry as to whether a judgment should be set aside for fraud upon the court focused not in terms of whether the alleged fraud prejudiced the opposing party but whether the alleged fraud harmed the integrity of the judicial process. 
The Court in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736 held:  “The doctrine of inherent judicial power-that is, the existence of power vested in courts by their creation, and independent of legislative grant-developed early in English common law ‘along two paths, namely, 
punishment for contempt of court and of its process, and, regulating the practice of the court and preventing the abuse of its process.’  (Jacob, 23 Current Legal Problems 23, 25 (1970).)  American courts embraced the doctrine as part of their common-law heritage.  As early expressed by the United States Supreme Court, courts possess powers that ‘necessarily result, from the nature of their institution,’ powers that ‘cannot be dispensed with, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others.’ (U.S. v. Hudson (1812) 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259; see Meador, Inherent Judicial Authority in the Conduct of Civil Litigation, 73 Texas Law Review 1805, 1806, 1815-1816 (1995).)  From their creation by article VI, section 1, of the California Constitution, California courts received broad inherent power “not confined by or dependent on statute.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267, 279 Cal.Rptr. 576, 807 P.2d 418; see also Civil Code section 22.2;Ferguson v. Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649, 654-655, 94 Cal.Rptr. 398, 484 P.2d 70 [California courts possess inherent powers enjoyed by English common law courts, except for those precluded by Civ.Code, §22.2].) This inherent power includes “fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation.” (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941 P.2d 1203.) Although it has been held that California courts have inherent authority to impose evidentiary sanctions as a remedy for litigation misconduct (See Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 286-291, 245 Cal.Rptr. 873), no California decision has held that a court may, when faced with pervasive litigation abuse, use its inherent judicial power to dismiss the action.  We have no doubt, however, that California courts possess such power … Far from being unnecessary, the existence of inherent power to terminate litigation for deliberate and egregious misconduct-conduct which makes lesser sanctions inadequate to ensure a fair trial-is essential for the court to preserve the integrity of its proceedings. Such power does not ‘imperil the independence of the bar’ and ‘undermine the adversary system.’ (Bauguess, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 638, 150 Cal.Rptr. 461, 586 P.2d 942.) Rather, it restores balance to the adversary system when the misconduct of one party has destroyed it … When a plaintiff's deliberate and egregious misconduct in the course of the litigation
renders any sanction short of dismissal inadequate to protect the fairness of the trial, California courts necessarily have the power to preserve their integrity by dismissing the action. Without such power, the court would sacrifice its essential role of determining, in accordance with the fair application of relevant law, who should prevail in the case or controversy presented.”
California courts, as is true with federal courts, have the inherent power to vacate void judgments and to dismiss actions for abusive litigation practices.  The Court elected not to use its inherent power to combat the unmitigated fraud upon the Court.
Lynch requested terminating sanctions with respect to the fraud upon the court claims.  A final judgment may be set aside by a court if it has been established that extrinsic factors have prevented one party to the litigation from presenting his or her case.  Olivera v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570, 575 [122 P.2d 564, 140 A.L.R. 1328].   
The Peat, Marwick Court affirmed that judges are empowered to act when a party seeks to take unfair advantage of “the integrity of the judicial system.”  This decision directly addressed the fact that a court’s inherent powers include the authority to terminate a case for litigation misconduct.  It is the responsibility of courts to preserve the integrity of the adversary process and the fair and efficient administration of justice.  
California courts retain flexibility to exercise historic inherent authority in modern circumstances, fashioning procedures and remedies as necessary to protect litigants’ rights.  See Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 830, 848, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 560; Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377-1378, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 882.
The court in Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) held that a trial court has inherent power to impose a terminating sanction where a plaintiff's litigation abuse and misconduct was deliberate and egregious.  This is the relief Lynch requested in her Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

            Plaintiffs argue that CCP. 128.7(d) allows the Court to craft an appropriate sanction.  Plaintiffs evidently believe an appropriate response to Lynch’s request for terminating sanctions was to retaliate against her further.  The purpose of Section 128.7 is to deter frivolous filings.  In Re. Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 826 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th 2008).  Section 128.7 provides that “a sanction imposed for violation of subdivision (b) shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of this conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.”  Peake v. Underwood, 227 Cal.App.4th 426, 441 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 2014).  Sanctions under CCP Section 128.7 may consist of, or include directives of nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movement of some or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.  CCP 128.7(d).  The Court may also enjoin frivolous and harassing filings through its statutory authority to issue nonmonetary directives. 
Plaintiffs go onto falsely accuse Lynch of obtaining Court services in bad faith.  Lynch has filed one Motion to Vacate; a Motion addressing egregious fraud upon the court; and numerous responsive pleadings.  At no time did Lynch obtain Court services in bad faith but the same cannot be said of Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint was meritless, filed in bad faith, and was retaliatory in nature – as is this Motion for Sanctions. 
Lynch obtained an Order on Court Fee Waiver on August 9, 2013 to file papers in this case without payment of fees and costs to the Court.  Plaintiffs have requested the Court to impose nonmonetary sanctions to bar Lynch from filing any further motions in this matter or to order Lynch to seek leave to file from the Supervising Judge before filing any further motions; to return Plaintiffs attorney client privileged and other confidential documents; and to enjoin Lynch’s further dissemination and publication of Plaintiffs’ privileged and confidential documents.  Plaintiffs furthermore requested the Court to revoke Lynch’s Fee Waiver.  Plaintiffs essentially want to bar Lynch’s access to the Court and deprive her of a multitude of constitutional rights including her right to access the court and due process.  Plaintiffs also would like to obstruct justice by depriving Lynch of evidence of her corporate ownership interests. 
 “The right of an indigent civil litigant to proceed in forma pauperis is grounded in a common law right of access to the courts and constitutional principles of due process.  ‘Restricting an indigent’s access to the courts because of his poverty . . . contravenes the fundamental notions of equality and fairness which since the earliest days of the common law have found expression in the right to proceed in forma pauperis.’”  Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 175, 185, quoting Isrin v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 153, 165.  The process by which an indigent person gains access to the courts by applying for and obtaining a waiver of court fees and costs is governed by Government Code sections 68630 to 68641. See also C.S. v. W.O., B251797 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BF036276).  Any decision on the part of the trial court to terminate Lynch’s fee waiver would create an unfair and unreasonable barrier between an indigent self-represented litigant and the court.  Furthermore, to deny a fee waiver to an indigent litigant who is receiving government benefits is contrary to the legislative intent of the fee waiver statute. 

Plaintiffs argue that California Government Code Section 68636(f) applies to Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions (fraud upon the court):  If the court obtains information suggesting that a litigant whose fees and costs were initially waived is obtaining court services in bad faith, or for an improper purpose such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the costs of litigation, the court may give notice that the litigant is required to appear at a court hearing to consider whether limitations should be placed on court services for which fees were initially waived.
Lynch has filed a motion addressing egregious fraud upon the court.  Lynch’s motion was not without merit and most definitely not submitted to this court for the purpose of harassing Leonard Cohen or his lawyers.  Lynch believes there should be a remedy for this type of egregious litigation misconduct.  Lynch has every right to present arguments, including those addressing fraud upon the court, even if the Court refused to provide a necessary remedy.
Cohen’s use of Lynch’s May 7, 2015 “press release published on her internet blog” to advance his argument that Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is a motion to reconsider, or frivolous for that matter, is absurd.  The Press Release is not a legal document filed with this Court and proves nothing whatsoever.  Lynch has every right to truthfully and publicly address this matter.  Leonard Cohen, on the other hand, has no right to engage in slanderous, defamatory, and salacious public attacks on Lynch – which is precisely what he has done for over 10 straight years now.  Lynch didn’t repeat “false accusations of criminal conduct” in her press release.  Her press release addressed two credible questions:  “Will IRS prosecute singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen for criminal tax fraud?” and “Was Leonard Cohen a participant in CIA’s MKULTRA program?”  Lynch has asked these questions directly to IRS and CIA and feels that she has every right to inquire about these matters.  Leonard Cohen has a long pattern of fabricating and embellishing stories for the news media and others.  Those stories involve Phil Spector, Janis Joplin, Bay of Pigs, Yom Kippur War, and CIA’s MKULTRA program. 
In United States v. Cassidy, 814 F.Supp.2d 574 (D.Md. 2011), a federal district court judge in Maryland blocked the government's use of a federal anti-stalking law to prosecute a man for posting insults and criticism of a public figure to Twitter, ruling that “the First Amendment protects speech even
when the subject or manner of expression is uncomfortable and challenges conventional religious beliefs,
political attitudes or standards of good taste.”  Lynch’s Press Release is not part of her Motion for Terminating Sanctions.  A blog, like a bulletin board, does not communicate except to those who voluntarily choose to read what is posted on it.  Under the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Constitution,  Amendment I.  The First Amendment protects speech even when the subject or manner of expression is uncomfortable and challenges conventional religious beliefs, political attitudes or standards of good taste. See e.g., United States v. Stevens, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1585, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).  Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently classified emotionally distressing or outrageous speech as protected, especially where that speech touches on matters of political, religious or public concern. This is because “in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide `adequate `breathing space' to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.’”  See Boos v. Barry,485 U.S. 312, 322, 108 S.Ct. 1157, 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988) (citing Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Faldwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988)); See also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Snyder v. Phelps, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 1219, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011) (Because the emotionally distressing “speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.”) 

Furthermore, the judgments and orders in this case are void to the extent they provide relief “which a court under no circumstances has any authority to grant.”  Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 [84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 715]; Selma Auto Mall II v. Appellate Department (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1683 [52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 599].  “No judgment of a court is due process of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the court, or without notice to the party.”  Scott v. McNeal,154 U. S. 34,154 U. S. 46
“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections.  Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).  Failure to give notice violates “the most rudimentary demands of due process of law.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 550 (1965). See also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 291 (1980); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 333 (1976); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100, 110 (1969); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 733 (1878).
Federal tax matters have been implicated by both the Complaint and Default Judgment.  Leonard Cohen also used the Complaint and some version of the Default Judgment to file/amend tax returns; obtain fraudulent tax refunds; and defend himself with IRS Agent Luis Tejeda (head of fraud for the western division of the United States) with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud.  Lynch reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times.  This lawsuit, and all of Plaintiffs pleadings, are retaliation.  In enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, Congress added retaliation for “providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense” to the list of statutorily-defined predicate acts.  See DeGuelle v. Camilli, No. 10-CV-0103, 2010 WL 1484236 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 12, 2010).
            Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions is frivolous; was brought in bad faith; and is retaliatory in nature.
While actions for fraud upon the court may be rare it seems that a remedy to the fraud undermining the justice system is nearly non-existent.  Accordingly, Kelley Lynch requests the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions.
Dated:  21 August 2015                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Kelley Lynch
                                                                        In Propria Persona

Kelley Lynch Declaration in Support of Her Reply to Leonard Cohen's Opposition to Her Motion to Vacate His Fraud Domestic Violence Order


I, KELLEY LYNCH, declare:
1.        I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California.   I am over the age of 18 years.  I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2.         Plaintiff’s Opposition advised the Court that “Plaintiff is concurrently submitting a Request for Judicial Notice requesting that notice be taken of the court records in the above referenced matters in the Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Lynch’s Motion.”  I have no objection to that request but personally believe the Court should take into consideration the fact that extensive fraud and perjury has been used in the Reply document, exhibits attached thereto, and the documents the Court has been asked to consider.  This declaration will address some of the fraud and perjury contained in those documents or highlight examples of testimony that contradicts evidence.  One of the most important pieces of evidence, contained in the March 23, 2012 hearing transcript, is Leonard Cohen’s acknowledgment that changed his testimony from one hearing to another with respect to the nature of his and my relationship.  During the March 23, 2012 hearing Cohen testified that we were in a purely business relationship.  After confronted with this testimony during my trial, due to Cohen’s statements to the news media that we were “lovers,” Cohen changed his testimony and stated that we were in a “brief, intimate” relationship of some sort.  Cohen also testified that he had no idea when it dissolved.  The prosecutor stated that the brief intimate relationship occurred in the mid-80s which would have been approximately 30 years ago. 
This matter relates solely to the following issue:  whether or not a foreign order, that is not a domestic violence order, was unlawfully registered in the State of California as a domestic violence order using domestic violence form DV-600.  I am not on trial for any of the issues that have already been litigated and no issues related to domestic violence or a “dating” and/or “engagement” relationship have been litigated.  Specifically, the Colorado order was not a domestic violence order but the order in California is a domestic violence order.  Therefore, the Reply to my Motion to Vacate is nothing other than blatant character assassination and an attempt to further malign and discredit me.
3.         Plaintiff has asked the Court to consider DV-600, revised July 1, 2015, when considering this matter.  However, this revised form is not the form used to register the Colorado order on May 25, 2011 and is therefore entirely irrelevant and immaterial.  It contains language, which has now been highlighted, that did not appear on the actual form DV-600 used by Leonard Cohen to register the Colorado order as a California domestic violence order.  The new language in the 2015 revised form states that no hearing is required to register a foreign protection order.  The form does not state that the registration of an out-of-state non-domestic violence form is mandatory using domestic violence form DV-600.  The form also notes that it is approved by DOJ but does not state that the DOJ has approved the registration of a foreign non-domestic violence order in another state as a domestic violence order in California. 
4.         Leonard Cohen’s Verified Motion for Civil Protection Order (case No. 2008C776, filed August 19, 2008) is evidence of nothing other than the fact that he made these allegations and failed to check the box related to domestic violence and/or abuse.  Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, testified at Lynch’s trial that she understood that you can say anything in a Complaint.  The Court should take that statement into consideration.  I was not named as a co-conspirator because, as the Natural Wealth lawsuit noted, I am the individual who exposed the legal conspiracy that involved Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory.
Michelle Rice – Trial Testimony:
Michelle Rice:  But, as you know, you can make any kind of allegations in a Complaint … PD:  And they named Ms. Lynch as one of the conspirators in that civil conspiracy; is that also correct?  Rice:  I don’t believe Ms. Lynch was named as a co-conspirator.  RT 358

