Phil Spector HBO Biopic Debuts In March

Al Pacino says he didn’t want to meet Phil Spector before portraying him in HBO movie

By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, January 4, 6:40 PM

PASADENA, Calif. — Al Pacino said Friday that he decided not to meet famed record producer and convicted killer Phil Spector before portraying him in an HBO movie — only to find he already had.

A friend showed Pacino a 20-year-old photo in which the actor was standing next to Spector. Pacino said he has no memory of the moment.

The movie, “Phil Spector,” debuts in March. It focuses on the client-attorney relationship between Spector and Linda Kenney Baden, who represented him in his first trial after he was charged with the murder of actress Lana Clarkson. That ended in a mistrial, but Spector was convicted in a second trial and is now serving 19 years to life in prison.

Pacino wore a dizzying array of wigs in his portrayal of the eccentric Spector, whose “Wall of Sound” style was an integral part of pop music in the early 1960s. The actor said he decided not to meet Spector in prison because he’d be a different man than the one Pacino is portraying, who had not yet been convicted of a crime.

He watched video clips of Spector to help him with his portrayal.

“I didn’t know anything about him, except that he was responsible for a lot of great music and this strange case,” Pacino said.

Actress Helen Mirren, who portrayed Baden, said she heard stories about Spector from her filmmaker husband, Taylor Hackford, who had hired Spector to provide music for his 1980 film, “The Idolmaker.”

The Academy Award-winning Mirren was a last-minute substitute in her role. Bette Midler had begun filming as Baden, but had to withdraw because of a bad back. The film’s executive producers are Barry Levinson and David Mamet.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/al-pacino-says-he-didnt-want-to-meet-phil-spector-before-portraying-him-in-hbo-movie/2013/01/04/78fcf354-56d0-11e2-8a12-5dfdfa9ea795_story.html

Phil Spector ' pulls Mamet, Pacino and Mirren to HBO

Robert Bianco, USA TODAY5:56p.m. EST January 4, 2013

CommentsShare

Al Pacino will take on the role of legendary music producer Phil Spector and Helen Mirren will play his attorney during the Lana Clarkson murder case.

(Photo: Bobby Bank, WireImage/Getty Images)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Al Pacino to take on Phil Spector role
• Story will be told from the perspective of Spector's attorney, played by Helen Mirren
• Legendary music producer serving 19 years to life for murder of Lana Clarkson

Whatever else he may have been or done, Phil Spectorwas always a magnet for great talent.

As a record producer, and the creator of TheWall of Sound, he worked with everyone from the Righteous Brothers to The Beatles to Ike and Tina Turner. And now, as the subject of a March HBO movie about his trial for the murder of Lana Clarkson, he's pulled together Al Pacino, Helen Mirren and, as writer and director, David Mamet .

Mamet, actually, says he had no interest in Spector while his trial was going on -- he assumed, he says, that Spector was "a freak and a murderer." And then his agent sent him the documentary The Agony and Ecstasy of Phil Spector, and he changed his mind. He came away thinking there was more to Spector and his story than he knew. And Phil Spector was born.

The problem, he says, was that he wasn't sure how to tell Spector's story without indicting the victim, something he was unwilling to do. And then he decided to tell it from the point of view of Spector's attorney, Linda Kenney Baden, played by Mirren.

Mirren, of course, is used to playing real people, having won an Oscar for The Queen. "It's always a tricky little tight rope that you walk in those areas," she says, turning to Baden, who was sitting on a stage next to her.

While Mirren spent time with Baden, Pacino made no effort to visit Spector, who is now in prison. "I didn't particularly seek out who he was," says Pacino, preferring instead to rely on Mamet's vision of Spector. "The play is the thing. It's what I read from Mamet about this particular character. That is my extent of my knowledge about him. I didn't meet him because he's in prison, he's already been convicted. This man I'm playing is the guy who was there before he was convicted …It's a different Phil Spector now."

It's also, by the way, a different Baden: The role was originally set to be played by Bette Midler, who worked on the film for two weeks. Mamet says was terrific – but a back injuryforced her out of the part. "She couldn't move. She had to be carried off the set."

And so he turned to Mirren. After all, she jokes, "We're both blonde."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2013/01/04/bianco-phil-spector-hbo-winter-press-tour/1810183/

Al Pacino inhabits Phil Spector in Mamet's HBO film

By Lisa Richwine

PASADENA, Calif. | Fri Jan 4, 2013 8:23pm EST

Jan 4 (Reuters) - Playwright David Mamet had little interest in legendary music producer and convicted murderer Phil Spector, dismissing him as a "freak" - until he watched a documentary that shed light on a complicated personality.

Now, the "Glengarry Glen Ross" writer is bringing to HBO a movie inspired by Spector's life that imagines his relationship with the attorney who defended him against charges of killing actress Lana Clarkson in Los Angeles in 2003.

The film, " Phil Spector ," written and directed by Mamet, stars Al Pacino as the music producer and Helen Mirren as his attorney.

When Mamet's agent urged him to watch a documentary about Spector, the playwright said he felt he already knew enough about the eccentric producer who sported wild hair and was found guilty of murder.

"You start out saying this guy's a freak," Mamet told reporters at a Television Critics Association meeting on Friday.

Learning more about Spector, "you start to think, how could I be so prejudiced? The guy sounds brilliant."

"Then you say, maybe he's not guilty," Mamet said.

In the TV film that debuts March 24 on Time Warner Inc-owned HBO, Mirren plays Linda Kenney Baden, who defended Spector in his first murder trial that ended in a mistrial with jurors deadlocked. He was convicted in a second trial in 2009 and is serving a sentence of 19 years to life.

Spector, now 73, revolutionized pop music in the 1960s with his layered "Wall of Sound" production techniques, working with the Beatles, the Ronettes , Cher and Leonard Cohen at the height of his fame. But for years before the trial, he had lived as a virtual recluse in a mock castle in suburban Los Angeles.

WORK OF FICTION

The HBO film starts with a disclaimer saying it is a work of fiction "inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon the outcome."

It tells how Baden became intrigued by Spector and the challenges of defending him. She considers how to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury while the defense team wrestles with whether Spector should take the stand.

As his attorneys consider that Spector might hurt his own cause, Spector reminds them of his accomplishments. In one scene, he tells Baden: "The first time you got felt up, guess what? You were listening to one of my songs."

