Abort The Appeal

DECLARATION OF KELLEY LYNCH

INTRODUCTION

“Leonard Cohen is a narcissist who hates himself.” 
Irving Layton

After the 1988 death of my employer, legendary music attorney Marty Machat - who represented Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector - I stepped into the role of Leonard Cohen’s personal manager and began interning with Phil Spector.  From approximately April 1988 until mid-late October 2004, I served as Leonard Cohen’s personal manager, executive assistant, publishing administrator, publicist, and worked in other capacities as well.  For approximately 20 years, Leonard Cohen and I also had a seemingly close friendship.  Our families spent a great deal of time together; I helped raise his daughter; worked as his son’s personal manager for approximately 6 years; and lived with his producer, Steven Clark Lindsey.  

In 1988, Leonard Cohen had released a relatively successful album called I’m Your Man.  The ensuing tour catapulted Cohen back into some measure of worldwide renown.  The music industry was keenly interested, at this time, in acquiring artist publishing catalogues and record labels.  Some of the major acquisitions included the 1991 Polygram acquisition of a 30% stake in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Company; 1993 Polygram acquisition of Motown Records; 1994 Polygram acquisition of a 50% stake in Def Jam Records; and, in 1984, Michael Jackson’s acquisition of ATV Music Publishing catalogue that contained many Lennon-McCartney Beatle songs.  

In 1993, Leonard Cohen released what would become his best selling record to date, The Future.  Cohen was keenly aware of these deals and, Eric Kronfeld, president and chief operating officer of PolyGram's domestic music division, was actively engaged in acquisitions.  Leonard Cohen asked Kelley Lynch to arrange to meet with Eric Kronfeld - a former partner of Marty Machat’s - to see if he would be interested in acquiring certain music publishing assets of Cohen’s.  Lynch and Eric Kronfeld met and this began the beginning of Leonard Cohen’s endless interest in pursuing deals involving asset sales in the form of stock deals.

In December 1995, ATV Music Publishing merged with Sony Music Publishing, a division of Sony Corporation, to become Sony/ATV Music Publishing.  This background set the stage for Cohen’s 1996 music publishing sale - of Stranger Music, Inc. and Bad Monk Publishing - to Sony/ATV.  Cohen, demanded a stock sale, worked closely with Neal Greenberg, his investment adviser, and Richard Westin, his tax lawyer, as well as a team of professionals.  This sale closed in 1996.  It promptly led to an IRS audit of Cohen’s charitable gift to Mt. Baldy Abbott’s fund of Stranger Music, Inc. stock.  This also seemed to be the beginning of an IRS interest in Leonard Cohen and his various deals.  

In 1997, David Pullman pioneered what came to be known as the Bowie Bond.  This celebrity bond is a commercial debt security issued by a holder of fame-based intellectual property rights to receive money upfront from investors on behalf of the bond issuer and their celebrity clients in exchange for assigning investors the right to collect future royalty monies.  They were typically backed by music properties and frequently allowed the artist to maintain their ownership interest in the properties once the debt was repaid.  It was a more attractive deal than an outright sale of one’s assets.  

Cohen, upon learning of the Bowie Bond which was all over the media, was keenly interested in pursuing a bond deal for himself.  A team of professionals once again began negotiations with both David Pullman and Charlie Koppelman of CAK/Universal.   As past events generally predict the future, if you have a portfolio of songs with a five-year history, and these songs have been performed by different artists all over the globe, the songs stand on their own. NOTE THE TRIBUTE ALBUM The popularity of the songs is not affected by the conduct or longevity of the songwriter. Leonard Cohen understood that The Future, being his best seller to date, had generated substantial sales and could lead to a lucrative bond deal with other assets thrown in.  Ultimately, Cohen decided to pursue the bond deal with Charles Koppelman, former chairman of EMI Records Group North America, whose new company - CAK Universal Credit Corp - began its own series of bond offerings tied to celebrity songwriters and aimed to package and market the income flow from other entertainment assets.  

Around the same time, Napster was founded.  The service operated between June 1999 and July 2001.  Its extraordinary technology allowed people to share their mp3 files with other people.  This sharing of copyrighted material raised the ire of various parties within the entertainment industry and caused concern that file sharing would lead to a decrease in record sales.  Leonard Cohen, being well versed in the internet, was deeply concerned about music downloading.  Therefore, he had a true sense of urgency when it came to his next stock sale.  Sony Music did not embrace the bond securitizations.  They felt that the advances they offer their artists are the currency of that industry and should artists have the ability to secure loans in exchange for musical properties, they would lose interest in delivering contractually obligated albums.  This tension created the perfect storm for Cohen to obtain a substantial amount of money for his musical properties.  He ultimately decided to pursue the deal with Sony Music, his record label. 

In 1999, all royalty generating music and book properties of Leonard Cohen’s were non-revocably assigned to an entity known as Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  Leonard Cohen owned 85% of BMT and Kelley Lynch owned 15%.  However, CAK Universal then demanded that Cohen create a bankrupty proof entity which would ultimately become LC Investments, LLC.  An attempt on the part of Cohen’s representatives to assign the properties to LC Investments, LLC evidently failed.  In 1999, Sony advised Cohen that they were interested in buying musical properties, publishing, record contracts, etc.  Cohen, being on the verge of closing the deal with CAK/Universal demanded a good faith down payment.  He received $1 million against the deal that would ultimately become the 2001 Traditional Holdings, LLC sale to Sony.  This $1 million in income would also become the basis for yet another IRS audit.  

Leonard Cohen, Neal Greenberg, and Richard Westin were wrapped in attorney/client privilege.  They created various structures, came up with financial instruments - such as annuities - that would allow Cohen to avoid a major up-front tax hit, and handled the tax, financial, corporate, and accounting aspects of these deals.  A team of professionals handled the transactional aspects.  It was ultimately decided to use an entity known as Traditional Holdings, LLC to sell these properties to Sony in exchange for what became an annuity obligation on TH’s part to Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen asked Kelley Lynch to assist him with the annuity obligation.  His lawyer felt that this type of structure could give the appearance of self-dealing and might draw unwanted IRS scrutiny.  Lynch was asked to invest in TH via a promissory note.  This made Lynch uncomfortable and she agreed to do so in exchange for an Indemnity Agreement which she received.

The sale went through and annuity payments were scheduled to begin in 2011.  Leonard Cohen immediately began borrowing money from Traditional Holdings, LLC.  These loans were to be documented with promissory notes and he understood that they had to be repaid within 3 years at 6% interest.  Cohen paid his transaction fees, a settlement to CAK Universal, personal taxes, bought homes for his girlfriend and son, and essentially used TH as his personal bank account.  Ultimately, this activity caused great concern on the part of Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin who began advising Lynch that Cohen’s level of borrowing was dangerous to the structure of Traditional Holdings, LLC.  Concerns grew that the IRS could overturn the structure of Traditional Holdings, LLC who could claim that this was nothing other than ordinary income Leonard Cohen received in exchange for the sale of certain properties to Sony.  

Greenberg defrauds his clients and loses everything.

In the fall of 2004, having received many dubious communications from Cohen, Westin, and Greenberg, Kelley Lynch decided to gather evidence and ultimately report what she felt was tax fraud to the IRS.  She fired her accountant; hired a new accountant; and was sent to tax lawyers who reviewed corporate books and records.  Leonard Cohen, hearing that Kelley Lynch intended to go to the IRS about this tax fraud, had become hysterical, as did his advisers - Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin.  Lynch’s lawyers reviewed the corporate and records and understood that she owned 15% of all Cohen’s intellectual property dating back to 1967.  They also understood that she was entitled to certain corporate distributions and management fees - unrelated to her personal management fees - from Traditional Holdings, LLC.  They demanded a meeting with Cohen and his tax lawyer, Richard Westin, and at this meeting asked Westin why he hadn’t set the annuity up legally to which he responded “This is how things are done in Kentucky.”  He also claimed that he had no training in tax preparation although he prepared and filed certain corporate returns on behalf of Cohen.  Those included, but were not limited to, the Traditional Holdings, LLC returns for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.

Ultimately, Lynch was advised that Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. owned the intellectual property; LC Investments, Leonard Cohen, and possibly other entities collected the income; and Traditional Holdings sold properties it did not own.  The attempted assignments of the properties in Blue Mist Touring to LC Investments, LLC and Traditional Holdings, LLC had failed.  Lynch also learned that nefarious steps had been taken with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC’s tax returns.  In 2001, Cohen failed to report the income from the Sony sale; in 2002, using a separate tax ID number, Cohen extinguished Lynch’s promissory note; and, in 2003; Cohen extinguished the annuity obligation itself.  All of this was done without Lynch’s knowledge, awareness, or approval.  Lynch ultimately learned that Cohen planned to roll Traditional Holdings, LLC back into his solely owned LC Investments, LLC entity.