5.         The certified transcript of the Boulder hearing proves that there were no findings with respect to domestic violence or the restraining order itself.  There were no findings whatsoever.  I, prior to discovering the extensive fraud and perjury in Cohen’s declaration submitted with the Verified Motion, agreed to the entry of the permanent order.  Once I discovered the fraud and perjury in Leonard Cohen’s declaration I filed a Motion to Quash.  The Court then reminded me that I agreed to the entry of this order.  I did not agree to the entry of any order based on fraud or perjury and expressed my concerns about those issues during the hearing.  Leonard Cohen did not even bother to attend the hearing.  He sent his lawyers as paid witnesses.  Therefore, I was not afforded the right to confront my accuser with respect to these fraudulent allegations.  The essential elements of the hearing, including the fact that Cohen presented no witnesses or evidence, are included below.  There were no findings whatsoever with respect to anything and, in particular, “domestic violence” and/or a “dating” or “engagement” relationship.  There were basically questions about “indirectly” and “directly” which Cohen’s lawyer failed to define.  The burden of proof was on Leonard Cohen and he did not meet the burden.  Leonard Cohen flew in for the ex parte hearing in the midst of his European tour.  He testified during my 2012 trial that he obtained this order because he fantasized about the possibility that I might attend his concert scheduled for nearly a year later in Denver, Colorado.  His lawyer, Michelle Rice, advised this Court that Cohen obtained this order because the California order was expiring.  It is evidently very important for Leonard Cohen to have a restraining order that discredits me.  Natural Wealth’s June 2005 lawsuit was quite clear about that fact.
The Court [to Harvey Steinberg]:  Where’s your client?
Steinberg:  He is in California unable to make it, but we have witnesses [Kory and Rice] and are prepared to proceed without him being here.
Court:  Okay …
Lynch:  Also, I thought he was on tour in Europe.
Court:  It’s irrelevant to me that he’s not here.
Lynch:  Okay.  I don’t think there are any witnesses to the emails to the IRS.
Court:  What? … What did you say?
Lynch:  I said I don’t think there was any witnesses to the email[s] to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.

Court:  The reason that we are here is because the Plaintiff appeared on August 19, 2008, requesting a temporary protection order, and upon sworn testimony review of the attached affidavits the Court granted that.  The purpose of today’s hearing is for the Court to determine whether or not that temporary order should become permanent …
Lynch:  Who gave that sworn testimony?  Was it Leonard Cohen himself?
Court:  It was.
Lynch:  He came into this courtroom?
Court:  He did.

Court:  And it’s Mr. Steinberg’s burden, so to speak, to go forward and show the Court why if this is not issued Mr. Cohen continues to be at risk.

Court:  There are – there are a lot of affidavits in the file indicating that you have a long history with Mr. Cohen, and there’s perhaps some financial issues.  You went to the IRS.  I want this to be really important for you … This hearing … is only about the safety of the Plaintiff.  It isn’t about the IRS for example.

Court:  Safety of the Plaintiff.
Lynch:  But there is evidence here that this man has tried to silence and terrorize me, crush and destroy me.
Court:  Okay.
Lynch:  -- so it’s hard for me to sit here.
Court:  Probably it would be if those things were true … This is not about whether you are at risk for your safety.  This is not – that is not the issue at all.
Lynch:  No.  This is a preemptive legal strike.

Lynch:  And in the future can I attack this if it’s brought – if I can prove it’s fraudulent and there’s perjury going on here?
Court:  First of all, I haven’t even ruled.

Kelley Lynch [witness]

Court:  I order any potential witnesses to be seated in the hall and order them not to discuss testimony with any other person.  [Kory and Rice remain in the courtroom.]
Lynch:  So would that include Mr. Ronald Mitchell sitting right there?
Court:  I have no idea if he’s a witness.
Lynch:  I have no idea if he’s a witness. 
Lynch:  He – I don’t know how he could be a witness.

Lynch:  I don’t have a residence any longer.

Question:  And it is correct that you were served a restraining order from California, and you dthat restraining order in person?
Lynch:  When?
HS:  Did you ever receive one?
Lynch:  Are you asking me about this one or one years ago?  When the Sheriff’s Department was there grabbing documents for the IRS?
HS:  Yes.
Lynch:  Yes, I did.  A fraudulent one that I didn’t contest.

HS:  And that it prohibited you from having either contact -- … Either directly or indirectly with Mr. Cohen, correct?
Lynch:  I understood directly.  I don’t really know what indirectly means to answer that question.

Lynch:  But how can I answer a question – if I don’t know what it means?
Court:  Okay.  You can ask him to explain.

HS:  And would you agree that it prohibited you from having contact, either directly or indirectly, send messages, mail or email to Mr. Cohen?
Lynch:  I just said I don’t know what direct – indirectly means.  Can you explain it … I’m saying I don’t understand what indirectly means so I can’t answer the question.

Lynch:  I don’t know if I recall reading directly or indirectly.  [I actually advised Sergeant Fernandez to throw it in the trash and threw it in the trash in front of him.]

Lynch:  I didn’t say it could refresh it [memory about reading the restraining order – filed in October of 2005; I threw in the trash without reading it] because I can’t remember distinctly reading it so that would be hard.  But I’ll read it now.

Lynch:  This is just – you know, my child’s life has been destroyed here, Your Honor.  It’s very difficult for me.  This man’s lawyer has a declaration in my son’s custody matter.

HS:  May I approach?
Lynch:  Please don’t be nice to me.  This is really serious.  My life has been destroyed.

A few more attempts to have me read the order.

Lynch:  I can’t have this hearing.  Just go ahead and make the restraining order permanent, okay?
Court:  Okay.

Lynch:  These people are insane.
Court:  Okay.
Lynch:  Okay?  They’ve destroyed my life, they’ve silence me; they’ve terrorized me.  Robert Kory has a declaration in my son’s custody matter … To whom can I communicate about very serious issues?  Legal issues?
Court:  A lawyer.
Lynch:  No.  I don’t have a lawyer right now.  I’m representing myself.  I mean, with Leonard Cohen’s parties.
Court:  Judges can’t give legal advice.

Court:  Do you wish to give up your right to have a hearing and do you want to agree that the temporary order should become permanent?
Lynch:  Well, I’d like them permanent because I think he’s dangerous to me but may I ask something?  May I attack this later if there is fraud and perjury?
Court:  No … No.  I’m not giving you legal advice.

6.       The Court has been asked to consider the Register of Action is the Boulder Combined Court’s database print-out.  That data contains the note expired with the date February 15, 2009 next to it.  Confusion arose due to the fact that the Boulder Combined Court employees believed the temporary order was vacated on September 2, 2008; the Court entered my Motion to Dismiss on January 12, 2009; and, the Court vacated the permanent order on February 15, 2009.  This issue was finally cleared up, after I pursued it diligently from the Spring of 2013 (when LA Superior Court asked me “Is Leonard Cohen your boyfriend?) until April 10, 2014, when Feng Xie of the Boulder Combined Court replied to my email questioning these matters.  At that time, Feng Xie explained why this information was being interpreted in the manner that it had been.  I had no reason to believe that so many individuals who worked for the Boulder Combined Court would mistakenly advise me that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  I did not knowingly or willfully violate this order or any order.  The lies about this situation are unconscionable particularly as I did not create the situation and Paulette Brandt has confirmed for this Court, and others (including when she testified before Judge Barela), that she phoned the Boulder Combined Court numerous times and was repeatedly advised that my Motion to Dismiss was entered on January 12, 2009 and the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  We were also advised that the temporary order was vacated on September 2, 2008.
7.       Leonard Cohen has used these restraining orders to argue that he is not permitted to transmit IRS required tax information to me and I am not permitted to request same.  The IRS, State of Kentucky, and Franchise Tax Board have repeatedly instructed me to contact Cohen for this information.  That would include a 1099 for the year 2004; other necessary information (including corporate tax and financial information); and to ask that Leonard Cohen rescind illegal K-1s transmitted to IRS and State of Kentucky indicating that I am a partner on his wholly owned LC Investments, LLC.  These issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the Default Judgment and predate that judgment.  During my trial, Michelle Rice testified that she understood I was requesting tax information and, although she felt comfortable writing and lying to me (with IRS, FBI, Treasury, Dennis Riordan, and Ron Burkle copied in), it would be a violation of the restraining order to provide me with the requested information.  Rice also testified that Kory & Rice were not obligated to provide this information.  Kory & Rice serve as Cohen’s personal managers, business managers, handle tax matters, oversee accounting matters, and are Cohen’s legal counsel.  Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever why Kory & Rice could not direct this request to the proper persons who would be in a position to provide it to me.  Robert Kory actually wrote IRS, very shortly after the Colorado hearing, to advise that a corporate 1099 transmitted to Cohen was a violation of the restraining order. 
Trial Testimony – Michelle Rice:
PD:  So are you saying that in seven years that you’ve been employed as Mr. Cohen’s counsel, you’ve never contacted Ms. Lynch and provided her any documentation that she’s requested.  Rice:  Well, I’m not Ms. Lynch’s attorney, so it would be improper for me to provide her with any information.  I’m Mr. Cohen’s attorney.  And to the extent that she’s asking for tax information, we don’t have that information.  PD:  Okay.  So you have never sent her any of the information she’s asked for?  Rice:  I’m not under any obligation to.  PD:  I understand you’re not under any obligation.  Have you or have you not sent that?  Rice:  I have not sent Ms. Lynch anything … PD:  To your knowledge, has Mr. Cohen ever directly sent Ms. Lynch any documentation?  Rice:  It would be a violation of the restraining order.  PD:  Is that your understanding, that if he sent her documents, he would be violating the restraining order?  Rice:  It is my understanding.  RT 361-362

Rice:  She seems to say in her voice mails that she’s representing herself and, you know, who else is she going to go to get tax information from and that sort of thing, whatnot.  RT 368-369 

8.         The transcript of the March 23, 2012 hearing also proves that Leonard Cohen testified that I never stole from him – just his peace of mind.  The prosecutor informed the Court that the order I was arrested and charged with violating was the newly created domestic violence order in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BQ33717.  Cohen also perjured himself when he testified that I failed to file my tax returns and this is the tax proceeding I am involved with that relates to IRS.  This is a blatant lie.  Leonard Cohen is willfully preventing me from obtaining IRS required tax and corporate information.  Furthermore, Leonard Cohen was not my husband and has no details about my tax situation or any matters between me and IRS.  What he knows is that I have requested tax information and he has refused to provide it.  Cohen’s testimony at this trial shows an ongoing pattern of his willingness, and the willingness of his lawyers, to make up whatever information they believe will convince Courts and jurors to provide them with orders, judgments, and verdicts.  There is evidently no legal remedy for this type of conduct.  An example of Cohen’s willingness to simply conjure up startling statements, which were repeated throughout my trial (including when Leonard Cohen falsely interpreted the content of the alleged emails), is Cohen’s testimony that he fears for his grandchildren who play on someone’s yard.  Leonard Cohen has not seen me in approximately 10 years until he has had me hauled into his presence.  I have no interest in this man whatsoever.  I cannot even imagine why he believes that I do and have simply concluded that it’s some form of narcissism if indeed he even believes it.  I find it gravely offensive that the government has simply decided to assign me a dating relationship with a man who sexually harassed me, exposed himself to me, insisted on my reading business and legal documents while he soaked in bubble baths, massaged his penis – which he would pull out of his boxer shorts - in front of me, looked at people defecating on one another online, and had me contact my brother-in-law (an attorney in Canada) with respect to statutes of limitations for having sex with minor girls in Canada and the conversation between Ann Diamond and Freda Guttman where Guttman repeated what her child allegedly heard Lorca Cohen publicly advise her classmates.  Cohen would also speak to me incessantly, and in great detail, about his sexual encounters with women.  I found this type of conduct intolerable.  These types of activities are not dating.  That would be an entirely perverted, twisted, and tortured interpretation of a definition of a “dating” and/or “engagement” relationship.
Leonard Cohen – March 23, 2012 Trial Testimony:
PD:  Are you aware that Ms. Lynch is involved in some sort of tax proceeding with the IRS?
Cohen:  I understand she failed to file, yes.