The real-life Baden told reporters on Friday that, as Spector's attorney, she couldn't tell Mamet about any conversations with her client. Instead, they were left to the playwright's imagination.

Baden said she felt the forensic evidence against Spector did not prove he killed Clarkson, who was found shot to death in the foyer of Spector's home hours after the pair met in a nightclub. Spector denied murdering Clarkson but did not testify at either trial.

Pacino said he didn't try to perfectly mimic the real-life music producer or meet with him, though he did watch video footage of his statements around the time of the murder trial.

"I would sit for hours just looking at Phil talking about things," said Pacino, speaking via satellite from New York.

Mirren said on Friday her biggest challenge was finding the right tone to play a character in the unconventional world that Spector seemed to inhabit.

"It's like a strange dream you are having," Mirren said. "The nature of Phil Spector and the life that he lived encouraged that. He seemed to live in a permanent dream." (Reporting By Lisa Richwine, editing by Jill Serjeant and Philip Barbara)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/05/television-philspector-idUSL1E9C47RQ20130105

Agent Luis Tejeda/IRS - Concealed From My Jurors (Some Of Whom, In Debriefing, Stated That They Were Interested In The IRS Matter)

"*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, "SandraJo.Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>

ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>

To the IRS Commissioner's Staff,

Here's one portion of the transcript that discusses the IRS binder that Streeter personally handed the PDs.  Streeter concealed this from the jurors and it is absolutely exculpatory evidence, whether or not Agent Tejeda took the stand.  She understood I needed a 1099.  She understood illegal and criminal K-1s were issued to me.  It does NOT matter if Cohen lies and says he doesn't know what a K-1 is.  He owns LCI 100% and these K-1s were issued to me after he and I parted ways.  Furthermore, the fact that Streeter handed this binder to my lawyers is extremely sinister since these documents prove that the IRS refund of 2005 (which is fraudulent and which I have challenged with the IRS) did not close the case against the allegations I brought to the IRS that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud.  Streeter concealed this fact from my jurors and used false testimony regarding this matter.  She was able to address Cohen's two versions of our relationship issue.  But, concealed Cohen's two versions of the Phil Spector gun story.  In any event, Kory testified repeatedly about Agent

Tejeda/IRS and I want answers as to whether or not he was lying because he lies.  As Steven Machat noted - he is Satan and he likes to threaten people.  

I wonder what Streeter thought Agent Tejeda and the IRS attorneys were meeting about?  In any event, this just supports my position that Streeter attempted to sabotage my future litigation issues with Cohen and the IRS.  All of this is being addressed on appeal - the exculpatory evidence, false testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, etc.  And, of course, in the Writ.

All the best,

Kelley

April 11, 2012

Outside presence of jurors.

Judge, Streeter, Kelly, Ramnaney

Note:  Subpoena was issued to Agent Tejeda on April 9th.  IRS binder was handed to us on the 9th.  

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

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

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

Court:  What does his testimony go to?

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

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

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

Ramnaney:  Okay.

I Have Asked The IRS & FBI To Investigate Gianelli's Ongoing Attempts To Infiltrate My Defense & All His Communications Re. Me, Cohen, Etc. With The City Attorney & District Attorney

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen Gianelli & My Appeal

To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>
Cc: "SandraJo.Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>

To the IRS and FBI,

Do you find these comments, on the part of Gianelli, amusing?  Clearly, this man feels he is involved in some kind of game that involves the IRS and FBI.  Leonard Cohen has committed extremely serious criminal tax fraud.  Gianelli continues in his attempts to infiltrate my defense.  He has publicly stated that he spoke to one of my trial attorneys about my witnesses and what they could or could not corroborate.  That is a very serious matter that warrants an investigation.  The two witnesses that were discussed on the record are Agent Tejeda/IRS and my son who Gianelli relentlessly contacted including with respect to his Whole Foods matter, knowing he was represented.  He also wrote me, copying in Rice and Streeter, in an attempt to entrap me into violating the latest

fraud order.  There is no domestic violence and I was never in a dating relationship with Cohen.  Furthermore, you cannot fraudulently file a civil harassment order as a domestic violence order.  These people will do anything.  It doesn't matter if it's lying, committing criminal activity, targeting people, etc.  

I would like the IRS and FBI to investigate Gianelli's ongoing attempts to infiltrate my defense as well as his communications with both the City Attorney and District Attorney about me, Cohen, etc.

Thank you.

All the best,

Kelley

Call the FBI!!! The IRS!!! Homeland Security!!!

Arrest and "take down" these "thugs" immediately!!!!!

Call Woodward and Bernstein, call the NYT, and call Variety, Rolling Stone and Oliver Stone!!!!!!!

Oh, and Happy New Year to you as well kellygreen!

DECEMBER 31, 2012 8:42 AM

Stephen Gianelli Goes The Mile For Leonard Cohen, Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, & Sandra Jo Streeter

Gianelli continues with his attempts to infiltrate my defense and I just received a letter from one of my lawyers advising me that he continues to email him.  Clearly the IRS and FBI should investigate this matter.

To the IRS and FBI,

Gianelli's obsession with me continues.  He now appears to be arguing Streeter's case.  He actually thinks he is speaking to me.  I view this man as dangerously unstable and this is entirely creepy and frightening.  And now, he has decided to target Francisco Suarez.  The Boulder Court told me this order expired.  Having said that, you cannot register a civil harassment order as a domestic violence order and LA Superior Court has been very clear about that.  Furthermore, I had to be served the new California registered order and LA Superior Court has been clear with me about that.  The fact that I thought the order expired is supported in my email to Rice (which Streeter concealed from the court and jurors - although addressed the one where Rice lied, copying in the IRS and FBI, advising me that the order was registered in California on February 14, 2011), and voicemails which cannot be dated, as LAPD has noted in their report.  Cohen did not have a date or time stamp.  He also has bias, motive, and has trapped himself in perjury and many lies.  