Leonard Cohen and his representatives came up with a novel defense to his creative corporate and tax planning.  Instead of rectifying the mess that had been made, by amending tax returns and paying the appropriate taxes due, they proceeded to engage in inconceivably bizarre thinking and conduct.  Part of this plan was for Leonard Cohen to assume the role of victim, although he was the driving force behind these deals and personally demanded the stock sales.  Leonard Cohen would essentially take the position that he was defrauded by his advisers.  Lynch was asked to help Cohen with this plan.  She was offered 50% community property - presumably to say that Greenberg and Westin, possibly others, had defrauded Leonard Cohen.  There were discussions held about Lynch receiving $10,000/month waking around money while matters were being sorted out.  However, this was not Lynch’s view of what had unfolded and she steadfastly refused to engage in the mediations Cohen hoped to hold with all his advisers.  This caused Cohen to withhold commissions Lynch was due; refuse to prepare a proper accounting that addressed her ownership interest in certain entities; and ultimately accuse her of receiving overpayments with respect to her management fees.  The law firm Boies Schiller had advised Lynch that Cohen and Kory were attempting to engage her in criminal conduct with respect to Neal Greenberg, his insurance company, and possibly others.  Lynch decided to convey all conversations between herself and Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, and other parties, to Boies Schiller.  At one point, they advised her to go wired to a lunch meeting she was having with Robert Kory.  At that meeting Kory confirmed that the holding periods with respect to certain properties and these entities were illegal.  He confirmed that there was fraud on every single entity.  He advised her that she had a cause of action against every single one of Cohen’s representatives and they would assist her with that.  Other issues were addressed.  At this time, Lynch was no longer represented.  She left the meeting extremely upset and reported the details to Boies Schiller.  

A short time later, Lynch - with her young son Ray - stopped by Kory’s office.  They had a conversation about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud; her intellectual property that was stolen; the commissions that Cohen was withholding; the missing state tax returns; and Cohen and Kory’s threats to put her in jail.  This conversation was deeply disturbing to Robert Kory, probably because there was a witness present.  That witness was Lynch’s minor son.  Cohen and Kory promptly began encouraging Steven Clark Lindsey to take custody of Lynch’s minor son from her.  This meeting took place in the spring of 2005.  Kory was desperate to force Lynch into a deal.  In fact, he was speaking with her acquaintance, Betsy Superfon.  Lynch ultimately advised Superfon to have Cohen/Kory fax her the deal they had in mind.  Superfon told Lynch that this was not the type of deal that could be faxed through and noted that it appeared to be an illegal deal.  This increasingly hysterical situation lead to a SWAT incident at Lynch’s house on May 25, 2011.  There were allegations that there was a hostage taking although Lynch was inside her house alone in a bikini with her dog and African Grey.  At that time, a custody matter was coordinated.  Leonard Cohen/Robert and Betsy Superfon provided Steven Clark Lindsey with declarations while - after the SWAT incident wound down - Lynch was taken to Killer King and questioned about Phil Spector en route.  A doctor promptly released her; advised her that nothing in the file would affect any potential custody matter with her son; spoke with her older son directly about this matter; and noted that he testifies at trials.  Lynch would ultimately request a copy of the Killer King file which was entirely falsified.  It lists her name, address, and Steven Clark Lindsey’s phone number.  It contains lies about her older son and an conversation he allegedly had with Erma Oppenhein who worked with the SMART division of LAPD.  The social security number, date of birth, place of birth, religion, and other information was fraudulent and did not relate to Lynch.

The background to the Killer King story seems to relate to Lynch’s dear friend, Phil Spector.  In fact, numerous parties have suggested that the DA had the power and motive to have Kelley Lynch taken to Killer King and questioned about Mr. Spector en route.  Kelley Lynch worked for Mr. Spector full time in 1988, 1989 and 1990.  She worked for him thereafter as needed.  They enjoyed a friendship for many years and met after Lana Clarkson’s death.  At some point in early 2005, Kelley Lynch received an unannounced visit from Investigator Brian Bennett of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office.  Brian Bennett advised Lynch that an anonymous tip about her friendship with Phil Spector had been placed to the DA’s office.  It was allegedly placed by a woman.  They discussed various matters relating to Phil Spector.  Kelley Lynch even phoned her mother to inquire as to whether or not she had recollection of any incidents being discussed.  Brian Bennett took a letter Kelley Lynch gave him to photocopy and return.  That letter was written to her by Phil Spector after the Clarkson incident.  Lynch has threatened by the DA’s office when she simply attempted to ask that they return this letter to her.  Instead, they advised her that they would arrest her.  

In 2006, after filing a complaint with the DA’s Major Fraud Unit about Leonard Cohen’s fraud, theft from her (millions of dollars), and speaking with Jeff Jonas of that Unit, Lynch was promptly threatened.  The behavior of the DA’s office towards Lynch has been unconscionable.  In 2007, in a meeting with representatives of the DA’s office - Investigator John Thompson and Detective Silva - she was actually told that she was probably a witness in Phil Spector’s trial.  Based on their aggression, threats, and hostility, Lynch consulted with an attorney - David Moorhead - and explained that should they dare call her as a witness, she would take the 5th Amendment.  Mr. Moorhead advised her to call the DA’s office and inform them that should they want to speak to Lynch about Phil Spector in the future, they should speak with him directly.  David Moorhead also met with her son, Rutger Penick, and reviewed his Affidavit and advised Lynch that her son was probably a material witness for Phil Spector.  He had witnessed many things.  For instance, after the SWAT incident, he received a call from his brother’s father (Steven Clark Lindsey) advising him to go in and sign over/transfer Lynch’s house to Leonard Cohen/Robert Kory.  Her son immediately phoned his father, Douglas Penick, and was advised to seek legal counsel prior to taking any action.  Rutger Penick decided not to take any further calls from Steven Clark Lindsey and ultimately picked his mother up from Killer King.  He witnessed the SWAT incident itself and many things.  Investigator Brian Bennett and Kelley Lynch communicated from time to time about Phil Spector.  She had a conversation with him about her views that Leonard Cohen lies about Phil Spector and should be arrested.  She informed Brian Bennett that she felt Cohen was attempting to black mail her and spoke to him about the conduct of Robert Kory causing Bennett to advise Lynch that had “Kory done to his wife what he had done to Lynch, she would have killed him.”  Lynch did not view that as a terrorist threat but, rather, a figure of speech.  

Also, in early 2005, Kelley Lynch and Mick Brown/UK Telegraph began communicating with one another by email.  Mick Brown had written a book about Kelley Lynch’s teacher, the 16th Karmapa, and had become familiar with her teacher, the 14th Sharmapa.  This led to a rather interesting series of communications.  Mick Brown asked to meet with Lynch at an upcoming hearing he planned to attend relating to Phil Spector’s trial.  At some point, Mick Brown advised Lynch that he had received the transcripts of the Phil Spector Grand Jury.  He informed Lynch that Cohen had testified against Phil Spector.  This shocked Lynch as, for 20 years, Cohen told Lynch that Phil Spector never held a gun on him and these were merely good rock and roll stories.  As it turns out, there was confusion about testimony vs. statements.  Part of that confusion is due to the fact that statements are evidently referred to as testimony in the UK.  This issue became a key factor in Lynch’s “intent to annoy” Leonard Cohen trial.  Lynch has maintained all along that her friend, Phil Spector, is innocent and has been rendered unrecognizable.  She has maintained all along that Leonard Cohen embellishes stories about Phil Spector and lies about Phil Spector.  She was aware that the prosecution in the Spector trials had filed motions using Cohen’s gun story about Phil Spector as a prior bad act.  Mick Brown ultimately confirmed that Cohen’s statements were presented to Phil Spector’s grand jury.  He had reviewed the transcripts.  

Kelley Lynch, in a matter having nothing to do with Leonard Cohen or the entities at issue, was making plans to file her 2003 tax return and pay her taxes.  As Cohen essentially forced her into bankrupty, and Lindsey refused to repay her the substantial monies he owed her, Lynch was forced to remorgage her home and sell assets and worked with Agent Bill Betzer/IRS on avoiding a tax lien while she gathered the funds necessary to pay her taxes.  A substantial portion of her taxes, for the year 2003, related to income [possibly phantom] from Traditional Holdings, LLC.  The taxes were substantial and Lynch ultimately paid the IRS somewhere in the vicinity of $165,000 for the year 2003.  Her accountant told her that if Traditional Holdings, LLC had not been on her return, she would have a substantial carry-back.  

