Thursday, October 22, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Review of Ann Diamond's Book, The Man Next Door

The Man Next Door immediately throws one into the late 1960s – poetry readings, student uprisings, Bistros and Montreal bars, the tragic deaths of Janis Joplin and Jimi Hentrix, and Canadian armed forces occupying Montreal triggered by the kidnappings of a provincial cabinet minister and a British diplomat by members of the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ).  Magic was indeed afoot!  This is the historical moment Ann Diamond’s book immediately propels one into.  The Montreal Bistros and bars were hangouts for intellectuals, artists, journalists and drunks.  Leonard Cohen and Pierre Trudeau were regulars.  In the summer of 1977, Montreal was in the midst of rather shocking revelations about doctors, psychiatric patients and classified experiments, some of which were attributed to CIA’s MKULTRA Program, in articles appearing in the local press.  The brilliant and flamboyant Tibetan Buddhist teacher, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, was also part of this dynamic landscape.

Ann’s first fleeting encounter with Leonard Cohen occurred one night in the midst of these radical and romantic times.  She describes Cohen as a mythical figure in her youthful revolutionary dreams.  His books were sacred texts.  The encounter left Ann feeling as though she was floating above her “occupied city like Kateri Tekakwitha, at one with all the Mohawks and other disembodied saints.”  She prophetically sensed that she might run into Leonard Cohen again.  A number of years later, Ann Diamond would find herself sitting at Leonard Cohen’s kitchen table asking if he recalled their first fleeting encounter.  By that time, Cohen was a celebrated international figure who had just released an album produced by Phil Spector. 

Cohen rang Ann up and introduced himself in typically witty fashion: “Hello Ann?  This is Leonard Cohen.  We have to stop meeting like this.”  Ann’s first evening with Leonard Cohen left her dazed and delirious.  A mutual friend had provided Cohen with her phone number.  I immediately recognized the familiar phrases used by Leonard Cohen and could literally visualize him jumping in the air and asking “The girl with the bicycle?  How tall is she?” 

Having spent nearly 20 years working as Cohen’s personal manager, I had grown quite familiar with his speech, phraseology, and frequently eccentric behavior.  I also know Cohen’s taste in women and understood why he found the youthful, spirited, and adventurous Ann Diamond so compelling.  Over the years, I had come to know of Ann through Leonard Cohen.  I understood her to be an old girlfriend who had remained friends with him throughout the years. The descriptions of Cohen’s home, encounters with his Montreal crowd, the Swiss bank book tucked away in a drawer, Joshu Sasaki Roshi, smoked meat, gifts, poetry books, Persian rugs, trinkets, religious chatchka, personal notes, Hydra, tales about CIA and the MKULTRA program, meth and LSD experimentation, mental hospitals and suicides also resonated. 

While most biographies devoted to Leonard Cohen consist of impersonal or sanitized third party accounts that are dripping with awe and admiration, Ann’s biography is personal, revealing, and touches upon Cohen’s darker side which a friend of hers described when he cautioned her:  “Be very careful of that guy. He's totally ruthless when it comes to women.”  Leonard Cohen’s ruthlessness is invisible to anyone who bases their perceptions of him on the description of a sage-like individual whose speech is littered with profound expressions and cleverly crafted quotes.  It is nevertheless an essential component of his private persona.  Ann herself could not connect her friend’s remark to the man who appeared to be an “eccentric saint,” devoted son, and exceptional artist who associated with a rather odd assortment of neurotic friends.  Cohen’s personal life is tortured and up close resembles a controlled disaster area.  Leonard Cohen also understands his own nature.  When Ann asks “But are you trustworthy?” he responds “No.” 

Cohen’s public persona has a cultivated Europeanized air to it that leads one to conclude that he is humble, wise, calm, dignified, deeply spiritual, and in possession of courtly manners.  Privately, Cohen is lonely and bitter as he confessed to Ann.  This too resonated because I recall Cohen’s seething anger and resentment.  (The book’s mention of the arrest of Suzanne Elrod made me wonder if Leonard Cohen was personally involved.  For years, he had told me that his housekeeper’s husband, then Chief of Police on Hydra, had arrested Suzanne over a minor marijuana incident.  It was hard to imagine Evangalia and Coulis being involved in something that extreme without Cohen’s permission.)

Ann’s relationship with Leonard Cohen would eventually land her on the Isle of Hydra where Cohen mingled with Greek peasants, millionaires, tourists, and had experimented with LSD and meth.  I frequently heard Cohen’s stories about these experiences, drunken binges, CIA agents and other spies at Bill’s Bar, and how he wrote “Beautiful Losers” on LSD while visiting Hydra.  In 1979 Ann had received a small writing grant from the Canada Council and decided to extend her trip to Greece, partly due to Cohen’s imminent arrival.  Cohen was viewed as a God on Hydra while in Montreal his reputation was one of an eccentric failure.  In the United States, Cohen was largely unknown although his work with Phil Spector led to numerous mentions of him in articles and news media accounts. 

