From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:24 PM
Subject:
To: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>
The prosecutor has a legal and ethical duty to promote truth and to refrain from conduct that impedes truth. The prosecutor has the overriding responsibility not simply to convict the guilty but to protect the innocent. The prosecutor has a constitutional obligation not to use false evidence or to suppress material evidence favorable to the defendant. A prosecutor may impede the truth-finding process in several ways: (1) distorting the truth by attacking the defendant's character, misleading and misrepresenting facts, and engaging in inflammatory (2) subverting the truth by making false statements and presenting false evidence; (3) suppressing the truth by failing to disclose potentially truth-enhancing evidence or obstructing defense access to potentially truth- enhancing evidence; and (4) other truth-disserving conduct that exploits defense counsel's misconduct and mistakes and prevents introduction of potentially truth-serving defenses. The prosecutor also has an affirmative duty to assist the defense in discovering the truth through discovery rules and by conferring immunity on potentially truthful defense witnesses.
The courts have recognized that a prosecutor has a special duty not to impede the truth. That duty has been recognized implicitly in cases where courts have reversed convictions when the prosecutor engaged in conduct that distorted, subverted, or suppressed the truth. In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935), the seminal case defining the prosecutor's legal and ethical role, the Supreme Court contémplated prosecutorial misconduct in a criminal case … implied that the prosecutor's duty to serve justice includes the avoidance of conduct that deliberately corrupts the truth-finding process. The prosecutor's conduct, both in presenting evidence and argument to the jury, was characterized by the Court as an “evil influence” that was “calculated to mislead the jury.” The misconduct during the evidence phase included: misstating facts during cross-examination; falsely insinuating that witnesses said things they had not said; representing that witnesses made statements to him personally out of court when no proof of this was offered; pretending that a witness had said something which he had not said and persistently cross-examining him on that basis; and assuming prejudicial facts not in evidence. The prosecutor's closing argument contained remarks that were intemperate," "undignified," and "misleading," including assertions of personal knowledge, allusions to unused incriminating evidence, and ridiculing of defense counsel.
The prosecutor's tactics in Berger are familiar examples of how a prosecutor can corrupt the fact-finding process. One way a prosecutor violates the duty to truth is by deliberately distorting the evidence. Prosecutors do this in several ways: attacking a defendant's character without a valid evidentiary purpose; misleading the jury and misrepresenting the facts; and inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury. Character proof, as every trial lawyer knows, is one of the most dangerous types of evidence. The capacity of proof of a defendant's criminal past to skew the jury's proper evaluation of the truth has been documented. By insinuating that a defendant's criminal background makes it more likely that he committed the present crime, the prosecutor encourages the jury to find the defendant guilty based on speculative, confusing, and inflammatory considerations.
Prosecutors employ a variety of tactics to unfairly impugn a defendant's character. They accomplish this directly through proof of prior crirninality, by innuendo during the examination of witnesses about the defendant's criminal past, and by proving that the defendant associates with undesirable persons.
Misleading conduct distorts the search for truth by confusing the jury's rational view of the evidence. The potential for a prosecutor to mislead inheres in virtually every phase of the trial, from offering evidence, questioning witnesses, making comments, and presenting argument. Since the jury is likely to place great trust in the prosecutor as the embodiment of law enforcement, the prosecutor's ability to mislead the jury is greatly enhanced.
Misleading conduct attempts to create in the jurors' minds damaging and prejudicial innuendos without any basis in fact. The potential to mislead is especially enhanced because the prosecutor's prestige and standing as a law enforcement expert make his representations presumptively reliable.
MISSTATEMENT OF EVIDENCE:
“It is elementary ․ that counsel may not premise arguments on evidence which has not been admitted.” (George ) Johnson v. United States, 121 U.S.App. D.C. 19, 21, 347 F.2d 803, 805 (1965); see also United States v. Jenkins, 140 U.S.App. D.C. 392, 397, 436 F.2d 140, 145 (1970) (quoting (George) Johnson.) The applicable principles were summarized in some detail in Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App. D.C. 154, 413 F.2d 1061 (1969):
The federal courts generally, and this court in particular, have strictly enforced the obligation of the prosecutor to avoid making statements of fact to the jury not supported by proper evidence introduced during trial. This rigor is based on the Supreme Court's observation in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935), that the interest of the Government in a criminal prosecution ‘is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done,’ and that ‘the average jury has confidence that these obligations (of fairness and accuracy) will be faithfully observed.’
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-
Standard 3- 1.2 The Function of the Prosecutor
(a) The office of prosecutor is charged with responsibility for prosecutions in its jurisdiction.
(b) The prosecutor is an administrator of justice, an advocate, and an officer of the court; the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her functions.
(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.
(d) It is an important function of the prosecutor to seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice. When inadequacies or injustices in the substantive or procedural law come to the prosecutor's attention, he or she should stimulate efforts for remedial action.
(e) It is the duty of the prosecutor to know and be guided by the standards of professional conduct as defined by applicable professional traditions, ethical codes, and law in the prosecutor's jurisdiction. The prosecutor should make use of the guidance afforded by an advisory council of the kind described in standard 4-1.5.
http://www.americanbar.org/
FALSE TESTIMONY
In Freeman, 2011 WL 2417091, a 7th Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a new trial. Relying on the Supreme Court’s holdings in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1984), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), the panel upheld the district court’s determination that there was a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment and that if not for the improprieties, the defendants would have been acquitted.
In United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), the Supreme Court explained that the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), applied in different situations. The first being those instances when the prosecution knew or should have known about perjured testimony. These situations are fundamentally unfair. Convictions obtained therein must be set aside. This requires a finding that there existed a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103.
The Second Circuit has applied the Agurs analysis to set aside convictions when the government’s witnesses have presented perjured testimony. See, United States v. Mele, 462 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1972) (the government’s deceit including untruthful testimony, deliberate excisions from reports, preparation of false reports and repeated misrepresentations required a new trial); Perkins v. LeFevre, 691 F.2d 616 (2d Cir. 1982) (the prosecution’s failure to provide the witness’ rap sheet to the defense after the witness denied any convictions which were recorded on his criminal history resulted in the granting of a writ of habeas corpus.); United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1991) (the perjury of the government’s witness required a reversal of the convictions when the government in redirect and in closing argument made much of the witness’ motive for telling the truth.); United States v. Vozzella, 124 F.3d 389 (2d Cir. 1997) (the government’s use of business record evidence that it knew contained fictitious entries, and according to its author were false in their entirety, required reversal when the government conducted no further inquiry into the veracity of the records.); Jenkins v. Artuz, 294 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2002) (the prosecutor’s failure to correct the record in spite of the witness’ false testimony and her argument in summation relying on that false testimony was sufficient basis to grant a writ of habeas corpus); and Drake v. Portuondo, 553 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2009) (the prosecutor knowingly elicited false statements from a witness and did not correct the record when the witness testified falsely about conversations he had with the prosecutor - this was sufficient to grant a writ of habeas corpus.).
The importance of the Freeman decision is the imposition of a duty on the prosecutor to investigate his/her witnesses. The government’s counsel may no longer contend “I didn’t know,” or “the witness was simply mistaken,” or “the defense attorney had a sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witness.” Defense counsel should put the government on notice of a witness’ perjury, record proper objections, and challenge the government’s failure to correct the record. Building on the Supreme Court decisions and adding the direction in Freeman, counsel should argue the government’s failure to fully investigate its witnesses is a sufficient basis to set aside a conviction, obtain a new trial or otherwise secure a dismissal in the appropriate criminal prosecution.
http://newyorkcriminaldefense.
The State's Knowing Elicitation of Perjury
Since at least 1935, it has been the established law of the United States that a conviction obtained through testimony the prosecutor knows to be false is repugnant to the Constitution. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). This is so because, in order to reduce the danger of false convictions, we rely on the prosecutor not to be simply a party in litigation whose sole object is the conviction of the defendant before him. The prosecutor is an officer of the court whose duty is to present a forceful and truthful case to the jury, not to win at any cost. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Artuz, 294 F.3d 284, 296 n. 2 (2d Cir.2002) (noting the duty of prosecutors under New York law "to seek justice, not merely to convict").
Despite the fundamental nature of the injury to the justice system caused by the knowing use of perjured testimony by the state, the Supreme Court has not deemed such errors to be "structural" in the sense that they "affect[] the framework within which the trial proceeds." United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 111 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (brackets in original)). Structural errors are those that "`so fundamentally undermine the fairness or the validity of the trial that they require voiding [the] result [of the trial] regardless of identifiable prejudice.'" Id. (quoting Yarborough v. Keane, 101 F.3d 894, 897 (2d Cir.1996)). Instead, even when a prosecutor elicits testimony he or she knows or should know to be false, or allows such testimony to go uncorrected, a showing of prejudice is required. But the Supreme Court has made clear that prejudice is readily shown in such cases, and the conviction must be set aside unless there is no "reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); see also United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 456 (2d Cir.1991) (citing Agurs and adding that the Supreme Court cases mean that "if it is established that the government knowingly permitted the introduction of false testimony reversal is virtually automatic" (quotation marks omitted)). This then is the "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), that we must apply in the case before us. And to do this we must ask: (1) whether false testimony was introduced, (2) whether that testimony either was or should have been known to the prosecution to be false, (3) whether the testimony went uncorrected, and (4) whether the false testimony was prejudicial in the sense defined by the Supreme Court in Agurs.
General Objection At Trial:
Public Defender: I want to make a standing objection for leading questions for the hearsay for the emails obviously, and the foundation that -- and also for the best evidence rule … there’s been a lot of testimony regarding statements, the contents of writings that have not been produced. RT 190
DISTORTS EVIDENCE:
This is a quote I repeated. His Holiness Kusum Lingpa said, and he knows Leonard Cohen, that he is an ässhole who is going to hell.” I do think His Holiness is entitled to his opinion. Beyond that, Leonard Cohen clearly distorted this quote intentionally and this is done throughout the trial. I think this is the best example of how the prosecutor and Cohen distort evidence and misstate facts. Why would Streeter ask Cohen “What did she call you, sir?” when it is clear that I was quoting Lamasang who is His Holiness Kusum Lingpa, a renowned Tibetan lama and enlightened man. This is one way Streeter elicits perjured and false testimony.
Streeter: Does she refer to you on the first page of that email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Yes, she does.
Streeter: What does she call you, sir?
Cohen: She says, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell. RT 196
Public Defender: I think the rule of completeness that the statement needs to be -- the whole statement -- the whole sentence needs to be read.
Court: Can you read the whole sentence?
Cohen: After all, as Lamasang said, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell. RT 197
Defense Closing:
My trial lawyer is correct - Streeter takes statements and words out of context. She mislead the jurors by leaving out the beginning of this message which says I did not fuck Oliver Stone, etc. Leonard Cohen, and his lawyer Robert Kory, went into my younger son’s father’s office - in an attempt to stir up a custody matter - and accused me of having sex with 1) Leonard Cohen; 2) Oliver Stone; and, 3) Leonard Cohen’s tax lawyer. It is preposterous and this should really be addressed in the motion/writ. I do believe I have a right to refute these types of lies and to advise Cohen to cease and desist. This was evidently one of their first lines of defense with respect to the fact that they understood I was reporting Cohen’s tax fraud to the IRS. I think Oliver Stone should be highlighted in this example.
[Sandra Jo Streeter] But I’m going to give you a spoiler. Ms. Streeter, she brought out the worst emails in this testimony. And she just highlighted bad words out of context to try to shock you. Oh, she said something about fucking Oliver Stone. Well, yeah, my client explained that. Mr. Cohen accused her of sleeping with Oliver Stone. She wanted to refute that accusation against her. RT 589 I‘m not going to comment if I think that’s a good use of taxpayer money, but that’s what happened. They printed out these emails over and over to shock you. RT 590 They have a plan to discredit Ms. Lynch. RT 590
What permits the prosecutor to view all my comments as nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations? Has Streeter reviewed the evidence that actually proves Leonard Cohen stole from me; owes me millions; concealed corporate books and records; etc? The child molestation accusation should be addressed in the motion/writ, obviously.
Streeter: The people view virtually all of the comments made by Ms. Lynch as nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations, but, nevertheless, some of the things that Ms. Lynch has said have been incredibly troubling to Mr. Cohen. In particular, for example, the accusation that he’s a child molester, things of that nature. RT 3
This is an absolute lie. I have said that Lorca Cohen, Leonard Cohen’s daughter, publicly stated - at Concordia University in Montreal - that her father molested her. This information was repeated by Freda Guttman (an old friend of Leonard Cohen’s) to Ann Diamond. Ann Diamond actually posted this situation on her blog a number of years ago and Leonard Cohen had me contact my brother-in-law, an attorney in Canada, in an attempt to have the comments removed. He was concerned these comments would show up on the front page of the Montreal Gazette. Therefore, Streeter has lied here. I am not the individual or individuals who have stated that Leonard Cohen molested his daughter and have been very clear about this fact. However, this is not a defamation case so I’m unclear what the prosecutor is doing at this point. Is Streeter quoting from something? It has obviously been taken out of context. Streeter misstates facts and takes things out of context. See below - Allegation of Child Molestation.
I’m not certain if Incoherent and distorted transcripts are prosecutorial misconduct but it certainly seems that way. Material facts appear to be intentionally left out, confused, and the transcripts do not accurately reflect the voice mail messages. Streeter’s arrogant comment about her secretaries really drives home the point that these people could care less about their budget crunch - particularly when they have a celebrity to protect. I repeatedly heard Deputy City Attorneys advise the judges that this case was unusual because it involved a celebrity and believe that shows absolute prejudice and motive on their part. That’s before we get into the Phil Spector aspect of the situation.
INCOHERENT TRANSCRIPTS
Streeter: I have additional transcripts for the jury … RT 33 I mean, you know it’s as accurate as getting my secretaries to do it. RT 34
Streeter: I think I counted wrong. I have 13 transcripts, not 14. RT 62
At the bail hearing (and I have been unable to obtain the transcripts) Leonard Cohen testified that I never stole anything from him but his “peace of mind.” He also testified that we had a purely business relationship and this led to the line of questions re. perjury. I don’t think the judge should have sustained the objection to the perjury question because Leonard Cohen lied repeatedly and one of the main pieces of concealed exculpatory evidence relates to Phil Spector and impeaches his testimony with respect to the gun being held to his head. At this hearing, Streeter lied to the judge and said I was estranged from my sons. I was not and Rutger was extremely devastated by the situation and wanted to testify (after hearing that Cohen took the stand about his accident at Whole Foods). Streeter lied when she told the judge I was a flight risk and dangerous to my community. She lied about the incident with Jonathan Maihart - who is a Persian male, not a Latino gang member, and someone who worked for me in 2005. I have not seen him since. He stopped by Robert Kory’s office to pick up a document. This incident also appears in the LAPD report.
COHEN’S BAIL HEARING TESTIMONY
Leonard Cohen testified at the bail hearing that I never stole anything from him but his “peace of mind.” Streeter concealed this fact from the jurors as well as all corporate books, records, etc.
Kelly: But defense still contends that any mention of stealing, misappropriation, anything regarding Ms. Lynch’s -- I guess conduct while employed by Mr. Cohen at this point is improper character evidence. RT 35
Leonard Cohen and I did not have a brief intimate relationship or a dating relationship. He testified honestly at the bail hearing about this and confirmed this in two follow up questions at that hearing. I suppose this was inconvenient to the prosecutor who works in the Domestic Violence Unit.
Streeter - Opening:
They had a brief intimate relationship, and then at some point after that relationship ended in the late 80s when Mr. Cohen’s business manager died, Mr. Cohen hired Ms. Lynch, first as his personal assistant, and then ultimately as his business manager. RT 37
And Mr. Cohen ended the business relationship that he had with Ms. Lynch. RT 38 The evidence will show that shortly after the termination of the business relationship by Mr. Cohen that Ms. Lynch began an onslaught, a campaign of harassment on Mr. Cohen. RT 38
But you want know what else the evidence is going to show? Ms. Lynch came to that hearing [2008] where the court issued the permanent restraining order. RT 39 The evidence will show, no more than the ink was barely dry on the restraining order in Colorado, Ms. Lynch was at it again. RT 40
The prosecutor has knowledge of my complaint to the DA’s Major Fraud Unit. The prosecutor has a duty to provide the defense with information as to why the DA chose not to file criminal charges against Leonard Cohen. See Motion filed in Barry Bonds matter that addresses a possible government quid pro quo with respect to to a key prosecution witness. In 2006, I filed a complaint with the DA’s Major Fraud Unit. I found this complaint online. It relates to fraud, etc. I then spoke to Jeff Jonas of the DA’s office and, ultimately, the DA’s office became hostile and began threatening me. Clearly, their conduct related to the fact that I filed a complaint against Leonard Cohen. I also wrote a letter to Deputy DA Alan Jackson (Phil Spector’s prosecutor) about certain issues I was dealing with re. their office and individuals who have targeted me relentlessly since approximately 2009 - that would include Stephen Gianelli. The evidence cannot show that I fought with the DA because I have never spoken with DA Steve Cooley. I have, however, been threatened by his investigator (Marko) and was threatened with arrest for asking them to return a letter their investigator took from me that Phil Spector faxed me. The investigator agreed to photocopy and return that letter and, to date, they have not done so. The DA’s office has engaged in outrageous governmental conduct with me and that includes Cooley’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me. In other words, the DA’s office has also tried to silence me. They can now attempt to silence David Mamet, Al Pacino, Helen Mirren, and others. The evidence actually shows that the DA’s investigator rolled by my house in 2005 after an anonymous tip was placed to their office (presumably by a woman and I might note that they have caller ID) about my friendship with Phil Spector. During the so-called sentencing phase, Captain Jack Horvath wrote to the court and lied. He said 1) I had threatened Cooley but did not acknowledge that I had sent around a satirical email that noted I was running for President, on the Wedding Party, and my top criminal priority would be cleaning up corruption in politics. Furthermore, the California Penal Code clearly states that any official who willfully uses perjury to obtain a conviction - and the subject is then sentenced to death, is subject to the death penalty. I think Phil Spector has effectively received a death penalty. At this moment in time, Steve Cooley was running around demanding executions. The ACLU weighed in on that matter and I was working on an ACLU campaign. Cooley actually wanted people executed using a drug that is used to kill animals. My friends and I - working on this campaign - would play a game where we would run for President and appoint our cabinets, etc. I appointed an FBI and CIA director. Captain Jack Horvath evidently believes I am the President of the United States and my mother is the Deputy Director of the FBI. Horvath lied to the court and advised the court that I contacted the DA’s office in 2007. That is a bald faced lie. The DA’s investigator came to my house - unannounced - in 2005; I filed my complaint re. Leonard Cohen with their Major Fraud Unit in 2006; and, in 2007, I met with Investigator John Thompson and Detective Silva and was advised that I was probably a witness in the Phil Spector trial. This situation led to absolutely deranged conduct on the part of the DA’s office with respect to me and I ultimately advised them - after speaking with an attorney in Colorado - that I would take the 5th amendment if they attempted to call me as a witness due to their outrageous and unconscionable conduct with respect to me. During my trial, the DA’s investigator was present in the courtroom while Leonard Cohen testified - repeatedly - about Phil Spector and ultimately about one version of his highly embellished Phil Spector gun story. An email -that was not sent to Leonard Cohen or his lawyers - was entered into evidence. Cohen testified that he received that email. The prosecutor elicited testimony about that email. The email was sent to Dennis Riordan (Phil Spector’s appellate attorney) and it essentially stated that Leonard Cohen has told me - for 20 years - that Phil Spector never held a gun on him. Cohen told me, after meeting with detectives from the Sheriff’s Department, that he advised them that Phil Spector never held a gun on him and he advised them that his stories about Phil Spector were good rock and roll stories. I was absolutely shocked when one of my trial lawyers showed me Cohen’s email to Streeter re. Phil Spector which, as I have said, has been concealed.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.