On April 15, 2005, Lynch was able to file her return, pay her taxes, and avoid the tax lien.  She and Agent Betzer then had a conversation about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud, the fraud on the various entities, and extensions she needed to file for the corporate entities Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Traditional Holdings, LLC.  Agent Betzer was aware of her ownership interest in these entities.  Agent Betzer advised Lynch to bring the allegations of Cohen’s tax fraud into the IRS with a lawyer.  As Lynch no longer had the resources to hire a lawyer, Agent Betzer ultimately advised Lynch to report the tax fraud through the IRS Fraud Unit and gave her the phone number.  Lynch did indeed report the tax fraud through the hotline; through an IRS website; and, called the IRS in Washington due to the inconceivably outrageous tactics being used against her - including the SWAT incident.  She heard back from the IRS; discussed this with her religious adviser, His Holiness Kusum Lingpa, who instructed her to document everything she was going through for various parties via email.  One such party was the IRS Commissioner’s Staff via their email address.  Leonard Cohen caught wind of the fact that Lynch had reported his tax fraud.  His attempts to force her into a deal had failed miserably.  Neal Greenberg blindsided him with a very public lawsuit.  At this point in time, Leonard Cohen evidently decided to take an offensive position by filing a lawsuit against Kelley Lynch and his tax lawyer, conveniently leaving out Neal Greenberg.  He is a shrewd manipulator of the news media and had prepped - according to a public interview with Brian Johnson of MacLean’s - a journalist for the ensuing mud slinging fashioning himself as the victim.  Cohen addressed the fact that one motivating factor was his major tax hit.  He confirmed that he was not accusing Lynch of theft.  He noted that Neal Greenberg was the trusted guardian of his assets.  Lynch was never served the summons and complaint in this retaliatory lawsuit.  She was not notified of or served the default judgment ultimately entered against her in May 2006, based on fraud, perjury, lies, concealment and the willful disregard for corporate books and records.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CASE

The defense’s theory of the case, stated during trial proceedings and announced in opening and closing statements at appellant Kelley Lynch’s trial, was equally straightforward:  As Ms. Streeter mentioned, the relationship between Mr. Leonard Cohen and Ms. Kelley Lynch, it’s a long history.  They started working together in 1988.  (RT 44)  Like Ms. Streeter mentioned, there were questions about the IRS and taxes.  And so he panicked.  (RT 45)

The plan was to get Ms. Lynch to work with Mr. Cohen and to pin the blame on his financial consultant.  But Ms. Lynch refused to go along with that plan.  She said no, I’m not going to falsify anything.  I’m not going to go out and do what you tell me to do, and she refused.  (RT 45)  They said, well she’s not going to help us, that means she’s going to hurt us.  So they went after Ms. Lynch the best way they knew how.  Using the legal process.  As Ms. Streeter 
mentioned, these are his attorneys.  They have one job and one job only.  To protect their client at all costs.  That’s what the evidence is going to show happened here.  (RT 45)  Because if they ruin her credibility, well, that helps Mr. Cohen.  And they have done everything in their power to hurt Ms. Lynch’s credibility.  (RT 45)  And yet they wanted to go and they went and tried to hurt her economically and to put a restraining order on her so they couldn’t have any contact during the litigation.  That was their intent.  That was their purpose.  (RT 46)  You’re going to see that a lot of this is asking for legitimate purposes to get legitimate information that she needed for her taxes, information that his attorneys did not want to give to her.  (RT 46)
Ms. Lynch is presumed innocent.  That means every single time she takes that chair she is presumed innocent.  And it’s the burden of the prosecution -- Streeter:  Objection; argumentative.  Court:  Overruled.  (RT 47)  You find out it’s their burden to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  That’s what their job is.  And unless they can meet that job, you must go with that presumption.  Streeter:  Objection; argumentative.  Court:  This is argument.  (RT 47)  He’s a celebrity.  He’s a performer.  He’s an entertainer.  That means - that means he’s charismatic.  He knows how to get people on his side.  (RT 47)  Because it’s their burden to prove every single element beyond a reasonable doubt.  (RT 47)

DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MAY 2006

Leonard Cohen Direct:  Well, she -- these weren’t the very earliest, but at a certain point, especially after the default judgment, she began to be very clear that I had finger counted some kind of fraudulent action against her.  RT 53

Cohen:  Two courts had given me a default -- or one court had given me a default judgment; the other court affirmed that default judgment.  But, more significantly, the IRS accepted the results of that default judgment judgment and awarded me a tax refund, so Ms. Lynch had no cause to ask me for any taxation information.  The forensic report on which the default judgments were made were very specific and Ms. Lynch has read them.  That is the forensic report that Ms. Lynch has been asking for.  The only problem is she doesn’t like the results.  RT 282

Leonard Cohen Cross: Kelly:  Now I want to talk to you about that -- that default judgment that you had mentioned earlier.  Now, you know what a default judgment is, correct?  Cohen:  I -- I have some -- a knowledge of it, yes.  Kelley:  Okay.  So you know that a default judgment means that Ms. Lynch didn’t actually participate in the litigation, correct?  Cohen:  Yes, that’s what it means.  Kelly:  Okay.  And that means that Ms. Lynch didn’t give her version of what happened to the court, correct?  Cohen:  She neglected to give her version.  Kelly:  I’m not asking if she -- I’m asking if she actually did give her version.  Cohen:  A default judgment implied that -- that only one version is given.  Kelly:  Okay.  And so that version was yours, correct?  (RT 297)  Cohen:  That version was upheld by the court, yes, Sir.  Kelly:  I’m not asking about the court.  I’m asking if that version was yours.  Cohen:  It was mine on the basis of a forensic accounting.  Kelly:  But it was your version, correct?  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.  Kelly:  And that judgment was made in her absence, correct?  Cohen:  Yes.  (RT 298)

Kelley Lynch:  Now, we also heard evidence about a default judgment in 2005.  Are you familiar with that?  Yes, I am.  Now, did you ever receive any summons regarding the lawsuit?  I as never served with a lawsuit.  Did you ever get any discovery about the lawsuit?  (RT 468)  I believe 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 stating, and that’s what I recall.  Did you ever get the complaint in that case?  No.  I read the complaint when it was put online in April of 2010 and was astounded at the allegations.  Did you ever appear in court in that case in 2005?  No, I did not.  I was not notified as to any hearings.  Were you ever represented by an attorney in that case in 2005?  I was not.  Did you ever present your version of the story or the account of that case to anyone in 2005?  Well, I mean, to the news media.  But to court anytime during the legal proceedings?  (RT 469)  No.  

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


DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEVE COOLEY AND ALAN JACKSON

Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter:  The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch ... fought with the District Attorney’s to file charges against him.  Was upset with the District Attorney, the L.A. County District Attorney’s didn’t file charges against Mr. Cohen.  (RT 40)

Cohen:  She has many emails where she encourages whoever is reading it to execute Steve Cooley.  RT 95    Streeter:  Has she ever compared you with being like Mr. Cooley and Mr. Jackson?  RT 95  Cohen:  I think I was included among those villains.  RT 95
Streeter:  Has Ms. Lynch accused you of being solely interested in just fame?  Cohen:  I think so.  RT 96  Cohen:  Yes, there is a mention of Steve Cooley … yes, Alan Jackson is mentioned.  RT 96  Cohen:  She says we live our lives selfishly pursuing fame at the expense of others.  RT 97

Leonard Cohen Direct:  Is an S.  Cooley copied in on that email?  Yes.  Were those the only recipients of that email?  There are many recipients.  Okay.  Was the IRS one of the recipients?  I’m sorry?  IRS.  Yes, the IRS is a recipient. (RT 261)

Leonard Cohen Cross: Now, you know all of these recipients?  No, sir.  And did you think that these other recipients were reading every single email?  Some of them were and some of them weren’t.  Do you think Steve Cooley was reading all of these emails?  I wouldn’t be surprised if he was.  Okay.  But you don’t know?  No, sir.  Do you believe that he was?  I believe that people close to him were.  Do you believe that the IRS was reading every single one of these emails?  Streeter:  Objection; relevance.  Court:  Sustained.  May I be heard your honor?  Court:  No.  (RT 305)

You testified yesterday that you were concerned that people would get these emails and they would read these emails and think information that was true about you.  Do you remember saying that?  That information was ... Well, you said that you were worried that other people would think regarding these emails.  Other people were disturbed by the emails, friends of mine and business associates.  (RT 306)

What we know for certain is that at some poínt in 2006, Lynch filed a complaint with the DA’s Major Fraud Unit regarding Cohen’s theft from her, fraud, and other matters.  Lynch personally spoke to Jeff Jonas/Major Fraud Unit and Investigator Brian Bennett/DA Investigator about the complaint she had filed.  Lynch filed a FOIA request at some poínt in 2011 with the DA’s office that failed to reveal even her complaint itself.  And, the DCA raised the fact that Lynch approached the DA’s office with allegations of criminal conduct on the part of Leonard Cohen and they, in turn, did nothing.  Because Leonard Cohen was an important prosecution witness at trial, the prosecution must disclose all the facts and documents which explain the District Attorney’s decision not to prosecute him, particularly in light of the fact that (1) the District Attorney had his investigator in the courtroom throughout Lynch’s trial; (2) District Attorney Steve Cooley and prosecutor Alan Jackson were repeatedly raísed as issues, by the prosecutor, in appellant’s trial; (3) Leonard Cohen testified about Phil Spector holding an automatic gun to his head at appellant’s trial; (4) the prosecutor is in receipt of an email from Leonard Cohen detailing another version of his Phil Spector gun story that involves a gun being held to his neck; (5) the prosecutors in Phil Spector’s matter used a version of Cohen’s Phil Spector gun story that involves an automatic weapon boeing pointed at Cohen’s chest; and, (6) the District Attorney personally attempted to obtain a restraining order against apellant Lynch after his investigator advised her that she was probable a witness in Phil Spector’s matter.  Because Cohen was an important prosecución witness at trial, the prosecution should have disclosed all the facts and documents which explained the decisión not to prosecute him.