Q:  You told us that she used to be employed by you as a business manager, correct?
Cohen:  Correct.
Q:  Was that the extent of your relationship?
Cohen:  Yes, Sir.

Q:  When was the last time you saw Ms. Lynch before today?
Cohen:  The last time – I think it was 2004 or 2005.

Q:  [Has she] stolen anything?
Cohen:  Just my peace of mind.

Court:  Well, why don’t you let me know what it is [restraining order] and I’ll take the judicial notice of anything in the file.
Streeter:  It’s BQ33717.

Streeter:  The California order is in the police file and the California order is a registration of the Colorado record which is permanent … So the California order is merely a registration of the Colorado order that was granted a few years ago that was permanent.

Court:  And you actually say you have loss peace of mind.  Are you in fear?
Cohen:  I have grandchildren playing on my front lawn. 

Court [denying bail]:  The gentleman appears to be fearful.  He’s older.  He mentions his grandchildren on the property.

9.         Plaintiffs argue that the People’s Sentencing Memorandum (Case No. 2CA04539) is “relevant to these proceedings because Lynch argues in her Motion that ‘Cohen does not qualify as a protected party according to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.’  The issue of whether Cohen qualified as a protected party within the meaning of Family Code Section 6211 was determined by the trial court in Lynch’s criminal trial.  In the People’s Proposed Sentencing Memorandum, the prosecution argued that victim [Cohen] would be described pursuant to Family Code Section 6211(c) as someone with whom [defendant] is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship.  The People argued that Penal Code Section 1203.097 was applicable for sentencing purposes.”  The trial court did not make any determination whatsoever with respect to the nature of Cohen and my relationship.  The prosecutor, who merely inserted this language into the Sentencing Memorandum, is also not the Court.  The trial court heard testimony where Leonard Cohen acknowledged changing his testimony from one hearing to another with respect to the nature of this relationship.  That means that Cohen perjured himself in one of the hearings and is now attempting to rely on perjured testimony.  It is entirely obvious that Leonard Cohen was not coached properly for the first hearing on March 23, 2012.  After my lawyer asked him about the testimony with respect to our relationship, because Cohen had advised the news media that we were “lovers,” Cohen and the prosecutor came up with what can only be descrbed as a cockamamie excuse.  No reasonable person should believe that Leonard Cohen lied under oath because I deny that we were “lovers.”  I also hadn’t testified by that time.  The prosecutor merely assigned me a dating relationship with Leonard Cohen.  I also happen to believe that Cohen felt the story about a disgruntled ex-lover who was not in need of tax information but was merely harassing him and may have wanted to attend his concert was simply a good, salacious story line.  Cohen has told many fabricated and embellished stories for the news media over the years.  He has told tales about Phil Spector, Janis Joplin, and his role in revolutions or wars.  According to Cohen’s elaborate tales, he was captured by Cuban rebels or soldiers and interrogated due to the belief that he was potential reconnaissance during the Bay of Pigs.  With respect to the Yom Kippur War, Cohen has elaborated about his decision to travel to Israel to join the military and fight in that war.  Leonard Cohen has no military training whatsoever.  In actuality, Cohen apparently traveled to Israel, was invited by another artist to participate in concerts for the troops, and it did not involve any attempt to join the military in this campaign.  These stories are told to journalists and are rarely, if ever, challenged.   Leonard Cohen has also informed me, and others, that he participated in CIA’s MKULTRA Program in Montreal.  Exhibit A:  Bay of Pigs. 
10.       The prosecutor, without any evidence to support her argument, advised the Court that I was a “serious safety risk to the community at large in general, and to all the people mentioned in her emails and voicemails in particular.”  I am a safety risk to no one and this woman has no evidence to prove otherwise.  The lengths these individuals have gone to discredit me are extreme and outrageous.  My emails to the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others, have documented the destruction of my life since I reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times.  People mentioned in my emails would include Dennis Riordan, Phil Spector, Ron Burkle, Oliver Stone, Steven Machat, IRS Commissioner’s Staff, FBI, DOJ, Agent Kelly Sopko (Treasury), CIA, NSA, FSB, Glenn Greenwald, Mick Brown, my sons and family members, and so forth.  In fact, the District Attorney’s office highlighted Steven Machat’s name in the alleged email attached to Horvath’s letter.  There is no evidence that any of these individuals consider me a risk to the community and yet the prosecutor advised the Court that I am a safety risk, in particular, to all the people mentioned in my emails.  I am not certain that I understand why evidence is not required to support these types of fantastical assertions.  In fact, I had the entire support of my community in Berkeley, California and do with my friends in Los Angeles.  I do not associate with Leonard Cohen or the types of individuals who are dead set on slandering and discrediting me.  Leonard Cohen is not my community and I have not seen the man, apart from when his conduct has forced me into Court, for over 10 years and have no intention of ever seeing him again.  The prosecutor also noted elsewhere that I am estranged from my sons.  It might be difficult to explain why I have declarations from them or why my son Rutger spoke directly to Berkeley Police Department at the time of my arrest, drove to Berkeley to pack my apartment, and paid my rent.  Once again, no evidence was required by the Court.  This type of scenario has happened to me constantly with LA Superior Court.  That includes, but is not limited to, fabricated allegations, unverifiable perceived threats (from an individual who fabricates and embellishes stories), perjured testimony, fraudulent financial ledgers, and prosecutorial misconduct.  The prosecutor expressed concern about my letters to Bruce Cutler.  Cutler’s letter, which is hearsay, states unequivocally that he destroyed any alleged evidence.  This is an out-of-state individual and his letter did not include a perjury statement.  I most certainly did not change my email address to avoid Cutler’s spam filter.  My email accounts and blogs were targeted and shut down by Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Blaine (Phil Spector’s former personal assistant), Cohen’s fan Susanne Walsh, and others.  Cutler’s letter enclosed three letters I sent him documenting what was going on; the fact that former DA Steve Cooley had publicly aligned himself with Leonard Cohen; and, the fact that Cohen – using an email he was not a recipient on – began testifying about Phil Spector and a gun.  The prosecutor elicited that testimony.  It is my absolute conviction that Phil Spector had a right to know what was taking place during my trial and actually had a right to confront his accuser, Leonard Cohen.  I did not have my address book in jail and ultimately my public defender googled the addresses of Phil Spector (Corcoran) and Dennis Riordan.  At that time, I was able to write them personally.  I heard from Phil Spector directly and I believe it’s safe to say that he would confirm that he had a right to know that Leonard Cohen was on the witness stand testifying about him and a gun and writing my prosecutor about the Lana Clarkson incident and a gun incident that differed from the version he testified about.   I also believe it’s absurd to assume that Mr. Spector does not have a right to know that there are now three versions of the Leonard Cohen alleged gun incident, involving Phil Spector, before LA Superior Court.  These are incredibly serious legal matters and this situation is not a game.  My Colorado lawyer, David Moorhead, told me he personally felt Phil Spector could attack the indictment and any testimony/statements of Leonard Cohen’s presented to the Grand Jury.  He is a former Deputy District Attorney and also advised me that he felt that the District Attorney, Steve Cooley, had the power and motive to have me taken to King Drew.  I have relentlessly attempted to gather information and evidence with respect to that situation to no avail.  The Grand Jury Legal Adviser (who was unable to determine what witness or whose testimony was used to present Cohen’s statements to the Grand Jury) instructed me to contact Phil Spector’s attorneys about this situation and Judge Fidler’s Clerk (Wendy) advised me to write the DA and copy in Judge Fidler if I felt more comfortable doing so.  I mentioned to her that the DA’s office had threatened and behaved unconscionably towards me although they had informed me that I was “probably a witness” in the Phil Spector matter.  Attempting to communicate with Phil Spector, through his former trial counsel, about these matters is not harassment.  In any event, in the Sentencing Memorandum, the prosecutor felt that my style of writing, in the letters to Cutler, was too chatty and recommended that I be committed and drugged.  A domestic violence counselor, who does not diagnose people without seeing them (and basically holds group therapy sessions related to domestic violence and sex offenders), evidently reviewed 5 random emails when she drew her preposterous and arrogant conclusions.  This individual has testified for the City and County hundreds of times so she will clearly present the type of information they require.  However, there is no domestic violence and it is incredibly disturbing that this type of individual, who has no training and is not a psychiatrist, would make a determination based on unauthenticated emails.    I don’t have a long standing relationship with Bruce Cutler.  I have a long standing personal relationship with Phil Spector.  Sandra G. Baca works for the About Face Domestic Violence Project and there is no evidence to support any type of domestic violence allegation.  I was ordered to participate in statutory required domestic violence programs and pay domestic violence fines/fees although Leonard Cohen and I were never in a statutory required “dating” or “engagement” relationship and the Boulder Combined Court is entirely clear that their order is not a “domestic violence” order.  Exhibit B:  Sandra Baca’s Biography.
11.       Attached to the People’s Sentencing Memorandum is Captain Jack Horvath’s letter to the Court.  He is writing about former District Attorney Steve Cooley.  Horvath lied to the Court when he said I contacted the District Attorney in 2007.  In 2005, The District Attorney’s investigator, Brian Bennett, came to my house unannounced after receiving an “anonymous tip” about my friendship with Phil Spector.  He was an investigator on the Phil Spector case.  In 2006, I filed a Complaint with the District Attorney’s Major Fraud Unit with respect to Leonard Cohen’s theft from me, tax fraud, and other matters.  Pat Dixon, who was mentioned in Bruce Cutler’s letter to the Court, was evidently the head of the Major Fraud Unit and declined – according to the City Attorney – to prosecute Leonard Cohen.  Prosecutor Alan Jackson was also part of the Major Fraud Unit.  I also contacted the District Attorney, at the suggestion of the City Attorney and Attorney General’s offices, about the King Drew and SWAT incident.  Furthermore, I contacted the District Attorney’s office about the fact that there most definitely appeared to be criminal negligence in my son’s entirely outrageous Whole Foods accident.  This accident was then used against me during my trial.  The City Attorney elicited the testimony about Rutger’s fingers being ripped off (on a machine where the safety guard was removed and which he was not qualified to work on) and I was then falsely accused by Leonard Cohen of blaming him for the accident.  I have also received horrifying emails blaming me for the accident in response to this testimony.  I did not blame Cohen for ripping Rutger’s fingers and cannot even imagine why this testimony was elicited or why someone would lie about this and victimize me over the situation.  I have said that the King Drew incident was raised as an issue in Rutger’s deposition with Whole Foods and believe that demands an investigation.  With respect to the District Attorney’s Office, I also reported other matters to them.  Evidently, they didn’t like the information and became quite hostile and threatening with me.  At one point, I contacted them with respect to an accident where I was rear-ended by Thomas Bradshaw.  Bradshaw’s insurance company contacted me and asked me to testify for them.  They informed me that he lied to law enforcement.  I contacted the DA’s office about this matter and was told to contact the Denver FBI and advise them “Merry Christmas.”  Many people feel this was actually a way to tell the FBI “fuck you” and sounded like something the Sopranos would say prior to riddling a car with bullets.  I also reported information to IRS, FBI, DOJ, and Treasury.  In 2007, I filed a complaint with the DA’s Internal Affairs Division and Attorney General’s Office.  I was contacted by Investigator John Thompson and Detective Silva of the District Attorney’s Office.  At that time, we arranged to meet to discuss various matters.  For instance, we discussed my meeting with the Treasury Agents about Leonard Cohen’s alleged criminal tax fraud; Phil Spector; my son’s coordinated custody matter; SWAT/King Drew incidents; and some of the tactics being used against me.  I also provided Detective Silva with a copy of the entirely fraudulent King Drew report.  Captain Jack Horvath left these details out of his letter to Judge Vanderet.  In the alternative, he submitted a parody email wherein I stated that I would run for President on the Wedding Party, political corruption would be one of my main campaign issues, and I would instruct my Attorney General to prosecute Steve Cooley for setting up an innocent person and ask them to seek the death penalty.  I was then falsely accused of wanting to “execute” Steve Cooley although the California Perjury Penal Code allows for the “death sentence” when an official uses willful perjury to obtain a death sentence.  Steve Cooley is not the only individual permitted to run around speaking about the “death penalty” and “executions.”  That is precisely what he was doing at the time and the ACLU challenged him over his position that human beings should be executed using a drug that is used to put dogs down with.  I worked on ACLU campaigns and we played these types of games.  I also appointed my FBI and CIA director so one must now assume that Steve Cooley and Captain Jack Horvath believe that my friends from Grassroots Campaigns are the directors of the FBI and CIA and my mother is the Deputy Director of the FBI.  The parody email also noted that I might marry Ron Burkle in the Rose Garden and let the citizens vote on my wedding gown.  Exhibit C:  Bloody Stump Email.
City Attorney’s Reply Brief (Appeal):
Often, appellant accused Cohen of being indirectly responsible for her losing custody of her son, Ray.  (R.T. 58)  She also many times suggested Cohen responsible for an accident that befell her son Rutger.  (RT 58, 186)   