Actually, who knows what was going on with the jurors.  In debriefing, a number of them were interested in the IRS matters here; one relied on Streeter's lie about the $150,000 assets (although Cohen personally impeached her on this when he admitted purchasing hones for his girlfriend, son, etc.); etc.  And, of course, one of my PDs thought there was a prosecution plant which I have brought to the attention of Judge Vanderet and will raise in my Writ.  I happen to think he should speak directly to that PD on this issue.  Finally, the judge did not properly instruct the jurors on the elements of "intent to annoy."  It's right there in the transcripts and it's interesting that my lawyers didn't notice.

Gianelli is out of control and his attempts to infiltrate my defense should be investigated as well.

All the best,

Kelley

Blogonaut said...

On Kelley Lynch’s blog, she quotes her testimony on direct examination at her harassment trial. What part of “permanent” did you not understand Ms. Lynch?

Q: Did you ever see any declarations that were written regarding that 2008 order?

A: The restraining order?

Q: In 2008, yes.

A: After I asked the judge to make that permanent, I went back to the court because I had been shocked to hear from Judge Enichen that Leonard Cohen actually flew into Boulder for this. Because I didn’t even know he was on tour,.

But after admitting that SHE asked the Colorado court to make Cohen’s restraining order “permanent” she then claims she thought the order had “expired”:

Q: Okay. Did you -- you said that you had requested that the order be permanent. What did you mean by permanent?

A: Well, I mean, I understand two aspects of a restraining order. Now, when someone gets a restraining order it goes into the preliminary hearing, which is what you said Leonard Cohen was at and I wasn’t; that’s a temporary restraining order. , And then once you go into the hearing -- I didn’t go to the hearing in 2005. I thought when I was served the TRO, that I was already under a restraining order. I wasn’t represented.

Then, that become permanent for a couple or a few years. That was my understanding.

Q: Okay. Did you believe that the order in Colorado had expired?

A: Yes, I did.

Uh, no Ms. Lynch, “permanent” means permanent as in forever – as the copy of the order that you signed as received in open court in 2008 clearly states.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111041974/California-Registration-of-Leonard-Cohen-s-Restraining-Order-Against-Kelley-Lynch-Filed-May-2-2011

Which is, of course, one of the reasons why the jury rejected your testimony and convicted you of violating the restraining order on multiple occasions. 

January 2, 2013 12:43 PM

This Is A Tax Fraud Case

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Subject: Stephen Gianelli & My Appeal

To: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>
Cc: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, "SandraJo.Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>

Francisco,

I am in receipt of your letter.  I will quote you for the IRS and FBI:

"I have been getting emails from Gianelli ..."

I have repeatedly advised this man to cease and desist.  He refuses.  I have asked the IRS and FBI to investigate him for criminal harassment, stalking, witness tampering, witness intimidation, etc.  I have nothing further to say about this dangerously unstable stark raving lunatic.  As you know, he has publicly stated that

he spoke with one of my trial attorneys about my witnesses and what they did or did not corroborate.  There are two witnesses on the record:  Agent Luis Tejeda/IRS and my son.  The man has been advised to cease and desist.  He is obviously aligned with Leonard Cohen, Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, and now Sandra Jo

Streeter.

Streeter has been and will continue to be issues on appeal, in my writ, and elsewhere.  I was advised, by one of my public defenders, to sue the County of Los Angeles over her outrageous conduct.

For the record, I agree with you and will quote you here for the IRS and FBI:  "This is a tax fraud case" and I have been "unfairly prosecuted for these crimes."

My sister's attorney personally advised Gianelli to cease and desist.  He is unstoppable and views the situation with the IRS and FBI as a game.  

I am aware that you spent a great deal of time on my brief and I appreciate that.  I also believe this is an extremely complex case that really should involve the IRS prosecuting Leonard Cohen and many other parties.

I would like you to maintain copies of all email communications Gianelli has sent you as I would like to submit them to the IRS and FBI.

All the best,

Kelley

-- 

Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.

Kelley Lynch - Direct Examination - Leonard Cohen's Stalinesque Show Trial & Attempt To Cover Up His Criminal Tax Fraud While Lying - As Usual - About Phil Spector

Kelley Lynch
Direct Testimony


Q: ... do you know Leonard Cohen?

A: Of course I do.

Q: When did you meet Leonard Cohen?

A: I met Leonard Cohen approximately 1985.  I had spoken with him earlier, but that’s when I actually met him.

Q: When you met him, were you employed at the time?

A: I was.

Q: Where were you employed?

A: I was employed in Mew York City with a law firm by the name of Machat & Machat.

Q: What was your role in that law firm?

A: Well, my role was pretty much ... Marty Machat was a partner.  I was his assistant, legal assistant, secretary, paralegal, office manager.

Q: ... Did at any time after you had met Mr. Cohen, did you ever begin working for Mr. Cohen?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: When did you start working for Mr. Cohen?

A: I began working as Mr. Cohen’s personal manager in April 1988 after Marty Machat’s death.

Q: How did you go about getting that position?

A: Marty Machat died.

Q: And did you stay in New York?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And when you were - how long were you in New York when you were Mr. Cohen’s personal manager.

A: I was in New York from 1988.  I believe I moved out here with my husband and son in very late 1989, very early 1990.

Q: And at that time in late ‘89, early ‘90, around that time when you were in New York, was Mr. Cohen also in New York?

A: Mr. Cohen would be in New York from time to time.  He did not reside there.

Q: ... What was your role when you initially were hired as personal manager.  What did that entail?

A: Well, a personal manager is a very tricky thing to describe.  And I think the best way to describe it is you’re kind of the CEO for an artist, which requires a huge team of people that would be comprised of, for instance, an artist, attorneys, legal team, transactional lawyers, tax lawyers, accountants, business manager.  The record company, touring companies, publishing companies.  It’s quite a job.  So you’re sort of overseeing all, of that, and you’re really the touchpoint with the artist himself for all these individuals.

Q: Who would go about getting these individuals to work for Mr. Cohen?

A: Well - who would go about getting them -- hiring them?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, I mean it would depend.  If a transactional attorney was needed or a business manager -- I’ll give you an example.  Leonard Cohen hired a business manager by the name of Rich Feldstein, a very famous, very well known, you know, a well-credentialed business manager in L.A., and his recommendation came from an artist by the name of Don Was, of the band Was Not Was, whose a mutual friend of Mr. Cohen and mine, because Leonard Cohen felt that his tour manager was stealing from him.  And so he asked me to find a business manager.

Streeter: Objection.