Ann’s book intimately recounts Cohen’s relationship with the muses and women in his life as well as his relationship with his young children, Lorca and Adam.  Ann also had an opportunity to accompany Leonard Cohen on his 1979 UK tour and experienced the sordid world of alcohol-filled performances and an intense cult following.  Ultimately, Ann’s experiences with Cohen led her to question her own sanity and emotions.  She wondered if she was “entering a schizophrenic’s world where nothing was stable or straightforward, and where ordinary reality constantly erupted with subconscious material from who-knows-what source.”  Five cities and six concerts later, Ann concluded that “Leonard was schizophrenic.” 

 Ann Diamond was a naïve, young woman in love with Leonard Cohen and felt that she could save him from himself.  A sense of his other, illicit relationships comes across.  By the end of their relationship, Leonard Cohen would use his toolkit of tactics to attack, silence, frighten, and discredit Ann.  It was clear that Cohen had exposed her to his personal world, which is both seductive and disturbing, and when he felt she questioned his conduct, he set out to destroy her. 

This is not the type of biography fans of Leonard Cohen’s will readily embrace.  It is far too naked and poignant.  Ann Diamond is a very brave woman who has experienced and tangled with the man who wrestles with the angel and the beast.  I applaud her courage and honesty. Lynch

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS, FBI & DOJ Re. Ongoing Criminal Harassment & Cover Your Ass Operation

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

These are the two latest criminally harassing emails from Gianelli.  Rice was indeed incoherent but this is a cover your ass operation and attempt to elicit information.  The matters are under appeal.  I wasn't served and that's a fact.  Cohen's declaration states that I was and he provided photographs of me.  The Court said Jane Doe was sub-served - not me.  One cannot follow this logic it is so inconceivably rotten.  My motions addressed the procedural and legal issues.  There was no need to argue anything further apart from my attempts to object to Rice's lies.

The corporations, inserted into the fraud default, were suspended.  Suspended corporations may not sell, transfer, or exchange property.  The fact that these corporations were not named as parties, including in Colorado re. the Greenberg suit, is an issue that will be addressed in my federal RICO suit.  The same is true for Cohen's tactics - including the fraud order in Colorado, issued without findings, and the fraudulent registration of that order in California as a domestic violence order.  Los Angeles will not be assigning me a "dating relationship" with Cohen when local government actors clearly have the expectation of affection with respect to him.  In fact, it appeared to be a quid pro quo that involved Cohen's deranged testimony about Phil Spector.  


From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:50 PM
Subject: Your blog post dated October 20

Ms. Lynch,

You had a number of viable issues available to argue on 10/6 that I referenced in my prior correspondence and won’t repeat here. But the corporate status of some of the Cohen related entities referenced in the Complaint and the default J in BC338322 wasn’t one of them.

First, if a corporation is suspended it may not prosecute litigation. That rule only applies to the named PARTIES. As long as the corporate PLAINTIFF in BC338322 was in good standing in 2005-2006, there is no problem at all. The declaratory judgment purports to determine your claims to ownership in those entities – not sue on their behalf, which is a critical distinction but one you are not equipped to understand apparently.

Second, by defaulting, you WAIVED any objections based on the status of the parties and the sufficiency and/or truthfulness of the evidence adduced at the default hearing. If you wanted to assert those issues, the way to do it would have been to enter an appearance and raise those objections in your answer and/or cross-examination or affirmative evidence at trial. The way NOT to do it is to ignore service then allow judgment to be entered by avoiding the  default hearing you were notified of as to time/date/department by the email from Edelman’s office that you acknowledged receiving by replying to it and then waiting until 2013 to file your first motion to vacate the judgment. You learned the hard way where that path leads: To a $14M judgment that is earning $1.4M in  annual statutory interest, and no more procedural cards to play.

Any lawyer will tell you the same thing. But you don’t want to know the legal truth of your circumstances. You simply want to rant and rave.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Subject: Your blog post dated October 20 - Part II

Additionally, Ms. Lynch, instead of arguing valid procedural points – like the fact that Judge Hess did not address the merits of your lack-of-service claim on 1-14-2014, because your declaration was unsigned and because of your alleged lack-of-diligence and  that no final, binding or appealable order arising out of the 1-14-2014 hearing was ever signed or entered (thereby calling into question the basis for Hess’ ruling on 6-23-2015, which was ruling also avoided the merits of the lack-of-service claim), as well as pointing out that the court held your 2013 motion to vacate to be untimely, whereas, your motion to set aside the RENEWAL of the judgment,  as long as it was filed within 30 days of mailing of the notice of renewal,   was timely and not subject to due diligence arguments that were available in opposition to your earlier motions to vacate – you simply repeated the claim “I was never served” over and over again, banging against that closed door.