Leonard Cohen, his lawyers, PI, and DA investigator hanging out together in courtroom; lunching together.  Has the absolute appearance of a legal conspiracy.

THE IRS AND FEDERAL TAX MATTERS

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

Leonard Cohen Testimony:  Q: Now, there is a mention of the K-1.  The people ask you about some other documents.  Do you know what a W-2 is?  A: W-2?  No, I don’t.  Q: How about a 1099?  A: A 1099, yes, is issued by an employer to an employee.  Pages 83-84:
Page 280:  Q: Okay.  Now, do you know what a K-1 is now?  A: I have a perfect -- a sense of what it is, but I wouldn’t be able to teach it.  Q: Okay.  And is it fair to say that you’ve gotten emails through the years referencing a K-1.  A: That’s correct.

IRS filing and reporting requirements

Streeter:  Ms. Lynch, where she mentioned other people, public officials.  RT 94  Cohen:  She routinely mentioned the Department of Justice, the FBI, the IRS …RT 94  Streeter:  It didn’t seem that Ms. Lynch wanted to have a conversation with you.  RT 127

Leonard Cohen Cross:  Hidden in the volume of the emails there was tax information that was a request for tax information which Ms. Lynch already had.  (RT 281)  There were requests in those emails for tax information, correct?  Yes Sir.  (RT 281)  What did you do since you got those emails to give those documents to Ms. Lynch? (RT 281) … Two courts had given me a default --- or one court had given me a default judgment; the other court affirmed the default judgment.  But, more significantly, the IRS accepted the results of that default judgment and awarded me a tax refund, so Ms. Lynch had no cause to ask me for any taxation information. (RT 282)  That is the forensic report that Ms. Lynch has been asking for.  The only  problem is she doesn’t like the results.  (RT 282)  

Traditional Holdings:  So you had no involvement with the creation of this company?  Cohen:  I wasn’t -- it was -- it was created in some -- some tax purposes.  RT 286  The funds in that account … they were running low?  Cohen:  I - I discovered that they were being dissipated.  Kelly:  And in fact you had actually taken money from that account to buy homes, correct?  Cohen:  Yes, I had.  Kelly:  You took money from that account to buy a house for your son, correct?  RT 287  Cohen:  That’s correct.  Kelly:  To buy a house for your girlfriend?  Cohen:  Yes.  Kelly:  It’s fair to say that you did take money from that account?  Cohen:  That’s correct, sir.  RT 288

Michelle Rice Cross:  Q:  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.  RT 361  Q:  To your knowledge, has Mr. Cohen directly sent Ms. Lynch any documentation?  Rice:  It would be a violation of the restraining order.  RT 362  Q:  Now, in that February 14, 2011 email that you wrote to Ms. Lynch where you told her that the order [California filed May 25, 2011] had been filed when it had not, did you know she was represented by counsel at that time?  Rice:  No, I did not.  RT 367  Rice:  I would not have contacted someone who I knew to be represented … 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 368/269  Rice:  Because she [Judge Enichen] said she was going to read the third party language very broadly, that, you know, she was not to contact our office or Mr. Steinberg.  RT369/370  Q:  But even though you felt you were a protected person, you directly contacted Ms. Lynch and you gave her some information that you had filed an order on February 14th; is that correct? … Even though you believed you were a protected person on that restraining order from Colorado, you still contacted Ms. Lynch; is that correct?  Rice:  I did so in the capacity of Mr. Cohen’s attorney … Q:  You still contacted Ms. Lynch … and you provided false information to her, that you had registered an order out of state in the State of California.  RT 370

Robert Kory Cross:  In 2007, Ms. Lynch contacted in response to, I think, a general ad encouraging employees to turn in their employers if the employees know about their employer’s tax fraud.  Ms. Lynch contacted a woman named - an Agent named Kelly Sopko.  Kelly Sopko referred the matter, all her allegations related to Mr. Cohen.  (RT 422)  What I saw is a request that we change the forensic accounting.  That we withdraw a K-1.  (RT 426)  Because she saw that we had reported to the Internal Rvenue Service … we declared a tefe loss.  Mr. Cohen got a tax refund.  (RT 426)  As I read them … I was reading a formidable, intelligent person with sophisticated tax knowledge who had the forensic accounting and the K-1s and all the tax information in her possession, and she was requesting that we somehow modify what we had reported.  (RT 427)  Did you ever hear her ask for her tax documentation?  I don’t recall … It’s a zero sum game.  If somebody gets a tax refund, somebody else has to pay the taxes.  (RT 427)  She wrote to Mr. Cohen, which you were copied on, she requested tax information … I - I suppose -- you know, I’d have to look at specific emails, but I always recall that those requests to him, as what I thought were part of a ruse.  (RT 427)  I directly gave documents -- I gave all the documents required for her tax information when she was fully represented in January-- January, February, March, April 2005. (RT 428)

Kelley Lynch Cross:  And the IRS never contacted you about any back taxes that you owe?  … So it’s your testimony that no one associated with Mr. Cohen, Mr. Kory, Ms. Rice or any of his business people ever game you information, the tax documents that you are requesting?  For the years 2004 and 2005.  That’s correct.  And they’ve testified to that as well.  (RT 497)  One of the main reasons I contacted Leonard Cohen is for -- I have K-1s that were transmitted to the IRS that do not belong to me.  I was not a partner on LC Investments, LLC.  That causes tremendous confusion with my taxes.  I have a default judgment where two companies have been - Leonard Cohen said he’s the beneficial owner.  That is not factual.  I have the evidence.  This caused my federal tax returns that were filed to be altered.  This causes confusion for me.  (RT 497)  There is not a forensic accounting, there is a ledger.  (RT 497)  I feel like I’m being harassed by not being given the information.  (RT 498)  Stranger Music … There’s no mention in that about request for tax document … No, but this is so meeting where I feel that Leonard Cohen sold so meeting that I was part of the deal … I was not told -- advised at the time by Mr. Cohen that Steven and Marty Machat owned 15 percent.  (RT 499)  This may have to do with tax matters, yes.  As I told you, Robert Kory told me that there were problems with Stranger Music and taxes … But Stranger Music is a tax problem, and I’ve gone to the IRS on that as well.  So that is a tax matter, yes.  (RT 500)

Sidebar - Agent Tejeda:  Kelly:  Our plans are we want to find out about Agent Tejeda.  Court:  I will tell you my strong view is I’m not gong to delay the trial for Agent Tejeda.  You guys, whether you know his name OR not, you were well aware of the relationship, if any, and I think it was quite tangential on the merits of the IRS thing long before the trial and I’m not gong to delay at this poínt the trial.  Kelly:  What we would ask is he said he was gong to make a call during the lunch hour and find out if there’s an answer that we can -- Court:  Okay.  Well, you can let me know … I won’t delay the trial.  I’ll reserve judgment on whether I allow him to testify.  (RT 432)  

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

Respondent’s Brief:  Appellant testified extensively regarding her tax predicament.  

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, she didn’t get all information she needed, and wanted to know her commission in 2004.  She does not feel any of the emails are harassing; instead, she feels she’s being harassed by not being given the information she requests.


Appellant’s subject line might say “Taxes” or “Kelley Lynch Tax Returns” but have no mention of this issue in the body of the email.  As an example, appellant mentioned tax issues once in 1000 pages of emails appellant sent on January 21-22.