Court: Overruled.

Witness:  He asked me to find a business manager.  I brought Rich Feldstein in, Mr. Cohen approved that.  Don recommended him.  He’s also Madonna’s business manager, so he’s well known in the industry.  This is how it would happen.  And then he came in and did an audit and there as no such truth to that allegation.

Kelly:   When you -- you said that you worked for Mr. Cohen when -- you started in 1988.  Did you have any kind of an agreement for how you would be compensated.

A: Did Leonard Cohen and I have an agreement?  No, we actually didn’t any any agreement because I -- well, we had an agreement how I would be compensated to begin with, and that was a certain weekly amount which I can’t remember right now.  But what we agreed to is that we would see if I could handle the responsibility of being Leonard Cohen’s personal manager.  That we agreed on.

Then what happened is Leonard Cohen’s tour promoter, Flemming Schmidt, wanted to be his personal manager.  So for a very brief time while Leonard Cohen was promoting I’m Your Man album in 1988 Flemming Schmidt did indeed become his personal manager.

What happened is that Flemming Schmidt annoyed the hell out of the record company and became problematic for Mr. Cohen.  I was doing all the work, and at that time it was agreed that I was Mr. Cohen’s personal manager.  There was never any discussion.  There was an ongoing debate about when I would begin receiving 15% which was agreed to at a later point in time.

It was nebulous, is my answer.

Q: Okay.  At a later time did you ever have that formal agreement?

A: Absolutely.

Q: What was that agreement?

A: Our agreement was this:  When the last deal that Mr. Cohen testified to yesterday that he was examining doing, we were going to do that deal.  Mr. Cohen wanted to do it.  It was with Sony.  And at that point we would do what is called an actual forensic accounting [on?] a ledger, taking into consideration all income, all assignments.  I had assignments to me, they’re non-revocable for intellectual property dating back to 1967.  Any so-called advances I may have received on my intellectual property ... we would take into consideration corporate distributions, which were to be re characterized by his tax lawyer.  I don’t know what that means.

Anything I paid out for Mr. Cohen, anything I paid out on behalf of his children.  I managed his son, Adam.  Also any monies that I owed Leonard Cohen personally and any money which Leonard Cohen owed me.  We were going to do a complete accounting.  Not forensic,, actually, accounting.  That was our agreement.

At that time, we would take into consideration that my management agreement went back to 1988 and it was indeed 15 percent.

Q: ... How long did you actually work with Mr. Cohen?

A: From 1988 until the fall of 2004.

Q: ... Now, during that time, from the fall of ‘88 to 2004, how often would you communicate with Mr. Cohen?

A: About 50 times a day.

Q: What form would these communications take?

A: Well, before the internet, obviously we would be on the phone and by fax.  Personally, when I lived in LA, we were in the same office frequently.

Q: And after the internet, how about that?

A: All the time.  All the time.

Q: And would this be via email?

A: Yeah.

Q: And how often would you say with emails that you would talk to Mr. Cohen?

A: How often?

Q: How often would you email Mr. Cohen while you were working with him?

A: Well, I mean, I would forward all, kinds of requests to him, or, you know, we -- it just depended on issues.  These deals were of the utmost importance to Leonard Cohen.  So from approximately 1996 until 2004, the last day I worked with him was October 21st, Leonard Cohen literally badgered me about these deals morning, noon, and night.

Q:... We heard testimony that around 2004 there was an album produced called Dear Heather.  Are you familiar with that?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: What was your involvement with that album?

Streeter:  Objection; relevance.

Court:  Overruled.

Witness:  Well, as a manager you’re involved in a team of -- and I was negotiating with Mr. Cohen’s attorneys.  At the time they would have been Grubman, Indursky and Greg McBowman, that would be a royalty consultant for Mr. Cohen.  And what we were negotiating, it was an extremely miserable negotiation.  I think everybody would agree to that.  That’s hearsay.

And we were trying to get what Mr. Cohen wanted, which was a million dollar advance.  He had a contractual obligation for the album, and his advance was already included in that.  So this was a very tricky and sticky situation with Sony, and Leonard Cohen withholding this album until he got the amount he wanted.

And so this became a very labored and extremely intensive negotiation, with Sony feeling quite hostile about the whole situation.  So it went on for a year.

Q: What was your -- what did you do for this album?

A: Well, I mean, what I had to do is, there was -- there’s a lot of components to a record contract negotiation.  They’re very specific and sophisticated contracts that include certain types of royalty calculations, and so you need people on board that understand this type of accounting.  That would be Greg McBowman.  He worked at Sony Business Affairs.  And then you’d have transactional attorneys and you might have a tax lawyer like Richard Westin.

And so what you’re doing is you’re part of the negotiations and you’re bringing information to Leonard Cohen, and actually also working on behalf of the label to some degree to try to get someone to agree to certain terms so that this doesn’t’t drag out interminably.

So you’re a facilitator, you might make recommendations to the artist.  You will bring the artists’ comments and demands and concerns and complaints back.  You’ll, you know, review information.

I take shorthand, I have been a secretary, so I would take perfect shorthand notes at every meeting I had, or conversation, and so then I was able to convey everything to Mr. Cohen in great degree [detail?], and then would be able to convey back what he wanted.  I would be asked for information, perhaps years worth of royalty statements, contracts I would have to find.  Do all sorts of things.

Q: When you worked for Mr. Cohen, would you say you were thorough?

A: I would say that’s true understatement.

Q: ... what period of time would you say that you worked on that Dear Heather album?

A: Dear Heather was done while Leonard Cohen was on Mt. Baldy.  He had a recording unit there.  So I would say he went to Mt. Baldy primarily to finish writing this album.  So he began working on it in 1994.

Another thing I would do, which isn’t really in the realm of a personal manager, would be to help oversee obtaining studio time.  Seeing if certain musicians were available.

Normally a producer would do all of this.  Do the production contracts, which are -- kind of even accountants can’t figure these out.  They’re insane.

And, you know, all kinds of things.  Deal wit lyrics, handle publishing, contact co-songwriters to work out terms, try to explain what is going on, see if they needed to talk to Mr. Cohen’s attorneys.  Lots of different things.  1999 to 2004.

Q: You mentioned Mt. Baldy.  What is Mt. Baldy?