As for Ms. Rice, NOTHING she said made sense. She was basically incoherent. And she got completely sidetracked from the core grounds for her motion for sanctions, the lack of objective merit of the second motion to set aside the judgment, instead getting bogged down with your alleged violation of an order for the production of personal property that was not made a part of the original sanctions motion and also had other, more traditional remedies (e.g. an OSC re: contempt filed in the other proceeding). Nor did Ms. Rice take Hess by the hand and lead him through the 9th circuit case authorizing the very relief under section 128.7 that she was requesting – leaving Hess unsure that Rice was asking for the appropriate remedy.

As a result, both you and Ms. Rice LOST the motions on which you each bore the respective burdens of persuasion. You lost your two affirmative motions, she lost hers.

Your failings at oral argument are understandable. You are not a lawyer.

Rice’s performance, in view of her bragging emails about being at the top of the billing scale for litigators because she is such a hot-shot successful court room lawyer was nothing short of PATHETIC.

Rice may be a member of MENSA and she may have an IQ of 170 (as she brags) but she cannot think on her feet, and her inexperience shows. Moreover, she has no potential as a court room lawyer. She was as clueless in department 24 on 10/6/2014 as you were – only more babbling and less articulate.

The transcript does not lie.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS, FBI, & DOJ Re. October 6, 2015 Hearing With Leonard Cohen's Lawyers & The Ongoing Harassment, Cover Your Ass Operation, Etc.

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Ha!
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,,
Cc: Michelle Rice <>, rkory <>

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

I am reviewing the transcript of the October 6, 2015 hearing that the Criminal Stalker sent me.  It is impossible to follow Rice's logic.  What does Judge Babcock's 2008 order (that relied on the fraudulent 2006 default) have to do with suspended corporations inserted into the fraud default judgment?  Rice informed the Court that Westin set up these entities.  Westin did not form or set up Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and they have repeatedly lied about this.  In fact, the Complaint alleges that it was formed in 1993.  Cohen and his personal family friend/lawyer, Herschel Weinberg, formed this Delaware entity in or around 1989.  It was previously called LC Productions, Inc.  I do not know how it relates to Cohen's Nevada entity of the same name.  

I will review this in greater detail later and provide IRS, FBI, and DOJ with my private comments.  The constructive trust is illegal and evidence of theft.  What is Rice talking about when she states that the assets are just out there?  The assets were irrevocably assigned to BMT; Cohen personally signed those assignments and dictated the minutes, and the Complaint confirms that this was not unwound.  Furthermore, the suspended corporations cannot be part of the renewal of judgment.  It's just simply 'irrelevant" to Leonard Cohen, Kory and Rice.  The Court didn't exercise it's "inherent jurisdiction" when it wrongfully transferred or converted my property to Leonard Cohen based on his deranged fabricated narrative.



·MS. RICE:· Well, I mean, with respect to the corporations that are in bad standing, as we said in our opposition papers, there was a constructive trust that was awarded as part of the default judgment which, you know, our argument is that it's irrelevant, that these corporations were in bad standing because the gravamen of the complaint against the codefendant, Richard Westin, is that he had set up the corporations and they were not formed properly.· And he did not maintain the corporations in good standing.· And so there is a separate defendant here that, you know, was responsible for setting up these corporations.· And so Mr. Cohen was awarded, as part of he default judgment of constructive trust, which the Court exercised its equitable jurisdiction in.· You know, the assets were sort of out there.· You know, Ms. Lynch's argument they were in bad standing, it's our position that it's irrelevant because of the constructive trust remedy that was awarded as part of the default judgment.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: Ha!
To: Kelley Lynch <>

In the immortal words of Michelle Rice, words we can all now savor: “you know, I mean, basically … And so it's our, you know, I mean‎ ... basically ... you know, ... So, basically ... It's our sort of feeling that this motion here … I think the main point that we're ... trying to make … I mean…”. (Michelle Rice, actual remarks to Judge Hess at the 10/6/2015 law and motion hearing in BC338322; bold italics added.)

Not even Clarence Darrow himself was so eloquent on his feet…

No wonder Leonard Cohen is paying Michelle Rice a “rate that [she] can command … [that] would make [Bergman and Gianelli] sick with more envy than [they] already seem to have”. (Rice email dated July 24, 2015 11:17 PM.) No wonder “[Lynch’s] motions … are making [Rice] richer than fuck [and she] can pay off [Rice’s] mortgage on [her] $2 million Hollywood Hills home with jetliner views by the end of this year.” (Rice email dated July 25, 2015 11:35 AM.) And little wonder that “[Gianelli is] pathologically jealousy of [Rice]”. (Rice email dated July 24, 2015 11:17 PM.) Michelle Rice is just amazing in court!