The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was upset and Mr. Cohen and fought with the District Attorney, the LA County District Attorney’s didn’t file charges against Mr. Cohen. RT 40
Francisco, one interesting point. For years, I have filed complaints with LAPD re. Leonard Cohen’s ongoing harassment of me; Stephen Gianelli’s targeting of me and my children (who both lived in LA at the time - including my younger son who was a minor); Cohen’s theft from me, etc. I have heard nothing from LAPD and yet LAPD’s Threat Management Unit (a celebrity unit) became involved with the Leonard Cohen situation; visited Leonard Cohen at his lawyer’s office; and their report simply sets forth what Cohen advised them. Ultimately, Detective Viramontes/LAPD advised me that Cohen did not feel comfortable with my requests for tax information. That is an outrageous situation and I absolutely was entrapped by Leonard Cohen - and probably the City Attorney’s office and District Attorney’s office - when the Colorado order was registered in California on May 25, 2011 and I was not served or notified of the order. One must wonder - how did LA Superior Court obtain jurisdiction over me? The City Attorney has argued - in their reply brief - that it is irrelevant if I wasn’t served or notified. That’s preposterous and due process is a fundamental right. Either the City Attorney is lying or they are absolutely incompetent.
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: Did you ever contact any authorities regarding Mr. Cohen? Any law enforcement?
Lynch: Yes, actually. Repeatedly.
PD: And when did you do that?
Lynch: For a number of years. I’ve contacted LAPD for years about Leonard Cohen. I’ve contacted the District Attorney’s office. I’ve filed a complaint with the District Attorney’s Major Fraud Unit. I’ve kept the District Attorney copied in on emails, you know, so that no one can deny later that I have attempted to report these types of tactics that have been used against me. I’ve contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation about it. I’ve contacted Agent sopko, who is Intelligence with the Treasury, with the IRS. RT 476
Streeter’s correct. This case is not about whether or not I stole or misappropriated anything about Leonard Cohen. It is an all out attempt to discredit me, sabotage the IRS and my future litigation matters, and appears to involved illegal discovery about Phil Spector. Streeter’s very clear in her closing argument - it weighs on my credibility. Actually, I think Streeter’s misconduct, lies, concealment of evidence, and ongoing attempts to elicit perjury really weighs heavily on her credibility and have advised the IRS that I believe she should be investigated and prosecuted. I assume this is one of the reasons she decided to lie to LAPD about me - after the appeal was filed which is absolute retaliation on her part. Sandra Jo Streeter is a liar; she is absolutely aggressive; she met a celebrity; and I personally believe she should be disbarred and jailed for her conduct. Of course, no one holds prosecutors accountable for their misconduct so that is my idealized version of the justice system. The evidence - corporate books, records, etc. - proves that Cohen has stolen from me, concealed facts and evidence from LA Superior Court in his retaliatory lawsuit against me, and has taken the position that he is the alter ego who engaged in self-dealing with respect to the corporate entities that LA Superior Court wrongfully conveyed to Leonard Cohen - based on perjury in his declaration. These corporate entities were NOT held in trust for Leonard Cohen and there is not trust document. There is a deranged fictional narrative. Leonard Cohen heard I reported his tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer/IRS (and others) on April 15, 2005 and retaliated.
Streeter Closing:
The case is not about -- about the unlawful -- whether or not Ms. Lynch was ever charged criminally with stealing from Mr. Cohen, although it does weigh a bit on her credibility issue. All right. RT 562
Streeter Opening:
Michelle Rice, Leonard Cohen’s lawyer who has made her career targeting me, wrote me an email on February 14, 2011 LYING to me when she advised me that the Boulder civil harassment order that I requested was registered in California. I then phoned LA Superior Court and determined that this was a bald faced lie. Boulder Municipal Court Clerk’s office advised me that the Colorado order expired in 2010 and there are many varied definitions of permanent - which can include an order that expired in two to three years. How can a California court enforce an order when they have no jurisdiction? Rice’s lies about this letter were utterly pathetic. The Colorado order does NOT mention Robert Kory or Michelle Rice. That is a bald-faced lie on the part of prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter. I have no idea why my trial lawyers didn’t object to her misconduct or file a motion regarding the misconduct. Maybe they were just lazy. Who knows. They never bothered to meet with me and the bailiff pointed this out repeatedly. They had facts wrong; Mike Kelly lied to me repeatedly; and - to date - they refuse to hand over my file which I believe has harmed me with respect to this insane appeal.
But the evidence will show Ms. Rice has a job to do to protect her client’s interest, share a letter in February 2011 reminding Ms. Cohen [sic] that there is a permanent Colorado restraining order. And that the California courts will enforce that restraining order. RT 41
Let’s talk again about that Colorado restraining order … It says “Do not contact Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, Michelle Rice and Robert Kory.” That’s what it says. RT 41
Michelle Rice Direct:
Public Defender: Let me know where it shows that Mr. Kory is a named person …
Rice: Well, he’s not named … RT 359
PD: And isn’t it also true that your law office’s address is only included under places of exclusion; isn’t that correct?
Rice: That is correct.
PD: Your name or Mr. Kory’s name, does it appear anywhere in that restraining order? … On the order itself, if your name or Mr. Kory’s name on there as a person that Ms. Lynch is prohibited from contacting? RT 359
Rice: Not specifically … RT 360
Streeter Opening:
Leonard Cohen has breached many agreements with me - oral, written, implied, explicit, you name it. I own 15% of all his intellectual property. The non-revocable assignments date back to 1967. They were assigned to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. Leonard Cohen advised LA Superior Court that this entity was held in trust for him. That is a bald-faced lie and absurd. I also own 99.5% of Traditional Holdings, LLC which is basically worth the value of the private annuity - $4.7 million. I do not want a penny of that but want to address - ultimately - the fact that I legally own this. Why? Because Leonard Cohen needed assistance with his tax and estate planning, used me horrendously, and then decided to defraud me. He has also withheld commissions, worth millions, from me which were addressed at my trial. This man is a thief. He is a fraud. He has done this to his prior manager/attorney. He lies about Phil Spector. And he lied extensively throughout this trial - including with respect to the IRS and his fraudulent refund. This man, who has an outrageous sense of entitlement, feels absolutely comfortable lying and perjuring himself in every court he rolls into. That’s why he gave Judge Robert Vanderet a glowing review - he understood that the man wouldn’t even hold him accountable for confessing, on the stand, to perjuring himself. What more could another Hollywood fraud want?
I suppose I do talk about tax fraud a lot. I have, after all, been documenting - in emails - the destruction of my life (and everything I’ve gone through since reporting Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to the IRS) for the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, Phil Spector’s attorneys, and the news media. This is clearly what concerned Leonard Cohen. Streeter raised the fact that I was posting online. She evidently thinks she has the right to silence me. This woman was gushing in her cell phone about celebrity Leonard Cohen and his calm demeanor; skipping out of the court room to advise Cohen that the LA Times would take one still photograph; lying through her teeth; breaking items - like the podium; and generally conducting herself as the moronic lunatic that she is. She is hugely overweight and rolled into court - first day of trial - wrapped in a skin tight spandex outfit that highlighed her rolls of fat. I have never seen a more unprofessional individual in my life but, then again, I haven’t spent that much time with LA Confidential up close and personal. They make the individuals who work in the entertainment industry look like saints and brain surgeons. Leonard Cohen is required, by the IRS, to provide me with Form 1099 for the year 2004. He has steadfastly refused to do so and testified that he knows what a 1099 is. His lawyer, Rice, lied when she testified that she is not permitted to provide me with tax documents. She obviously feels entitled to email me and lie to me and, I might add, the IRS, FBI, Treasury, Dennis Riordan, Ron Burkle and others - including, I believe, Alan Jackson. The only ruse here is the trial which is a Stalinesque Show Trial and a circus brought to you, using taxpayer dollars, by Leonard Cohen, the City Attorney, and the District Attorney. Leonard Cohen does not want to provide me with a 1099 because he has lied about my receiving overpayments with respect to my personal management commissions. The illegal K-1s his 100% owned entity transmitted to the State of Kentucky and IRS completely undermine the fraudulent expense ledger. The K-1s, from LC Investments, LLC, for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 state that I received $0 income from this entity and yet income is alleged on the fraudulent expense ledger which in no way resembles an accounting and does not take into consideration corporate ownership interests, assets, liabilities, or equity. Leonard Cohen’s loans and personal transaction fees (totalling nearly $3 million) are not addressed and yet he testified that he used corporate assets to purchase things such as homes for his girlfriend and son. In any event, Detective Viramontes/LAPD has been clear with me - the IRS must obtain the 1099 I need from Leonard Cohen. At that point, we will see what he considers income. One thing he doesn’t consider income - the income he received from the sale of certain assets to Sony Music in 2001. His disdain for ordinary income taxes is unparalleled. Sandra Jo Streeter repeatedly lied to the jurors when she stated that I have the tax documents I require. That would include a proper accounting, taking into consideration the corporate ownership interests, assets, liabilities, and equity. Streeter concealed the fact that Leonard Cohen (as the sole owner of LC Investments, LLC) has provided me with illegal K-1s for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 and refuses to rescind them. Robert Kory testified that I asked that they withdraw these K-1s. Leonard Cohen’s declaration (part of the IRS binder in Streeter’s possession) clearly notes - he is the 100% owner of this entity. Streeter concealed this evidence of criminal conduct on Cohen’s part from the jurors. Streeter lies when she says that Cohen doesn’t have the information I required. Of course he does. All employers are required, by the IRS, to provide a 1099 or similar tax document to their employees and there are penalties for failing to do so. The ruse here - the entire trial. Leonard Cohen testified that he knows what a K-1 and 1099 are. Streeter simply lies and this is a classic example of how she does that. My trial lawyer advised me that judges don’t know she lies. I suppose that’s because she baby talks to them. It’s nauseating and obscene.
In some of these emails there are mention by Ms. Lynch of failed business agreements and failure by Mr. Cohen to live up to his agreement of what she believed their business relationship was. And indeed one of the things, the evidence will show, that she talks a lot about is tax fraud and the need to have the tax return … Indeed the most important thing that she mentions every so often the tax statement is merely a ruse. RT 42
The evidence you will see from December 18 … emails by Ms. Lynch to Mr. Cohen, exactly one of all those emails that Ms. Lynch specifically asked for her K-1 form it is. RT 42
I have not asked for a W-2 and could care less what Cohen knows. As an employer, who has many professionals working for him, he is required to understand IRS reporting and filing requirements. He has a clue about these forms but testified that he couldn’t teach it. The man is pathetic. Leonard Cohen has this information. He simply does not want to hand it over. It creates further complications for him with respect to his tax fraud.
Let’s talk about Ms. Lynch’s need for the tax form or tax return -- The evidence will show that Ms. 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 and I never had a brief intimate relationship or dating relationship. Please address the perjury in the motion/writ. This man lies as easily as he breaths.
Leonard Cohen Direct
Streeter: And did you ever have an intimate relationship with her?
Cohen: Yes I had a brief intimate relationship with her. RT 49/50
Streeter: Let’s stick with when you first ended the relationship. That one year period about when you ended the relationship, on average how often would Ms. Lynch call you at home?
Cohen: I’m not sure. There have been so many phone calls over the last six years that it’s hard to determine exactly when the longer -- when he more abundant periods were. RT 52
I don’t think my requests for tax, accounting, and financial information; demands to cease and desist; etc. have to be requests for conversations but this is a perfect example of one of Leonard Cohen’s carefully crafted garbage statements.
Streeter: How come you stopped talking to her on the telephone?
Cohen: Well, they weren’t really invitations of conversation. RT 53
Leonard Cohen is essentially the author of the default judgment that was procured via fraud, perjury, lies, and concealment. The retaliatory lawsuit was clearly an attempt obstruct justice due to the fact that I reported his tax fraud to the IRS.
With respect to these corporate entities, Francisco - this is what my former lawyers think Cohen and his representatives created:
Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. owns the intellectual property (assignments dating back to 1967 are non-revocable)
LC Investments, LLC (Cohen personally and other entities) collect the income
Traditional Holdings, LLC sold IP assets to Sony in 2001 that it did not own.
The intention, according to Robert Kory, was to roll Traditional Holdings, LLC into LC Investments, LLC. I asked for, and was provided, an indemnity agreement when asked to assist Leonard Cohen with this creative planning. It did not sound appropriate to me. This indemnity agreement has also been concealed.
The steps on the tax returns re. Traditional Holdings, LLC are as follows:
2001 - Leonard Cohen did not report the sale of IP to Sony Music. He has said that this deal was $8 million. In 1999 he personally received the $1 million income advance from Sony. He never transferred this to TH and this is where he begins his ongoing attempt to prove that he is the alter-ego of this entity who engaged in self-dealing. The deal was ultimately worth $6.3 million because live albums were required to be delivered and they were not delivered as of the date the deal closed in 2001. With respect to Leonard Cohen’s personal transaction fees and the purchase of homes for his girlfriend and son (using corporate assets), his loans from TH come to approximately $4 million. He has many other loans from this entity and there are also corporate distributions, etc. However, this is a sham entity and fraudulent transaction and, therefore, Traditional Holdings, LLC issued Leonard Cohen a 1099 for wasting the entire $8 million. I believe he has delivered at least one of the live albums required to complete the deal. Deducted from the sales price, also concealed, were amounts Leonard Cohen needed to recoup re. his record contract with Sony. Therefore, those monies really went directly to Leonard Cohen and were beneficial only to him. I think they totalled something in the vicinity of $500,000.
2002 - My promissory note, which was the instrument with which I allegedly “invested” in Traditional Holdings, LLC was extinguished from the 2002 return. Cohen’s tax lawyer, Richard Westin, prepared these returns. When he and Cohen met with my former lawyers they asked hm: Why didn’t you set the annuity up legally? Westin’s response - this is how they do things in Kentucky. He also advised me, and the State of Kentucky advised me otherwise, that LLCs in Kentucky do not have to file state tax returns. They were extremely concerned about state tax returns and the Franchise Tax return. In fact, this seemed to freak Cohen’s tax lawyer out in the summer of 2004 when things become psychotic with Cohen, Greenberg (Cohen’s financial adviser who helped create this tax planning and the corporate structures, etc.). At that point, Westin advised me that Greenberg would screw me over and he would stand up for me. In the fall of 2004, Cohen and I received a letter from Westin (who was preparing tax returns and had the corporate books and records in his possession) advising us that the IRS could overturn the structure of TH if they noticed a disregard for form or substance, etc. That’s when I decided that I had the evidence I needed to report Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to the IRS. I had been gathering evidence since the moment an Ogden, Utah IRS agent issued a document request and found Cohen’s tax lawyer evasive. Leonard Cohen, in his retaliatory lawsuit, stated that I refused to hand over corporate records. The only corporate records I had were the corporate books for Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., LC Investments, LLC, and Traditional Holdings, LLC. These were transmitted to Greenberg, Glusker in 2004 (they briefly represented Cohen) by my lawyers. I wanted them formally transferred and documented with a transmittal letter. My promissory note created huge problems in 2002 when I asked how I would begin paying the payments. Corporate distributions were to be released to me so that I could pay this. I began to feel as though I was in a cicular tax situation where I had no idea how monies could be distributed to me and I personally would not be required to pay taxes on them. Cohen’s lawyer assured me that this was not an issue and said he would ultimately recharacterize the nature of these distributions. Apparently he has with respect to the $500,000 mentioned in Cohen’s lawsuit. There was never a $500,000 payment to the IRS for the $1 million income advance Cohen personally received from Sony in 1999 which was the subject of an IRS audit. He prevailed in that audit and did not pay $500,000 in taxes at that time.
2003 - Cohen’s tax lawyer extinguishes the private annuity obligation itself. Robert Kory, and my lawyers, advised me that this created a gift to me of $4. 7 million. I don’t view being used horrendously to evade income taxes as a gift but if it’s a gift, Leonard Cohen should pay the gift taxes. That’s precisely the legal advice I was given a well. Leonard Cohen doesn’t want to address Traditional Holdings corporate distributions in a 1099. That is very clear. I view all of this as a very complex step transaction that involves at least three corporate entities and absolute fraud on tax returns prepared by Leonard Cohen’s advisers. Cohen testified that I handled IRS filings. That’s a bald-faced lie. I might have mailed certain documents but he hired professionals to handle all of this.. His testimony was and remains pathetic. Leonard Cohen’s version of events has fashioned him as a victim. Leonard Cohen is no one’s victim. Ask yourself this - why can’t Canada’s National Treasure live in Canada? Why did he abandon a green card in 1988 and reobtain one a few years later? I think the answers are obvious. Sandra Jo Streeter really likes Cohen’s carefully crafted garbage statements. I was very clear - the default judgment was based on fraud, perjury, concealment, and lies. I was not served the complaint and the proof of service re. the complaint is perjured. I did not have a female co-habitant. The default judgment was not served on me and I was not notified when it was entered against me in May 2006. I was homeless. Furthermore, the news media published articles that the default had been entered against me in March 2006. I was homeless at that point as well.
Streeter: When you say “author of her misfortune,” did she elaborate what her misfortune was?