A: Mt. Baldy is a zen center outside of Los Angeles about 45 minutes.

Q: How long was Mr. Cohen on Mt. Baldy.e

A: Leonard Cohen was on Mt. Baldy on and off from approximately 1994 to 1997.  He wasn’t really there,.  He would go and stay primarily during the monthly rohatsu.

Q: That’s - in 1994 to 1997, that’s when the Dear Heather album was worked on in Mt. Baldy?

A: Yeah.  He might have gone up there a bit around ‘98, ‘99 also.  He had a guest cabin there also.

Q: Now, how much did you actually make, commissionwise, on that Dear Heather album.

A: Nothing.

Streeter:  Objection; relevance.

Court:  Sustained.

Streeter:  Move to strike

Court:  The answer is stricken.

Q: We heard emails and voice mails talking about you needing to get paid.  What were you referring to in those emails?

A: My commissions that were withheld on Dear Heather, my commissions that were withheld on Book of Longing, my commissions that were withheld on the deal he stopped that we had worked on for years.  My commissions on a lithograph deal.  These are millions of dollars in commissions.  My commissions, actually, I should have had on the tour itselfe.  Merchandising, etc.

Q: ... you mentioned also an advance from Sony.  Did you in your role as a personal manager ever work any out any prior deal with Sony?

A: Did I personally?

Q: Yes, or were you involved in any way.

A: Yes, there was a deal in 1996 on behalf of the company.  It was a stock deal Leonard Cohen did with Sony by his company called Stranger Music.  Then there was a deal in 2001 with a co9pany that was really essentially Leonard Cohen’s called Traditional Holdings, so two other deals.

Q: ... you said that your business relati,onship ended on October 21, 2004e?

A: Essentially, yes.

Q: Why did it end?

A: Well, it’s a complicated answer, but I would say because Leonard Cohen heard I was going to the Internal Revenue Service about what I was told is criminal tax fraud.

Q: We’ll get to that in a moment.  Now, prior to your ending of that business relationship, we heard testimony that you had a meeting with Mr. Kory, Robert Kory.

A: Well, I had a meeting with Robert Kory.  I had a lunch with Robert Kory in the spring of 2005.  I stopped in to see Robert Kory.

Court:  Just wait for the question.

Witness:  Oh.

Court:  It was a preliminary question.

A: I apologize.

Court:  Okay.

Kelly: What was the meeting with Mr. Kory about?

A: The meeting at lunch or --

Q: Yes, the lunch meeting.

A: I forget how the meeting came about.  I know I talked to an attorney by the name of Bert Deixler.  I no longer was really represented.  eI went to Mr. Deixler.  He worked with Proskauer Rose.  He represented me very, very briefly.

Streeter:  Objection; nonresponsive.

Witness:  He told me it was okay to go to this meeting with Robert Kory.  So I went to have lunch with him.  I’m not specifically certain why ...

Court:  Overruled.

Witness:  What we were going to talk about, about Leonard Cohen and myself.

So I went to lunch, and what we discussed were various issues.  eI was told by Mr. Kory there’s fraud, tax fraud on every entity:  Blue Mist Touring, Traditional Holdings, LC Investments.  There were problems with the Stranger Music deal that had tax issues.  The IRS would demand information going back years, and the holding periods with respect to copyrights that were sold are illegal.  I said I had wondered about that.  His lawyer had worked on that.

We talked about -- he asked me if I would mediate with Mr. Cohen in a private mediation on Mr. Cohen’s side against his advisers.  Particularly they wanted to go after Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin and their insurance companies.  Mr. Kory told me that Allen -- I mean Arthur Indursky, Don Friedman and Stuart Fried of Grubman, Indursky firm committed fraud in the inducement, as did Greg McBowman.  That I had a lawsuit they would help me with against every single one of Leonard Cohen’s advisers.  That I was used horrendously as a pawn, and he told the waitress that we were there about a divorce and serious tax problems.

Q: Were you asked to give false information that would hurt Mr. Greenberg and help Mr. Cohen?

A: I don’t know if I was asked to give false information.  I would not characterize the conversation that way.  I was asked to testify that Neal Greenberg defrauded Leonard Cohen, and I most certainly do not feel that Neal Greenberg defrauded him.  I( feel that Leonard Cohen, Neal Greenberg, and Richard Westin were wrapped in attorney/client privilege and they all defrauded the U.S. government.

Q: Did you ever agree to any of that?

A: No.  I felt I was being asked to participate in criminal conduct.

Q: Okay.  Now, at any time after your business relationship with Mr. Cohen ended, did the police, either federal or state, ever question you for fraud?

A: No.  I had an unusual encounter where LAPD showed up at my house, lied to mee.  Said that there was a jewel thief in my neighborhood and that they were investigating this jewel thief and they would like to see receipts of jewelry I may have pawned to make sure that a jewel thief didn’t sell them.

Q: Okay.  Ms. Lynch, if you could just focus on the questions I ask.

A: Well, that was law enforcement, right?

Q: Well, did any law enforcement, either federal or state, ever question you about theft?

A: Federal or state law enforcement about theft?

Q: Yes, about theft from Mr. Cohen.

A: No, not that I can recall.  Oh yeah.  Actually -- well , theft, no.

Q: Did any law enforcement, either federal or state, ever question you about embezzlement from Mr. Cohen?

A: Not that I recall.

Q: Now, I want to talk to you a little bit about -- there was evidence about custody of your son.  And who9 - which son are we - was there a custody issue?

A: There’s a custody issue with my son, Ray.

Q: Who is Ray?

A: Ray is my younger son.

Q: And how old is Ray?

A: Ray is 19 years old.

Q: And when was this custody issue with Ray, regarding Ray?

A: It began on May 25, 2005.

Q: Okay.  What happened on May 25, 2005?

A: A SWAT team came to my house.  I guess.  I was told it was a SWAT team.

Q: At any point, did you actually have a legal custody battle regarding Ray?

A: Up until that point?

Q: Or any point after that?

A: Yeah, the next day.

Q: Okay.  And what was that custody issue.

A: That I was taken to King Drew by LAPD.  I lived in Brentwood, and when I was released 24 hours later a custody matter had been filed.

Q: Okay.  Now, are you aware whether or not for that custody battle, one day after that incident with the police, did Mr. Kory have a declaration in that case?