Leonard Cohen – Trial Testimony:

Streeter:  All right.  Did does Ms. Cohen [Lynch] have any children?  The Court:  Ms. Kelley – Ms. Lynch.  Streeter;  I’m sorry.  Does Ms. Lynch have any children?  Cohen:  Yes, Ma’am.  She has two sons.  Streeter:  Did she ever mention any of her children in any of the voicemail messages?  Cohen:  Yes, many times.  She – she accused me of being indirectly responsible for her losing custody of one child.  Streeter:  What was that child’s name?  Cohen:  That child’s name was Ray Lindsey – Streeter:  Does she have another child?  Cohen:  Yes, she has another child.  Streeter:  What’s that child’s name?  Cohen:  His name is Rutger Bennett [Penick].  Streeter:  Does she ever mention Rutger – Cohen:  Yes, many times she suggested I was responsible for an accident that befell him.  RT 57-58 

12.       At my April 17, 2012 Sentencing hearing, I was convicted of willfully and knowingly violating the order in this case.  I willfully and knowingly violated nothing because the Boulder Combined Court repeatedly advised me, Paulette Brandt, and others that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  I was convicted under Penal Code Section 273.6 and 653(m).  In juror debriefing, my public defenders were advised that the jurors wanted to hear from the Internal Revenue Service; one juror relied on the prosecutor’s false statements about corporate assets (which would include Leonard Cohen’s loans/expenditures totaling approximately $6.7 million); and one of the lawyers felt there might have been a “prosecution plant” on the jury.  That same lawyer advised me that he felt the City Attorney was attempting to sabotage IRS; discredit me; and the DA was involved because they don’t want the Spector verdict overturned.  Judge Vanderet refused to wait two hours (until lunch) for my lawyers to hear back from Agent Tejeda of the IRS who was meeting with IRS and DOJ attorneys.  His testimony would not have been cumulative.  It would have been “impeachment” testimony.  Leonard Cohen’s focus during his pathetic and entirely fabricated “Victim Impact Statement” is focused on the Internal Revenue Service and false allegations that I didn’t pay taxes.  Leonard Cohen has no evidence to support this statement.  He is not entitled to access my personal tax information.  Not only weren’t we in a “dating” or “engagement” relationship we were not married.  It would seem quite clear, from this Statement, that Leonard Cohen’s interest here is in the Default Judgment and Internal Revenue Service.  There will be no day or reckoning with respect to me and IRS because my taxes are paid in full.  It is my personal belief that Leonard Cohen fraudulently seized my bank records, in a matter where I was not served, in an attempt to gain information about my tax matters.  I was advised, by Cohen’s former accountant, that Robert Kory continually attempted to obtain my tax returns.  I didn’t steal any money from Leonard Cohen and he testified that I never stole from him – just his peace of mind.  He also advised MacLean’s Magazine, when he gave a highly coveted interview to them (coordinated with the filing of his lawsuit), that he wasn’t accusing me of theft.  He provided the journalist with that quote at the time he filed a lawsuit arguing “misappropriation.”  Leonard Cohen is not the corporate entities.  Corporate assets do not belong to Leonard Cohen.  There was and remains no “retirement” account because Leonard Cohen’s personal corporate/tax lawyer extinguished the annuity obligation from the federal tax returns in 2003 without my knowledge.  Cohen is arguing alter ego and wrongfully converted my property to himself based on a fraudulent financial ledger.  A tremendous amount of false information and perjured statements have been presented to this Court in an attempt to further discredit and slander me.  Leonard Cohen used the Complaint in Case No. BC338322 to file his 2005 returns, amend his 2003 and 2004 returns, and filed a “theft loss.”  This was done approximately six months before the Default Judgment.  Therefore, by December 2005 (knowing that I was not served and repeatedly attempted to speak to Cohen’s representatives about this matter) Leonard Cohen felt that the Default Judgment was a sure thing.  I have now challenged these fraudulent tax refunds with IRS and FTB.  Leonard Cohen appears willing to fabricate anything and everything.  My accountant did not resign.  He was hired to replace my former accountant and prepared and submitted my tax return to the Internal Revenue Service and worked to assist me with a payment plan.  This is confidential information that I should not be forced to provide this Court.  I haven’t been provided with IRS required tax and corporate information.  A fraudulent financial ledger is not a 1099 or a K-1.  It is not corporate financial statements.  It is nothing other than evidence of accounting fraud.  This fraudulent and perjured information was submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.  My appellate attorney, who was harassed over Leonard Cohen and the appeal for over a year, wrote me that he felt the trial was an IRS matter that demanded an IRS investigation.  Due to what I personally, as well as my appellate attorney, felt was ongoing prosecutorial misconduct and retaliation, I actually attempted to abandon my appeal.  The appellate division refused to permit me to do so.  Leonard Cohen’s Victim Impact Statement is focused on IRS matters and the corporate assets that he continues to maintain are his personal assets.  This is what he views as harassment.  Leonard Cohen’s statements also mention that his family, friends, and associates were harassed.  No evidence of this was submitted to the trial court.   Cohen did testify that I contacted Paul Shaffer and Bob Dylan.  However, Paul Shaffer is a friend of Phil Spector and mine and Bob Dylan, also a friend of Phil Spector’s, assisted Hurricane Carter so I did believe contacting him was appropriate.  Evidently these communications annoyed Leonard Cohen.  I didn’t deplete Leonard Cohen’s “retirement savings” or “yearly earnings” but that is what Cohen appears to believe the jury trial was about.
Leonard Cohen’s Victim Impact Statement:
“I want to thank the defendant, Ms. Kelley Lynch, for insisting on a jury trial, thus exposing to the light of day her massive depletion of my retirement savings and yearly earnings.

This eight year ordeal of harassment of my family, my friends, my associates, and my was designed specifically to postpone the inevitable day of reckoning with the IRS, the day when she will be bound to account for the taxes she has neglected to pay on the stolen money that she received and failed to report.  Immediately upon a forensic analysis of the theft by Moss Adams, a highly respected firm in the City, we submitted a theft loss amendment to the IRS, and this was the considered basis of their refund to me, a refund for the taxes I had paid on the stolen monies that I did not receive.

Ms. Lynch herself, her former tax attorneys (whom she fired), her accountant who resigned the IRS, and two courts of law, one in California, a federal court in Colorado, have long been in possession of these very same and very public forensic reports which the public defenders dared to assert we withheld, and offered this fictional withholding as justification …

Ms. Lynch is in full possession of the forensic analysis.  She just doesn’t like it and she has gone to unacceptable – unacceptable lengths to ignore, discredit, threaten and vilify any person who, or institution that has affirmed it.”

I am not in possession of any type of forensic accounting.  A financial ledger, that is evidence of financial and accounting fraud, is not a corporate accounting.  That is what I have requested for approximately 10 years now and this information is needed for my personal tax records.  I do not like the fraudulent ledger and do not believe I am required to like financial and accounting fraud.
13.       During my trial, Judge Vanderet made a number of statements that I do not believe have any basis in reality.  One of those statements is as follows:  “She has indicated expressly her belief that restraining orders will have no effect on her.”  I have never said anywhere that I expressly believe that restraining orders will have no effect on me.  I have no idea where this information came from or why this is part of the record.  I have said that the original Colorado order is fraudulent and based on perjury.  I addressed this with the Boulder Combined Court in my Motion to Quash.  I have said that the Default Judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction on the part of the Court.  I argued this in my Motion to Vacate.  I have repeatedly stated that I was advised that the permanent Colorado order expired. 
14.       The Court at my sentencing hearing confirmed that the statute requires that I undergo “domestic violence counseling” although there is no domestic violence; Cohen and I were not in a dating relationship; and the Colorado order is not a domestic violence order.  I cannot speak for my public defenders but I do believe when they made any statement about a “sexual relationship” that this information was picked up from LAPD’s report because I have no idea what a “sexual relationship” is and have never used that phrase in my entire life.  I did not have a “sexual relationship” with Leonard Cohen.  The public defenders also referred to the prosecutor’s statements about the alleged statutory required brief intimate relationship.  I was unaware that this was a domestic violence case until the spring of 2013 when LA Superior Court brought it to my attention.  I have (and had) no idea why I was prosecuted and convicted for violating a domestic violence order without any findings related to domestic violence and no evidence of a “dating” or “engagement” relationship other than Leonard Cohen’s two contradictory statements (made under oath) about the nature of our relationship.  A perjured statement is not a finding of a “dating” or “engagement’ relationship.  I cannot address why my lawyers felt that a 273.6 was not a proper charge although it appears that 166 (a)(4) relates to the violation of an out-of-state order.  Clearly, I was convicted and sentenced for violating the newly created California domestic violence order.  The registration of that order did not include an Affidavit and/or Declaration with respect to the “dating” or “engagement” relationship or any issues related to “domestic violence.”  There have been no findings whatsoever with respect to “domestic violence” or the alleged “dating” or “engagement” relationship.  Cohen obtained a non-domestic violence civil harassment order against me in 2005.  That would lead one to conclude that one of the orders is fraudulent.  Leonard Cohen now has, before LA Superior Court, evidence that he has obtained both a civil harassment order and domestic violence order against me.  This information is reflected on LA Superior Court’s website as follows:
Case Number:  BQ033717
Filing Date:  05/25/2011
Case Type:  Civil Petition - TRO/Dom Violence (General Jurisdiction)
05/25/2011 Order-Reg. of Out-of-State DV
Case Number:  BS099650
Filing Date:  10/14/2005
Case Type:  Civil Harassment (General Jurisdiction)
10/14/2005 Complaint
Statements from the April 2012 Sentencing Hearing:
Court:  The statute requires that she undergo domestic violence counseling … I don’t think the traditional domestic violence counseling is the kind of counseling we need here.
Kelly:  I know the defense did make an 1118.1 motion, and as the court mentioned, the requirement of domestic violence in this case.  It is the defense’s contention now, as it was then when we made the motion, that a 273.6 is not the proper charge for this type of conduct.  In fact, it would have been a 166 which does specifically say under 166(a)(4) violation of a court out of state order.
Kelly:  We would ask and would object to including protective orders on individuals where there’s been no testimony regarding, I don’t believe, Mr. Cutler.  There’s been nothing, no sworn testimony as to anything regarding Mr. Cutler.

Court:  In addition, the Court imposes the following fines and fees required by law:  A $400 domestic violence payment.