Leonard Cohen:  Well, they weren’t really invitations of conversations.  RT 53

PHIL SPECTOR

She accused me of testifying before a secret grand jury which resulted in the conviction of Phil Spector.  RT 57  She often mentioned Phil Spector, repeating over and over that I had testified before a grand jury and I was involved in the conviction of Phil Spector.  RT 61

Streeter:  Do you recall if also in that voice mail message there was any mention of a gentleman by the name of Phil Spector?  Cohen:  Yes, Phil Spector’s name was mentioned.  Streeter:  And his attorneys; is that right?  RT 157  Cohen:  I believe so.  RT 157  Did you have any involvement in the Phil Spector trial?  Cohen:  None whatsoever … May I qualify that?  RT 158  My attorney, Mr. Cron, asked Ms. Lynch to leave the room, so that I think the attorney/client privilege would not be challenged.  RT 159

Email - April 18, 2011 
Says how I referred to Phillip varied but Ï think it was usually Phil Spector. RT 160
Cohen:  In this particular email, Mr. Spector is called Phillip.  RT 161)
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 the LAPD.  RT 161

Email December 17, 2011
Cohen:  It says, everyone wants to know about Cohen’s perjury in the Phil Spector matter.  RT 162
Cohen:  I think several, equated with Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson as people that are -- should be taken down or worse.  RT 195
Cohen:  Cooley and Jackass must run for office, and if an innocent man must take the fall sobeit.  RT 198
Cohen:  Yes.  It says Cooley’s tough on crimes but doesn’t mind young men being maimed.  He has to stand with the fraud thief, Cohen.  RT 198
Cohen:  [reading]  Leonard Cohen belongs in prison, even if Cooley and gangstas don’t want to hear that.  The lengths this lunatic has gone to destroy me, target my family, are astounding.  RT 199
Streeter:  Has Ms. Lynch in previous emails used similar terms to refer to Mr. Cooley as a gangsta?  Cohen:  Yes.  Streeter:  And have you received similar emails where she’s tied you with Mr. Cooley in such a fashion?  Cohen:  I know of one, but I believe there were several.  RT 199

Cohen reads:
Email to Sharmapa 12/20/11:
It’s Ray’s 19th birthday.  I haven’t seen him in 7 years.  Cohen’s a liar, thief, and fraud.
Steven Machat is correct.  A life without a mother is horrifying.  Not for the Los Angeles District Lunatic who I intend to take down.
The District Attorney.
Please make offerings.
So it’s Merry Christmas to the Denver FBI time from the Sopranos.  RT 202

Cohen reads:
Phil Spector is in prison for Christmas because Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson had to run for District Loser.  Well, Steven Machat is a music insider who knows Cohen is a fraud and a thief who has stolen millions from his father and himself.  RT 206

Confrontation clause and Cooley:
On 12/27/11 Kelley wrote:  Cooley, after  your office threatened me, you are darn right, I threatened to break your jaw.  I asked you to meet me in the gym.  My invitation stands.  I know you are the corruption in Los Angeles and breaking your jaw would be my pleasure.  I know law enforcement will rush to your aid.  RT 207

Kelly, sidebar:  A lot of these things don’t go to relevance of he knows about Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson that don’t reference Mr. Cohen.  Court:  They go to an element of 653m.

Voice mail February 15, 2011
Streeter:  Did you hear a mention of Dennis Riordan in there, Mr. Cohen?  Cohen:  Yes, I did.  RT 234.
Do you know who he is, Mr. Cohen?  Cohen:  I’m not certain who he is.  RT 235
Additional testimony about Dennis Riordan being copied in. RT 237

Subject line:  Let’s wish Phil Spector a Merry Christmas.  He has loved my son Rutger since he was born. N RT 240

Streeter:  And is Mr. -- Dennis Riordan one of the recipients of the emails?  Cohen:  Yes, he is.  Streeter:  See if there is any mention of the District Attorney or Steven Cooley in there.  Cohen:  Yes, there are many mentions.  RT 239

Cohen reads:  12/19/11 Kelley wrote:  Cooley, I am taking you down.  That’s a fact.  Even my Republican parents understand that you set Phil up.  We don’t understand how you were elected.  Lynch.

Email December 29, 2007:  Good Morning Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, I think my response to Cohen was quite tempered, well tempered.  If other people were in my shoes, he’d probably be dead by now.”  RT 243  Cohen views this as a threat although many parents have stated this specifically.

Court believes it’s relevant to intent:

Email December 18, 2011
Streeter:  Do you see Steve Cooley, the name Cooley as one of the recipients.  Cohen:  Yes, I do.  RT 249

Email sent to Cooley, evidently - subject line:  Leonard Cohen does have a small, if not non-existent penis.  RT 260
Was Cooley copied in?  Yes.
Was the IRS one of the recipients?  Yes.
Cohen found this annoying.

Leonard Cohen Cross Examination - April 18, 2011 Email - Dennis Riordan/Phil Spector Gun:  Kelly:  Can you point out where exactly on the list of recipients that your email address shows up?  Take all the time you need.  And your email is not on that, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  RT 266

Leonard Cohen Cross:  I want to talk to you a little bit about -- you said that you felt threatened some of these times.  Do you remember saying that?  I certainly did.  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.  Yes, sir.  And you talked to the LAPD with your attorney, correct?  With an attorney present, Yes, Sir. (RT 308)  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?  That’s correct.  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?  (RT 309) I don’t remember, sir.  Was he hostile at the time?  Not to me.  Okay.  But he actually put a gun to your head; is that correct?  That’s correct.  It was a revolver?  No, it wasn’t a revolver.  It was an automatic.  But you weren’t actually -- you didn’t feel threatened when he put a gun to your head?  No, sir.  (RT 309)

Concealed Email In Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter’sPosession
Leonard Cohen Email to Sandra Jo Streeter
Excerpt - Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Apparently the detectives had come across some old interviews I did in 1978 or 1979 in which I spoke of the difficulties of recording Death Of A Lady’s Man with Phil Spector: the brandishing of guns, armed bodyguards, drunkenness, and Phil’s famous megalomania.  Even though Phil put his arm around my shoulder and pressed an automatic into my neck, excepto for the real possibility of an accident, I never at any momento thought that Phi lmeant to do me harm.  I never felt seriously threatened.  I conveled this to the detectives.  I said the incident was repeated in the press over the years, with exaggerations, but it was basically just a good rock and roll story.

Prosecutor’s Motion To Admit Evidence Of Other Crimes
Phil Spector Case No. BA255233
Excerpt August 14, 2008

The 1977 Brandishing on Leonard Cohen

1977, Spector produced musician Leonard Cohen's record album, "Death of a Ladies man." during production of the record, Cohen and Spector, who were friends, were taking a break in the lobby of the music studio. Spector walked up to Cohen, placed on arm around Cohen's shoulders, and pointed a semi-automatic pistor at Cohen's chest with his other hand. Spector told Cohen, "I love you Leonard." Cohen looked at Spector and said, "I hope so, Phil." Spector then walked away from Cohen.

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

RUTGER’S WHOLE FOODS ACCIDENT
RAY’S CUSTODY MATTER

Leonard Cohen: She accused me of being indirectly responsible for her losing custody of one child.  Yes, many times she suggested I was responsible for an accident that befell him.  RT 58

Kelly:  In 2005 there was a custody issue with Ms. Lynch and her son, Ray.  Do you remember that?  Cohen:  I know that there was a custody issue.  Kelly:  You know that the police came to her house, correct?  RT 293 Cohen:  Yes, sir.  Kelly:  And her son was given to his father, correct?  Cohen:  I - I’m not completely aware of the details of that custody battle.  RT 294  Isn’t it true that your attorney wrote a declaration in her custody issue?  That’s true, yes.  RT 296

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

LAPD REPORT:

“The emails generally were in request of tax and financial information to amend Kelley Rice [Lynch] 2001 through 2010 tax returns.” 

voicemails can’t be date/time stamped

Sidebar:  Streeter:  I had Detective Viramontes come because he called me during lunch, asking if I knew whether or not defense counsel was going to need him, as he a scheduled prepaid vacation that’s been schedule for -- how long?  Viramontes:  Two months.  RT 445

RESTRAINING ORDERS

Colorado Civil Harassment Order - 2008
Colorado Domestic Violence Order - 2011

Because whenever there was an article or review of my concert in any newspaper of the world Ms. Lynch would -- RT 75

You testified yesterday that you were concerned that people would get these emails and they would read these emails and think information that was true about you.  Do you remember saying that?  That information was ... Well, you said that you were worried that other people would think regarding these emails.  Other people were disturbed by the emails, friends of mine and business associates.  (RT 306)


ANN DIAMOND DRAFT ARTICLE

Colorado order:  Kelly:  So you got it in Colorado, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  You said you were on tour in Colorado.  Cohen:  It was one of the cities I visited, yes.  RT 299  You got a permanent restraining order in Colorado even though you were only there for one week, correct?  Cohen:  Yes, ,sir.  RT 299/300.