A: The same day, May 25th, 2005.

Q: Okay.  Now, how well do you know or did you know Mr. Kory?

A: I don’t know Mr. Kory at all.

Q: How many times had you -- prior to this date, had you actually been in physical contact with Mr. Kory?

A: I had lunch with him.  I stopped by his office, and I saw him at the restraining order hearing in Boulder.

Q: Okay.  So during those 16 years that you worked with Mr. Cohen, did you ever know Mr. Kory?

A: No, I did not.

Q: During those 16 years that you worked with Mr. Cohen, was Mr. Kory Mr. Cohen’s attorney?

A: Not that I know of.

Q: So the person that you had met three times in your life wrote a declaration ein your custody battle that happened one day after the police came?

A: Yes.  Stating that he was writing it on behalf of he and Leonard Cohen.

Q: Now, you mentioned earlier about IRS and tax situation.  Were you ever contacted by any tax authorities regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes?

A: I don’t know if I was contacted regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes.  As I reported the tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer, I was working on paying my own taxes, and he suggested that I contact the Fraud Unit with anything I had to report.  And so I contacted the Fraud Unit by phone and then I filed a complaint online with the IRS.  And I also called the IRS in Washington.

Q: When were you told to contact the Fraud Unit?

A: I spoke to Agent Bill Betzer on April 15, 2005, after I paid my taxes in full.

Q: Okay.

A: He told me that normally this type of situation is brought.

Streeter:  Objection; nonresponsive.

Court:  Sustained.

Q: What did you tell these authorities when you spoke to them?

A: Objection; relevance.

Court:  Sustained.

Kelly:  You heard voice mails regarding the IRS; is that correct?

A: Right.

Q: Can you tell us what you meant?

A: What I meant by the IRS?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, I did receive an email ... I mean I did receive a phone call from Agent Kelly Sopko of the Treasury regarding this matter.  And I did meet with her and her partner, whose name is Brandon.

Q: What year was that?

A: That was 2007.

Q: And what - based on what you saw in the email -- did you write about this in any of your emails?

A: Yeah, I did write about this.

Q: What did you write about in those emails?

A: Well, I think I attached Agent Sopko’s email to me, saying that she found an appropriate individual for me, which is Agent -- to report this to, which is Agent Luis Tejeda of the IRS Unit in Los Angeles.  And to go to Agent Tejeda with whatever information and evidence I had regarding this tax matter.

Q: Did you ever notify Mr. Cohen or any of his representatives about this tax issue?

A: Well, they have a copy of the email to me from Kelly Sopko.  So yes, I did.

Streeter:  Objection; non-responsive.

Court:  Overruled.

Q: Now, after you sent this email regarding your conversations with Agent Sopk9o ---

A: Right.

Q: ... Did Mr. Cohen ever get a restraining order against you in the State of California?

A: You know, I’m a little unclear about he restraining orders in California.  My answer right now is yes, because it’s obvious he did.  But I have a lot of confusion about it.

Q: Now, at any time from 2004 or 2005 no9w, did the police every contact you about threatening Mr. Cohen?

A: Not that I know of.

Q: Did they ever contact you about threatening Mr. Cohen’s son ... Mr. Cohen’s daughter?
Mr. Kory?

Answer No to all three.

Q: Did they ever contact you about threatening Mr. Kory’s daughter?

A: No.  I don’t know that Mr. Kory has any children.

Q: ... During these voice mails and emails, we heard about Phil Spector.  What’s your knowledge about Phil Spector?  How do you -- where did that come from?

A: When Marty Machat died -- Marty Machat represented Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector.  He was their attorney and personal manager.  When he died, I ultimately became Leonard Cohen’s personal manager and I interned with Phil Spector.

For - especially for 1988 and 1989.  Thereafter, I worked for him from time to time.

Q: Now, we heard evidence about an interview that Mr. Cohen had with the LA Police Department.

A: I believe it was actually the Sheriff’s Department.  I thought it was LAPD too.

Q: Well, were you present for the interview?

A: I was present beforehand with my attorney, Steve Cron.

Q: .. Now what happened after you were present?

A: I explained to Steve Cron that the detectives had asked me to arrange an appointment with Leonard Cohen and I did not want to be dragged into Phil Spector’s matter.  I thought it would affect the custody of my child to some degree, and I just really did not want to be dragged into it.

So Mr. Cron advised me to leave the house before the detectives came.  I was leaving and ran into Detectives Tomlin and Fournier out on the steps of Leonard Cohen’s house.

Q: You heard the story about Phil Spector putting a gun to Mr. Cohen’s head?

A: Well, I’ve heard that he put a gun to his neck and I’ve heard he’s put it to his head.

Q: Now, is that what you had learned from Mr. Cohen prior to that interview the police?

A: No, it is not?

Q: And what were you under the impression of?

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

A: I was not under the impression, I was told.

Court:  Sustained.

Q: Now, you heard voice mails and emails regarding the Phil Spector issuee, and you mentioned in the email about -- something about a Grand Jury.  What did you mean in those emails?

A: Whst I meant is that Mick Brown of the UK Telegraph wrote me ...

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

Court:  Overruled.

Witness: And advised me that he was writing a book on Phil.  That he had Grand Jury testimony, and that Leonard Cohen had testified against Phil Spector.  He later wrote, recently, and said he was confused.  It wasn’t actually testimony -- this was in the past couple of days, a few days, and it wasn’t actually testimony.  Statements were given of Leonard Cohen’s to the Grand Jury.  So I was confused, and because Mr. Brown felt that Leonard Cohen had given testimony, I thought he testified and was shocked.

Q: Now, we also heard about a default judgment in 2005.  Are you familiar with that.

NOTE:  The default judgment was 2006.

A: Yes, I am.

Q: ... Did you ever receive any summons regarding that lawsuit?

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

Witness:  I was never served with a lawsuit.

Court;  Overruled.

Q:  Did you ever get any discovery about the lawsuit?

A: I received one document request from Gibson, Dunn, and I didn’t realize it was from another lawsuit.  I didn’t realize until Ken Freeman, Judge Ken Freeman’s court transcriber/reporter called me recently and told me that there are two lawsuits and not just one.

So I received a document request is what I’m staing, and that’s what I recall.