15.       Plaintiffs have argued that the appellate court records are relevant to these proceedings because “Lynch raised in her appeal issues that she now seeks to relitigate in her Motion.  As in her current Motion, Lynch argued on appeal that the lack of service of the California Registration of the Colorado PPO renders the California Registration ‘void’ and ‘unenforceable’ and violated her rights to due process.  The Appellate Court rejected this argument in affirming her conviction and in denying her petition for writ of habeas corpus.  Lynch did not challenge the validity of the California registration of the Colorado PPO.”  I was unaware, as was my Appellate Attorney (who was forced to file my appeal without my file from the Public Defender’s Office), that Cohen had registered the Colorado order in California as a domestic violence order so it would have been impossible to address this matter at that time.  I have addressed this in an extremely diligent manner based on the length of time it took me to receive written confirmation from the Boulder Combined Court that the original order was not a domestic violence order; the length of time it took me to locate the court reporter and obtain a copy of the transcript of the March 23, 2012 hearing (my copy was submitted to the Court by Plaintiff stating that it is a certified copy; it contains my handwritten notes); and the research I undertook which required the assistance of the California Department of Justice, California Supreme Court’s Chief Justice’s Office, and the Judicial Council.
16.       Plaintiffs have also argued that the Appellate brief states:  “Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch had an intimate relationship, sometimes sexual that spanned a period of time.”  The Brief clearly states:
“According to Cohen they had a brief intimate relationship (R.T.P. 49).”  The Brief was clear that the brief intimate relationship was “according to Cohen.”  Nevertheless, I did not learn about the nature of this order until LA Superior Court brought it to my not long before the Appellate Division decided the issues on appeal.  The Appellate Brief also notes that I asked about tax information (NOT an amended tax return) many times.  And, it notes that Leonard Cohen testified that I accused him of testifying in Phil Spector’s Grand Jury.  I most certainly did not although I have said, based on Cohen’s statements to me that Phil Spector never held a gun on him, that if his statements/testimony were presented to the Grand Jury they were probably perjured.  For approximately 20 years, Leonard Cohen informed me that his stories about Phil Spector and the alleged gun incident were good rock ‘n roll stories.  This issue came up frequently because journalists would question Cohen about working with Phil Spector and I would note that his responses differed from one journalist to the next.  Mick Brown, who writes for the UK Telegraph, advised me that he reviewed the Spector Grand Jury transcript and confirmed that Cohen’s statements and/or testimony were presented to the Grand Jury.  This issue was addressed in Ann Diamond’s article “Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch.”  Cohen threatened to sue Ann Diamond over that issue, was entirely familiar with her article, and she clearly wrote that a journalist advised me of this situation.  In any event, without the Grand Jury Transcripts, it would be impossible for anyone (including the City Attorney and/or Leonard Cohen) to conclude anything about Cohen’s statements or testimony before the Spector Grand Jury.  That information should have been provided to my lawyers with other Brady materials.  It is entirely possible that Mick Brown was accurate when he wrote that he reviewed the Grand Jury transcripts and Cohen’s testimony and/or statements were presented.  When accusing someone of matters like this, it does seem relevant to provide evidence rather than relying on an embellished or fabricated narrative or Leonard Cohen’s self-serving explanations of what was in the alleged emails that were not authenticated or obtained via subpoena – including emails he was not a recipient of.
Appellate Brief:
Ms. Lynch has many times in her messages asked about getting an amended tax return.  (R.T.P. 157)
Mr. Cohen received an email on April 18, 2011 (R.P.T. 161).  It says, Cohen told Phillip [Spector] never held a gun on him and that would support what the LAPD [LASD] believes.  On emails Ms. Lynch continually accused me of testifying against Phillip Spector in the secret Grand Jury.  (R.T.P. 182)

Ms. Lawrence never had seen any subpoenas from Gmail or AOL (R.T.P. 20-25).  She did not know who the owner of the actual email address is (R.T.P. 249).

17.       The prosecutor continually argued that Leonard Cohen found the alleged emails and voice mails to be “annoying.”  That is not an element of the alleged crime of intending to annoy someone and most likely misled the jurors.  It is also extremely relevant that Leonard Cohen has simply created testimony and scenarios that indicate that he was fearful or annoyed that can never be verified.  Since he was the key witness, and had been advised in 2005 by the DA to have me charged with 653(m), I do believe it’s obvious that Leonard Cohen would testify in a manner favorable to the prosecution.  In fact, I believe this situation was carefully orchestrated.  At no time has anyone proven that I intended to “annoy” Leonard Cohen, which I did not, and the word itself has never been defined as it relates to this matter.  For some reason, the prosecutor continued to argue that “legitimate” with respect to the communications themselves was limited to “tax matters.” 

Appellate Brief:

Mr. Cohen found such emails annoying (R.T.P. 262).  Mr. Cohen was annoyed by the voice mails. (R.T.P. 263).

18.       The Appellate Brief also states: “At another hearing Mr. Cohen was asked if his relationship with Ms. Lynch was a purely business relationship.”  His response was affirmative.  Plaintiff failed to point that out to the Court when asking it to consider Lynch’s Appellate Brief.  Therefore, I would like to request that the Court consider the fact that Leonard Cohen has two contradictory positions (in the nature of testimony provided to LA Superior Court under the oath of perjury) about the nature of our relationship and the evidence has been provided to this Court.  In fact, Plaintiff has asked this Court to take Judicial Notice of the March 23, 2012 bail hearing where Cohen confirmed that we were in a purely business relationship and I never stole from him.  Leonard Cohen also testified that my tone of voice was threatening.  The tone of one’s voice is not a threat and that position is entirely subjective.  The voice mail messages, which were not time/date stamped, were worked on with a sound engineer.  They have not as yet been analyzed by a sound engineer although renowned record producer and sound engineer, The Scientist, has offered to review the tapes for me.  Perhaps he will be able to explain why Leonard Cohen and a woman can be heard speaking over me.  He may also be able to explain if there were any alterations to the tapes that exaggerated my tone of voice.  Having said this, Leonard Cohen’s voice has frequently been referred to as the type of voice/music one can commit suicide to and I have heard it said that he sounds like Dame Edith Sitwell.  The Appellate Brief does confirm that I have said the restraining order is fraudulent, as I argued in my Motion to Quash, and I wanted tax information.  That’s factual.  I still am not in receipt of the IRS required tax and corporate information.
Appellate Brief:
Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch had an intimate relationship, sometimes sexual that spanned for a period of time.  (R.T.P. 275)  At another hearing Mr. Cohen was asked if his relationship with Ms. Lynch was a purely business relationship (R.T.P. 277).

If you could just take the words without the tone there is nothing threatening there.  (R.T.P. 313).
Michelle Rice sent it [an email] on February 14, 2011.  Ms. Lynch in the email said it was a fraudulent restraining order and she wanted some tax information (R.T.P. 333)

None of the emails are harassing.  I feel like I’m being harassed by not being given the [tax and corporate] information.  (R.T.P. 501)

I actually filed a motion to vacate with Judge Enichen after I went back and realized Leonard Cohen’s perjury and fraud were excessive.  (R.T.P. 512)

In the instant case, the trial judge made a reversible error by failing to allow the defense witness from the IRS (Agent Tejeda) to testify.  The witness would be able to testify as to the tax predicament Ms. Lynch was in.  She had no other choice but to insist that she obtain tax documents to clear her name.

In the instant case the prosecution alluded to the fact that Ms. Lynch apparently stole money from Mr. Cohen.  This was not true as there was evidence that Mr. Cohen was the one who owed Ms. Lynch money.  Furthermore, Ms. Lynch had contacted the DA’s Major Fraud Unit to report the problems with Leonard Cohen, his tax fraud, the fact that he had stolen millions from Ms. Lynch and she had evidence to prove it.  This plus Mr. Cohen’s refusal to give her taxes [information/documents].

Michelle Rice testified during my 2012 trial.  She acknowledged lying to me in her February 14, 2011 email but had an excuse.  That excuse was based on her three month long research with respect to the registration of a foreign order.  Michelle Rice is a licensed attorney.  I spent quite a long time researching the use of form DV-600 and was ultimately advised by the Judicial Council, and others, that one cannot register a foreign civil harassment non-domestic violence order using domestic violence form DV-600.  When Michelle Rice wrote me she did not mention that she was researching the registration of the foreign order.  She lied and wrote that Cohen had registered this order by February 14, 2011.  This information appears in LAPD’s report as well.  As my lawyers pointed out, that was a material lie.  Rice was a witness in the Colorado matter, as well as during my 2012 trial, so there does seem to be some type of serious conflict of interest here.  I never visited Kory & Rice several times although she testified that I did.  I stopped by their offices one time in 2005and that led to Robert Kory’s declaration in my son’s custody matter.  The reason for this, from my perspective, was due to the fact that Ray was a witness to that conversation.  Clearly, Kory & Rice have no concerns for my sons whatsoever.  One way I know this to be true is because Ray, as a minor, was relentlessly harassed in emails where Michelle Rice was copied in and she clearly condoned that.  Rice also testified that were no outstanding litigation issues at the time of the September 2, 2008 hearing but there were.  Judge Babcock’s Order, with respect to the interpleaded funds, was not yet entered so that legal matter was not resolved.  Exhibit D:  Michelle Rice & email thread (relevant portion) – February 14, 2011.
Michelle Rice Trial Testimony:

Prosecutor:  All right.  Now, at some point later, in about – actually 2011, did you register that restraining order from the State of Colorado?  RT 327  Rice:  Yes.  I was the attorney of record in that proceeding … Streeter:  What is that [document]?  Rice:  This is the form DV-600, register out-of-state restraining order, in the State of California.  Streeter:  And is that the copy of the registration of the restraining order from Colorado?  Rice:  Yes.  RT 328    Streeter:  Before you registered that restraining order – I think that was in May of 2011 – at some point in February of 2011, did you send a letter on behalf of Mr. Cohen via email to Ms. Lynch?  Rice:  Yes.  Streeter:  And why did you send a letter to Ms. Lynch?  Rice:  It was an email, and she had started really emailing Mr. Cohen  and my law partner, Mr. Kory … I was not included on her email distribution list … Mr. Cohen sent – he forwarded from his email address to my email address those emails, and said she’s now contacting me directly, emailing me, and this has got to stop.  Streeter:  Based on that, did you send – did you send a letter via email to Ms. Lynch?  Rice.  I did.  RT 328-329

Prosecutor:  What is People’s 24?  Rice:  It is an email communication to Kelley Lynch from my email address, mrice@koryrice.com, which is my law firm’s email address, to Kelley.lynch.20102@gmail.com, and the subject line is “Notice of violation of permanent restraining order cease and desist.”  RT 330  Streeter:  At the bottom of People’s 24, there’s a little icon that says attachments.  What were those attachments, Ms. Rice?  Rice:  It’s the Colorado permanent restraining order 9208.pdf.  RT 331  Rice:  I just hit Reply and I actually replied to all [this is inaccurate as the DOJ was not cc’d and they were always copied on Lynch’s emails]… Streeter:  So that the People are understanding you correctly, your email that you sent her was in response to an email she had sent you or Mr. Cohen?  Rice:  No.  I’m sorry.  I may have miscommunicated.  RT 332  I just sort of copied all of the recipients into my email to her, because I – she had not been emailing me.  RT 332  Streeter:  Do you remember what was said in that first email [response] that you got a half hour later.  Rice:  I seem to recall her saying that it was a fraudulent restraining order.  Streeter:  It was a fraudulent restraining order.  What else did she say?  Rice:  That she had valid reason for contacting me and it was in, you know, she wanted tax information.  Something to that effect.  RT 333