Cohen: … 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
PHIL SPECTOR
I have not ACCUSED Leonard Cohen of testifying before a Secret Grand Jury in Phil Spector’s matter. Mick Brown/UK Telegraph and I began emailing one another in 2005. He was about to attend a hearing in the Phil Spector matter and we planned to meet. I wanted to give Mick Brown a master tape of Phil Spector’s that I thought he would appreciate but that has been destroyed or seized by the Sheriff’s Department. If they saw Cohen’s name on something - for instance partnership documents - they seized them which I believe was and remains illegal. Mick Brown had written a book on my teacher, 16th Karmapa, and was involved in an ongoing dialogue with my teacher the 14th Sharmapa. Mick Brown was also writing a book on Phil Spector. He wrote me, at one point, according to my recollection and said he had the Grand Jury transcripts and Cohen testified about Phil Spector. Mick Brown and I have since communicated about this matter. He was kind enough to write my public defender during the trial and clarified that Leonard Cohen’s statements were presented to the Grand Jury. There may also be some confusion due to the fact that statements are referred to as testimony in the UK. In any event, Leonard Cohen’s statements - according to Mick Brown - were presented to Phil Spector’s Grand Jury. I have been very clear that I heard about this from Mick Brown and it is outrageous that Cohen blamed me for this. It is very similar to the situation with Ann Diamond/Freda Guttman’s version of events re. Lorca Cohen’s comments that her father molested her. That is not my accusation. I did not accuse Leonard Cohen of testifying in Phil Spector’s Grand Jury but I believe this testimony was introduced for sinister purposes and I view it as illegal discovery and am convinced that’s why the DA’s investigator was hanging out in the courtroom and lunching with Cohen on the taxpayer’s dime, no doubt. Leonard Cohen’s statements were also used by the prosecutors in Phil Spector’s trials and these motions are available online at LA Superior Court and on the internet. I personally believe Leonard Cohen’s good rock and roll stories and embellished stories about Phil Spector did ultimately help convict Phil Spector. That is my personal opinion and nothing will ever change my mind. They are still being repeated throughout the internet, in articles, etc. whenever someone wants to argue that Phil Spector holds guns on people. Leonard Cohen told me, for 20 years, that Phil Spector never held a gun on him. I think it’s clear that people know where a gun is pointed at them if it actually happened. Cohen’s testimony that he wasn’t threatened when someone held a gun to his head but was threatened by my emails (with the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB and Phil Spector’s attorneys copied in) was and remains absurd. Please note - Steve Cron was my lawyer. He had previously represented me; I asked him to be present for the meeting with the detectives from the Sheriff’s Department; and I did not sign a conflict waiver. At first, Cohen testifies that Steve Cron represented him and he had attorney/client privilege with him. That’s absurd. He can’t have attorney/client privilege with my lawyer and you don’t have attorney/client privilege with LA Sheriff’s Department present. Furthermore, he lied. Steve Cron told me to leave when I advised him that I did not want to be dragged into Phil Spector’s trial; was a close friend of Phil Spector’s; had met with him after the Clarkson incident and he explained to me how she shot herself. Cohen was well aware of the fact that Phil Spector and I had dinner after the Clarkson incident and I have always felt that he placed the so-called anonymous tip to the DA’s office about Phil Spector and my friendship. After all, in 2004/2005 he was represented by former DA Ira Reiner. I was not in Cohen’s house. Steve Cron advised me to leave before Detectives Tomlin and Fournier arrived. I met them on my way out and they seemed like professional men to me. Cohen then told me they were surprised that his stories were 30 year old good rock and roll stories. He told me he advised them that Phillip never held a gun on him. And he called Detective Tomlin a “darky.” He finds that type of comment amusing. The man is a lunatic.
Streeter: What about -- did she ever mention Phil Spector or Phillip in any of those?
Cohen: She accused me of testifying before a Secret Grand Jury which resulted in the conviction of Phil Spector. RT 57
Streeter: Okay, in any of her emails, did she ever mention Phil Spector?
Cohen: 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: Did you have any involvement in the Phillip Spector trial?
Cohen: None whatsoever … May I qualify that?
Streeter: Yes.
Cohen: At the very beginning of the trial, after the -- the death of Lana Clarkson was made public, I was visited by two sheriffs from LA County. And they interviewed me as to my relationship with Phil Spector. My attorney, Mr. Cron, was present at the time. I told the detectives that Phil Spector had produced an album of mine in 1977, and they asked me about some stories that were circulating in the newspaper about his use of guns in the studio. I told them of my experience. Then they asked me when I’d last seen Phil Spector. I said the last I’d seen him was shortly after the record was released, which I think was 1977 or 1978, and I hadn’t seen him since. When they discovered that I hadn’t seen him since, they were no longer interested in interviewing me and left. So that was some connection I did have with the trial. Subsequent to that, I’ve had nothing to do with the trial whatsoever.
Streeter: When you spoke to the detectives do you know where Ms. Lynch was?
Cohen: My attorney, Mr. Cron, asked Ms. Lynch to leave the room, so that I think the attorney/client privilege would not be challenged.
Streeter: But she was somewhere around?
Cohen: She was in my house. RT 159
Francisco, this email is disturbing. It was not sent to Cohen or his lawyers. I would assume Streeter and Cohen are aware of that fact. Streeter has Cohen review the email to confirm that he was a recipient. He testified that he was after reviewing the document. He was not and was forced to acknowledge this on the witness stand. I believe Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson was a recipient. How did Streeter obtain this email? It was sent to Dennis Riordan and involves Phil Spector and a gun. I believe the Spector testimony was planned and coordinated. Please use this as an example of Streeter’s eliciting perjured testimony and Cohen perjuring himself, yet again. I have no idea why Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson were repeatedly raised at trial but know this - Cohen appears to have information that Steve Cooley or those near to him were reading my emails and that information has been concealed. Who near to Cooley was reading my emails? Did they also read my letter to Alan Jackson? That letter was hand delivered, by Investigator William Frayeh, to Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, and DDA Truc Do. What happened with my Complaint to their Major Fraud Unit? Do they think Leonard Cohen’s lies about Phil Spector are irrelevant when a man’s life is at stake? Do they think targeting me is acceptable and appropriate conduct on the part of the government? Or, do they think we’re in LA Confidential and they had to nail a celebrity?
Email dated April 18, 2011 - to Dennis Riordan. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers were not copied in on this email. I believe Alan Jackson was.
Streeter: Just look at the first page on the date, see if that refreshes your recollection. Let me know when you’ve done that … Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you received an email on April 18, 2011 at approximately 8:11 AM in the morning?
Cohen: Yes, this is the email I received.
Streeter: If you could look at it and see if that email helps you recall whether or not there was any mention of either a Phil, a Phillip or Phil Spector in the email?
Cohen: In this particular email, Mr. Spector is called Phillip. 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
Leonard Cohen - Cross:
Public Defender: Now, one of these emails that she mentioned was sent on April 18th, 2011 .. Now, Mr. Cohen, do you remember testifying about that email?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
PD: Do you remember testifying about that email?
Cohen: Yes, I believe I did.
PD: And when you testified about that email, you said that you remember receiving that email? RT 265
Cohen: I think iI did.
PD: Can you point out where exactly on the list of recipients that your email address shows up?
Cohen: Perhaps I missed this one.
PD: But you did testify, though, that you remember receiving that email, correct? Do you remember testifying to that?
Cohen: I believe I did. RT 266
PD: And so you’ve had a chance to look over that email, the recipients?
Cohen: Yes.
PD: And your email is not on that , correct?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 266
Streeter: Is there any mention of Mr. Spector in that email?
Cohen: Yes, Ma’am, there is.
Streeter: And is there any mention of you?
Cohen: Yes. It says, everyone wants to know about Cohen’s perjury in the Phil Spector matter. RT 162
Streeter: And is that something that Ms. -- prior to that date of December 17th, 2011, is that something that Ms. Lynch has accused you of, of perjuring yourself?
Cohen: Yes. Ms. Lynch has continually accused me of testifying against Phil Spector in the Secret Grand Jury. RT 163
Streeter: Is there any reference to a Cooley and another person in page 1?
Cohen: Yes, there is.
Streeter: And can you read that sentence that refers to Mr. Cooley?
Cohen: Cooley and Jackass must run for office, and if an innocent man must take the fall, sobeit. RT 198
My son had a serious accident at Whole Foods in Brentwood, California. There is clearly criminal negligence in that matter. I have reviewed the depositions and it is outrageous. OSHA’s attorney felt there might be criminal negligence and advised me to contact the DA’s office about this matter. They could care less if my son lost his fingers. This is an outrageous situation and I have no idea why Streeter had Cohen testify about this or elicited testimony about my son’s accident. From my perspective, she is a vicious woman and my mother is in disbelief that Cohen testified about Rutger’s accident. I’m not. Leonard Cohen is postively evil from my perspective. Well, I was correct. The DA doesn’t care that there is criminal negligence in my son’s Whole Foods matter and aligned himself with Leonard Cohen. It absolutely has the appearance of a classic legal conspiracy.
Streeter: Is there any reference to Mr. Cooley?
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
Steven Machat is Marty Machat’s son. His father was Cohen’s manager/attorney. Leonard Cohen has stolen from Steven and Marty Machat who owned 15% of Stranger Music and Cohen’s intellectual property. He spoke to my public defender and was going to fly into LA to testify on my behalf but had a scheduling conflict. I have no idea why the trial wasn’t continued and why my lawyers didn’t obtain a declaration from Steven.
Cohen: 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 and who has stolen millions from his father and himself. RT 206
Public Defender: I know I’ve made a lot of these objections, but a lot of these I don’t think go to the relevance of he knows about Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson that don’t reference Mr. Cohen. RT 209
I have no idea why Streeter continually elicited testimony about Phil Spector’s appellate attorney, Dennis Riordan, but suspect it relates to the email entered into evidence; the DA; Spector prosecutor; and the investigator hanging out in the courtroom and lunching with Leonard Cohen. Was the man a cop? Who knows? If he’s Captain Jack Horvath, he’s a liar. Make no mistake about that. Investigator Brian Bennett rolled by my house about Phil Spector in 2005. Horvath advised the court that I began contacting the DA’s office in 2007. That would be the year the DA’s investigators advised me that I was probably a witness in the Phil Spector matter.
Streeter: Did you hear the mention of a gentleman by the name of Dennis Riordan in that last sentence Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: No, I didn’t. RT 234
Streeter: Did you hear a mention of a Dennis Riordan in there, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Yes, I did. RT 234
Streeter: Do you recall if Ms. Lynch has mentioned Dennis Riordan in any of her emails?
Cohen: Many times, but I just don’t remember at this moment what the connection is. RT 235
Streeter: Is Mr. Riordan one of the recipients? Is there, like, Dennis --
Cohen: He’s the first recipient. RT 237
Streeter: Does it say Dennis Riordan or Mr. Riordan?
Cohen: It says dennis@riordan-horgan.com.
Streeter: Who’s the name on the first line of the actual text of the email?
Cohen: Mr. Riordan.
Public Defender: Object to relevance. RT 237/238
This is factual. Supreme Court John Roberts once addressed a hapless toad in California. Given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Phil Spector’s matter, I have concluded that a hapless toad in California has more rights than Phil Spector. Streeter appears to have a bizarre obsession with subject line law and the number of times I am forced - in a given email - to request the 2004 1099 Cohen is obligated to provide me, ask Cohen to rescind the illegal K-1s, etc. What do you know about subject line law, Francisco? Perhaps it’s merely a waste of taxpayer dollars. Nevertheless, this area of law fascinates Sandra Jo Streeter who doesn’t like to hear the truth about herself but feels perfectly comfortable lying about me - including to LAPD after the appeal was filed. I see right through this woman and her bullshit antics.
Streeter: What is the subject line of this email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: One hapless toad who chose to live in California has more rights than Phillip.
Streeter: That Phillip, is that the Phillip, Phil Spector. RT 238
Streeter: And is Mr. -- Dennis Riordan one of the recipients?
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
Streeter: And what is the subject of that email?
Cohen: The subject is re. Let’s wish Phil Spector a Merry Christmas. He has loved my son Rutger since he was born. RT 249
Steve Cooley should have received a subpoena. How does Leonard Cohen know that people near to him were reading my emails? Leonard Cohen believes the IRS was reading my emails. I would assume that explains the perjury, insane comments about his alarm, etc.
Leonard Cohen Cross:
PD: Do you think Steve Cooley was reading all of these emails?
Cohen: I wouldn’t be surprised if he was.
PD: But you don’t know?
Cohen: No, sir.
PD: Do you believe that he was?
Cohen: I believe that people close to him were.
PD: Do you believe that the IRS was reading every single one of these emails?
Streeter; Objection; relevance.
Court: Sustained. RT 305
Francisco, Leonard Cohen is concerned that people will believe me. He also understood, prio9r to my arrest, that I was writing a book. I think this figurea into my arrest. Streeter was focused on my online posts. She’s egvidently never read the U.S. Constitution and doesn’t understand that the truth is the dfeense to slander. I am telling the truth. Leonard Cohen just doesn’t like tit.
PD: 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 say that?
Cohen: Information that was …
PD: Well, you said that you were worried about what other people would think regarding these emails. RT 306
Francisco, Leonard Cohen has now changed his story. Steve Cron is no longer his attorney but rather AN ATTORNEY.
PD: Now, I want to talk to you about what you mean by threatened. You actually -- you were telling us about Phil Spector. You were testifying about talking to the LAPD.
Cohen: Yes, sir.
PD: And you talked to the LAPD with your attorney, correct?
Cohen: With an attorney present, yes, sir. RT 308
PD: You started talking about an interview or a story about Phil Spector, correct?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And how he would oftentimes have guns when you were producing an album, correct? He would have guns in the studio when he was producing an album with you?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 308
PD: Was he drunk at the time when he had these guns?
Cohen: I don’t remember, sir.
PD: Was he hostile at the time?
Cohen: Not to me.
Francisco, I think the appellate court should be made aware of the email Cohen sent Streeter with a different version of his Phil Spector gun story. I will insert a copy of that at the end of this document. That version involves a gun to the neck. I think we should also address the fact that Phil Spector’s prosecutors used a version that involves a semi-automatic held to Phillip’s chest. The email to Streeter, from Cohen, proves that he - yet again - perjured himself. I suppose that’s why she feels comfortable concealing that piece of extremely relevant evidence.
PD: But he actually put a gun to your head? Is that correct?
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: It was a revolver?
Cohen: No, it wasn’t a revolver. It was an automatic.
PD: But you weren’t actually -- you didn’t feel threatened when he put a gun to your head?
Cohen: No, sir. RT 309
Kelley Lynch Direct:
PD: And what happened after you were present?
Lynch: I explained to Steve Cron that the detectives had asked me to arrange an appointment with Leonard Cohen and I did not want to be dragged into Phil Spector’s matter. I thought it would affect the custody of my child to some degree, and I just really did not want to be dragged into it. So Mr. Cron advised me to leave the house before the detectives came. I was leaving and ran into Detectives Tomlin and Fournier out on the steps of Leonard Cohen’s house.
PD: You heard the story about Phil Spector putting a gun to Mr. Cohen’s head?
Lynch: Well, I’ve heard that he put a gun to his neck and I’ve heard he’s put it to this head.
PD: Now, is this what you learned from Mr. Cohen prior to that interview with the police?
Lynch: No, it is not.
PD: And what were you under the impression of?
Lynch: I was not under the impression, I was told. RT 467
PD: Now, you heard voice mails and emails regarding the Phil Spector issue, and you mentioned in the email about -- something about a Grand Jury. What did you mean in those emails?
Lynch: What I meant is that Mick Brown of the UK Telegraph wrote me -- and advised me that he was writing a book on Phil. That he had Grand Jury testimony, and that Leonard Cohen had testify against Phil Spector. He later wrote, recently, and said he was confused. It wasn’t actually testimony - this was in the past couple of days, and it wasn’t actually testimony. Statements were given of Leonard Cohen’s to the Grand Jury. So I was confused and because Mr. Brown felt that Leonard Cohen had given testimony, I thought he testified and was shocked. RT 468
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: Directing your attention to the last one. The subject line of that one is about Phil Spector, correct?
Lynch: Yes, it is.
Streeter: It has nothing to do with your taxes, correct?
Lynch: No, it doesn’t. It has to do with the fact that I think Leonard Cohen 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.
Streeter: So it wasn’t just the taxes -
Lynch: No, it wasn’t just the taxes. It’s a very serious matter where I’m not represented by a lawyer. RT 502
Streeter: So it’s not just the taxes that you were contacting Mr. Cohen --
Lynch: 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 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’ve said earlier. I’ve copied Leonard Cohen in so that everybody is on the same page and I cannot be accused later of saying one thing to one person and another thing to another person. RT 502
Streeter: You sent the email to Mr. Cooley, the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles.
Lynch: Yeah, I had sent -- I had filed a complaint with the Major Fraud Unit of the District Attorney’s Office about all of this. RT 503 I have no idea what Mr. Cooley can do … Mr. Cooley’s website says that they handle fraud over $300,000 and 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 I’ve been clear with you, right?: There are fraudulent matters … RT
Francisco, I have been very public with my views on the Los Angeles District Attorney and suspect this has something to do with the decision to retaliate against me and target me during this intent to annoy trial.
Lynch: I think the DA should be investigated for what’s gone on here.
Streeter: So that’s a yes.
Lynch: That’s my personal opinion.
Streeter: So that’s a yes.
Lynch: Yeah. Yeah, I think he should be legally taken down and investigated. I’ve been very clear about this.
Streeter: And you don’t think that Mr. Cohen should feel any --
Lynch: I don’t think Mr. Cohen should feel anything about what I say about Steve Cooley. He doesn’t know the man. RT 511 Why would that annoy Leonard Cohen? Is he protecting Steve Cooley? I mean, that seems like a real stretch. RT 511
Defense Closing:
I want to focus on that threatened comment. He says every time he sees a car slow down, he gets a little worried because of the emails that my client sent him. This is coming from a man who says he recorded an album with Phil Spector, a man who was constantly drunk in the studio, volatile and always had guns on him. And a man who once pulled Leonard Cohen, put his arm around him, put a gun to his head. And what did Mr. Cohen say? I wasn’t threatened by that. But he’s threatened by my client sending him email? Does that sound reasonable and credible to you? RT 585
Now, this case has nothing to do with Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson or the District Attorney, Steve Cooley. And I have no ideea why the prosecution spent so much time discussing the references to those people in the emails. It has nothing to do with Oliver Stone. RT 595
Francisco, Leonard Cohen’s sexual harassment of me is not my intent to annoy this man. He would have me read legal and business documents to him while he took bubble baths. I explained this to a friend of mine who then asked me if he had a small penis. The fact that the Domestic Violence Unit of the City Attorney’s office views sexual harassment as an attempt to annoy someone is positively inconceivable. If Leonard Cohen doesn’t want people talking about his penis (or asking about it) then he should note expose himself to his female manager. This is irrelevant to the prosecutor. She is, from my perspective, a lunatic.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Streeter: And is there an S. Cooley -- is an S. Cooley one of the recipients?