No doubt I will soon be receiving “letters rogatory issued through the Greek embassy”. (Rice email dated July 24, 2015 11:59 PM.)

It doesn’t get much better than this! Ha!b

From: Kelley Lynch []
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:40 AM
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; Stan Garnett; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Kelly.Sopko; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa;; Michelle Rice; rkory
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Rice's argument - brilliant!

Stephen Gianelli,

I have received quite a lot of harassing emails since filing my Declaration with Tax Court.  I find it absurd that you would send me a copy of the October 6, 2015 hearing transcript and view it as your ongoing attempt to infiltrate matters and elicit information that relates to Leonard Cohen's legal positions and defense.

I am once again advising you to cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

cc:  Michelle Rice and Robert Kory

Monday, October 19, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email to Paulmikell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office Re. the Ongoing Criminal Harassment

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Rice's argument - brilliant!
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,,, Michelle Rice <>, rkory <>

Mr. Fabian,

I am privately forwarding IRS, FBI, and DOJ the ongoing criminally harassing emails I receive from Stephen Gianelli.  Michelle Rice is correct about one point during this hearing:  I was concerned about Cohen's tax fraud and raised that as an issue with Judge Babcock personally.  This appears to be a blatant attempt on Gianelli's part to elicit information.

As for the Colorado issues, I documented that very carefully for DOJ.  That is one of the reasons they are copied on these emails.  Gianelli personally advised me that Spector prosecutor Pat Dixon was behind one of the Boulder incidents.  In any event, the jurors did not believe Boulder PD; the manager lied to the Sheriff's Department about my subpoena to the owner; and I prevailed on the only issue I was falsely arrested over.  I have asked DOJ to investigate the entire situation with respect to me and Boulder PD.  My attorney, David Moorhead, felt Cohen/Kory were behind it somehow.  He actually hired a private investigator on his own and met with Rutger to review his declaration.


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Stephen Gianelli,

I have received quite a lot of harassing emails since filing my Declaration with Tax Court.  I find it absurd that you would send me a copy of the October 6, 2015 hearing transcript and view it as your ongoing attempt to infiltrate matters and elicit information that relates to Leonard Cohen's legal positions and defense.

I am once again advising you to cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

cc:  Michelle Rice and Robert Kory

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:09 PM
Subject: Fw: Rice's argument - brilliant!
To: Kelley Lynch <>


I don't know who did a worse job - you or Rice.

You certainly didn't mention any of to points you insisted you "already knew about". 

She failed utterly to make her case on sanctions. At times her argument was incoherent. 

As an aside, it occurs to me that YOU have more trial experience than Rice does. You represented yourself pro se in a Colorado criminal court, even winning an acquittal on the "resist, delay or obstruct" charge + a complement from the trial judge. That is one more case than Rice has ever tried.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 22:23
To: Michelle Rice
Cc: Robert Kory
Subject: Fw: Rice's argument - brilliant!

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
 "And so it's our, you know, I mean‎ ... basically ... you know, ... So, basically ... It's our sort of feeling that this

motion here was where she waived her personal jurisdiction.· I mean  ... And so, I mean, I think that ...  I mean, they don't have to ... but I think the main point that we're ... trying to make, it's a 128.7B1, which is the purpose of the harassment.· I mean ...". 

-- Michelle Rice
   10/6/2015 oral  argument in support of sanctions motion

Kelley Lynch's Email to Leonard Cohen's Lawyers Requesting They Maintain Any & All Evidence That IRS Agent Luis Tejeda "Exonerated" Leonard Cohen

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Declaration
To:, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,, Michelle Rice <>, rkory <>

Michelle Rice and Robert Kory,

Please do not destroy any evidence you have proving Agent Tejeda exonerated Leonard Cohen.  I will subpoena that once I file my federal RICO suit.


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Senate Judiciary,

Can you explain how Agent Tejeda exonerated Leonard Cohen and when or why this happened?  I have seen no evidence proving this to be the case but Gianelli, who communicates extensively with Kory-Rice, has publicly stated this many times.  


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Mr. Fabian,

I've received several criminally harassing emails from Gianelli over my declaration.  I've privately forwarded them to IRS, FBI, and DOJ and have nothing to say about them.  Gianelli, who has criminally harassed me for over six years, wants me to quote him properly:  he said the fraudulent default judgment binds me - NOT IRS.  In other words, Leonard Cohen is legally permitted to steal from me.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:48 PM
Subject: Declaration
To: Kelley Lynch <>

BTW, I said the 2006 J binds YOU not the IRS - not the opposite. I went on to elaborate that any claims that you may have enjoyed against Cohen arising out of your former business relationship or to commissions, royalties, IP, or to an interest in any Cohen entity are therefore PRECLUDED. 

If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly.  

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.