Q: Did you ever get the complaint in that case?

A: No.  I read the complaint when it was put online in April 2010 and I was astounded at the allegations.

Q: Did you ever appear in court in that case in 2005?

A: No, I did not.  I was not notified as to any hearings.

Q: Were you ever represented by an attorney in that case in 2005?

A: I was not.

Q: Did you ever present your version of the story or the account of that case to anyone in 2005?

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

Court:  I’ll allow this question.

A: Well, I mean, to the news media.

Q: But to court anytime during the legal proceedings?

A: No.,

Q: Now, you also mentioned in your emails and voice mails something about working pro bono for Mr. Cohen.  What did you mean in those voice mails and emails?

A: Well, no.  My wages were garnished this past September, 2011, by the state.  And they want my 2004 and 2005 tax returns, which is what I have been fearing.  As does the IRS now.

And what I am saying is that I said that I was confused about how to file my tax returns because Leonard Cohen has gone into court and stated, I believe, if my interpretation is correct, his allegations that if he deposited his royalties into his personal account that I am not entitled to my commission.

Q: Okay.  Did you work pro bono at any time --

A: No, and that’s what Doug Davis of the Franchise Tax Board said to me.  You didn’t work pro bono for Mr. Cohen, did you?

Q: Who is Doug Davis?

A: Doug Davis is a tax advocate that was assigned to me to remove the lie while I attempted once again to get the tax information I needed to file my returns.

Q: We’ll get to that in a moment.

Now I want to talk to you about the 2000 (2008?) order in Colorado.  Why were you in Colorado?

A: Well, my son had a very serious accident.  He has his fingers ripped off.  That was in 2007.  So a friend of ine, a Tibetan lama by the name of Yongzin Rinpoche, felt that, you know, I’ve been through a lot and things were very stressful for e.  I ended up homeless in 2005 and he and his wife ask,ed me to visit.

Q: Okay.  You said your son had lost his fingers.  Are you talking about Rick?

A: Rutger, my older son.

Q: How old is Rutger.

A: Rutger is 25.

Q: He was 25 at the time?

A: He’s 25 now.

Q: How old was he back in 2000 ---

A: Well, that happened on February 3rd, I remember, because that’s the same day Bill [Phil] had a major incident in his health [house].  And mine happened in 2007.

Q: What was your state of mind around the date of the hearing for the 2008 order?

A: I felt tortured by that time, to be honest with you.

Q: What do you mean?

A: I mean I felt that I’ve been through a tremendous amount and that, you know, I’ve been dealing with this on my own.  I couldn’t afford attorneys, you know, after a certain amount of time.  My commissions were withheld.  I lost my house and I couldn’t even afford a lawyer for Ray’s custody matter, and so I felt tortured, literally.

Q: Now, you said something about Rutger losing his fingers.  Now, is there any reference to this in the emails that you’ve heard?

A: I believe there is, yes.  I think Leonard Cohen testified to something about it.

Q: And did you ever say that Mr. Coen cut off Mr. - or your son’s fingers?

A: No, I did not.

Q: What did you mean when you talked about blaming Mr. Cohen?

A: I don’t blame Mr. Cohen.  My son, Rutger personally believes that if I had not gone to the IRS, reported the tax fraud, created a contentious situation with Leonard Cohen, that he wouldn’t have lost his fingers.

Streeter:  Objection.

Court:  Sustained.

Streeter:  Move to strike.

Court:  The answer is stricken.

Q: You’ve never accused Mr. Cohen for being responsible for cutting off ...

Streeter:  Objection as to ...

Witness:  Well, he doesn’t have a meat grinder at Whole Foods, so it would be impossible.

Streeter:  Objection; non-responsive.

Court:  Sustained.

Page 473:

Streeter:  Move to strike.

Court:  The answer is stricken.

Kelly:  Now, you said that you couldn’t afford an attorney back in 2008.  So did you have representation --

A: No.

Q: -- by counsel?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever see any declarations that were written regarding that 2008 order?

A: The restraining order?

Q: In 2008, yes.

A: After I asked the judge to make that permanent, I went back to the court because I had been shocked to hear from Judge Enichen that Leonard Cohen actually flew into Boulder for this.  Because I didn’t even know he was on tour,.

Streeter:  Objection; non-responsive.

Court:  Sustained.  Just wait for the question.

Witness:  Yes.

So I went back and read his declaration.  Yes.

Kelly:  And were you actually present for that preliminary hearing back in 2008?

A:  Is that what the hearing was?

Streeter:  Objection.

Court:  Overruled.

Witness:  Is that a preliminary hearing?

Q:  We heard evidence that Mr. Cohen testified at a hearing in Colorado.

A:  Oh no, I wasn’t there.  I didn’t even know he was in Colorado.

Q: Okay. Were you - did you ever waive an evidentiary hearing in that case?

A: I most certainly did not.

Streeter:  Objection; relevance, your honor, 352.

Court: Overruled.

Witness:  Absolutely not.

Kelly:  Did you ever present evidence in that 2008 hearing?

A: No one did.

Streeter:  Objection.  Vague as to which hearing.

Court: Overruled.

Kelly:  You mentioned that you had asked to be a protected party in that order.

A: I asked Judge Enichen, I told her Leonard Cohen was dangerous to me, and I asked her if the restraining order would protect me.

Q: Okay.  And what were you under the impression of?

A: That this man has tried to destroy my life, and I felt I should be protected by a restraining order.

Q: Did you believe that the order was protecting you?

A: I don’t really believe restraining orders protect anyone, to be honest with you.

Q: Did you believe --

A: But I hoped that it would stop some of the insanity.

Q: Okay.  Were you -- did you ever contact any authorities regarding Mr. Cohen?  Any law enforcement?

A: For a number of years.  I’ve contacted LAPD for years about Leonard Cohen.  I’ve contacted the District Attorney’s office.  I’ve filed a complaint with the District Attorney’s Major Fraud Unit.  I’ve kept the District Attorney copied in on emails , you know, so that no one can deny later that I have attempted to report these types of tactics that have been used against me.

I’ve contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation about it.  I’ve contacted Agent Sopko, who is Intelligence with hthe Treasury, with the IRS,

Q: Okay.  Did you -- you said that you had requested that the order be permanent.  What did you mean by permanent?