Cohen: Yes, S. Cooley is a recipient.
Streeter: What is the subject, Mr. Cohen, of that email? RT 259
Cohen: And, yes -- oh, subject. Re: And, yes, Leonard Cohen does have a small, if non-existent penis …
Streeter: The first sentence in the email.
Cohen: Glen [Glenn Greenwald/Guardian UK], Michael asked the crucial -- the crucial question his week. Does Cohen, who would have me read business legal documents while he was in the bubble bath, have a small penis? RT 260
Streeter: Was the IRS one of the recipients?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
Streeter: IRS.
Cohen: Yes, the IRS is a recipient. RT 261
I think the prosecutor attempted to mislead the jury re. the elements of the intent to annoy insanity. Cohen’s being annoyed is not an element of this so-called crime that I view as unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. Who knows what annoyed means. Furthermore, the judge did not correctly instruct the jurors on the actual elements of this alleged crime. But, that’s not prosecutorial misconduct - just a point I’m raising for you, Francisco. “Both by the volume and the content.” Sounds like someone was hanging out with lawyers.
MISLEADING - COHEN’S BEING ANNOYED IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME. JURY INSTRUCTIONS DID NOT ACCURATELY ADDRESS THE ELEMENTS OF INTENT TO ANNOY.
Streeter: Were you annoyed by that email?
Cohen: Both by the volume and the content. RT 262
Streeter: Were you annoyed by the voice mail messages?
Cohen: Annoyed and alarmed by the voice mail messages. RT 262
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: And the subject about that email is Mr. Cohen’s penis.
Lynch: … My gay friend, Michael, asked me, what size Mr. Cohen’s penis was, and felt that perhaps he’d like to discuss that. RT 506
The people clearly do not understand why sexual harassment is unacceptable in a business relationship - and that includes exposing oneself to their female personal manager.
Streeter: Are the people correct in understanding that you don’t see that as annoying to send out a mass email about a gentleman’s penis size?
Lynch: I have no idea. Mr. Cohen didn’t mind looking at people defecating on one another in front of me.
Streeter: Do you consider that annoying, Ms. Lynch.
Lynch: I have no idea. I would consider it annoying to have to ask for tax information for six years. RT 508
Francisco, Leonard Cohen went into my son’s father’s office - with his lawyer Robert Kory - and falsely accused me of having sex with Oliver Stone. Why would a prosecutor believe that this was meant to annoy Leonard Cohen? Leonard Cohen’s conduct appears to annoy Leonard Cohen who dragged Oliver Stone into this situation for reasons I cannot even imagine. This was evidently one of his first lines of defense with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud and his full; understanding that I intended to report it to the IRS.
Lynch: Because he went into my son’s father’s office and said I had sex with Oliver Stone.
Streeter: Okay. So you remember saying that, right?
Lynch: Because he went into my son’s father’s office and -- after we parted ways, and said I had sex with Oliver Stone, which I did not.
Streeter; Do you think that’s annoying?
Lynch: No I think it’s outrageous that he would go in and lie about that … He accused me of having sex with his tax lawyer, which I did not. I found that outrageous. To my son’s father.
Streeter: You don’t think that’s annoying.
Lynch: It was indeed annoying to me. Unbelievable. RT 509
Streeter: Do you think it’s annoying -- would be annoying to Mr. Cohen?
Lynch: 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
I have no idea what Cohen’s testimony is about. Bob Dylan is a friend of Phil Spector’s. He helped Hurricane Carter who was wrongfully imprisoned and I thought he could help Phil Spector. Paul Shaffer is a very very close friend of Phil Spector’s and is not someone Cohen inew when I managed him. I knew Paul Shaffer and ran into him when I was with Cohen at the Juno’s once. Leonard Cohen and this prosecutor seem dead set on silencing me and seem to believe that I am not permitted to speak freely to individuals like Bob Dylan, Paul Shaffer, or Dennis Riordan. That evidently annoys Leonard Cohen.
BOB DYLAN AND PAUL SHAFFER
Streeter: Do you know a person by the name of Paul Shaffer?
Cohen: Yes, I know him.
Streeter: Who is that?
Cohen: Paul Shaffer is David Letterman’s band leader.
Streeter: Do you know a person by the name of Dylan?
Cohen: Yes, I do.
Streeter: Who is that? RT 256
Cohen: That’s Bob Dylan.
Streeter: Were you ever with Mr. Dylan when Ms. Lynch was in your employ?
Cohen: I met with Bob Dylan several times. We have a cordial acquaintanceship.
Streeter: How about Mr. Shaffer? Was he ever around when Ms. Lynch was in your employ?
Cohen: I -- I believe -- I wouldn’t say she was around, but I did bump into him a couple of times under professional circumstances.
Streeter: And Ms. Lynch was present?
Cohen: No. RT 257
Leonard Cohen was interviewed in the late 80s by Mikal Gimore for a story he was preparing for Rolling Stone. At that time, Cohen was fascinated by the fact that Mikal Gilmore’s brother, Gary Gilmore, was executed by a firing squad. He told me that Mikal Gimore was completely unhinged by this situation and Cohen seemed to enjoy toying with Mikal Gilmore which horrified me. Cohen was delighted that Mikal Gilmore was actually unable to complete the article for Rolling Stone. After this interview, Leonard Cohen began telling me that he wanted to die by a firing squad. He went into great detail about this - discussing what he would have for his last meal and the fact that he would ask for one final cigaerette. This is when I seriously began thinking that I should get the FBI’s Quantico on the phone so that I was in possession of a professional profile of this deranged madman. When he began studying serial murderers, and became obsessed with Jeffrey Dahmer’s interview about remorse, I was absolutely alarmed and began joking with people that I now had Quantico on speed dial. In any event, this is a figure of speech and there is no evidence that I can assemble a firing squad or who the individuals on that squad might be. It’s just another case of Leonard Cohen’s insane conduct annoying him.
MIKAL GILMORE - EXECUTION OF HIS BROTHER
Streeter: If you could read it, Mr. Cohen.
Cohen: Leonard Norman Cohen should be taken --
Public defender. Objection. I believe he’s just picking and choosing the part that he’s asked to read.
Cohen: Leonard Norman Cohen should be taken before a firing squad and shot. RT 245
http://www.amazon.com/Shot-
Gilmore was executed on January 17, 1977, at 8:07 a.m. by firing squad at Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah. The night before, Gilmore had requested an all-night gathering of friends and family at the prison mess hall. On the evening before his execution, he was served a last meal of steak, potatoes, milk and coffee; he consumed only the milk and coffee. His uncle, Vern Damico, who attended the gathering, later claimed to have smuggled in three small, 50-millilitre Jack Daniel's whiskey shot bottles which Gilmore supposedly consumed. He was then taken to an abandoned cannery behind the prison, which served as its death house. He was strapped to a chair, with a wall of sandbags placed behind him to trap the bullets. Five gunmen, local police officers, stood concealed behind a curtain with five small holes, through which they aimed their rifles. When asked for any last words, Gilmore simply replied, "Let's do it!" The Rev. Thomas Meersman, the Roman Catholic prison chaplain, administered the last rites to Gilmore. After the prison physician cloaked him in a black hood, Gilmore uttered his last words to Father Meersman: "Dominus vobiscum" (Latin, translation: "The Lord be with you.") Meersman replied, "Et cum spiritu tuo" ("And with your spirit")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, targeted both of my sons. They were meeting with my younger son’s father. His name is Steve Lindsey and Ray is my younger son. Kory was begging me to meet with him and I documented all of this, at the time, for Boies Schiller who advised me to go wired to my meetings with Cohen/Kory. In fact, because I advised them about Investigator Brian Bennett’s unannounced visit - and provided them with a transcript of my conversation with Janice Zavala Spector (Phil’s ex-wife and the mother of his children), they advised me to have Investigator Brian Bennett wire me for these meetings. I did advise Bennett in 2005 that Leonard Cohen lies about Phil Spector; should be arrested; was attempting to blackmail me; and discussed the situation with respect to Robert Kory and my son. Bennett, at the time, told me that his wife would “kill” Kory if he did to her what he did to me. In any event, Ray and I stopped into see Kory. He appeared freaked out and unhinged. Ray had heard a tremendous amount of information re. Cohen’s tax fraud and confirmed what he heard about Leonard Cohens tax fraud; the missing state tax returns; my intellectual property that was stolen and commissions that were withheld; and their threats of jail. When we left, Ray told me I forgot to mention Michael Maunts of the State of Kentucky (who I spoke to about Cohen’s tax fraud as Traditional Holdings, LLC is a Kentucky entity) and told me that I should have advised Kory to “go fuck himself.” This was all documented for Boies Schiller as it unfolded - as was my luncheon meeting. In fact, Norman Posel/Boies Schiller wanted to fly in to attend my luncheon with Robert Kory. Cohen and Kory were meeting with Lindsey and encouraging him to have me enter into some form of a deal with Cohen. In fact, Lindsey even had his father - Mort Lindsey - speak to Cohen and Kory. Cohen thought I had great respect and a close relationship with my father-in-law which I did. Mort Lindsey then called and asked me to make a deal with Cohen. I refused. I thought I was being asked to engage in criminal conduct and that’s precisely what Boies Schiller advised me. They wrote me that recording Kory would not be a set up because Cohen/Kory were asking me to participate in criminal conduct which seemed to include conspiracy, extortion attempts, insurance fraud, etc. The judge in the Intent to Annoy insanity didn’t seem to want reality addressed. The conspiracy was and remains real and was well documented for Boies Schiller. In fact, Greenberg’s lawyer confirmed (and I spoke to the FBI in Denver about this) that they have evidence regarding witness tampering that involves Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Steven Clark Lindsey, and Betsy Superfon (a friend of Lindsey’s). The FBI and I discussed the fact that I should be careful in my attempts to obtain evidence from Greenberg’s lawyer which I agreed with. Dan Scheid, Greenberg’s lawyer, confirmed that he had this evidence - in writing - and that email was given to the IRS and others.
Betsy Superfon is a friend of Steven Clark Lindsey’s who befriended me sometime in 2004. She was evidently negotiating with Cohen/Kory on my behalf - without my knowledge, awareness, or approval. At some point, a friend of mine - Yongzin Rinpoche - and his wife visited and Rinpoche instructed me to invite Superfon over. At that point, I asked her to contact Cohen/Kory about the deal they were interested in making with me. She told me she spoke with Cohen who advised her that I was the love of his life; he felt remorseful and terrified; and would give me anything I wanted - including my share of BMT and TH. I asked her to have Kory put the deal in writing and fax it to me. She then spoke to him and advised me that Kory told her this was not the type of deal you could put in writing so I concluded that it was illegal and she later told me she felt the same way. Kory then suggested that he, Superfon, and I meet for lunch. I decided not to because I felt I had enough evidence that they were attempting to engage me in criminal conduct and an illegal deal. Cohen/Kory ultimately filed a declaration in Ray’s custody matter which I view as an attempt to obstruct justice, coercion, blackmail, etc. Lindsey advised me that Cohen/Kory were encouraging him to take Ray away from me and it was clearly planned and coordinated with the SWAT incident.
On May 25, 2011, I kept Ray home from school. This led to a psychotic SWAT incident where I was falsely accused of having a hostage. I had kept Ray home from school because he did not feel well and his father’s conduct was becoming increasingly aggressive and disturbing. His father was angry that he stayed home and wanted to pick him up and drive him to school. I did not want this man on my property. He had viciously attacked me in front of His Eminence Choegon Rinpoche only a couple of weeks previously. His Eminence Choegon Rinpoche confirmed this in writing and that email was forwarded to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff. Rinpoche was startled by the level of Lindsey’s aggression. I phoned Rutger, who was driving nearby with his friend, and asked him to immediately come home, pick up Ray, and drop him at the bottom of the hill with Lindsey. I was sick of this man coming onto my property, and calling me names like cunt and whore in front of my children. He was utterly abusive to both of my sons and was becoming increasingly unhinged over his relationship with Dinah Englund and the birth of their daughter. Englund is actress Cloris Leachman’s daughter. Rutger picked Ray up and took him to the bottom of the hill where, surprisingly, Leachman was waiting to pick up Ray. Rutger then saw Lindsey and approximately 7 squad cars racing up my hill. What then unfolded was and remains criminal. I was accused of having a hostage although Rutger was clear with LAPD - I was in the house alone. I was in a bikini. I was ultimately accused of holding my dog hostage and LAPD told Rutger that they were taking precautions because my dog might be my hostage. Rutger was told Inglewood PD was present. He was told that these maniacs would shoot his mother and dog. He witnessed Lindsey lying to LAPD. There was no hostage. What I witnessed was LAPD endangering my son’s life; using him illegally as a hostage negotiator; and placing his life in danger by rushing my house and using him as a human shield. Of course, there was no hostage and my dog lived with me. I dove into the pool to avoid any type of physical encounter with these lunatics. After all, Phil Spector had explained his encounter with Alhambra PD to me and my former boyfriend was a member of SWAT and had spent hours explaining his tactics (and boredom) to me. He got sick and tired of waiting around to shoot and kill someone. Rutger brought me a brocade jacket and LAPD - who advised me they were there to help me - handcuffed me in my bikini and brocade jacket. I was then taken to Killer King and questioned about Phil Spector. The entire Killer King file is falsified and has been provided to the IRS, other agencies, and the DA’s office. It can never be explained away. After I was taken from my property (which I viewed as a kidnapping), Rutger received a phone call from Steven Clark Lindsey asking him to go into Kory/Cohen’s office and sign over/transfer my house to them. This story has been well documented. In fact, I ultimately made an appointment with the LA FBI to discuss this situation and to file a complaint. I felt it related to Leonard Cohen’s criminal tax fraud. This is what ultimately led me to not only report Cohen’s tax fraud to the IRS but to call the IRS in Washington due to the high profile nature of this situation and the tactics being used against me. I was then advised, by His Holiness Kusum Lingpa, and others, to begin documenting everything in emails for the IRS and others with witnesses involved. These emails became the subject of the intent to annoy Stalinesque Show Trial that is nothing other than an attempt to sabotage the IRS, discredit me, and relates to Phil Spector and possibly a form of illegal discovery and an attempt to have Leonard Cohen - who the news media quotes - advance his garbage Phil Spector gun stories. After all, as my public defender advised me (when noting that the DA’s investigator was lunching with Cohen) - the DA doesn’t want the Phil Spector verdict overturned.
I have never accused Cohen of ripping Rutger’s fingers off. Rutger is convinced that had I made a deal with Cohen (he too was hearing endless details about the insanity that was unfolding), he would have been in college full time. He is aware that Cohen offered me 50% community property, presumably to lie and say he was defrauded by his advisers. Rutger is correct. In his freshman year of college he would not have been working. I think it’s an important moment of transition. Why Cohen was testifying about this incident is inconceivably obscene and vile. Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter is a vulgar woman who appears willing to do anything for a celebrity and I think LA Superior Court really deserves her. I can’t think of a better match. In fact, I think she and Judge Vanderet should get married. She can baby talk him, break their furniture, and he can tolerate her lies and misconduct. That’s my idealized view of the grave injustice system in LA Confidential.
RUTGER AND RAY
Streeter: Does she have another child?
Cohen: Yes, she has another child.
Streeter: What’s that child’s name?
Cohen: Rutger Bennett. [Penick]
Streeter: Does she ever mention Rutger --
Cohen: Yes, many times she suggested I was responsible for an accident that befell him. RT 58
Streeter: Did she ever mention any of her children in any of the voicemail messages?
Cohen: Yes, many times. She -- she accused me of being indirectly responsible for her losing custody of one child. RT 57/58
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: … And what was the custody issue?
Lynch: That I was taken to King-Drew by LAPD, I lived in Brentwood, and when I was released 24 hours later a custody matter had been filed.
PD: One day after that incident with the police, did Mr. Kory have a declaration in that case?
Lynch: The same day, May 25, 2005. RT 462
Public Defender: Now,, you said something about Rutger losing his fingers. Now, is there any reference to this in the emails that you’ve heard?
Lynch: I believe there is, yes. I think Leonard Cohen testified to something about it.
PD: And did you ever say that Mr. Cohen cut off Mr. -- or your son’s fingers?
Lynch: No, I did not.
PD: What did you mean when you talked about blaming Mr. Cohen?
|Lynch: I don’t blame Mr. Cohen. My son, Rutger, personally believes that if I had not gone to the IRS, reported this tax fraud, created a contentious situation with Leonard Cohen, that he wouldn’t have lost his fingers.
PD: You’ve never accused Mr. Cohen for being responsible for cutting off --
Lynch: Well, he doesn’t have a meat grinder at Whole Foods, so it would be impossible. RT 472
I have been clear about this situation. The only parties I want speaking to my traumatized son about the SWAT incident are the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Phil Spector’s legal team. I have given Phil Spector Rutger’s cell phone that contains photographs of the SWAT incident, including LAPD license plates.
Sidebar:
Public Defender: The other potential witness I’ve been trying to speak with is her son Rutger. He’s tried to get out of work today but says he’s off tomorrow.
Court: And what testimony can he offer?
PD: He’[s listed pretty much on every email as well.
Court: -- So is Cooley.
PD: I guess the big portion of his testimony is he was present during that 2005 incident with the SWAT team.
Court: I think that is very, very tangential. RT 529
Defense Closing:
[Robert Kory} He called the father weeks later and he filed a strategic and malicious declaration in the custody matter which resulted in my client losing her son. This was part of the plan, ladies and gentlemen. RT 589
Cohen was evidently forthcoming and candid with biographer, Sylvie Simmons, about his drug use and abuse. That would include prescription speed or meth. Her perjured himself during the trial when he stated that my mentioning his drug abuse was an attempt to assail his reputation. Streeter, inexplicably - but who could explain her - advised the judge that her eliciting this testimony was an attempt to prove my alleged common plan and scheme. Leonard Cohen’s own conduct evidently annoys him and he thinks other people are now responsible for his drug abuse. His use of prescription meth was not behind him when I knew him. Leonard Cohen’s use of drugs is well documented. His drinking has been publicly documented as well - including his interest in $2,000 bottles of Chateau La Tour that he consumed on tour. Leonard Cohen likes people to believe that he lives a humble existence and seems to think $1 million advances are nothing. He is the elite and his celebrity has afforded him the type of justice LA Confidential likes to dole out to ordinary people. The Deputy City Attorneys repeatedly advised these judges that this insane intent to annoy Leonard Cohen case was an unusual case because he is a celebrity. I have never heard anything as absurd and outrageous in my entire life. The City Attorney of Los Angeles thinks I should be blamed for Leonard Cohen’s conduct. That is criminally insane from my perspective.