Colorado Order 2008/California Order 2011

You didn’t get this order [Colorado restraining order] in California in 2008?  2008?  Yes.  You didn’t get the order in California.  You said California.  I thought you said Colorado.  Right.  So you got it in Colorado?  Correct.  And you actually, you said you were on tour in Colorado (RT 298)  It was one of the cities I visited, yes.  How long were you going to be in Colorado?  A week.  And you said that you got the order in Colorado because you were going to be on tour there, correct?  Correct?  What was the other reason?  The other reason was the bombarding of the emails continued.  Okay.  But you got it in Colorado because Ms. Lynch was there?  Correct.  Do you know how long Ms. Lynch was there?  Not exactly, no, sir.  And you -- how did you know Ms. Lynch was in Colorado.  Because of the emails that she wrote us are from Colorado.  You got a permanent order in Colorado even though you were only there for one week, correct?  Yes, sir.  But I -- may I continue?  Is that a yes?  You got an order, a permanent order in Colorado, even though you were only there for one week; yes or no?  (RT 299)  I was only there for one week, but that was not the reason I got the order.  Okay.  But, yes or no, you got the order -- -Court:  You are being argumentative.  Isn’t it true that you got that permanent order in Colorado even though you lived in California at that time, correct?  Yes, Sir.  And you didn’t register this order from Colorado in California in 2008, did you?  No, sir.  You didn’t registered the Colorado order in California in 2009, did you?  No, sir ... 2010 ... No, sir.  It wasn’t until 2011, correct?  Correct.  Now, do you know how long Ms. Lynch was living in Berkeley?  Not exactly.  Do you know if she was in Berkeley as of February of 2012?  (RT 300)  2012?  Yes.  Yes.  And when did you find out that she was living in Berkeley?  When her emails from Berkeley began to arrive in my mailbox.  And that’s when you found out?  That’s correct.  Now, you registered that order in Los Angeles?  The Colorado order, you registered that in Los Angeles, correct?  Correct.  You didn’t registered it in Berkeley, California, did you?  It was registered in Los Angeles, California.  But at the time, you didn’t think Ms. Lynch lived in Los Angeles, correct?  Correct.  (RT 301)


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

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

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

Michelle Rice Direct:  Streeter:  Now, 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.  RT 328  Streeter:  Do you remember what was said in that first email that you got a half hour later?  Rice:  I seem to recall her saying that it was a fraudulent restraining order.  Streeter:  What else did she say?  Rice:  That she had a valid reason for contacting me and it was in, you know, she wanted tax information.  Something to that effect.  RT 333

Transcript with Steven Machat.

NOTE:  I have been pro per since 2005.  There have been ongoing litigation issues from the summer of 2005 through at least September 2008/Denver matter.

Michelle Rice Cross:  Q:  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; is that correct?  Rice:  In 2008, correct.

Sidebar:  Kelly:  I guess that raises another issue which I should have brought up during the instructions.  Counsel mentioned that Mr. Kory and that certain counts were to Mr. Kory and Ms. Rice as the victims in the case.  Streeter:  But those counts are gone.  Kelly:  I thought you said the 273.6S were to Mr. Kory and Ms. Rice.  Streeter:  That’s right, the no-contact part that involves them.  Court:  I must say I find that quite unpersuasive. RT 392

NOTE:  City Attorney lied in reply brief and said the charges re. Kory and Rice were 653m.

DATING RELATIONSHIP

LEONARD COHEN TESTIMONY 
PERJURY

Kelly:  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.  Kelly:  Okay.  But you -- when you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raí sed your right hand, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  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.  Kelly:  Okay.  And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?  Streeter objects; argumentative.  Court sustains.

Excerpts from Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 397:

“The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.  T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 273, 277. An equally basic rule of statutory construction is that courts are bound to give effect to statutes according to the usual [84 Cal. App. 4th 405] and ordinary meaning of the language employed in framing them. Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973)10 Cal. 3d 222.  Where the words of the statute are clear, the court should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history. California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 692, 698.”  O'Kane v. Irvine (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 207, 211.”

“The DVPA was originally enacted in 1979. (Stats. 1979, ch. 795 § 10, pp. 2710-2711.)  Originally, the DVPA did not protect persons in a "dating relationship." As first enacted, the 
DVPA applied only to family members and persons who regularly resided in the household and had sexual relations with another family or household member, or had so resided within the last six months. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subds. (b), (c); Stats. 1979, ch. 795, § 10, p. 2711.) The DVPA was soon amended to delete the requirement of a sexual relationship for persons regularly residing in the household (former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (c); Stats. 1980, ch. 1158, § 6, p. 3880), and subsequently amended to extend to abuse between parents of a minor child. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (c); Stats. 1984, ch. 1163, § 3, pp. 3995-3996.) Finally, as previously noted, the statute was amended to include the present "dating or engagement relationship" language. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (b)(1); Stats. 1990, ch. 752, § 2, p. 3409.)”

“The DVPA does not define the phrase "dating or engagement relationship," and the meaning of a "dating relationship" is not clear enough to delineate the particular meaning the Legislature had in mind when it used these words.”

“The failure of the Legislature to define the nature of the "dating relationship" it had in mind creates a daunting judicial problem.”

“Therefore, as no judicial attempt to compass the human mind can fully succeed, we can devise no completely satisfactory definition of the "dating relationship" the Legislature contemplate … we conclude that, for purposes of the Act, a "dating relationship" refers to serious courtship. It is a social relationship between two individuals who have or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest in one another, and shared expectation of the growth of that mutual interest, that has endured for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent interactions that the relationship cannot be deemed to have been casual.”

THE ACCOUNTING

Leonard Cohen:  And did you give that forensic report to Ms. Lynch?  Ms. Lynch indicated in several emails, many emails, that she has read the forensic report.  She doesn’t like it.  Isn’t it true that the voice mails -- the emails that you heard and listened to said that she was requesting forensic accounting?  Yes.  And she received the forensic accounting.  Did you send them to her?  She indicates that she read the judgment, the default judgment against her, and in that default judgment against her was the forensic report.  (RT 293)

Robert Kory Cross:  Kory:  A forensic accounting submitted first to her first tax accountants and lawyers, then her next level of tax accountants and lawyers, and then to her and the court.  RT 419  Q:  Do you know if Ms. Lynch ever received that forensic accounting through the formal discovery process in the 2005 lawsuit?  Streeter:  Objection; relevance.  Court:  Sustained.  RT 421

See my testimony - page 452 - re. The details of the accounting I was requesting.

LEONARD COHEN’S CHARACTER

ADD IN CHILD MOLESTATION
HAD TO LOOK AT PEOPLE DEFECATING ON ONE ANOTHER
PERFORMER
EMBELLISHES STORIES

Leonard Cohen:  There were accusations that I was on drugs.  RT 59

Every time I see a car slow down I get worried.  RT 81 

Cohen:  Yes, I’m accused of abusing drugs.  RT 139
Cohen:  I didn’t like it, and I felt my reputation was being assailed and the reputation of my family.  RT 142

Sidebar:  Kelly:  I’ve done some research on Mr. Cohen and he’s in the past made interviews about having used legal and illegal drugs.  Court:  No, we’’re not going to get into the issue of his drug use.  Streeter:  The people mentioned the drug usage not to use as defamatory, that was more as a common scheme and plan and I did it for the emails and the voice mail messages.  Kelly:  I will say they spent a big portion of the emails highlighting the drug use and in fact a lot of those messages referred to prior drug use.  Court:  Whether he used drugs or not used drugs is not the issue and to the extent they refer they do go to the issue… Kelly:  If he has himself proclaimed to be a drug user, then I think it mitigates the level of harassment if she knows and he knows.  Court:  You know we could have 500 mini trials in this  case about lots of subjects but we’re not going to do it.  RT 433/434


FBI INVESTIGATION INTO ARYAN NATION, MURDER

Mentions of his drug use; mention of the Aryan Nation.  RT 130
Streeter:  What is your faith, Mr. Cohen?  Cohen:  I’m Jewish.  RT 131
Judge thinks the Aryan Nation goes to intent, naturally.  RT 131  Is he Jewish?
“
Aryan Nation:
Kelly:  As per the rue of completeness, I ask that the context be stated … Counsel just picked and chose one word from an email without any context.  I think per the rule of completeness … RT 134  Judge thinks it’s fine to just let it go on this way.  Cohen then testifies about the Sabbath, etc.  RT 134
Cohen:  I understood the implied threat.  RT 134
Cohen:  I think she mentioned in that voice mail that the Aryan Nation was involved in running meth labs.  RT 136  Dallas FBI investigation - Michael.

EVIDENCE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT

Page 196:

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.  

A: Yes, I read it.  Q: Does she refer to you on the first page of that email, Mr. Cohen?
A: Yes, she does. Q: What does she call you, Sir?  A: She says, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell.  Kelly:  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.  Witness:  After all, as Lamasang said, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell.

It is my speech that has been legálly targeted - not my conduct.  The voice mails and emails are representative of pure speech.  They are also legitimate .

On page 167 of the transcripts, Cohen makes this interpretation of the requests for tax information.  I think the IRS Commissioner’s Staff should review these emails.  The emails are apparently from January 21st.  I supppose that’s 2011.  The City Attorney is so interested in IRS tax matters and forms, etc.  That should interest the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.  Since Agent Sopko told me various individuals at the IRS Commissioner’s Staff are relating to various aspects of my emails to them, then they should have a handle on this matter.  

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

She would routinely curse on her messages.  RT 59
The very tone and volume of the emails suggested a threat.  RT 60

CHAIN OF CUSTODY

CITY ATTORNEY RESPONSE BRIEF:

Cohen saved the first set of voice mail messages by transcribing them and forwarding them to his attorneys, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice, to catalog.  The second set he recorded from the house answering machine onto a cassette player and gave the cassettes to his lawyers.  The third set he recorded with his sound engineer, putting them on Cds and giving to his lawyers.  More recently, he recorded them on a sophisticated recorder which allows him to turn the message into a mp3 he would email.  He would usually send the recordings under an email cover letter, with date, time and telephone number the call originated from.  Cohen identified appellant’s voice on voice mail messages received during the dates at issue and played in court, and the messages as accur4ate recordings of the messages she left.  He identified each such message as a true and accurate recording of messages he left and heard on relevant dates.  Cohen read every email from appellant carefully, immediately save it in a folder on his computer, and, if his lawyers hadn’t received same, immediately forwarded it to them.  