Public Defender:  Now, Ms. Rice, I’m going to show you this email.  Do you recognize this as the same email that you sent to Ms. Lynch?  Rice: Yes.  PD:  And the portion of the email – I believe there’s some extraneous forwards in that – Rice:  Uh huh.  PD:  -- to Ms. Streeter, and Mr. Streeter sent that to me.  But in the portion that you drafted to Ms. Lynch, do you see a bracketed portion that I’ve highlighted?  Rice:  I do.  PD:  Could you read that portion out loud, please?  Rice:  It says, “Through the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, protect orders issued by a sister state, in this case Colorado, are recognized and fully enforceable in any jurisdiction in the United States.  Mr. Cohen’s protective order is registered in the State of California and will be fully recognized and enforced by California law enforcement.  I want to take this opportunity to remind you that the Colorado order never expires and can only be canceled or modified by the Court from which it was issued.” PD:  Thank you, Ms. Rice.  Now, again, you sent this email on February 14th; is that correct?  Rice:  Correct.  PD:  Okay.  And you didn’t actually file the Colorado order in California until May 25th, which is approximately three months later; is that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  PD:  So you told Ms. Lynch that you had filed it when in fact you hadn’t at that point.  Rice:  Well, at that point we were actually doing research, legal research regarding how to file it in the State of California.  And I was actively involved in the research portion, and we were going to file that you know, around the time that we said that we were going to file it in the date of that email, February 14, 2011, because it was.  PD:  Thank you.  So you were doing research, you said, but you had not actually filed it yet?  Rice:  That is technically correct, yes.  PD:  And you didn’t actually file it until approximately three months later in Superior Court?  Rice:  That is correct.  PD:  Now I want to take you back to the actual permanent restraining order hearing in Colorado.  You said you were present during that hearing; is that correct?  Rice:  I was.  PD:  And Mr. Cohen was also present during that hearing?  Rice:  Mr. Cohen was not at the permanent restraining order hearing.  He appeared and testified for the preliminary hearing which was August 15th.  PD:  Okay.  Were you there on that hearing?  Rice:  I was.  PD:  Now, for that permanent hearing, were you the only other person present as a witness?  Rice:  No.  Mr. Kory was there as well.  PD:  You and Mr. Kory together, and another attorney, Mr. Steinberg; is that correct?  Rice:  Harvey Steinberg was the Colorado counsel.  I’m not admitted in Colorado, so we had to retain local counsel.  PD:  Now, you observed this entire proceeding as it occurred?  Rice:  Yes.  PD:  And Ms. Lynch was also present.  Rice:  She was.  PD:  Okay.  Now, is this the first time you’ve met Ms. Lynch?  Rice:  No.  PD:  When was the first time you met her?  Rice:  She came to our office a couple of times.  PD:  When did she come to your office?  Rice:  I believe it was probably Spring of 2005.  PD:  And both occurrences were in Spring of 2005 that she came to your office?  Rice:  One may have been in the summer of 2005.  PD:  So both in 2005?  Rice:  Well, there was a third one, yet another proceeding that, yes, I had occasion to interact with Ms. Lynch, yes. During 2005 … PD:  And even though you were there to testify at this permanent hearing and evidentiary hearing, it didn’t actually take place; isn’t that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  And it was at Ms. Lynch’s insistence that the evidentiary hearing not proceed.  RT 351-354  PD:  But isn’t it also true that Ms. Lynch, during that proceeding, asked the judge if she could attack this restraining order at a later date and he told her he couldn’t give her legal advice; isn’t that correct?  Rice:  Correct.  It was actually a female judge.  It was Carolyn Enichen.  RT 355  PD:  Isn’t it also true that Ms. Lynch asked the Court, in open Court, whether or not or whom she could direct inquiries regarding any ongoing litigation because Mr. Cohen and her were in litigation at that point?  Rice:  That is incorrect.  There was no ongoing litigation at that point.  By the point when we had the 2008 permanent restraining order haring, the default judgment had been rendered by the LA Superior Court in May of 2006.  PD:  Okay.  Was there also a case in – in Federal District of Colorado between Mr. Neal Greenberg against both your client, Leonard Cohen, and also naming Ms. Lynch as a defendant regarding the same issues that surrounded the end of their business relationship?  Rice;  I believe that the Federal District Court action was also concluded by the time the permanent restraining order, but I – again, I’d have to look there.  But we filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Mr. Cohen in May of 2008.  The September 2008 hearing was sixth months later.  PD:  So there was litigation in 2008 where Ms. Lynch was a party, Mr. Cohen was also a party and it was in the State of Colorado; it that correct?  Rice:  In 2008, correct.  But by the time the permanent restraining order hearing concluded, that action had concluded with regard to Mr. Cohen.  RT 355-357  PD:  And you were an attorney of record in the federal case?  Rice:  I was.  RT 357  PD:  So you were familiar with the pleadings of that case and the procedural posture of that case?  Rice:  It is to the best of my recollection that Ms. Lynch never made an appearance in that lawsuit. She never answered any complaint that Mr. Greenberg filed.  She – you know, this was a multiyear litigation matter that I only became attorney of record for Mr. Cohen in the later stages of that.  Prior to that, he had Colorado counsel, Jay Horowitz.  PD:  But indeed the nature of the allegation in that lawsuit involved very heavily the relationship between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Cohen; is that correct?  Rice:  No.  I would characterize the litigation in that way.  RT 357  PD:  How would you characterize it?  Rice:  I – I mean, basically, the investment firm sued Mr. Cohen first, and I believe Ms. Lynch was only made a party later in the proceeding [re. the interpleaded funds].  So I would characterize it as basically primarily between the investment adviser and Mr. Cohen in the beginning stages.  He also sued Mr. Kory.  PD:  But isn’t it also true that in that allegation of that lawsuit that Ms. Lynch, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Kory were engaged in civil extortion and fraud against the Plaintiff in that case, Mr. Greenberg?  Rice:  That is what they can state in the Complaint.  But, as you know, you can make any kind of allegations in a Complaint … PD:  And they named Ms. Lynch as one of the conspirators in that civil conspiracy; is that also correct?  Rice:  I don’t believe Ms. Lynch was named as a co-conspirator.  RT 358

19.       Plaintiff also asks the Court to consider the Respondent’s (City Attorney) Reply Brief when deciding this matter.  The Reply Brief informs the appellate division that I worked as Cohen’s personal and business manager for 17 years.  I worked as Leonard Cohen’s personal manager, as he advised this Court, and never worked as a business manager who is normally a CPA that receives a 5% commission or an hourly rate.  A personal manager, as was true in my case, receives a commission of either 15% or 20% depending on the terms of the agreement.  Cohen testified at the trial that he didn’t hire me as a personal manager.  He didn’t qualify this by stating that at some point I became his personal manager.  He testified that he hired me as his “business manager.”  There are now two contradictory statements, by Cohen’s himself, about this issue before LA Superior Court.  In April 1988, Leonard Cohen hired me as a personal manager.
Leonard Cohen – Trial Testimony:
PD:  Now I want to talk to you a little bit about your relationship with Ms. Lynch.  Now, you – actually, you hired her to be your personal manager in 1988, correct?  Cohen:  No.  PD:  Well, when did you hire her?  Cohen:  I hired her to be my business manager.  PD:  In what year?  Cohen:  I think it was 1988 or ’89.  RT 270

The Reply Brief is clear that I have disputed Cohen’s statements that we had a “brief intimate relationship.” 
Appellant worked for Cohen as a personal and business manager for about 17 years.  According to Cohen, but disputed by appellant, they also had a brief intimate relationship.  (RT 49, 320). 

The City Attorney’s Reply Brief falsely accuses me of testifying about matters that Cohen himself testified about and fabricated or embellished.  One example of this would be the City Attorney’s position that I began to “indicate that Cohen was the author of her misfortune and everything that happens to her was [his fault].”  I never made that allegation or statement.  That was simply a statement Cohen made during his testimony.   However, the City Attorney advised the appellate division that I began to indicate this in what they feel was a “very menacing tone” although I never made this statement.
Specifically, appellant began to indicate Cohen was author of her misfortune and everything that happened to her was [his fault], and that she would repay him with the same kindness [he had] shown her --- all said with a “very menacing tone.”  (RT 53)

The Reply Brief further states that “These messages alarmed and frightened Cohen.  He was concerned about the safety of his children and grandchildren.”  Cohen’s children are in their 40s and I have not seen them since 2004.  I have not seen Cohen since 2004 apart from the 2012 trial.  He testified about this fact at the March 23, 2012 hearing.  There is no evidence whatsoever to support this type of self-serving, absurd testimony.  This may be indicative of Leonard Cohen’s tendency to fabricate and embellish statements or evidence that his long and publicly documented history of psychiatric problems, drug and alcohol abuse, has taken a toll on this man and he is the individual who is deceitful and paranoid.  The Trial Court permitted Leonard Cohen to testify that my rhetorical question “Are you still on drugs” was evidently my intent to annoy Leonard Cohen but did not permit my lawyers to impeach his testimony that I “assailed” his reputation.  Leonard Cohen’s conduct is what resulted in that question.  And, I will point out to this Court that Leonard Cohen, through his lawyer Robert Kory, offered me 50% community property so the story doesn’t add up.  My accountant, who did not resign, was present for this offer and advised me, after I met with the Treasury agents, to contact IRS/Treasury (where he once worked) to confirm that he recalled Cohen’s offer of 50% community property. 
These messages alarmed and frightened Cohen.  He was “concerned about the safety and the safety of my children and grand children.”  (RT 54)

Leonard Cohen evidently became more alarmed and frightened, than before, due to my declarations that I would “never back down, never stop, never retreat,” although I never made this statement.  Once again, the Court should take into consideration Leonard Cohen’s history of fabricating and embellishing stories and/or his long and publicly documented history of psychiatric problems, and alcohol and drug abuse.  Leonard Cohen, while testifying that I assailed his reputation with my rhetorical question, was nearly simultaneously entertaining his biographer (Sylvie Simmons) with stories about his drug usage that included meth and LSD. 
At any period, Cohen was more alarmed than before, particularly due to appellant’s declarations she would “never back down, never stop, never retreat.”  (RT 72)

The Appellate Brief assigns other statements to me that I did not make.  I never said “Cohen is going to be hung.”  This is how the City Attorney’s office transcribed the tapes.  The transcripts, as I advised my lawyers, were wholly and entirely incoherent and inaccurate.  I am now being accused of making statements I did not make due to the City Attorney’s shabby transcription processes.  I am not clear how this inaccurate transcription alarmed Leonard Cohen or further frightened him.  Evidently Leonard Cohen found the wrongfully transcribed transcript to have been stated in a “menacing tone.”  The Brief also accuses me of stating that Leonard Cohen is an “asshole who is going to hell.”  This was actually in an email that Leonard Cohen read to the jurors.  He was then asked to read the entire statement.  The individual who made this observation was His Holiness Kusum Lingpa and he knew Leonard Cohen and I can assure this Court that His Holiness was absolutely a Buddhist.  Cohen even attempted to mislead the jury when he read the comment that was allegedly contained in an email. 
I never accused Leonard Cohen of molesting his daughter.  Ann Diamond’s declaration addresses this matter.  Nevertheless, the prosecutor falsely accused me of this.  I have seen no investigation into the actual allegations by law enforcement.  The prosecutor then went onto argue that I referred to NAMBLA because of Leonard Cohen.  Stephen Gianelli, the Bay Area lawyer, Susanne Walsh (Cohen’s fan who copied Michelle Rice on emails), and others attempted to lure my then minor son into communicating with them privately.  I do not know any of these adults, if that is what they are.  They have spent years terrorizing my sons; writing the City Attorney and other government officials and lying about me (while copying my sons and others on the harassing, slanderous emails); and slandering me online.  Stephen Gianelli has harassed me, and others, relentlessly since speaking to Michelle Rice – according to his own public statements – in May 2009.  He has now harassed me over Rutger’s Declaration that was submitted to this Court.  My son has no idea who this man is.  I have reported this matter, because it relates to many Los Angeles residents, to the City Attorney, District Attorney, LAPD’s TMU (who was involved in the initial Leonard Cohen report that is entirely false and fraudulent), FBI, IRS, DOJ, Treasury, and others. 
On February 15, 2011, appellant said in a menacing voice “Cohen is going to be hung.”  (RT 250).  Cohen found the voice mails alarming and menacing.  (RT 262)

Leonard Cohen – Trial Testimony:

Streeter:  I want to also direct your attention to December 17th, 2011 at approximately 9.06 AM.  Okay.  I’m going to show you the first page of that.  Read over the first page of that.  Let me know when you’re done.  Cohen:  Yes, I read it.  Streeter:  Does she refer to you on the first page of that email?  Cohen:  Yes, she does.  Streeter;  What does she call you, Sir?  Cohen:  She says, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell.  RT 196  PD:  Objection, Your Honor.  I think the rule of completeness that the statement needs to be – the whole statement – the whole sentence needs to be read.  Court:  I have the – can you read the whole sentence.  Cohen:  After all, as Lamasang said, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell.  RT 197

Appellate Reply Brief:  She often cursed - Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell (RT 196), accusing Cohen of drug abuse, and of molesting his children.  (RT 90).

Leonard Cohen - Trial Testimony:

Streeter:  You mentioned -- you mentioned that Ms. Lynch often accused you of hurting other children; is that right?  Cohen:  I’m sorry?  Streeter:  Did Ms. Lynch in any of her emails accuse you of molesting your children?  Cohen:  Yes, she did.  Streeter:  Do you know what NAMBLA is, Mr. Cohen?  Cohen:  I think it’s an organization of male and that affirms or encourages re -- sexual relations between men and children.  Streeter:  Did she ever mention that in any of the emails that she sent you, Mr. Cohen?  Cohen:  Sounds familiar, but I can’t -- I can’t say for sure.  I think so.  RT 90  Streeter:  You mentioned that you do recall her sending you emails in reference to the NAMBLA Association?  Cohen:  Right.  Streeter:  Is there any mention of that in that email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen:  Yes, there is.  Streeter:  And after -- is there any mention of the minor children in reference to the -- that organization?  Cohen:  To my minor children -- Streeter:  Or minor children.
Cohen:  I don’t think this particular email is referring to me. Streeter.  But there is mention of that?
Cohen:  But there is a mention that a lawyer might be molesting her minor child and that he might be a member of NAMBLA.  RT 91/91  Cohen:  I don’t think this particular email is referring to me.
Streeter.  But there is mention of that?  Cohen:  But there is a mention that a lawyer might be molesting her minor child and that he might be a member of NAMBLA.  RT 89-91

Unfortunately the same advances in computer and telecommunication technology that allow our children to reach out to new sources of knowledge and cultural experiences are also leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and harm by computer-sex offenders.