High old times: His days of pharmaceutical hijinks are no doubt long behind him, but in Simmons’ biography, Cohen is candid about his enthusiastic drug use back in the day. He took Maxiton (speed), Mandrax, hashish, opium and acid. Cohen told Simmons: “My [1966] novel Beautiful Losers has a bit of acid in it and a lot of speed.”
http://www.timescolonist.com/
DRUG ABUSE
Streeter: Was there ever any discussion about alcohol or drugs in any of the voice mail messages?
Cohen: There were accusations that I was on drugs … She often accused me of being on drugs. RT 59
Streeter: In any of the emails do you recall if she ever accused you of alcohol or drug usage?
Cohen: She routinely accused me of drug abuse. Not alcoholism, but drug abuse. RT 61
Streeter: Is there a specific drug that she accuses you of using, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: No, she doesn’t specify. I think she -- she accuses me of being on legal meth. RT 136
Streeter; Is there any mention of drug use in that email Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: I can’t see any mention. RT 137
Email - December 17, 2011
Streeter: Now, looking at that, was there any mention in that email about drug usage on your part?
Cohen: Yes, I’m accused of abusing drugs. RT 139
Streeter: How did it feel to not only be accused of being a drug user but have her send out such accusations to people that you don’t know?
Cohen: It’s not a pleasant sensation … I felt my reputation was being assailed and the reputation of my family. RT 142
Streeter: And do you recall any mention in that voice mail message about drug usage on your part?
Cohen: Yes, I’m accused of using drugs. RT 154
Sidebar:
Public Defender: 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.
PD: The evidence that was presented points to, perhaps, defamatory in nature. And I do think that if that’s the case that the people be precluded from saying that because drug use was mentioned, therefore, it was harassing and threatening.
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 … that was the reason the people did that.
PD: … Those messages referred to prior drug use and not necessarily current drug use. RT 433
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM
Subject: Request for Tax Information
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Jewel of Activity <welcomingflowers@yahoo.com>, info <info@kibi-edu.org>, "YesheRimpoche@aol.com" <bhakhatulku@yahoo.com>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, GGreenwald <GGreenwald@salon.com>, Steven Machat <smachat@gmail.com>, Teresa Low <teresa.low@doj.ca.gov>, PIU <piu@doj.ca.gov>, OIGCOMPL OIGCOMPL <oigcompl@lapd.lacity.org>, chaleffg <chaleffg@lapd.lacity.org>, MEDIA RELATIONS PIO <pio@lapd.lacity.org>, police <police@cityofberkeley.info>, baldymonk <baldymonk@aol.com>, rkory <rkory@rkmgment.com>, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Cc: scooley <scooley@da.lacounty.gov>, ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>
Cohen,
Check your voice messages. I am demanding the information I require
for my tax returns - including asset valuations. See the assignments
that were notarized; minutes (with language dictated by you); etc. I
also want the illegal K1s from LC Investments, LLC retracted.
Lynch
P.S. People are asking me when I intend to sue you for slander. That
is definitely going to happen. We are going to litigate the fact that
you have illegally (from my perspective) altered my federal tax
returns via a default judgment based on perjury, lies, fraud, and one
preposterously absurd fictional narrative that contains no facts from
what I can tell.
IN THREAD OF EMAIL:
> Michael understands that Phil Spector is a wonderful man while Cohen
>>>> (a self-proclaimed former drug abuser, psychiatric case, rotten
>>>> alcoholic, and - from my perspective - a nasty pervert) is pure evil.
>>>> Here's something that really gets people - his crime spree and perjury
>>>> in so many courts in the U.S. while he cannot live in Canada because
>>>> (as Van Penick informed him) he has tax and residence problems there.
>>>> Oh yes, and as Cohen told me one night, the IRS doesn't ask where you
>>>> paid your taxes the prior year while Canada Revenue does. Cohen
>>>> clearly is out of touch - completely - with reality.
>>>> I have placed yet another call to Cohen demanding a 1099 for the year
>>>> 2004. And no, I did not do volunteer work on "Dear Heather" and the
>>>> commission was due me. See my emails to Leonard Cohen or Sony's
>>>> letter thanking me for cutting through the over-lawyering. Leonard
>>>> Cohen is a thief, like Marnie, who cannot stop himself. I also asked,
>>>> in my message, a request for a valuation of the intellectual property.
>>>> Cohen understood that compensation for my past work (language he
>>>> dictated in the minutes) was non-revocable. His lawyers and Neal
>>>> Greenberg (HIS financial adviser, who has now lost everything, and
>>>> someone I could not stand and who I thought was a greedy criminal but
>>>> Cohen connected with him when they met in LA) drove home the point
>>>> that Cohen must understand that this compensation of intellectual
>>>> property was NON-REVOCABLE. I called Neal Greenberg immediately after
>>>> returning from Cohen's house after we had this discussion in his
>>>> kitchen. I also informed Cohen, via my voicemail, that I do NOT own
>>>> 15% of LC Investments, LLC although Westin thought I should and Cohen
>>>> had me ask Westin if I could be compensated since I owned the
>>>> intellectual property. My lawyers confirmed this - I own 15% of all
>>>> the intellectual property regardless of where Cohen has now placed it.
>>>> Michael, who dealt with a Spanish version of Cohen and also went to
>>>> the tax authorities, has nailed this "shell game."
I think the tax matter is quite clear. Leonard Cohen is legally obligated to provide me with a 1099 but simply doesn’t want to. He doesn’t want to rescind the illegal K-1s. He doesn’t want to provide me with an accounting that takes into consideration corporate ownership interests, assets, liabilities, and equity. Etc. Leonard Cohen’s sense of entitlement and greed is unparalleled. His belief that he can simply continue to lie about Phil Spector is unconscionable. His attempts to blame his wrongdoing on me is inconceivable. But, this is pure Leonard Cohen who I view as positively evil. A man obsessed with his own reputation who has an absolute disregard for the truth and uses religion to dazzle awe inspired journalists and others. I’m not sure what religion embraces this type of conduct - theft, fraud, lying, destroying people’s lives, etc. Perhaps it’s something Satanic. Cohen liked to dabble in the occult and his favorite book was “Morning of the Magicians.”
The Morning of the Magicians, first published as Le Matin des magiciens, was written by Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier in 1960. It became a best seller, first in French, then translated into English in 1963 as The Dawn of Magic, and later released in the United States as The Morning of the Magicians. A German edition was published with the title Aufbruch ins dritte Jahrtausend (Departure into the third Millennium).
In a generalized and wide ranging overview of the occult, the book speculates on a variety of Forteana, mysticism and conspiracy theories such as secret societies, ancient prophecies, alchemical transmutation, a giant race that once ruled the Earth, and theNazca Lines.[1] It also includes speculations such as Nazi occultism and supernatural phenomena conspiracy theory that the Vril Society and the Thule Society were the philosophical precursors to the Nazi party.[2]
The book has been credited with playing a significant role in bringing these kinds of ideas into the popular culture, spurring a revival of interest in the occult during the 1960s and 70s, and being a forerunner to the popularization of New Age ideas.[3] In a 2004 article forSkeptic Magazine, Jason Colavito wrote that the book's tales of ancient astronautspredated Erich von Däniken's works on the topic, and that the ideas are so close to the works of H. P. Lovecraft such as "The Call of Cthulhu" or At the Mountains of Madness(published in 1928 and 1931 respectively) that Colavito claims it is probable that Lovecraft's fiction directly inspired the book.[4] Notably short on references or sources, the book has also come under criticism.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
FEDERAL TAX MATTERS
Streeter: And do you also recall discussion about K-1, criminal K-1?
Cohen: Yes, that was a constant theme.
Streeter: Do you know what a K-1 is, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Well, I didn’t until I asked.
Streeter Who did you ask.
Cohen: I asked my attorney. RT 82
Streeter: Who took care of filing documents with the IRS?
Cohen: That was Ms. Lynch. RT 82
Streeter: When Ms. Lynch was in your employ as business manager, what role you had in taking care of the financial documents?
Cohen: … Ms. Lynch was handling all financial affairs. She would choose the accountants, the lawyers … RT 83
Streeter: Now, there is a mention of the K-1... Do you know what a W2 is?
Cohen: W2? No, I don’t.
Streeter: How about a 1099?
Cohen: A 1099, yes, is issued by an employer to an employee.
Streeter: Did you ever issue one of those when Ms. Lynch was in your employee?
Cohen: No, I never even saw the documents. RT 83
Streeter: Do you recall any mention of a business relationship that you and she may have had?
Cohen: Yes, she spoke about her -- her taxation. RT 156
Streeter: The people recall you testifying previously that Ms. Lynch has on some occasions asked about getting tax returns; is that correct?
Cohen: Yes, many times.
Streeter: Amended tax returns; is that correct?
Cohen: Yes, Ma’am. RT157
Streeter: Do you recall of those emails how many had a request for tax information?
Cohen: Yes, I do. RT 167
Streeter: That’s the only email that made mention of a request for tax information?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 170
Leonard Cohen Cross:
Public Defender; You said that you were unfamiliar with what a K-1 was, correct?:
Cohen: Yes, sir.
PD: Okay. 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.
PD: And is it fair to say that you’ve gotten emails through the years referencing a K-1?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 280
PD: Now, since you’ve been receiving emails requesting tax information, have you called these peo9ple to say can you get me this tax information? RT 280
PD: 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
PD: There were requests in those emails for tax information, correct?
Cohen: Yes, sir. RT 281
Did you ever bring that attention to whoever handled your taxes?
Cohen: Yes, sir. And it was determined by two courts of this country and the IRS that -- RT 281
Cohen: It was determined, sir, that I had no tax responsibility in regard to Ms. Lynch. The two courts had decided that money had been taken from me … 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 and awarded me a tax refund, so Ms. Lynch has 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.
PD: Do you remember what my question was? RT 282
One of the main issues with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC was Leonard Cohen’s level of borrowing was dangerous to the structure and could lead the IRS to believe that this was nothing other than self-dealing on Cohen’s part and an attempt to evade paying taxes. In 2004, Leonard Cohen’s advisers - Greenberg and Westin - became increasingly upset by his level of borrowing. Greenberg pretended it was due to the fact that Cohen might run out of money but we were pursuing a multi-million deal; I was negotiating a multi-million lithograph deal; Cohen just received $1 million from Sony re. Dear Heather (but advised me not to let Greenberg know this); and planned to tour behind Dear Heather. Leonard Cohen’s loans from this entity are assets although Streeter attempted to mislead the jury by stating that there was only $100-150K left in some bank account that I am not clear about. There are millions of dollars in assets and Cohen understood that his loans had to be repaid at 6% interest. I was under the impression that they had to be repaid within 3 years. Robert Kory wrote, and I gave this document to the iRS, and asked if Leonard Cohen’s loans would be forgiven. In jury debriefing, a juror advised my lawyers that he relied on Streeter’s LIE that Cohen only had $150,000 or $100,000 left. Streeter actually thinks that Leonard Cohen can defraud a corporation; take loans like this entity was his personal piggy bank; disregard corporate governance; and then blame me for his conduct? That’s her rotten logic. Streeter, knowing that Cohen admitted buying homes for his girlfriend and son, with these assets, continued with her insanity about the $100-150K. Her obsession with the IRS and federal tax matters is fascinating and I continue to believe that the IRS should investigate this and prosecute her for an attempt to obstruct justice. As my trial lawyer noted - she attempted to sabotage the IRS.
Public Defender: And in fact you had actually taken money from that account to buy homes, correct?
Cohen: Yes, I had.
PD: You took money from that account to buy a house for your son, correct? RT 287
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: To buy a house for your girlfriend, correct?
Cohen: Yes.
PD: Okay. So you -- it’s fair to say that you did take money from that account?
Cohen: That’s correct, yes.
PD: You were aware enough about that account to know that you could take money from that account?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 288
Streeter - sidebar: 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
After Marty Machat’s death in 1988, Leonard Cohen and his lawyer (recommended by his brother-in-law), Herschel Weinberg, began unraveling certain matters related to Leonard Cohen. That would include abandoning his green card (which he later re-obtained); unwinding off-shore accounts (and later his Swiss bank account that he personally opened); sorting out his numerous social security numbers (his accountant who he had while with Marty Machat, Burt Goldstein handled this after Cohen explained to us that he had more than one social security number); advising Sony that his recording contract had inadvertently been assigned to a corporation (which I believe was an LC Productions in Nevada); etc. All of this activity pre-dates me. but I do believe Leonard Cohen was aware that you could have more than one social security number since he did from what he told me and Burt Goldstein. In fact, when I spoke to Burt Goldstein about Cohen’s tax fraud and the IRS Commissioner’s Staff about this situation and the social security numbers, etc. he asked me if I would be a witness for him. My answer - absolutely. From what I could tell, Burt Goldstein’s work was impeccable. Steve Lindsey recommended Ken Cleveland to Lindsey when the IRS audited the charitable gift of stock to Mt. Baldy Zen Center that relates to the 1997 intellectual property sale to Sony. It is my opinion that the IRS should audit this again, particularly as Kory was quite concerned about this and advised me that the holding periods were illegal. Cohen, Greenberg, and Westin were actively involved in the 1997 deal and ulltimately were wrapped in attorney/client privilege together, leaving me in the dark as to what they were actually up to although I had my suspicions which began to grow when I heard details related to collapsible corporations, aggressive tax planning, etc. In fact, Grubman/Indursky also became concerned and were clear - Greenberg and Westin, on Cohen’s behalf, handled the tax and corporate structures. I had nothing to do with them but Leonard Cohen likes to lie and even attempted to blame (and I have this in writing) his lawyers (Grubman, Indursky) and royalty consultant (Greg McBowman) for engaging in fraud in the inducement with respect to them. That is absurd and laughable. Leonard Cohen, from what i could tell, was going to blame them for his wrongdoing as well. In fact, Stuart Fried/Grubman firm emailed me that Robert Kory was lying about them with respect to me. Robert Kory is a liar who the IRS should also prosecute from my perspective.
Social Security Number
PD: You never changed your social security number, correct?
Cohen: No, I didn’t change my social security number. RT 303
Streeter: How come you haven’t changed your social security number.
Cohen: I don’t think that’s -- I don’t think you can change your social security number. RT 319
Michelle Rice wrote and lied to me on February 14, 2011. She advised me that the civil harassment order (that she ultimately wrongfully registered as a domestic violence order for reasons I cannot imagine since Cohen and I were NOT in a dating relationship and she knows that the original order can only be modified by the Colorado court) was registered in California. I think they intentionally decided not to serve me and, rather, entrap me. I was not served or notified of the California order but Streeter attempted to mislead the jurors by lying about the fact that I said I wasn’t served the Colorado order. Of course I attended the Colorado hearing but, after hearing from the judge that Cohen personally appeared in Colorado, I read the file and was shocked by the extensive perjury in his declaration - I then addressed this in my Motion to Quash and attached evidence as well … I view that as exculpatory evidence but Streeter thought it was cute to question me about why I didn’t have a family member obtain this from my storage space in Berkeley - Cohen’s lawyers were served). Rice is clear - I was asking for tax information. Leonard Cohen has the information necessary to provide me with the IRS required 2004 1099 and to rescind the illegal K-1s issued for 2003, 2004, and 2005. In fact, I recently spoke with the IRS and they instructed me to contact Cohen to advise him that these K-1s should be rescinded as I am not a partner on LC Investments, LLC. They also raised identity theft as an issue. Robert Kory is Cohen’s business manager. I was not. Cohen just continues to lie about this fact. The man cannot stop lying and his lawyers are more than happy to perjure themselves. I suppose they are making substantial money and this is a motivating factor even though Streeter’s comments about this situation during her so-called closing arguments were psychotic.
Michelle Rice Direct:
Streeter: Do you remember what was said in that first email that you got a half hour later? … It was a fraudulent restraining order. What else did she say?
Rice: That she had valid reason for contacting me and it was in, you know, she wanted tax information. Something to that effect. RT 333
Providing me with tax information would not be a violation of a restraining order. LA Superior Court and Boulder Municipal Court cannot override IRS reporting and filing requirements although Kory wrote and lied to Agent Tejeda/IRS about that fact. See IRS binder that Streeter concealed. According to my attorneys notes, Streeter had this binder for approximately two weeks and only handed it over to them on April 9th, during the trial, at which point we issued a subpoena for Agent Tejeda/IRS. The judge then evidently decided to conceal Agent Tejeda/IRS from the jurors. In debriefing, the jurors advised my public defenders that they wanted to hear more about the IRS situation. Cohen, Kory, and Streeter attempted to mislead the jurors by advising them that the IRS and FTB were pursuing me. That is a bald-faced lie.
Rice: 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
Public Defender: To your knowledge, has Mr. Cohen ever directly sent Ms. Lynch any documentation?
Rice: It would be a violation of the restraining order. RT 362
Public Defender: But you believe that she wasn’t represented by counsel?
Rice: That’s correct. RT 368
PD: Even though you felt you were a protected person, you directly contacted Ms. Lynch and you gave her misinformation … RT 370
Sidebar: IRS Binder and Agent Luis Tejeda/IRS
Public Defender: We received a binder from Ms. Streeter that was provided to her by one of the witnesses that includes, you know, we believe a highly relevant witness that goes to Mr. Kory’s anticipated testimony based on what she provided us. He’s an agent of the IRS and we have subpoenaed him. We received that information on Monday. We subpoenaed him, he’s received that subpoena, but pursuant to federal regulations he has to clear that before he can testify with the appropriate authorities. I spoke with the agent this morning. That request is being considered and evaluated by their attorneys. And as I said, they’ll give me an answer by this afternoon regarding whether or not he will be able to testify and as to what he will testify to. Based on the fact that we received the binder on Monday …
Court: What does his testimony go to?
PD: We also think that … they go to the … motivation of the people’s witnesses. RT 385
Public Defender: Our plans are we want to find out about Agent Tejeda.