Antoinette Henry Cross:  RT 117
Review how she printed things out.
Doesn’t know me.
Doesn’t know where I live.
Doesn’t know which computer I use.
Doesn’t know what email I use.
Got the stack of Cds, the binder, from Streeter.
Doesn’t know if the records were subpoenaed by Streeter.
Doesn’t know if they came directly from gmail..
Doesn’t know if they were obtained via subpoena.
Doesn’t know the email address or who it was registered to.
AH:  Well, wouldn’t it be registered by the person whose name is on the email?  RT 118
Doesn’t know the IP address used in registering the email.
Doesn’t know the IP address that was used or who had access to this account.
Her father works with Streeter.
Emails printed out were not those that were originally sent.  RT 120

Katherine Lawrence.
Intern at City Attorney’s Office
Works in the Family Violence Unit

Assisted in the printing of the emails.  RT 216
Got the emails from a black binder.  RT 216
She would be given a disk and opened it up.  In the comp0uter was a list of all the different emails.  She went through and printed them out, put them in order in a bunch of binders, and marked them.  RT 217
Compared what she printed to what was on the screen RT 221

Cross:  Sandra gave her the black binder with Cds; Has no idea where Sandra got it; never saw a subpoena; doesn’t know the registered owner of the actual email address; No information re. the IP address or who it was registered to; Didn’t get the IP address for each time an email was sent; lots of arrows on print out; emails to Cohen were a handful of lines - a grand majority were actually prior emails.  HEARSAY.

Two Totally Inconsistent Statements.

Michelle Rice Direct:  It looks like CD copies of an evidence disk that we gave the Wilshire Police Department on May 30, 2011.  

Michelle Rice Cross:  Q:  At some point in 2011 -- I believe you said May 30th -- you went to the police; is that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  Q:  And who went to the police that day?  Rice:  It was Mr. Kory and myself.  Q:  And you came -- did you come with that binder or a similar copy of that binder that you sent to Ms. Streeter?  Rice:  No.  Q:  You just came with the CDs?  Rice:  We didn’t come with any evidence.  We just filled out a police report.  

Robert Kory Direct:  Streeter:  And did you -- is this the disk that you provided to the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office?  Kory:  Yes.  RT 394


EMAIL VOICE MAIL AUTHENTICATION

Leonard Cohen testifies that he knows my email address but can’t remember it.  This is not the way to verify an email address.

My email address per Cohen - I think it’s Kelley Lynch hotmail.  RT 60
I believe it was Kelley.dot.lynch at hotmail or gmail.  RT 87
Hearsay re. emails.

CITY ATTORNEY MOVES ONTO COHEN’S PAID LAWYER WITNESSES

Michelle Rice testified she listened to the voice mail messages Cohen would forward to her, then save them electronically onto her law firm’s server in a separate folder.  Rice created a binder, which included a log, from information in Cohen’s emails regarding the messages and DVDs/Cds of the calls which occurred from February 2011 to February 2012.  Rice either personally created or oversaw preparation of DVDs/Cds introduced in court of the voice mail messages.  Rice then relistened to the messages to ensure all were included.  DVDs/Cds in People 25 contain true and accurate copies of appellant’s voice mail messages to Cohen from February 2011-2012 and forwarded to Rice.

Kory Cross:   Q:  But you did check those emails to make sure that none of the privileged information that Mr. Cohen wrote to you was included in those emails that you gave to the City Attorney or to the police.  Kory:  That is your own conclusion about privileged information.  RT 416

ISSUES AT TRIAL AND ON APPEAL

Unable to obtain my file, copies of Cds, etc. from public defenders.
Public allegation that one of my trial lawyers spoke to Gianelli about my witnesses and what they could or could not corroborate me.
Gianelli bombards me and my public defenders, Francisco, etc. with emails.
Gianelli writes me, copying in Cohen lawyer Rice and the prosecutor - attempting to force me to violate the restraining order.
Statutes are unconstitutionally vague - annoy, obscene, good faith, business purpose, dating relationship.
Jury instructions - intent to annoy.
Transcripts - incoherent.  Streeter’s secretaries prepared them.
Voice mail Cds - sound is altered
Emails - shabby, no way to no if authenticate, begin in the middle
Quality of sound of recordings themselves
Emails taken out of context
Cohen is permitted to interpret them and makes statements like out of thousands of emails, one had tax requests
IRS trial
Chain of evidence issues.
Bail hearing:  Get the exact quotes -
Pure business relationship
Never stole from me.
Letter to Dennis Riordan entered into evidence.
IRS binder concealed.
Email to Streeter re. Phil Spector concealed.
Information withheld as to why DA decided not to prosecute Leonard Cohen.
Constant references to Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson.
Horvath’s lies.
Video-conferencing - Agent Sopko; Doug Davis
Judge permits Cohen to testify about the contents of the emails.  Cohen lies and distorts.

MISCELLANEOUS

And do you also recall discussion about K-1, criminal K-1?  RT 82  Streeter 
In these emails there were chains attached, whole threads.  Some of them were addressed to me, some to others.  Sometimes if she was writing to the Department of Justice she might say, “Love, Kelley.” RT 86
Email re. NAMBLA  RT 90
Streeter:  Is there any mention of the minor children in reference to the - that organization?  RT 91
I don’’t think this particular email is referring to me.  RT 91
Streeter:  Did she also make mention of the IRS?  Cohen:  Correct.  RT 93





Cohen would save voice mails - forward them to his lawyers.
Forward emails to his lawyers. 
RT 156

Cohen:  She spoke about her -- her taxation.  RT 156

Streeter:  Looking at emails where you and Mr. Cooley, the District Attorney, and Mr. Jackson were linked together by Ms. Lynch.  Cohen:  Yes, I remember that.  RT 145



Streeter:  Were these emails printed by your attorneys office or the Los Angeles City Attorney?  Cohen:  They were printed at -- at my attorneys’ office.  RT 166

Streeter:  Around that time, did you ever appear in Rolling Stone magazine?  Cohen:  I think there was a small article about me but I didn’t read it.  RT 184  Voice Mail - Michael Ingrassia

Streeter:  It’s on the DVD/CD that says evidence given to Wilshire Police Department, May 30th, 2011.
NOTE:  How did the evidence get to Viramontes?

Kelly makes a standing objections for the hearsay in emails and best evidence rule.  RT 190

Streeter:  And as far as dating the voice mail messages once they were saved, who dated them, you or your attorneys, if you know?  Cohen:  I think they dated them with t date of the email once the mp3 was received.  RT 193

Cohen:  Well, there’s the perennial threat to take me down.  Sometimes Ms. Lynch says legally; often she doesn’t, but there’s clearly an intent to commit some kind of revenge.  RT 194  Kelly:  Objection; speculation.  Court:  Stricken.


Misstates evidence:

Streeter:  What does she call you, sir?
Cohen:  She says, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell.  RT 196
Kelly objects:  The rule of completeness - the whole sentence needs to be read.
Court agrees.
Cohen:  After all, as Lamasang said, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell.  RT 197










Email August 27, 2006
Leonard Norman Cohen should be taken before a firing squad and shot.  RT 245
City Attorney concealed the fact that Cohen told me he would like to die in this manner after being interviewed by Mikal Gilmore/Rolling Stone whose brother died by firing squad.  
Cohen views this as a threat even though he discussed this execution and his wish to die in this
Manner with me relentlessly, even telling me he would ask for one last cigarette.

Testimony about Bob Dylan and Paul Shaffer.  RT 257
OLIVER


Email July 20, 2011
Kelly:  Do you remember testifying to that email that you’re looking at?  So you don’t remember yesterday saying that you remember receiving an email that was sent on July 20, 2011?  Cohen can’t recall anything on cross.  His memory is suddenly faulty.  He had testified previously that I sent him a 50 page email.  At the bottom of page one, a different thread begins.  

Cohen:  I can’t testify to the accuracy of my memory.  RT 270
Kelly:  Well, do you remember testifying to one that you said was March of 2012 and in fact it was March of 2011?  Cohen:  It may be.  RT 271   Cohen goes onto say it’s difficult for him to recall … exactly what he affirmed.  

Cohen:  I hired her to be my business manager.  I think it was 1988 or 1989.   RT 271
Testimony about my commission - 15%; we worked closely on a daily basis; sometimes in the same office.

Testimony about intimate sexual relationship; can’t recall when it ended or how long it went on.
I don’t think it goes to the description of romantic.  RT 275

Kelly:  Now, you were asked if this was -- if your relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship.  Do you remember that?  Cohen:  I did.  Kelly:  And you said it was, yes, purely a business relationship.  RT 276  Cohen:  I have repeatedly said that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady denies it.  So I don’t want to insist.  Kelly:  I’m not asking you about what Ms. Lynch said.  I’m asking about what you said.  You said that yes, that it was purely a business relationship, correct?  I’m just asking for if that’s what you said on March 23rd.  Cohen:   Yes.  RT 277  Kelly:  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.  Kelly:  When you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raised your right hand, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  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.  Kelly:  And yet you gave to different answers, yes or no?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?  Streeter objects.  Court sustains.