The City Attorney, who has no jurisdiction over federal tax matters, advised the appellate court that I received K-1s that were transmitted to the IRS that did not belong to me.  I never said that.  I have said that illegal K-1s were transmitted to the IRS indicating that I was a partner on LC Investments when in fact I was not.  Leonard Cohen’s declaration, used to support the Default Judgment, confirmed that he is the sole owner of that entity.  The IRS has continuously advised me to contact Cohen to ask him to rescind the wrongful K-1s.  Instead, the City Attorney argued in Closing that I know the difference between a K-1 and 1099 and am a con artist because the IRS matters are a ruse. This followed prosecutorial statements that I was in possession of the IRS required tax information which I am not.  The City Attorney’s office does not speak for or represent the Internal Revenue Service.  I legitimately want the IRS required tax and corporate information that I requested.  I have no idea why the City Attorney’s office would lie about this matter to jurors but it might explain why the jurors wanted to hear from IRS.
Appellant variously claimed she contacted Cohen because she has “K-1s that were transmitted to the IRS” that do not belong to her, she was “not a partner on LC Investments and that ‘causes tremendous confusion with [her] taxes,”  (RT 497), she didn’t get all the information she needed (RT 498), and wanted to know her commissions in 2004.  (RT 478)

Prosecutor’s Closing Argument – Trial:

Prosecutor:  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

The Reply Brief goes onto argue, without any evidence whatsoever, that IRS Agent Tejeda’s testimony would have been cumulative.  Agent Tejeda’s testimony would have been impeachment testimony.  The jurors wanted to hear from Internal Revenue Service.  I didn’t testify extensively about my tax predicament.  This was raised in the prosecution’s opening arguments and I was forced to respond although there are privacy considerations with respect to people’s federal tax matters.  Leonard Cohen testified that my requests for tax information were “hidden” in the volume of emails.  This is a blatant lie and at another point during the trial he testified that my tax requests appeared in approximately 50% of the alleged emails.  LAPD’s report states that my alleged emails were generally requests for tax information.  I have asked the IRS Commissioner’s Staff to address this issue since they were copied on each and every actual email sent to Cohen and/or his representatives requesting that information.  A tremendous amount of evidence was concealed during my trial – including by the prosecution.  The Trial Court deprived me of the right to call defense witnesses. 
Appellant contends her constitutional rights to due process and procedure witnesses were violated when the court refused to admit testimony of IRS Agent Tejeda regarding appellant’s tax predicament.  (AOB 13).  Appellant testified extensively regarding her tax predicament.  Cohen acknowledged appellant’s slight concern regarding her tax issue when he testified that “hidden in the volume of emails there was a requirement for tax information. Which defendant already had.  (RT 281).  Under these circumstances, Tejeda’s testimony was cumulative.  The court properly excluded Tejeda’s testimony on the basis that the judge did not want to delay the trial when appellant had known of the witness long before trial and Tejeda was quite “tangential of the merits of the IRS thing.”

Finally, in terms of the examples of the types of issues I am facing, the Reply Brief advised the appellate division that the “same order” [Colorado] is the one registered in California.  That is false.  The Colorado order is not a domestic violence order.  This is a newly created California order.  I didn’t know that a permanent order was in place because the Boulder Combined Court advised me, Paulette Brandt, and others that it expired on February 15, 2009 after the Court entered my Motion to Dismiss.  The fact that an order was registered in California as a domestic violence order is not “irrelevant.”  It is highly relevant and material.  My lawyers and I did know how to “locate the IRS witness.”  We knew how to reach Agent Luis Tejeda; he received a subpoena; and Agent Tejeda informed my lawyer that he had to meet (pursuant to federal rules) with IRS and/or DOJ attorneys.  When my appellate attorney spoke with the DOJ about this matter, he was informed that the concerns IRS/DOJ were discussing related to privacy issues.  The evidence submitted to the City Attorney and my lawyers is not private.  The testimony on the record in this case is not private.  It is more than obvious that Agent Tejeda could have testified that Leonard Cohen was obligated to provide me with a 1099 for the year 2004; that a K-1 cannot be issued to someone who is not a partner; that when a partnership return is filed (as was the case with Traditional Holdings, LLC) indicating that someone is a partner, that IRS relies on that information; and, Agent Tejeda clearly could have testified as to the basic elements of a corporate accounting.  I believe Agent Tejeda could also have testified about the contradictions in the fraudulent expense ledger (also in the IRS Binder) and the K-1s issued showing I had $0 income from LC Investments, LLC for the year 2003, 2004, and 2005 (the expense ledger indicates that there was income during these same periods).  These are the types of matters that IRS Agent Luis Tejeda could conceivably have clarified for the jurors.  Instead, they were led to believe that I was harassing Leonard Cohen for no legitimate reason and he had provided me with the IRS required information which he had not.  We did not ask the Court to continue the trial in order to locate Agent Tejeda.  I personally asked the judge to wait approximately two hours until lunch time at which point my lawyer felt he could speak to Agent Tejeda.  Finally, I do believe Agent Tejeda could have testified to the fact that there is no IRS holding in the IRS binder with respect to the Default Judgment and the tax refunds were provided to Leonard Cohen, based solely on the allegations in the Complaint (which are entirely fraudulent) and a fraudulent financial ledger, approximately six months prior to the entry of the Default Judgment.  These issues are impeachment matters – not cumulative testimony.  I had no interest whatsoever in asking Agent Tejeda to testify, as the City Attorney advised the appellate division, about my tax predicament unless that predicament has to do with the lies Cohen, his lawyer, and the prosecutor presented to the jurors when they testified or stated that I was in possession of tax information that I am not.
That same order [Colorado restraining order] is the one registered in California.  (RT 328).  Clearly, appellant knew a court had ordered her not to contact Cohen under any circumstance; the fact she was unaware the order had been registered in California is irrelevant.

Appellant asserts that she was denied her right to call as a witness an employee of the IRS to explain her tax predicament.  We disagree.  After the prosecution rested, the court denied appellant’s request to continue the trial in order to locate the IRS witness.

20.       Plaintiffs asked this Court to consider the Appellate Division’s Opinions with respect to my appeal and writ of habeas corpus.  The Court did note what I was convicted of and then falsely stated that I testified at my trial (“admitted”) that I made the calls and sent the emails.  I never made any such statement and do not know why this information appears in the Appellate Division’s Opinion.  This type of accusation has constantly taken place.  I have literally been assigned statements that I have not made.  The City Attorney, when questioning me, would falsely state that I testified about something I didn’t.  In fact, the prosecutor went so far as to falsely advise me that the IRS was of the opinion that I had taken money missing from Cohen’s account.  The IRS, based on Leonard Cohen’s fraudulent statements and evidence, provided Cohen with a fraudulent tax refund.  That tax refund has been challenged as fraud and this issue is going to be litigated in federal court.  An IRS refund is not an IRS opinion in any event.  The IRS generally takes information at face value and then, if there are problems with that information, they do audit.  In this case, a fraudulent Complaint in Case No. BC338322 (that would be entirely perjured when it arrived at the IRS), together with a fraudulent financial accounting, was used to obtain the fraudulent tax refunds.  Corporate evidence was concealed from IRS.  That would include evidence of my ownership interest in numerous corporate entities.  Plaintiffs are aware that I have challenged the IRS and FTB tax refunds as fraudulent.  I also do not understand why the prosecutor questioned me about whether or not the Internal Revenue Service contacted me about “back taxes.”  The IRS has privacy rules and regulations and the City Attorney was not prosecuting a federal tax case.  My trial appeared, to my appellate attorney as well, to be an IRS matter that demands an IRS investigation.  Perhaps that’s why the Appellate Division was discussing the “IRS binder” provided to the City Attorney as evidence during my trial.  The binder included an email from the Treasury advising me to report the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS Agent Luis Tejeda and provide him with information and as much specificity as possible.  That’s the only evidence the City Attorney and/or Leonard Cohen have submitted to LA Superior Court that might even vaguely resemble an IRS holding or opinion.  Most certainly, Robert Kory’s letters defending his client would not be an IRS holding or opinion.  Furthermore, there is no IRS opinion that money “missing” (which doesn’t exist as no money was “missing” and that would include Leonard Cohen’s nearly $6.7 million in loans and expenditures from one corporation alone) from any account was “income” to me or “income” that I did not pay taxes on.  I have no idea why the City Attorney would question me over this issue.  A great deal of this trial focused on Internal Revenue Service, federal tax matters, and Phil Spector.
Appellate Court:

Petitioner was convicted of five counts of violating a court order (Penal Code Section 273.6) and two counts of making annoying telephone calls and sending annoying emails (Section 653m, subdivision b). 

Petitioner testified at her trial and admitted she made the calls and sent the emails.

Prosecution Cross-Examination – Kelley Lynch:

Prosecutor:  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 ... Prosecutor: 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 [and Lynch never “mentioned” that].  (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 them 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.

21.       Michelle Rice did send me an email on February 14, 2011.  That email advised me that Rice had registered the Colorado order in California when she had not.  The order was not registered until May 25, 2011.  I take these lies, particularly as they are so extensive now, very seriously.  I then phoned LA Superior Court and was advised that the only order Leonard Cohen had in their records was the civil harassment order from 2005.  I then phoned the Boulder Combined Court and was told that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  I should not be forced to take responsibility for the actions of others.  In this case, I am specifically referring to the employees of Boulder Combined Court.  Berkeley PD seemed well aware of the fact that I was unaware that there was a restraining order in place.  Michelle Rice also advised me that, with respect to my requests for IRS required tax and corporate information, I should have used LA Superior Court’s discovery process.  The IRS does not require me to go through LA Superior Court’s discovery process to obtain IRS required 1099 for the year 2004, etc.  The information I have been requesting predates the Default Judgment which does not appear to be retroactive.  Plaintiff is now arguing that it is the Default Judgment itself that does not obligate him to provide me with this information.  LA Superior Court has not clarified this situation although I have addressed the fact that the Default Judgment is ambiguous as it relates to federal tax matters.  Leonard Cohen did use LA Superior Court’s mediation processes, after the Complaint was filed, to determine with his personal corporate and tax lawyer that a mistake with respect to my ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC had been rectified.  Given the fact that Leonard Cohen’s personal tax lawyer prepared the tax returns and tax documents, it seems relevant that I should receive the details as to how there was a mistake in my ownership interest when I was included on federal tax returns for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.  Leonard Cohen does not feel obligated to provide me with that information either.  In any event, there are many outstanding federal tax and other matters between Leonard Cohen and myself.  One issue I intend to address, in federal court, is Cohen’s position that he is not obligated to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information based on these restraining orders and the Default Judgment in Case No. BC338322.  Plaintiff is well aware of that fact.
22.       The California order, as a domestic violence order, does not meet VAWA requirements because that is not the nature of the Colorado order and therefore would not be accorded full faith and credit under VAWA 18 U.S.C. Section 2265.  The California domestic violence order is a new order.  Attempting to argue that, based on probable perjured testimony, four years after the order was registered as domestic violence, a Court determined that Cohen and I were in a statutory required dating relationship seems wholly inappropriate and legally absurd.
23.       I do not pose a threat to Leonard Cohen.  Cohen now argues that my attempts to seek legal remedies are harassment.  He also attempts to argue that my pleadings are frivolous.  In this matter, Gabrielle Selden (Judicial Council) personally advised me that Cohen could not use domestic violence form DV-600 to register the Colorado civil harassment order as a domestic violence order.  Leonard Cohen has not provided any evidence to this Court, who is not hearing a violation of an order, that I pose any type of threat to him.  In fact, I am the individual who continues to be criminally harassed by a proxy lawyer who appears to be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team.  He continues to write me about this matter, Cohen’s Sanctions Motion (which was retaliation), the Judge in Department 7 and his pet peeves, my appeals, form DV-600, and his harassment of my son Rutger who has provided this Court with a declaration.  The individual, Stephen Gianelli, is also now promoting to the public the use of DV-600 to register non-domestic violence civil harassment orders in California.  That would, in turn, promote VAWA funding fraud.  This individual has written me countless emails about the validity of registering a non-domestic violence foreign order as a domestic violence order.  The Judicial Council confirmed that a non-domestic violence civil harassment order cannot be registered in California using form DV-600.  LA Superior Court employees have advised me of the same and also noted that it would become problematic if this was used against someone.  This individual has no reason whatsoever to harass me over these issues unless he is a proxy or operative for Leonard Cohen.  Exhibit E:  Stephen Gianelli Recent Harassing Emails.
Stephen Gianelli’s Scribd Post Re. the Use Of Form DV-600:
Protocol for Resistering Tribal Civil Harassment Orders - or - Domestic Violence Orders With the El Dorado County Superior Court
Ratings:  (0)|Views: 8|Likes: 0
Published by Stephen Gianelli


Published by: Stephen Gianelli on Jun 02, 2015
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