Francisco, the judge is lying here. Whether or not I knew of Agent Tejeda’s existence is irrelevant. I was unaware of the fraudulent refund Cohen obtained (confirmed by the IRS according to documents in the IRS binder) in or around December 2005 - based on fraudulent information conveyed to the IRS about me. I have now challenged this refund (discovered at trial) with the IRS and have filed fraud form 3949a, at the suggestion of the IRs regarding the refunding and the illegal K-1s. I would like to note here that Stephen Gianelli filed a fraudulent form 3949a with the IRS about me. This man does not know me; has no idea about my tax returns or payments; and simply lied to them (retaliatory, no doubt) when he filed this form in October 2012. As someone just noted - what would cause someone who doesn’t know me to go to these lengths and that does bring up the question of motive. As you know, he contacted you repeatedly. This is a lawyer who knows I am represented but he attempts ,from what I can tell, to infiltrate matters. This Stalinesque Show Trial has exposed me to dangerously unstable lunatics and that includes Leonard cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, who also attempted to lure my minor son into privately communicating with her. She appears to gather information for Robert Kory and Michelle Rice. This is how Leonard Cohen operates. I don’t kno9w if you’ve ever dealt with Vanderet but he seems to have deprived me of a defense and my compulsory witnesses. Who knows what his motive is. As far as I‘m concerned, it’s just more insanity with LA Confidential. I knew there was something wrong with the man the moment he began allowing Leonard Cohen to interpret my emails. Leonard Cohen has bias and motive. He is also a pathological liar. His testimony should make that clear. In any event, Vanderet also didn’t want to delay the trial. As a number of lawyers have noted - what was his hurry? He couldn’t wait two hours, for us to hear back from Agent Tejeda/IRS - before sending this to the jury. He also lied about me during sentencing. I found that pathetic and this man had the audacity to comment on my views of the justice system. Well, he should see what LA Confidential looks like from the other side of the bench.
Court: I will tell you my strong view is I’m not going to delay the trial for Agent Tejeda. You guys, whether you knew his name or not, you were well aware of the relationship, if any, and I think it was quite tangential of the merits of the IRS thing long before the trial, and I’m not going to delay at this point the trial.
PD: … He said he was going to call … Your ruling is not that he’s not precluded from testifying; it’s that you won’t delay the trial.
Court: I won’t delay the trial. RT 432
Public Defender: Of a potential witness that we had mentioned. I believe we’ll wrap this up.
Court: IRS. What is the status.
Public Defender: We weren’t able to hear back from him.
Court: Who is this person?
Public Defender: Mr. Luis Tejeda 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
Robert Kory Cross:
Francisco, the IRS binder contains letters from Kory to Agent Tejeda/IRS and the IRS. Kory was clear with Agent Tejeda/IRS - he and Cohen understood I had received an email from Agent Sopko/Treasury and that was a game changer. Prior to that email, they evidently thought my emails to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff were simply a nuisance. Of course, Kory told my lawyers in 2005 that he was concerned about even requesting copies of the TH tax returns from the IRS because they didn’t want to alert the service … They have become emboldened. After Kory understood I met with Agent Sopko and received an email from her advising me to report Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Tejeda/IRS, Kory began writing to him and lying to him. He transmitted the fraud retaliatory legal documents to Agent Tejeda and there were certain documents from Cohen’s retaliatory lawsuit in that binder that I had never seen before. I never saw an ad, as Kory testified. I was advised by Agent Bill Betzer/IRS to report the tax fraud to the IRS Fraud Unit. I didn’t contact Agent Sopko/IRS. She contacted me in 2007 (over a year after the refund was obtained) and advised me that she would like to fly in from Washington to meet with me. How would I find Agent Sopko? In any event, Gianelli has referred to her publicly as my federal pet so when he trashes you - know you’re in good company. After contacting her, using the ruse that I was spamming her (which is psychotic), he then contacted the FBI. I think he wanted to the FBI to investigate whether or not I was actually spamming Agent Sopko/Treasury. I think this man will go to any length to sabotage and infiltrate matters that relate to Cohen[‘s tax fraud and Phil Spector. Why would he call Investigator Frayeh to find out if he thought Judge Pat Dixon (former powerful DDA) was good looking? That’s when I wondered if Gianelli was gay. He doesn’t like that. Who knows - maybe he’s just criminally insane. Hard to say. I don’t know this dangerously unstable lunatic who has relentlessly targeted me, my family, and others. He has lied about a conversation with my ex-husband who he called. My ex-husband has no idea what this lunatic is talking about. He emailed me that my ex-husband wouldn’t let me on his boat when I was in Ft. Lauderdale a while back and questioned whether or not I wanted to rekindle our romance. The man is obsessed with me. People in my life have consulted lawyers over this man’s conduct. He does not care. He is unstoppable and has now transmitted fraud about me to the IRS.
Kory: We submitted the documents at length to Luis Tejeda, who is the head of fraud for the Internal Revenue Service in the Western United States. After Ms. Lynch … in 2007, Ms. Lynch contacted in response to, I think, a general ad encouraging employees to turn in their employers if the employees knew 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
I have never written that the IRS and FTB are pursuing me relentlessly but Kory evidently thinks he’s in Les Miserables. The man’s T.M. practice must have gone to his head and he thinks he is now above the laws of reality and, most certainly, perjury. Robert Kory practices T.M. - or did - and was involved in some failed amusement park deal called Oz prior to becoming Cohen’s personal and business manager. He now has a sense of self-importance. People view him as a maniac. I agree.
Kory: All I know is the -- she writes in her emails and she complains that the IRS and the Franchise Tax Board are pursuing her relentlessly. So I don’t know the -- I suspect, but don’t know the substance of why they‘re pursuing her. RT 423
Robert Kory is clear. I have asked that they withdraw the illegal K-1s that are evidence of criminal conduct. He thinks that request is sophisticated. Evidently their position is that everyone has to be a moron with motive. Leonard Cohen fraudulently reported a theft loss to the IRS and received a refund of approximately $700,000. Kory thinks this is a zero sum game but I have just filed a fraud form 3949a, after a conversation with the IRS, and do not view this as a game. He does. That’s clear. Leonard Cohen paid taxes on money he didn’t receive? I find that impossible to believe. I, on the other hand, paid taxes on behalf of a corporation that Cohen has decided he is the alter ego of. I can assure you, Francisco, that I didn’t make a charitable donation to the IRS on behalf of Leonard Cohen. Mr. Cohen’s refund has been challenged.
Kory: 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 were reporting, that we had reported to the Internal Revenue Service that money that Mr. Cohen had paid taxes on he did not receive. And therefore, Mr. -- when we reported that to the IRS we declared a theft loss. Mr. Cohen got a tax refund. RT 426
I’ve addressed the fraudulent expense ledger which I do not trust for one moment. These lunatics were moving things around from column to column. Cohen’s girlfriend’s house was actually in my column and his son’s house now appears to be in an undetermined column. That’s one example of the fraud on this ledger. The illegal K-1s totally undermine the ledger. Cohen has transmitted the K-1s to the IRS advising them that I had $0 income from LCI in 2004 and yet he has listed income, I believe, in the fraudulent ledger. How do they reconcile this insanity. I have asked for IRS required Form 1099. Cohen simply doesn’t want to hand it over. Do you see Kory’s logic - if someone gets a refund, somebody else pays the taxes. Not so quick. The fund has been challenged. Cohen stole from me. The IRS is in possession of the corporate books and records, etc.
Kory: As I read them, 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 426 It’s a zero sum game. If somebody gets a tax refund somebody else has to pay the taxes. RT 427
Did Robert Kory give my advisers the 2004 1099? I just called my former lawyers to discussed his testimony and to advise them that I am waiving attorney/client privilege for the IRAs, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Phil Spector’s attorneys with respect to them. They simply wanted that put in writing. I didn’t fire my accountant. He completed my return for 2003, advised me what to pay, and that was the work he was hired to do. I have no idea why Kory perjured himself over this situation. I did fire DiMascio & Berardo but I didn’t fire the lawyers I hired thereafter. That would include Mike Taitelman, Bert Deixler, and Zia Modabber who ultimately advised me that he had a conflict of interest. Robert Kory and Sandra Streeter’s use of the word RUSE is preposterous.
PD: … She requested tax information... did she request that information, Mr. Kory?
Kory: I -- I suppose … RT 427 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 2004. By then we had completed our forensic accounting, all the information was given to her. Very sophisticated tax lawyer and to her tax accountants, and she fired them. RT 428
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: You said that your business relationship ended on October 21, 2004?
Lynch: Essentially, yes.
PD: Why did it end?
Lynch: well, it’s a complicated answer, but I would say because Leonard Cohen heard I was going to the Internal Revenue Service about what I was told is criminal tax fraud. RT 458 I was told by Mr. Kory that there’s fraud, tax fraud on every entity: Blue Mist Touring, Traditional Holdings, LC Investments. There were problems with the Stranger Music deal that had tax issues. The IRS would demand information going back years, and the holding periods with respect to copyrights that were sold are illegal … He asked me if I would mediate with Mr. Cohen in a private mediation on Mr. Cohen’s side against his advisors. Particularly they wanted to go after Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin and their insurance companies. Mr. Kory told me that … Arthur Indursky, Don Friedman and Stuart Fried of Grubman, Indursky firm committed fraud in the inducement, as did Greg McBowman. RT 459
Public Defender: Were you asked to give false information that would hurt Mr. Greenberg and help Mr. Cohen?
Lynch: I don’t know if I was asked to give false information. I would not characterize the conversation that way. I was asked to testify that Neal Greenberg defrauded Leonard Cohen, and I most certainly do not feel that Neal Greenberg defrauded him. I feel that Leonard Cohen, Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin were wrapped in attorney/client privilege and they all defrauded the U.S. government.
PD: Did you ever agree to any of that?
Lynch: No. I felt I was being asked to participate in criminal conduct. RT 460
Public Defender: Now, you mentioned earlier about IRS and tax situation. Were you ever contacted by any tax authorities regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes?
Lynch: I don’t know if I was contacted regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes. As I reported the tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer, I was working on paying my own taxes, and he suggested that I contact the Fraud Unit with anything I had to report. And so I contacted the Fraud Unit by phone and then I filed a complaint online with the IRS. And I also called the IRS in Washington.
PD: When were you told to contact the Fraud Unit?
Lynch: I spoke to Agent Bill Betzer on April 15, 2005 after I paid my taxes in full. RT 463
PD: You heard voice mails regarding IRS; is that correct?
Lynch: Right.
PD: Can you tell us what you meant?
Lynch: What I meant by the IRS?
PD: Yes.
Lynch: Well, I did receive an email -- I mean I did receive a phone call from Agent Kelly Sopko of the Treasury regarding this matter. And I did meet with her and her partner, whose name is Brandon.
PD: What year was that?
Lynch: That was 2007. RT 464
PD: Did you write about this in any of your emails?
Lynch: Yeah, I did write about that.
PD: What did you write about in those emails?
Lynch: Well, I think I attached Agent Sopko’s email to me, saying that she found an appropriate individual for me, which is Agent -- to report this to, which is Agent Luis Tejeda of the IRS Unit in Los Angeles. And to go to Agent Tejeda with whatever information and evidence I had regarding this tax fraud.
PD: Did you ever notify Mr. Cohen or any of his representatives about this tax issue?
Lynch: Well, they have a copy of the email to me from Kelly Sopko. So yes, I did. RT 465
PD: Who is Doug Davis?
Lynch: Doug Davis is a tax advocate that was assigned to me to remove the lien while I attempted once again to get the tax information I needed to file my returns. RT 470
Public Defender: You mentioned earlier also about t tax information that you had learned about regarding -- or after your conversation with Doug Davis. What exactly did you -- what kind of tax information were you looking for?
Lynch: Well, Doug Davis was a very kind man and agreed to remove the tax lien. Because I would have ended up homeless again. But he told me he would give me 60 days to obtain -- first of all, we went over the fact that I was confused about what to call what I thought were my commissions on “Dear Heather,” because Leonard Cohen had said if he deposited it into his personal account, I wasn’t entitled to it. I have evidence proving otherwise … So he told me they don’t believe I did charitable or pro bono work. So Doug Davis told me to report that as income, and I told Mr. Davis this has been since 2004, I would call City National Bank to see if I could get copies of my bank statements, even though I don’t have the money. He said they probably won’t have them any longer. So, they didn’t call me back, they refused to call me back. I called their legal department. RT 477
Public Defender: What tax information were you requesting?
Lynch: I am trying to determine the total amount that i was given as a commission in the year 2004. Not just for “Dear Heather,” there are other royalties.
PD: Did you try to get this information from other sources?
Lynch: Well, I tried to get it from City National Bank, which would be the only other source.
PD: Did you actually have those actual physical records in your possession?
Lynch: No. I’ve lost everything.
PD: When did you lose everything?
Lynch: Well, I lost my house in 2005 and my storage in 2006. RT 478
PD: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever receive the documentation that you were requesting from Mr. Cohen?
Lynch: No, I have not. RT 479
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: You mentioned that you were trying to contact Mr. Cohen in reference to tax information you needed, right? That your 1099 or K-1?
Lynch: Many different tax and accounting and financial information I required to deal with my federal and state tax returns. I think we’re really clear, right? You’ve read the emails? RT 495
Leonard Cohen did not fire me. He heard I was reporting his tax fraud to the IRS; became hysterical; asked me to meet with him and his tax lawyer, hand over the corporate books and records, and help them unravel their handiwork. I refused. The IRS has never advised me that they believe money was missing out of Cohen’s account. But, once again, there is evidence that Cohen - and now the prosecutor - has taken the position that he is the alter ego of these entities. What evidence does Streeter have that this is the IRS’ position. She’s aware that Agent Tejeda/IRS received a subpoena so this is really quite psychotic. What is or is not income to me is none of Streeter’s business. She doesn’t work for the IRS and this is not Tax Court. I think all questions and testimony regarding federal tax matters should be viewed as prosecutorial misconduct and an attempt to obstruct justice.
Streeter: Now, once you were released from or quit Mr. Cohen’s employ, at some point later the IRS was of the opinion that the money that was missing out of his account, that was income to you, correct?
Lynch: I’ve never heard that. I’ve met with the agents for the Treasury and I’ve never been told that.
Streeter: Well, you mentioned --
Lynch: I talked to Agent Tejeda, I’ve never heard that.
Streeter: Well, you mentioned that the IRS came after you --
Streeter lies and misstates facts. I have never said that the IRS came after me. She is misleading the jurors.
Lynch: They didn’t come after me. RT 495
Streeter: Okay -- did the IRS ever contact you”?
Streeter is in possession of the IRS binder. It contains Agent Sopko’s email advising me to report Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Tejeda/IRS and notes that he is the head of fraud at the IRS in Los Angeles. Kory name drops him - he’s evidently the head of fraud for the Western Division of the IRS. I hope he’s clear about the ruse and the attempt to sabotage the IRS.
Lynch: No.
Streeter: After you quit Mr. Cohen’s employ, did the IRS ever contact you about paying back taxes?
What is this line of questioning about my back taxes? It is outrageous.
Lynch: No. I was arranging to pay taxes that were current that had nothing to do with this and they didn’t -- they sent me a tax notice in 2004. It has nothing to do with this situation, and I paid that. Since that, no I’ve never heard from the IRS that I owed the money. RT 496
Streeter: And the IRS never contacted you about any back taxes that you owe?
Streeter is clearly attempted to sabotage me and the IRS. She seems intent on keeping Cohen credible; discrediting me; and it involves Phil Spector, Steve Cooley, and Alan Jackson.
Lynch: The state told me that because I don’t have the tax infor4mation, I need to file my returns, including any deductions, business expenses, follow my prior year tax returns and guess. So I contacted the IRS for that, for those returns, and I was told the IRS would like me to file my 2004 and 2005 returns. I don’t owe any money. I lost my greeting card company. I have huge losses.
Streeter: So it’s your testimony that no one associated with Mr. Cohen, Mr. Kory, Ms. Rice, or any of his business people ever gave you information, the tax documents that you are requesting?
Does Streeter have a copy of the IRS required form 1099 for the year 2004? The IRS does not. I just spoke to them. They have copies of the illegal K-1s.
Lynch: For the years 2004 and 2005, that’s correct. RT 497
Streeter constantly misstates the evidence and will simply lie about my testimony. She shocks the conscience and that’s before one witnesses her gushing in a cell phone about celebrity Leonard Cohen. As I’ve said, it was obscene. Literally.
Streeter: Now, you mentioned that the reason that you continued to contact Mr. Cohen was solely for business purposes, that it was to get the information for the tax documents?
Lynch: Did I say solely for business purposes.
Public Defender: Misstates the evidence. RT 497
Lynch: One of the main reasons I contacted Leonard Cohen is for -- I have K-1s that were transmitted to the IRS that do not belong to me. I was not a partner on LC Investments. That causes tremendous confusion with my taxes. I have a default judgment where two companies have been -- Leonard Cohen said he’s the beneficial owner. That is not factual. I have the evidence. This caused my federal tax returns that were filed to be altered. This causes confusion for me … I have tried to get all of this clarified. I’ve asked for -- there is not a forensic accounting. there is a ledger. RT 497
Streeter: You didn’t feel that those were harassing, right, Ms. Lynch?
Lynch: Asking for information for my federal tax returns and state -- including when I’ve been garnished is harassment? RT 498 I feel like I’m being harassed by not being given the information. RT 498
Lynch: But Stranger Music is a tax problem, and I’ve gone to the IRS on that as well. So that is a tax matter, yes. RT 500
Francisco, what law says my requests have to be on the first page? What does extraneous material - meant for my own purposes (sent to the IRS, FBI, etc.) have to do with this matter? Streeter doesn’t care about criminal conduct. She’s got a celebrity on the stand and the DA’s investigator hanging out in the courtroom and lunching with Cohen. Hailey from the LA Times is also present. It’s positively LA Confidential.
Streeter: Where on the first page is there any mention about taxes?
Lynch: It’s on the second page.
Streeter: But on the first page. RT 507
Lynch: THe SWAT incident on the first page.
Streeter: That has nothing to do with your tax issues?
Lynch: But it has to do with criminal activity I believe. RT 507
Streeter Closing:
Why does Streeter find this interesting? “Every musician in LA knows what a 1099 is. What is her point here? People don’t know the difference between the IRS and FTB? Is she saying that ta
This is the other thing the people found a little interesting. She knows what a 1099 is a K-1 -- a K-1. Whoever heard of a K-1 before this case? The FTB and the IRS. Did anyone know there was a difference between the FTB and the IRS? Or what the FTB is? … This is a woman who knows what a K-1 is … RT 566
So this isn’t about Ms. Lynch being angry that she didn’t get her tax documents. RT 577 So what you have here, what this is proof of is not a woman who legitimately wants her IRS records or documents. It’s the unraveling of a con. RT 578
Defense Closing:
She was a whistle blower, reporting what she thought was criminal and fraudulent conduct. She’s asking for help from Steve Cooley, the DA, the IRS, the FBI, Department of Justice, lawyers she thought might help her. RT 581
Cohen was testifying he doesn’t know what a W-2 form is, he only learned recently that a K-1 form has to do with taxes, and that he only asked two real questions when things come up in his financial and legal affairs: Is it legal? Is it safe? And he doesn’t want to get involved too much in the intricacies of these legal issues because it inteferes with his creative process … But when my co-counsel was cross-examining him on issues such as a default judgment entered against Ms. Lynch, all of a sudden Mr. Cohen had details about how a forensic accounting was entered and the judge relied up0on that. He’s won two judgments against her. He knew details, where just on direct examination he doesn’t get involved in these type of things. It seems like he has a lot more to say than he was letting on to. RT 585
LORCA COHEN’S ALLEGATIONS THAT HER FATHER MOLESTED HER
Streeter: You mentioned -- you mentioned that Ms. Lynch often accused you of hurting other children; is that right?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
Streeter: Did Ms. Lynch in any of her emails accuse you of molesting your children?