A: Well, I mean, I understand two aspects of a restraining order.  Now, when someone gets a restraining order it goes into the preliminary hearing, which is what you said Leonard Cohen was at and I wasn’t; that’s a temporary restraining order. , And then once you go into the hearing -- I didn’t go to the hearing in 2005.  I thought when I was served the TRO, that I was already under a restraining order.  I wasn’t represented.

Then, that become permanent for a couple or a few years.  That was my understanding.

Q: Okay.  Did you believe that the order in Colorado had expired?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: You mentioned earlier also about the tax information that you learned about regarding -- 9or after your conversation with Doug Davis.  What exactly did you -- what kind of tax information were you looking for?

A: Well, Doug Davis was a very kind man and agreed to remove the tax lien.  Because I would have ended up homeless again.  But he told me he would give me 60 days to9 obtain -- first of al, we went over the fact that I was confused about what to call what I thought were my commissions on Dear Heather, because Leonard Chen had said if he deposited it into hsi personal account, I wasn’t entitled to it.  I have evidence proving otherwise.

But I’m concerned about filing anything that could be construed as fraudulent, and because of the tactics used against me in the legal issues where everything is twisted, I don’t want to file anything that’s confusing.

So he told me they don’t believe I did charitable or pro bono work.  So Doug Davis told me to report that as income, and I told Mr. Davis this has been since 2004, I would call City National Bank to see if I could get copies of my bank statements.  Even though I don’t have the money.  He said they probably won’t have them any longer.

So, they didn’t call me back.  They refused to call me back.  I called their legal department also.

Streeter:  Objection; non-responsive.

Witness;  And they asked --

Court:  Let’s wait for a question.

Q: You mentioned something about City National Bank.  What did you do to contact City National Bank?

A: I called their legal department to ask for my bank statements.

Streeter:  Objection; relevance.

Page 478:

Court:  Sustained.

Streeter:  Move to strike.

Court:  Sustained.  The answer is stricken.

Kelly:  We’ve heard voice mails and emails requesting tax information.

A: Right.

Q: What tax information were you requesting?

A: I was try9ing to determine the total amount I was given as a commission in the year 2004.  Not just for Dear Heather, there are other royalties.

Q: Okay.  Did you try to get this information from other sources?

A: Well, I tried to get it from City National Bank, which would be the only other source.

Q: Did you actually have those actual physical records in your possession.

A: No.  I’ve lost everything.

Q: When did you lose everything.

A: Well, I lost my ho9use in 2005 and my storage in 2006.

Streeter:  Objection; nonresponsive.

Court;  Overruled.

Witness:  So I have nothing.

Kelly:  From 2006 to 2012, did you ever receive the documentation that you were requesting from Mr. Cohen?

A: No, I have not.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever receive the tax information you were requesting from Mr. Kory?

A: None of it.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever get any of the tax information that you needed by any accountant o9f Mr. Cohen’s?

A: No, I did not.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever get any of the tax information that you needed from anyone related to Mr. Cohen?

A: No, I did not.  I’ve been told that --

Streeter:   Objection; non-responsive.

Witness:  -- the restraining order prohibits it.

Streeter:  No question pending.

Court:  Sustained.
e
Kelly:  We have seen volumes of emails -- that have been written.  Did you write these emails?

A: Well, I’ve written emails, I’m not going to give a blanket statement that I’ve written all the emails.  I will go through every one of them and say whether or not I did.

Q: But the ones that you’ve heard in court, did you write those emails?

A: It seems like I did, yes.

Q: Why did you include so many people in those emails?

A: What do you mean?  In who I’ve cc’d?

A: Yes.

A: Because I was advised to document everything in emails, and I was advised to copy witnesses in.  eAnd so some of those witnesses are, I felt, the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, Agent Sopko.  Now, Mr. Doug Davis.

I felt because I don’t have a lawyer and I was told I might probably be a witness in Phil Spector’s matter, that I should copy in Dennis Riordan, possibly Bruce Cutler.  Clearly the District Attorney’s office.

It’s a very serious matter and I don’t have legal representation.  So I felt it would be good - instead of somebody later saying this is hearsay or she told me this, she told me that, that all parties would be copied in so I couldn’t be accused of anything that looked like a disparity later.

Q: Why are these emails so long?

A: Well, I don’t know.  I mean, there’s different parties copied in.

Q: Okay.  Did you - these threads, do you know that there’s -- that emails have threads of multiple emails?

A: Right.

Q: Did you send all of those emails within that thread to every individual?

A: Yeah.  If what you’re saying is -- the emails might have gone on for a month.  It might be one thread.  And what I would do, for instance, if I was writing about an issue that I felt dealt with the IRS, I wold write to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.

If I was writing something having to do, I felt, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which they told me, let the IRS take the lead, we will be brought in with respect to criminal witness and evidence tampering, I would copy in the FBI.

If I felt it had something to do with Phil Spector, I would copy in Dennis Riordan, at a time Doron Weinberg, Iris Keitel, Mr. Spector’s former Manager at ABKCO Records.  Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, Truc Do, William Frayeh, who is an investigator, and John Thompson who came to meet with me.  I filed a complaint about the DA with Internal Affairs.

Q: Did you believe in sending emails that you attached to Mr. Cohen to, that you were violating the law?

A: No.

Q: Did you believe that when you sent these emails --

A: Which emails?

Q: All the emails.  Did you ever believe that you were doing it to harass someone?

Streeter:  Objection.

A: Absolutely not.

Court: Overruled.

A: To harass someone?

Q: Was it ever your intent to harass any of the recipients of the emails?

A: No, it was not.

Q: Was it ever your intent to threaten any of the individuals in your email?

A: No, it was not.

Q: You -- at any time since 2006 to 2012, have you made actual threats to Mr. Cohen?

A: No.

Q: Have you made any threats to Mr. Kory?

A: No.

Q: Have you made any threats to Ms. Rice?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever gone to Mr. Cohen’s concert?

A: Mr. Cohen is clear that I’ve told him I’d never, from 2004, sit in a room with him again, let alone go to one of his concerts.  I could hardly go to one when I was managing him.

Q: Did you ever stay outside his house?

A: I have never gone near Mr. Cohen again, since 2004.

Q: I have nothing further at this time.

Court:  Sure.