COHEN STATED ON MARCH 23RD THAT I NEVER STOLE FROM HIM

Kelly:  How many times since 2004 have you actually seen Ms. Lynch, not including this case?  Cohen:  I haven’t seen her since that period.  RT 277

Kelly:  Now, do you know what a K-1 is now?  Cohen:  I have a perfect -- a sense of what it is, but I wouldn’t be able to teach it.  Kelly:  And is it fair to say that you’ve gotten emails through the years referencing a K-1?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  RT 280

Kelly:  Now, since you’ve been receiving emails requesting tax information, have you called these people to say can you get me this tax information? RT 281  And so it would be fair to say that there was tax information that was requested by Ms. Lynch, correct?  Cohen:  Hidden in the volume of the emails there was a request for tax information which Ms. Lynch already had.  RT 281

CONSPIRACY/COLORADO/KORY-COHEN AND IRS HOLDING - STREETER

Sidebar:  Kelly:  I have a good faith belief that this is based on federal court documentation -- that there was an attempted conspiracy to point the blame to someone who wasn’t at fault.  Motion in limine which judge granted, to ask him not to get into the allegations of stealing.  The issues at this trial are whether a protective order was violated and whether annoying and harassing phone calls were made.  Streeter:  And then that will lead to further -- the people asking more questions of the person in particular that was responsible for getting the default judgment in the holding of the IRS, which was Mr. Kory.  RT 289/290.  Kelly:  With respect to the motion in limine, the motion in limine was to the phrase stole or misappropriated couldn’t be used unless a foundation was established for it.  RT 290  Kelly:  I do think what does matter if there’s any character for truthfulness if it shows that Mr. Cohen attempted to lie, I have a good faith belief that this information -- RT 290  

Michelle Rice Cross:  Q:  But isn’t it also true that in that allegation of that lawsuit was that Ms. Lynch, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Kory were also 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.  Q:  I understand that they were dismissed at a later point, but those were the allegations that were initially made, is that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  Q:  And they named Ms. Lynch as one of the conspirators in that civil conspiracy; is that also true?  A:  I don’t believe Ms. Lynch was named as a co-conspirator.  RT 358

Robert Kory Cross:  Q:  No, Mr. Kory, isn’t it true that at some point in 2004 or 2005 you approached my client, Ms. Lynch, and you asked her to participate in a conspiracy to extort money from Mr. Cohen’s former financial advisor, Mr. Greenberg?  Kory:  Absolutely not.  Q:  So, Ms. Lynch never refused to engage in any plan to extort money from Mr. Greenberg for millions of dollars with you, that never happened?  Streeter:  Objection; assumes facts not in evidence.  Court:  Sustained.  Q:  So you never approached Ms. Lynch about this plan.  Kory:  I only spoke- in 2005, I only spoke to Ms. Lynch one time directly.  RT 400  Q:  Even though there was no plan to extort money from Mr. Greenberg, there was a lawsuit against you in the State of Colorado, and you were named as defendant, where you were accused of engaging in civil conspiracy, extortion, outrageous conduct and defamation against Mr. Greenberg; isn’t that true?  Kory:  That lawsuit was dismissed as illegal even before it got started against me … And it was dismissed as an illegal allegation and thrown out of court before we  had to put on any evidence.  RT 403  Q:  I’m holding in my hand a five-page court opinion from the United States District Court of Colorado dated December 5, 2005.  (RT 405) Now, isn’t it true, Mr. Kory, that you were actually dismissed in that lawsuit because the court ordered that it didn’t have any personal jurisdiction over you … So the court never ruled on the actual factual merits of the claim, it just ordered that it had to dismiss the lawsuit because it couldn’t bring you into it?  RT 406  Kory:  To the extent that claims against Mr. Cohen as a conspirator were dismissed, claims against me were dismissed.  Because you cannot have a conspiracy alone.  You have to have two people in a conspiracy.  Q:  But that order that I showed you, Mr. Kory, dismissed you from the lawsuit not based on any merits of the case but because the court ruled it didn’t have any personal jurisdiction over you; is that right?  Streeter:  Objection; asked and answered.  Court:  Sustained.  RT 407











Phil Spector - documented above.
Aryan Nation - 309/310

Kelly:  Well, what made them threatening, the tone?  Cohen:  Yes, sir.  Kellyl:  What about the words?  Do you remember what those voice mails were about?  Cohen:  I have the transcript somewhere,but I can’t recall exactly what they were.  But the tone, I recall, was chilling … You didn’t read it with quite the tone that Ms. Lynch presented it.  
GO OVER THIS LATER.  RT 313
Kelly:  There is nothing threatening there?  Cohen:  No, there isn’t.  


Kory Cross:  You’re his personal manager?  Kory:  Since 2008, yes, I’m his personal manager.  Q:  Are you his business manager as well?  Kory:  Yes.  RT 408  In 2007 after Luis Tejeda, head of fraud in the Western United States for the IRS told me that I was a fool if I continued to ignore threats against me and my family, including threats to shoot me.  And he said -- he said I was a fool and he said I should report to the police.  Q:  And those threats were made by voice mail or email?  Kory:  Threats were made by voice mail and by email.  Q:  Did you provide those voice mails to the City Attorney wherein you say, Ms. Lynch tried to shoot me?  Kory:  Yes.  RT 415)

NOTE:  No evidence supporting this at all.

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

The basic prerequisites of admissibility are relevance, materiality, and competence. In general, if evidence is shown to be relevant, material, and competent, and is not barred by an exclusionary rule, it is admissible. Evid. Code § 351; Fed. Rules Evid. 402. 

Appellant claims that she was denied her right to a fundamentally fair trial guaranteed by the due process clause due to the fact that the admission of evidence so fatally infected the proceedings as to render them fundamentally unfair.  

The People’s theory with respect to admissible 1101(b) evidence appears to involves a narrative regarding appellant’s alleged conduct dating to 2005.  The People, in establishing the common plan and scheme theory, raised issues relating to evidence involving an email Michelle Rice allegedly received;  a young man - Jonathan Maihart - who stopped by Robert Kory’s office in the year 2005; Leonard Cohen’s publicly documented history of drug abuse; and, online posts appellant made while Leonard Cohen was on tour.

Specifiically, prosecutor Streeter in …. Closing … that apellant had a history that included misappropriating monies from Leonard Cohen - based on fraudulent misrepresentations in his retaliatory 2005 lawsuit (perjury, wilful disregard for corporate books and records, misrepresentations re. Appellant‘s personal management commissions)  and - alter Cohen heard she was gong to the IRS regarding the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraude -attempted to harass him with respect to a 1099 the IRS requires him to provide her for the year 2004;  illegal K-1s tax documents transmitted to the State of Kentucky and IRS for the years 2003-2004-2005;  by reporting his probable criminal tax fraud to the Internal Revenue Service in 2005; continued with her attempts to annoy him by advising the District Attorney of Los Angeles that Cohen lies and fabricates stories about Phil Spector; filed a complaint with the DA’s Major Fraud Unit with respect to Cohen’s theft from her (millions), fraud, etc; raised his prior drug abuse as a possible explanation for his abusive, inconceivable, and outrageous conduct towards her; refuted his lies that she had sex with Oliver Stone; addressed his sexual harassment with respect to her - in particular, the fact that he would have her read legal and business documents to him while he bathed in a bubble bath; raised his daughter’s allegations that he molested her - as repeated by Freda Guttman to Ann Diamond; discussed the fact that alleged members of the Aryan Nation (or their relatives) helped her while she was homeless; addressed an incident that envolved a Dallas FBI investigation into a murder, the Aryan Nation, the Cartel, and meth labs; and, evidently further annoyed him with respect to her younger son’s custody matter and her older son’s Whole Foods accident.  Add in Bob Dylan and Paul Shaffer.  Dennis Riordan. 

Ms. Streeter’s comments throughout the trial not only amounted to misconduct, they fundamentally altered the landscape of the trial in a way that was exceedingly and unnecessarily prejudicial to the appellant.  In order to counter Ms. Streeter’s improper characterization of the uncharged conduct evidence, Lynch would have been forced to offer evidence that she does not harass people.  For example, District Attorney Steve Cooley could have testifed that Investigator William Frayeh personally hand delivered a letter Lynch wrote to Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson addressing very serious issues with respect to Phil Spector and Leonard Cohen.  Should Lynch have introduced the affirmative character evidence, however, the prosecution may have then claimed that under the law it had the right to rebut Cooley’s testimony with its own negative character evidence proof that otherwise would have no place in this trial.

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990), when determining whether a due process violation has occurred, courts “are to determine only whether the action complained of … violates those fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions, and which define the community’s sense of fair play and decency.”