Cohen: Yes, she did.
Streeter: Do you know what NAMBLA is, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: I think it’s an organization of male and that affirms or encourages re -- sexual relations between men and children.
Streeter; Did she ever mention that in any of the emails that she sent you, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Sounds familiar, but I can’t -- I can’t say for sure. I think so. RT 90
Streeter: You mentioned that you do recall her sending you emails in reference to the NAMBLA Association?
Cohen: Right.
Streeter: Is there any mention of that in that email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Yes, there is.
Streeter: And after -- is there any mention of the minor children in reference to the -- that organization?
Cohen: To my minor children --
Streeter: Or minor children.
Cohen: I don’t think this particular email is referring to me.
Streeter. But there is mention of that?
Cohen: But there is a mention that a lawyer might be molesting her minor child and that he might be a member of NAMBLA. RT 91/91
From: Ann Diamond <anndiamond2011@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:54 PM
Subject: Re:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Hi Kelley
I deleted all posts on my FB wall re: this matter. It's not the place to talk about Cohen, Lorca, et al. I don't know what Walsh has going with Cohen but posting these comments as Phil Spector is definitely not the way to go either.
re: what Freda told me. I met her in the street one day in 1995 (I think) and she asked me if I thought the story Lorca had told her daughter, re; Cohen molesting her from age 4, could be true. I thought about it and said "Yes, it could." This was the first time I had my 15-year-old vague suspicion confirmed by anyone. After that I went home and went to bed for about 24 hours, after which I decided to move off the block. At the time it suddenly seemed to be that my whole history of living on Saint Dominique (from 1983 on) including threats, attacks, and other bizarre incidents, revolved around this secret.
Freda apparently later denied that she had said this, or she said I did not get her story straight, etc -- I think I heard this from Van Pennick, but didn't know whether to believe it.
A.
ARYAN NATION
Streeter: Looking at People’s 14,was there any mention of the Aryan Nation or Brotherhood in that email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: In this email, yes, Ma’am, there is. RT 133
Public Defender: I think per the rule of completeness -- RT 134
Streeter: Now when Ms. Lynch was in your employ, did you -- did you ever celebrate any Jewish holy days and invite Ms. Lynch to those celebrations?
Cohen: Yes, our family celebrates the Sabbath on Friday night, and Ms. Lynch was often invited to that evening.
Streeter: Are you saying that for the entire 14 years every -- you would celebrate every Sabbath?
Cohen: We occasionally missed, some of us were out of town. More or less is the custom of the family.
Streeter: And did you ever express to Ms. Lynch how important your Jewish faith was to her?
Cohen: I think she was well aware of that.
Streeter: How did it feel to get an email from Ms. Lynch that mentioned the Aryan Nation sent to you?
Cohen: Well, 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
Leonard Cohen Cross:
PD: You also mentioned that you were threatened with an email that referenced teh Aryan Nation. Do you remember that?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: Now, you just read the part that said Aryan Nation when you were asked about it, correct?
Cohen: Right.
PD: Now, the actual sentence says, P.S. More than one member of the Aryan Nation, so to speak, ended up protecting me on the streets of Santa Monica.” That’s what the whole sentence says, correct? And you’re aware that Ms. Lynch was actually homeless on the streets of Santa Monica.
Cohen: Correct.
PD: Nowhere does that sentence say anything about you correct? …
Cohen: This particular sentence has no mention to me, no.
PD: Okay. And --
Cohen: -- Although there is an implied menace there.
PD: So that was an implied menace to you?
Cohen: Yes, sir. When an enemy tells you that the Aryan Nation is protecting her, you would be concerned.
PD: So you consider Ms. Lynch an enemy?
Cohen: She considers me an enemy. RT 310
RESTRAINING ORDER - BOULDER 2008
PD: So why did you get a permanent restraining order in Colorado?
Cohen: … I was giving a concert in Colorado. I was going to be there for several days and thought it was prudent to defend ourselves against any intrusion. RT 319
Michelle Rice Direct:
Streeter: Okay. What is that?
Rice: This is the Form DV-600, register out-of-state restraining order, in the State of California.
Streeter: And is that the copy of the registration of the restraining order from Colorado?
Rice; Yes. RT 328
Streeter: Before you registered that restraining order -- I think that was in May of 2011 -- at some point in February of 2011, did you send a letter on behalf of Mr. Cohen via email to Ms. Lynch?
Rice: Yes. RT 328
Michelle Rice Cross:
Public Defender: Could you read that portion out loud, please.
Rice: … Mr. Cohen’s protective order is registered in the State of California and will be fully recognized and enforced by California law enforcement. I want to take this opportunity to remind you that the Colorado order … can only be cancelled or modified by the court from which it was issued. RT 352
PD: So you told Ms. Lynch that you had filed it when in fact you hadn’t at that point? RT 352 And you didn’t actually file it until approximately three months later in Superior Court?
Rice: That is correct. RT 352
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: Did you ever see any declarations that were written regarding that 2008 order?
Lynch: The restraining order?
PD: In 2008, yes.
Lynch: After I asked the judge to make that permanent, I went back to the court because I had been shocked to hear from Judge Enichen that Leonard Cohen actually flew into Boulder for this. Because I didn’t even know he was on tour … Yes. So I went back and read his declaration, yes. RT 473
Public Defender: You said that you had requested that the order be permanent. What did you mean by permanent?
Lynch: … Then, that becomes permanent for a couple or a few years. That was my understanding.
PD: Okay. Did you believe that the order in Colorado had expired?
Lynch: Yes, I did. RT 476
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: But you didn’t appeal?
Lynch: I actually filed a Motion to Vacate with Judge Enichen after I went back and I realized that Leonard Cohen’s perjury and fraud was excessive.
Streeter: Do you have a document for that, Ms. Lynch?
Lynch: I believe my attorneys requested that. Mr. Cohen’s lawyers were served with that document. RT 512
Streeter: Do you recall asking Ms. -- the judge, may I attack this later -- this later as fraud and perjury? Do you remember asking that?
Lynch: Yeah. Then ultimately she said she is not a lawyer and she can’t give me advice. RT 519
Streeter: Do you recall saying to the court, may I sue later if it’s fraud and perjury? … Do you recall the court saying, No, I’m not giving you legal advice … RT 520
Defense Closing:
[Michelle Rice] She had an explanation. Guilty with an explanation … She made a lie, a material misrepresentation in an email to my client. But she had an explanation. If she didn’t want to concede it, she shouldn‘t have said that. Now, Ms. Rice also copied other people in that email. All the people that -- the government is saying that my client copied on all those emails too. Ms. Rice replied to all of them. They were all included in this email which she wrote to my client. Why? Ms. Rice had no explanation for that. RT 587
A permanent order was issued by a California court. But that permanent order in California, ladies and gentlemen, it expires in three years even though it’s called permanent. Now, when Ms. Lynch was in a Colorado proceeding, which seems similar, they issued a permanent order. Now, in California what we call permanent orders sometimes have an expiration date. And in this case, an expiration date was given in the California order. But in Colorado there is no expiration date on the order. So it is reasonable to believe that someone might think that there was an expiration date on an order that was called permanent in Colorado because there was an expiration date on a permanent order in California. RT 592
Now, I also want to talk about knowledge because there is no proof of service of this California order. RT 593 Ms. Lynch’s signature is not on the sheet. RT 593 There is no attached proof of service … In California, we have a thing called proof of service … But there is no such proof of service on the California 2011 order. None at all. RT 594
[Michelle Rice] She believed she could never send documents to Ms. Lynch because that would violate the restraining order. YOu may have missed that she said that. I didn’t believe I could send any tax documents to Ms. Lynch because of the terms of the restraining order … Now, if Ms. Rice, who’s a trained attorney, advocate for Leonard Cohen, doesn’t even understand the terms of the restraining order, how can Ms. Lynch? RT 593
PERSONAL MANAGER
Leonard Cohen Cross:
Public Defender: You -- actually, you hired her to be your personal manager in 1988, correct?
Cohen: No.
PD: : Well, when did you hire her?
Cohen: I hired her to be my business manager.
PD: In what year?
Cohen: I think it was 1988 or 1989. RT 271
PD: So any accountants would have been hired by Ms. Lynch?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And would that not have been any of your -- would you not have had any input in that?
Cohen: Very little, if not none. RT 272
PD: So you have no idea if you raised your agreement with her where she would receive 10% of profits [NOTE: It’s gross royalty income], and you raised that up to 15%? RT 273
Cohen: I don’t recall the moment that that took place, although it did take place over the years. RT 274
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Lynch: Leonard Cohen hired a business manager by the name of Rich Feldstein … Leonard Cohen felt that his tour manager was stealing from him. And so he asked me to find a business manager … I brought Rich Feldstein in, Mr. Cohen approved that. Don Was recommended him. He’s also Madonna’s business manager, so he’s well known in the industry. This is how it would happen. And then he came in and did an audit and there was no such truth to that allegation. RT 450
THE DATING RELATIONSHIP
Public Defender: Now, you also mentioned earlier that there was a brief intimate relationship between you and Ms. Lynch, correct?
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: You wouldn’t say that that was probably the best idea, to have a romantic relationship with your business partner, correct?
Cohen: I don’t think it goes to the description of romantic.
PD: But it was a sexual relationship, correct?
Cohen: It was an intimate relationship, yes.
PD: Was it a sexual relationship?
Cohen: It involved a sexual -- yes.
PD: It was actually spanning years, correc?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
PD: It actually spanned years, correct?
Cohen: I don’t know how long it spanned, sir.
PD: But you would agree with me that it was on and off for a period of time?
Cohen: Yes, sir. RT 275
PD: When did it end?
Cohen: I don’t remember exactly when it ended. Like many relationships, it -- it just dissolved. RT 276
PD: And do you know why it ended?
Cohen: I would say that part of the relationship exhausted itself and dissolved naturally. RT 276
PD: Do you remember testifying on March 23rd at another hearing?
Cohen: March 23rd, yes.
PD: Of this year. You were in this courthouse testifying, correct?
Cohen: That is correct.
PD: 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.
PD: And you actually said that it was, yes, purely a business relationship. RT 276
Cohen: I have said repeatedly that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady denies it. So I did not want to insist.
PD: 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?
Cohen: May I explain.
PD: I’m just asking for if that’s what you said on March 23rd.
Cohen: Yes.
PD: In fact, you were asked a follow up question that -- asking you if that was the extent of it, and again you said yes, that was the extent of it, correct?
Cohen: Correct. RT 277
PD: When you testified on March 23rd, you said that -- you didn’t give the same answer that you gave now, correct, regarding your relationship with Ms. Lynch.
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: When you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raised your right hand, correct?
PD: You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth.
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And then the same oath that you just took right now, correct? Before testifying correct?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And yet you gave two different answers, yes or no?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?
Streeter: Objection; argumentative.
Court:L Sustained. RT 321/322
In Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 397, a First District Court of Appeal decision written by P.J. Anthony Kline, the court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a petition for a restraining order because the trial court did not believe that the parties involved had been in a
dating relationship. The appellate court sought to define
"dating relationship" for purposes of the DVPA, and, based
on an examination of various definitions from other states
and sociological writings, crafted a definition in Oriola .
"[A dating relationship] is a 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.”
We also heard testimony about Mr. Cohen’s relationship with Ms. Lynch. At a prior hearing in this matter, he testified that their relationship was purely a business relationship. But then, when he testified on the stand in front of you, the jurors, he said under oath that they had a short, brief intimate relationship, a sexual relationship. And when he was asked, well, why the two stories? Why when you were under oath at the prior hearing did you say it was only a business relationship and now, under oath again, you’re saying, well, kit was also a little bit more, it was a sexual relationship also. Mr. Cohen’s response was, well, Ms. Lynch denies it an, you know, in my mind if she denies it then it didn’t really happen. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you’re ever in your entire life going to tell the truth, wouldn’t you do it under oath, under penalty of perjury and in a court of law? Mr. Cohen had two stories. What does that say about his credibility? RT 584
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
PD: So you know that a default judgment means that Ms. Lynch didn’t actually participate in that litigation, correct?:
Cohen: Yes, that’s what it means.
PD: 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.
PD: I’m not asking if she -- I’m asking if she actually did give her version.
Cohen: A default judgment implies that -- that only one version is given.
PD: And so that version was yours, correct? RT 297
Cohen: That version was upheld by the court, yes, sir.
PD: 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.
PD: But it was your version, correct?
Cohen: Yes, Sir.
PD: And that judgment was made in her absence, correct?
Cohen: Correct. RT 298
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: Now, we also heard evidence about a default judgment in 2005. Are you familiar with that?
Lynch: Yes, I am.
PD: Now, did you ever receive any summons regarding that lawsuit?
Lynch: I was never served with a lawsuit. RT 468
PD: Did you ever get the complain in that case?
Lynch: No. I read the complaint when it was put online in April 2010 and I was astounded at the allegations. RT 469
http://es.scribd.com/doc/
http://es.scribd.com/doc/
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: And so the last address that anybody knows that you had in Los Angeles around that time was on Mandeville Road, correct?
Lynch: Apart from my email address, yes, which everyone has.
Streeter: You did live on Mandeville Road?
Lynch: The last address people would have had in LA would be 1614 Ocean in Santa Monica …
Streeter: But prior to that, that other address that you had was on Mandeville Road, right?
Lynch: Until I lost my house in 2005, yes.
Streeter: Now, as far as the timing of when you lost your house, right now, as it stands, the only signal we have that is for you, right, Ms. Lynch?
Lynch: I don’t understand the question at all.
Streeter: Well, the information about when you did and did not lose your house, the only person that’s testified to that right now, as it stands right now, Ms. Lynch is you?
Lynch: Are you asking me -- are you telling me I’m the only person that testified that I lost my house?
Court: You don’t have to answer it. RT 485
Streeter: And look at the proof of service.
Lynch: Right RT 487
Streeter: And on the proof of service, which is about the fourth page, it lists as the address --
Lynch: 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road, and I told you I don’t know if I filed a forwarding address. RT 487.
Kelley Lynch Redirect:
Public Defender: Ms. Streeter also mentioned this judgment that she showed you during her cross-examination … Did you ever get this on or about May 15, 2006?
Lynch: I couldn’t have. I was homeless. RT 525
PD: Anywhere on this paper that she gave you that stated that you actually received this document?
Lynch: No, there’s not. RT 525
CONSPIRACY
Michelle Rice Direct:
Public Defender: 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. RT 358
Public Defender: And they named Ms. Lynch as one of the conspirators in that civil conspiracy; is that also correct?
Rice: I don’t believe Ms. Lynch was named as a coconspirator. RT 358
Robert Kory Cross:
Public Defender: 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 adviser, Mr. Greenberg?
Kory: Absolutely not.
PD: 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. RT 400
PD: Even though you just said that 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 an illegal lawsuit before it even got started against me. RT 403
PD: You were actually dismissed in that lawsuit because the Colorado court ordered that it didn’t have any personal jurisdiction over you pursuant to rule 12(b)12 of the Federal Laws of Civil Procedure? RT 406 Let me rephrase, Mr. Kory, there was no order of dismissal based on the actual merits of the Colorado lawsuit against you, was there?
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.
PD: … 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? RT 407
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: Now, your position is, if the people understand you correctly, that the meeting that Mr. Kory had with you was because Mr. Cohen was doing something illegal, right?
Lynch. No … No, that is not why we met. Is that what you’re asking? RT 490
Streeter; BYes.
Lynch: That is not why I felt we were meeting … we were trying to work out some of the problems between me and Mr. Cohen when I was no longer represented.
Streeter: But during the course of that meeting, if the people understand you correctly, Mr. Kory intimated to you that there was a lot of illegality going on with the tax information that had been filed on Mr. Cohen’s behalf, correct?
Lynch: We didn’t talk about the tax information that was filed. What Mr. Kory told me is that there was tax fraud on all entities. Specifically, Blue Mist Touring, LC Investments, and Traditional Holdings. That Leonard Cohen’s advisors created this, that I had a cause of action against every one of his advisors, and in particular they felt that Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin were to blame and had defrauded Leonard Cohen.
Streeter: And there was no mention that you had defrauded him, right?
Lynch: No, there was mention that I was used as a pawn. RT 491
Defense Closing:
[Robert Kory] On the stand his demeanor was condescending, argumentative. We asked him questions about a lawsuit in which he was named a defendant for civil extortion, conspiracy, outrageous conduct and defamation. But he didn’t even want to admit that he had been sued over what my client said happened by a third party. … And when I was asking him questions, what was his demeanor? Even simple questions. I want you to think about it. RT 588
TRADITIONAL HOLDINGS ASSETS - COHEN/ALTER EGO - SELF DEALING
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: At the point that you quit Mr. Cohen’s employ, there was only a hundred thousand dollars left in that account?
Lynch: I don’’t know about that. There were loans from Mr. Cohen that were not repaid. So there would need to be an accounting to determine what was left.
Streeter: There wasn’t millions in there?
Lynch: There were assets, okay?
Streeter: In the bank account?
Lynch: There were assets … that was one asset, the bank account, $150,000. There were other assets.
Streeter: But that bank account had only $150,000?
Lynch: Right, and there were other assets. RT 494 There were millions in other assets.
Streeter: And you had access to that bank account?
Lynch: No, I did not have access. Neal Greenberg was his financial adviser. I had no access. RT 495
Kelley Lynch Redirect:
Public Defender: And asked you questions about money that was not in his account.
Lynch: I don’t believe there wasn’t any money in his account. I don’t know what that means. RT 526
DEFENSE CLOSING:
Ms. Lynch has been requesting documents related to accusations made against her for over six years. Her wages have been garnished by the state tax authorities and she’s desperate to get these critical documents to clear her name and to move on with her life. She’s not represented by any attorneys in her civil matters. She represents herself. She’s trying to clear her name. RT 597 Nobody comes up and shows you a letter or a document or a receipt showing we turned these documents over to her … Nobody said that. Why not? Because it didn’t happen … They never gave her what she asked for. And they kept stone walling her and stone walling her. RT 597
The prosecution failed to impeach her on anything she said. They brought not one witness, not one document, nothing to impeach her story. Why not? Because it’s true. RT 598 I don’t believe Ms. Lynch -- or the evidence shows that Ms. Lynch intended to annoy or harass anybody. RT 598
Date: Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:24 PM
Subject:
To: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>
Francisco,
I'm not quite done but thought you might want to review this. I'm almost finished. I need to include the email Cohen sent Streeter re. the other version of the Phil Spector gun story and LAPD's report. I also have to finish my comments. I want you to have one final document. I know how confusing this is and Streeter's intentional attempts to mislead the jury, which confused the transcripts, are outrageous. She just gets away with it, Francisco. Vanderet thinks it's acceptable. Perjury to Vanderet. No problemo. It's LA Confidential - just sent innocent people to jail while lying prosecutors dazzle the LA Times re. celebrities.