24.  Leonard Cohen’s willingness to lie under oath is most definitely material and relevant.  This occurred throughout my trial and continues with this Court and in other courtrooms.  Another example of this type of activity was Cohen’s testimony during my trial that he was a recipient on an email sent to Dennis Riordan advising him (as a witness) that Cohen told me for 20 years that Phil Spector never held a gun on him.  The prosecutor, during my trial, then – after asking Cohen to confirm that he was a recipient by reviewing the email – elicited testimony about Phil Spector and a gun using the April 18, 2011 email that Cohen was not a recipient of.  He confirmed this on cross-examination.  However, making matters even worse, the prosecutor advised the jurors that she “misspoke” when she asked her question about the email Cohen “received” at 5:44 AM.  What was concealed when she skipped from 5.44 AM to the portion of the thread sent at 8:11 AM were the requests for tax information and my email to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.  The U.S. Treasury agents confirmed that IRS Commissioner’s Staff are reading my emails.  When the proxy lawyer (Stephen Gianelli), Cohen’s fans and others, targeted me and my sons relentlessly, they would raise issues related to IRS, Phil Spector, Cohen’s gun stories, tax matters, and other erroneous issues.  Therefore, I had no choice but to confront them.  They also intentionally attempted to elicit information from me about these matters.  Various government agencies were frequently copied on their utterly deranged emails to me, my sons, sister, friends, and others.  Stephen Gianelli appears to be an agent provocateur/infiltrator who absolutely attempts to elicit information from me and others.  One reason my attempts to address tax matters, and other legitimate issues, were hidden is due to the fact that they were willfully concealed.  Exhibit F:  April 18, 2011 emails.
Leonard Cohen – Trial Testimony:
Do you recall getting an email from Ms. Lynch on approximately April 18, 2011 at about 5.44 AM?  Cohen:  I know that occasionally there were some very early calls.  Streeter:  This is an email message.  Cohen:  I would have to be refreshed.  RT 160
Streeter:  I have People’s 13.  Now, thinking back to the emails that you received from Ms. Lynch about Mr. Spector, would she use his whole name or would she use part of his name, or did it vary?  Cohen:  It varied, but I think it was usually Phil Spector … Occasionally when she spoke of him as someone she knew well, I think she would call him Phillip.  Streeter:  I’m going to show you an email.  It’s – April 18, 2011.  I misspoke.  It’s at 8.11 AM.  Just look at the first page on the date.  See if that refreshes your recollection.  Let me know when you’ve done.  Cohen:  Yes Ma’am.  Streeter:  Did – does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you received an email on April 18, 2011 at approximately 8.11 AM in the morning.  Cohen:  Yes, this is the email I received.  Streeter:  See if that email helps you recall whether or not there was any mention of either a Phil, a Phillip, or Phil Spector in the email.  Cohen:  In this particular email, Mr. Spector is called Phillip.  Streeter:  Okay.  And on what page is the email?  What page is the mention of Mr. Spector?  Cohen:  I haven’t studied the whole email, but it begins on the first page.  Streeter:  How many pages is that particular email, Mr. Cohen?  Cohen:  Seven pages … Streeter:  Is your name mentioned in any way with Phillip, Mr. Cohen?  Cohen:  Yes.  It says, Cohen told me Phillip never held a gun on him, and that would support what he told LAPD [LASD].  RT 160-161 

Now, one of thee emails that she mentioned was sent on April 18, 2011 at around 8.11 AM … Do you remember testifying about that email? Cohen:  Yes, I believe I did.  Kelly:  Okay.  And when you testified about that email, you said that you remember receiving that email?  RT 265  Cohen:  I think I did.  Kelly:  Can you point out where exactly on the list of recipients that your email address shows up?  Cohen:  Perhaps I missed this one.  Kelly:  Okay.  But you did testify, though, that you remember receiving that email, correct?  Do you remember testifying to that?  Cohen:  I believe I did.  Kelly:  Okay.  Were you wrong when you -- did you misspeak when you said that?  Cohen:  I haven’t checked every address.  Kelly:  Okay.  You can take a moment -- Cohen:  It’s very small.  Kelly:  Take all the time that you need.  Cohen:  If you say it’s not here, I understand what your point will be … PD:  And so you’ve had a chance to look over that email, the recipients?  Cohen:  Yes.  PD:  And your email is not on that, correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  RT 266

25.       Leonard Cohen testified during my 2012 trial that one of the main reasons he obtained the Colorado Order was due to his personal belief, utterly and completely unrelated to anything based in reality, that he felt I might attend his concert which was scheduled for nearly one after the August 2008 ex parte hearing.   In reality, I left Boulder, Colorado shortly after the hearing and relocated to Northern New Jersey.  I have no interest whatsoever in attending Leonard Cohen’s concerts and am completely uninterested in his music or him personally.  There is no evidence to prove that I planned to attend a concert; was interested in attending his concert; or am interested in seeing him.  I am not so that would be impossible to prove.  It seems to me that Leonard Cohen, his lawyers, and the prosecutor studied statements made publicly (about other cases) by Jeff Dunn of LAPD’s Threat Management Unit and conformed their own statements to his own.  There are fans that stalk musicians but I can assure this Court that I am no fan of Leonard Cohen’s and wouldn’t attend his concert if my life depended on it.  Furthermore, there was no information – in any email – that would prove I might attend a concert.  This is merely another carefully crafted statement of Leonard Cohen’s. 
PD:  Now, you didn’t get this order in California in 2008?  Cohen:  2008?  PD:  Yes, You didn’t get that order in California?  Cohen:  You said California.  I thought you said Colorado.  PD:  Right.  So you got it in Colorado, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  And you actually, you said you were on tour in Colorado?  Cohen:  It was one of the cities I visited, yes.  PD:  How long were you going to be in Colorado?  Cohen:  A week.  PD:  And you said that you got the order in Colorado because you were going to be on tour there, correct?  Cohen:  That was one of the reasons, Sir.  PD:  And that Ms. Lynch lived there, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  What was the other reason?  Cohen:  The other reason was the bombarding of the emails continued.  PD:  Okay.  But you got it in Colorado because Ms. Lynch was there?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  Do you know how long Ms. Lynch was there?  Cohen:  Not exactly, no Sir.  PD:  And you – how did you know Ms. Lynch was in Colorado?  Cohen:  Because of the emails that she wrote us are from Colorado.  PD:  Now, you got a permanent order in Colorado even thought you were only there for one week, correct?  Cohen:  Yes.  PD 297-301
26.       During my trial, as noted above, Leonard Cohen testified rather extensively about Phil Spector and an alleged gun incident.  This is relevant due to the fact that Cohen testified that he was not afraid when Phil Spector allegedly held a gun to his head but fears for his safety with respect to my alleged emails.  I find that testimony to be preposterous.  Leonard Cohen has not seen me in approximately 10 years (apart from the trial); advised Detective Viramontes that he was not comfortable with my requests for tax information; has not personally heard from me in well over three years and that includes with respect to the IRS required tax and corporate information.  I do not believe that legitimate requests for tax information would cause a reasonable individual to experience “fear” or “discomfort.”  I have, of course, communicated with his attorneys.  I have actually asked them to assist me in bringing the ongoing harassment over Leonard Cohen, and these legal issues, to an end.  Michelle Rice spoke to Stephen Gianelli in 2009 and that’s when this harassment began.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Bay Area lawyer to send me legal opinions, engage in legal research, and harass me – and others – over Leonard Cohen and the Cohen related legal issues.  Detective Jose Viramontes, LAPD’S Threat Management Unit, met personally with Leonard Cohen.  He informed me that LAPD merely took notes of the statements Cohen made to them and Cohen informed them that he didn’t feel “comfortable” with my requests for tax information.  One must wonder why Leonard Cohen, even before filing the lawsuit in August 2005, didn’t provide me with IRS required form 1099 (and other information) for the year 2004 since Cohen would have been obligated to provide that information to me well in advance of filing the Complaint in Case No. BC338322.  No one has provided any type of answer to this highly material question.
Leonard Cohen – Trial Testimony: 
PD:  Now, I want to talk to you about what you mean by threatened.  You actually -- you were telling us about Phil Spector.  You were testifying about talking to the LAPD.  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.
PD:  And you talked to the LAPD with your attorney, correct?  Cohen:  With an attorney present, yes, Sir.  PD:  And that’s when you asked that – or your attorney – someone asked that Ms. Lynch leave?  Cohen:  The attorney asked that Ms. Lynch leave.  PD:  So when Ms. Lynch left, you started talking about an interview or story about Phil Spector, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  And how he would oftentimes have guns when you were producing an album, correct?  He would have guns in the studio when he was producing an album with you?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  And, in fact, one time you told the detective that, quote – Well, before I go there, was Mr. Spector -- was he drunk at the time when he had these guns?  Cohen:  I don’t remember, Sir.  PD:  Was he hostile at the time?  Cohen:  Not to me.  PD:  Okay.  But he actually put a gun to your head?  Is that correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  It was a revolver?  Cohen:   No, it wasn’t a revolver.  It was an automatic.  PD:  But you weren’t actually -- you didn’t feel threatened when he put a gun to your head?  Cohen:  No, Sir.  RT 308-309

27.       When Leonard Cohen changed his testimony with respect to the nature of our relationship, he understood that he was under oath and swore to tell the truth.  That tends to indicate that Leonard Cohen has no respect whatsoever for the oath of perjury or judicial processes.
PD:  When you testified on March 23rd, you said that -- you didn’t give the same answer that you gave now, correct, regarding your relationship with Ms. Lynch?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  Okay.  But you -- when you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raised your right hand, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  And then the same oath that you just took right now, correct?  Before testifying, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  Okay.  And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?  Streeter: Objection; argumentative.  Court:  Sustained.  Kelly:  Nothing further.  RT 321-322

28.       Plaintiff’s conclude their salacious assault on Lynch’s reputation and character with this statement:  “Given the persistence, intensity, and virulence of Lynch’s attack upon Cohen, which has spanned over a decade, she remains a threat to Cohen’s personal safety and well-being.”  Leonard Cohen failed to serve me the summons and complaint in Case No. BC338322.  He refuses to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information.  I am being relentlessly harassed over Leonard Cohen and these legal issues by a proxy lawyer (Stephen Gianelli).  The same is true for my family members and friends.  The persistence Cohen is referring to is my attempt to seek legal remedies.  That would include with respect to egregious fraud upon the court; the use of perjured testimony; and egregious litigation misconduct.  California does recognize that fraud upon the court demands relief.  Leonard Cohen has retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud and having the audacity to seek legal remedies.  That’s evidently now the threat to his “personal safety.”  For the record, it is my personal opinion that Leonard Cohen will say and do anything.  To paraphrase Ann Diamond:  when confronted with his lies, Leonard Cohen will never admit to his wrongdoing.  I am well aware of that fact.  There is no “virulence” to any “attack” on Cohen because there hasn’t been an attack.  Filing a Motion to Vacate an improperly registered domestic violence order is not an attack on Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen had the opportunity to ask this Court to withdraw the domestic violence registration and properly register the foreign order as a non-domestic violence civil harassment order.  He chose not to ask the Court to consider that possible remedy so that is not before the Court now.  Therefore, the Court should understand that Leonard Cohen is not really interested in his welfare and safety.  Cohen is interested in getting what he wants.  He has an inconceivable sense of entitlement. 
Leonard Cohen is the individual who retaliated against me; gave an outrageous interview to MacLean’s that reads like a defense to tax fraud; slandered me horrendously; has lied about me to the news media and in court; and appears to believe that it is acceptable to blame his own wrongdoing on me.  Perhaps Leonard Cohen should have served me the summons and complaint (Case No. BC338322); permitted me to participate in discovery; and, provided me with the IRS required tax and corporate information.  Leonard Cohen’s own conduct continues to annoy him and this evidently causes him to fear for his welfare.  I personally believe that Leonard Cohen is actually concerned about the IRS and when he hears a car he fears it might be IRS and FBI agents.  That seems far more reasonable. 
29.       As for Judge Silverman’s pet peeves, I would like to inform this Court that I have only attempted to address a tiny portion of the fraudulent and perjured documents submitted with the Request for Judicial Notice and which this Court was asked to consider when deciding this case.  I have not engaged in any type of personal attack on Leonard Cohen.  I am replying to personal attacks on my character and reputation.  This situation has prevented me from finding work and has affected my family, children, and friends.  In fact, it is my personal belief that this situation played a role in a stroke my mother had in December 2013.  She was extremely concerned about my welfare and the targeting of members of her family, including her grandsons who do not deserve to be relentlessly targeted over Leonard Cohen and these legal issues and used as weapons to upset and distress me.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM
Subject: Department 7 judge - note


Name:  B. Scott Silverman
Position: Judge District: Central Department: 7

Judicial Biography
 Hastings College of Law, J.D.
  Stanford University, B.A.  1975-1977
Law Clerk to Associate Justice Raymond Sullivan,    California Supreme Court  1977-2007
Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco & Los Angeles,   Associate & Partner  11/07–11/08
Commissioner, Los Angeles Superior Court 
 Appointed Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court  11/08

àPet Peeves Regarding Litigation Conduct 
 - Lawyers and parties interrupting me or each other during hearings.
  - Irrelevant personal attacks on counsel or party
 -Argumentative declarationsuse Points & Authorities for argument and Declarations for facts.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
This declaration is executed on this 24th day of August 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

                                                            KELLEY LYNCH