All the best,
Kelley
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
The prosecutor has a legal and ethical duty to promote truth and to refrain from conduct that impedes truth. The prosecutor has the overriding responsibility not simply to convict the guilty but to protect the innocent. The prosecutor has a constitutional obligation not to use false evidence or to suppress material evidence favorable to the defendant. A prosecutor may impede the truth-finding process in several ways: (1) distorting the truth by attacking the defendant's character, misleading and misrepresenting facts, and engaging in inflammatory (2) subverting the truth by making false statements and presenting false evidence; (3) suppressing the truth by failing to disclose potentially truth-enhancing evidence or obstructing defense access to potentially truth- enhancing evidence; and (4) other truth-disserving conduct that exploits defense counsel's misconduct and mistakes and prevents introduction of potentially truth-serving defenses. The prosecutor also has an affirmative duty to assist the defense in discovering the truth through discovery rules and by conferring immunity on potentially truthful defense witnesses.
The courts have recognized that a prosecutor has a special duty not to impede the truth. That duty has been recognized implicitly in cases where courts have reversed convictions when the prosecutor engaged in conduct that distorted, subverted, or suppressed the truth. In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935), the seminal case defining the prosecutor's legal and ethical role, the Supreme Court contémplated prosecutorial misconduct in a criminal case … implied that the prosecutor's duty to serve justice includes the avoidance of conduct that deliberately corrupts the truth-finding process. The prosecutor's conduct, both in presenting evidence and argument to the jury, was characterized by the Court as an “evil influence” that was “calculated to mislead the jury.” The misconduct during the evidence phase included: misstating facts during cross-examination; falsely insinuating that witnesses said things they had not said; representing that witnesses made statements to him personally out of court when no proof of this was offered; pretending that a witness had said something which he had not said and persistently cross-examining him on that basis; and assuming prejudicial facts not in evidence. The prosecutor's closing argument contained remarks that were intemperate," "undignified," and "misleading," including assertions of personal knowledge, allusions to unused incriminating evidence, and ridiculing of defense counsel.
The prosecutor's tactics in Berger are familiar examples of how a prosecutor can corrupt the fact-finding process. One way a prosecutor violates the duty to truth is by deliberately distorting the evidence. Prosecutors do this in several ways: attacking a defendant's character without a valid evidentiary purpose; misleading the jury and misrepresenting the facts; and inflaming the passions and prejudices of the jury. Character proof, as every trial lawyer knows, is one of the most dangerous types of evidence. The capacity of proof of a defendant's criminal past to skew the jury's proper evaluation of the truth has been documented. By insinuating that a defendant's criminal background makes it more likely that he committed the present crime, the prosecutor encourages the jury to find the defendant guilty based on speculative, confusing, and inflammatory considerations.
Prosecutors employ a variety of tactics to unfairly impugn a defendant's character. They accomplish this directly through proof of prior crirninality, by innuendo during the examination of witnesses about the defendant's criminal past, and by proving that the defendant associates with undesirable persons.
Misleading conduct distorts the search for truth by confusing the jury's rational view of the evidence. The potential for a prosecutor to mislead inheres in virtually every phase of the trial, from offering evidence, questioning witnesses, making comments, and presenting argument. Since the jury is likely to place great trust in the prosecutor as the embodiment of law enforcement, the prosecutor's ability to mislead the jury is greatly enhanced.
Misleading conduct attempts to create in the jurors' minds damaging and prejudicial innuendos without any basis in fact. The potential to mislead is especially enhanced because the prosecutor's prestige and standing as a law enforcement expert make his representations presumptively reliable.
MISSTATEMENT OF EVIDENCE:
“It is elementary ․ that counsel may not premise arguments on evidence which has not been admitted.” (George ) Johnson v. United States, 121 U.S.App. D.C. 19, 21, 347 F.2d 803, 805 (1965); see also United States v. Jenkins, 140 U.S.App. D.C. 392, 397, 436 F.2d 140, 145 (1970) (quoting (George) Johnson.) The applicable principles were summarized in some detail in Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App. D.C. 154, 413 F.2d 1061 (1969):
The federal courts generally, and this court in particular, have strictly enforced the obligation of the prosecutor to avoid making statements of fact to the jury not supported by proper evidence introduced during trial. This rigor is based on the Supreme Court's observation in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935), that the interest of the Government in a criminal prosecution ‘is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done,’ and that ‘the average jury has confidence that these obligations (of fairness and accuracy) will be faithfully observed.’
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-
Standard 3- 1.2 The Function of the Prosecutor
(a) The office of prosecutor is charged with responsibility for prosecutions in its jurisdiction.
(b) The prosecutor is an administrator of justice, an advocate, and an officer of the court; the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her functions.
(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.
(d) It is an important function of the prosecutor to seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice. When inadequacies or injustices in the substantive or procedural law come to the prosecutor's attention, he or she should stimulate efforts for remedial action.
(e) It is the duty of the prosecutor to know and be guided by the standards of professional conduct as defined by applicable professional traditions, ethical codes, and law in the prosecutor's jurisdiction. The prosecutor should make use of the guidance afforded by an advisory council of the kind described in standard 4-1.5.
http://www.americanbar.org/
FALSE TESTIMONY
In Freeman, 2011 WL 2417091, a 7th Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a new trial. Relying on the Supreme Court’s holdings in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1984), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), the panel upheld the district court’s determination that there was a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment and that if not for the improprieties, the defendants would have been acquitted.
In United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), the Supreme Court explained that the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), applied in different situations. The first being those instances when the prosecution knew or should have known about perjured testimony. These situations are fundamentally unfair. Convictions obtained therein must be set aside. This requires a finding that there existed a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103.
The Second Circuit has applied the Agurs analysis to set aside convictions when the government’s witnesses have presented perjured testimony. See, United States v. Mele, 462 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1972) (the government’s deceit including untruthful testimony, deliberate excisions from reports, preparation of false reports and repeated misrepresentations required a new trial); Perkins v. LeFevre, 691 F.2d 616 (2d Cir. 1982) (the prosecution’s failure to provide the witness’ rap sheet to the defense after the witness denied any convictions which were recorded on his criminal history resulted in the granting of a writ of habeas corpus.); United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1991) (the perjury of the government’s witness required a reversal of the convictions when the government in redirect and in closing argument made much of the witness’ motive for telling the truth.); United States v. Vozzella, 124 F.3d 389 (2d Cir. 1997) (the government’s use of business record evidence that it knew contained fictitious entries, and according to its author were false in their entirety, required reversal when the government conducted no further inquiry into the veracity of the records.); Jenkins v. Artuz, 294 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2002) (the prosecutor’s failure to correct the record in spite of the witness’ false testimony and her argument in summation relying on that false testimony was sufficient basis to grant a writ of habeas corpus); and Drake v. Portuondo, 553 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2009) (the prosecutor knowingly elicited false statements from a witness and did not correct the record when the witness testified falsely about conversations he had with the prosecutor - this was sufficient to grant a writ of habeas corpus.).
The importance of the Freeman decision is the imposition of a duty on the prosecutor to investigate his/her witnesses. The government’s counsel may no longer contend “I didn’t know,” or “the witness was simply mistaken,” or “the defense attorney had a sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witness.” Defense counsel should put the government on notice of a witness’ perjury, record proper objections, and challenge the government’s failure to correct the record. Building on the Supreme Court decisions and adding the direction in Freeman, counsel should argue the government’s failure to fully investigate its witnesses is a sufficient basis to set aside a conviction, obtain a new trial or otherwise secure a dismissal in the appropriate criminal prosecution.
http://newyorkcriminaldefense.
The State's Knowing Elicitation of Perjury
Since at least 1935, it has been the established law of the United States that a conviction obtained through testimony the prosecutor knows to be false is repugnant to the Constitution. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). This is so because, in order to reduce the danger of false convictions, we rely on the prosecutor not to be simply a party in litigation whose sole object is the conviction of the defendant before him. The prosecutor is an officer of the court whose duty is to present a forceful and truthful case to the jury, not to win at any cost. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Artuz, 294 F.3d 284, 296 n. 2 (2d Cir.2002) (noting the duty of prosecutors under New York law "to seek justice, not merely to convict").
Despite the fundamental nature of the injury to the justice system caused by the knowing use of perjured testimony by the state, the Supreme Court has not deemed such errors to be "structural" in the sense that they "affect[] the framework within which the trial proceeds." United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 111 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (brackets in original)). Structural errors are those that "`so fundamentally undermine the fairness or the validity of the trial that they require voiding [the] result [of the trial] regardless of identifiable prejudice.'" Id. (quoting Yarborough v. Keane, 101 F.3d 894, 897 (2d Cir.1996)). Instead, even when a prosecutor elicits testimony he or she knows or should know to be false, or allows such testimony to go uncorrected, a showing of prejudice is required. But the Supreme Court has made clear that prejudice is readily shown in such cases, and the conviction must be set aside unless there is no "reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); see also United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 456 (2d Cir.1991) (citing Agurs and adding that the Supreme Court cases mean that "if it is established that the government knowingly permitted the introduction of false testimony reversal is virtually automatic" (quotation marks omitted)). This then is the "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), that we must apply in the case before us. And to do this we must ask: (1) whether false testimony was introduced, (2) whether that testimony either was or should have been known to the prosecution to be false, (3) whether the testimony went uncorrected, and (4) whether the false testimony was prejudicial in the sense defined by the Supreme Court in Agurs.
TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
General Objection At Trial:
Public Defender: I want to make a standing objection for leading questions for the hearsay for the emails obviously, and the foundation that -- and also for the best evidence rule … there’s been a lot of testimony regarding statements, the contents of writings that have not been produced. RT 190
DISTORTS EVIDENCE:
This is a quote I repeated. His Holiness Kusum Lingpa said, and he knows Leonard Cohen, that he is an ässhole who is going to hell.” I do think His Holiness is entitled to his opinion. Beyond that, Leonard Cohen clearly distorted this quote intentionally and this is done throughout the trial. I think this is the best example of how the prosecutor and Cohen distort evidence and misstate facts. Why would Streeter ask Cohen “What did she call you, sir?” when it is clear that I was quoting Lamasang who is His Holiness Kusum Lingpa, a renowned Tibetan lama and enlightened man. This is one way Streeter elicits perjured and false testimony.
Streeter: Does she refer to you on the first page of that email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Yes, she does.
Streeter: What does she call you, sir?
Cohen: She says, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell. RT 196
Public Defender: I think the rule of completeness that the statement needs to be -- the whole statement -- the whole sentence needs to be read.
Court: Can you read the whole sentence?
Cohen: After all, as Lamasang said, Cohen is an asshole who is going to hell. RT 197
Defense Closing:
My trial lawyer is correct - Streeter takes statements and words out of context. She mislead the jurors by leaving out the beginning of this message which says I did not fuck Oliver Stone, etc. Leonard Cohen, and his lawyer Robert Kory, went into my younger son’s father’s office - in an attempt to stir up a custody matter - and accused me of having sex with 1) Leonard Cohen; 2) Oliver Stone; and, 3) Leonard Cohen’s tax lawyer. It is preposterous and this should really be addressed in the motion/writ. I do believe I have a right to refute these types of lies and to advise Cohen to cease and desist. This was evidently one of their first lines of defense with respect to the fact that they understood I was reporting Cohen’s tax fraud to the IRS. I think Oliver Stone should be highlighted in this example.
[Sandra Jo Streeter] But I’m going to give you a spoiler. Ms. Streeter, she brought out the worst emails in this testimony. And she just highlighted bad words out of context to try to shock you. Oh, she said something about fucking Oliver Stone. Well, yeah, my client explained that. Mr. Cohen accused her of sleeping with Oliver Stone. She wanted to refute that accusation against her. RT 589 I‘m not going to comment if I think that’s a good use of taxpayer money, but that’s what happened. They printed out these emails over and over to shock you. RT 590 They have a plan to discredit Ms. Lynch. RT 590
What permits the prosecutor to view all my comments as nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations? Has Streeter reviewed the evidence that actually proves Leonard Cohen stole from me; owes me millions; concealed corporate books and records; etc? The child molestation accusation should be addressed in the motion/writ, obviously.
Streeter: The people view virtually all of the comments made by Ms. Lynch as nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations, but, nevertheless, some of the things that Ms. Lynch has said have been incredibly troubling to Mr. Cohen. In particular, for example, the accusation that he’s a child molester, things of that nature. RT 3
This is an absolute lie. I have said that Lorca Cohen, Leonard Cohen’s daughter, publicly stated - at Concordia University in Montreal - that her father molested her. This information was repeated by Freda Guttman (an old friend of Leonard Cohen’s) to Ann Diamond. Ann Diamond actually posted this situation on her blog a number of years ago and Leonard Cohen had me contact my brother-in-law, an attorney in Canada, in an attempt to have the comments removed. He was concerned these comments would show up on the front page of the Montreal Gazette. Therefore, Streeter has lied here. I am not the individual or individuals who have stated that Leonard Cohen molested his daughter and have been very clear about this fact. However, this is not a defamation case so I’m unclear what the prosecutor is doing at this point. Is Streeter quoting from something? It has obviously been taken out of context. Streeter misstates facts and takes things out of context. See below - Allegation of Child Molestation.
I’m not certain if Incoherent and distorted transcripts are prosecutorial misconduct but it certainly seems that way. Material facts appear to be intentionally left out, confused, and the transcripts do not accurately reflect the voice mail messages. Streeter’s arrogant comment about her secretaries really drives home the point that these people could care less about their budget crunch - particularly when they have a celebrity to protect. I repeatedly heard Deputy City Attorneys advise the judges that this case was unusual because it involved a celebrity and believe that shows absolute prejudice and motive on their part. That’s before we get into the Phil Spector aspect of the situation.
INCOHERENT TRANSCRIPTS
Streeter: I have additional transcripts for the jury … RT 33 I mean, you know it’s as accurate as getting my secretaries to do it. RT 34
Streeter: I think I counted wrong. I have 13 transcripts, not 14. RT 62
At the bail hearing (and I have been unable to obtain the transcripts) Leonard Cohen testified that I never stole anything from him but his “peace of mind.” He also testified that we had a purely business relationship and this led to the line of questions re. perjury. I don’t think the judge should have sustained the objection to the perjury question because Leonard Cohen lied repeatedly and one of the main pieces of concealed exculpatory evidence relates to Phil Spector and impeaches his testimony with respect to the gun being held to his head. At this hearing, Streeter lied to the judge and said I was estranged from my sons. I was not and Rutger was extremely devastated by the situation and wanted to testify (after hearing that Cohen took the stand about his accident at Whole Foods). Streeter lied when she told the judge I was a flight risk and dangerous to my community. She lied about the incident with Jonathan Maihart - who is a Persian male, not a Latino gang member, and someone who worked for me in 2005. I have not seen him since. He stopped by Robert Kory’s office to pick up a document. This incident also appears in the LAPD report.
COHEN’S BAIL HEARING TESTIMONY
Leonard Cohen testified at the bail hearing that I never stole anything from him but his “peace of mind.” Streeter concealed this fact from the jurors as well as all corporate books, records, etc.
Kelly: But defense still contends that any mention of stealing, misappropriation, anything regarding Ms. Lynch’s -- I guess conduct while employed by Mr. Cohen at this point is improper character evidence. RT 35
Leonard Cohen and I did not have a brief intimate relationship or a dating relationship. He testified honestly at the bail hearing about this and confirmed this in two follow up questions at that hearing. I suppose this was inconvenient to the prosecutor who works in the Domestic Violence Unit.
Streeter - Opening:
They had a brief intimate relationship, and then at some point after that relationship ended in the late 80s when Mr. Cohen’s business manager died, Mr. Cohen hired Ms. Lynch, first as his personal assistant, and then ultimately as his business manager. RT 37
And Mr. Cohen ended the business relationship that he had with Ms. Lynch. RT 38 The evidence will show that shortly after the termination of the business relationship by Mr. Cohen that Ms. Lynch began an onslaught, a campaign of harassment on Mr. Cohen. RT 38
But you want know what else the evidence is going to show? Ms. Lynch came to that hearing [2008] where the court issued the permanent restraining order. RT 39 The evidence will show, no more than the ink was barely dry on the restraining order in Colorado, Ms. Lynch was at it again. RT 40
The prosecutor has knowledge of my complaint to the DA’s Major Fraud Unit. The prosecutor has a duty to provide the defense with information as to why the DA chose not to file criminal charges against Leonard Cohen. See Motion filed in Barry Bonds matter that addresses a possible government quid pro quo with respect to to a key prosecution witness. In 2006, I filed a complaint with the DA’s Major Fraud Unit. I found this complaint online. It relates to fraud, etc. I then spoke to Jeff Jonas of the DA’s office and, ultimately, the DA’s office became hostile and began threatening me. Clearly, their conduct related to the fact that I filed a complaint against Leonard Cohen. I also wrote a letter to Deputy DA Alan Jackson (Phil Spector’s prosecutor) about certain issues I was dealing with re. their office and individuals who have targeted me relentlessly since approximately 2009 - that would include Stephen Gianelli. The evidence cannot show that I fought with the DA because I have never spoken with DA Steve Cooley. I have, however, been threatened by his investigator (Marko) and was threatened with arrest for asking them to return a letter their investigator took from me that Phil Spector faxed me. The investigator agreed to photocopy and return that letter and, to date, they have not done so. The DA’s office has engaged in outrageous governmental conduct with me and that includes Cooley’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me. In other words, the DA’s office has also tried to silence me. They can now attempt to silence David Mamet, Al Pacino, Helen Mirren, and others. The evidence actually shows that the DA’s investigator rolled by my house in 2005 after an anonymous tip was placed to their office (presumably by a woman and I might note that they have caller ID) about my friendship with Phil Spector. During the so-called sentencing phase, Captain Jack Horvath wrote to the court and lied. He said 1) I had threatened Cooley but did not acknowledge that I had sent around a satirical email that noted I was running for President, on the Wedding Party, and my top criminal priority would be cleaning up corruption in politics. Furthermore, the California Penal Code clearly states that any official who willfully uses perjury to obtain a conviction - and the subject is then sentenced to death, is subject to the death penalty. I think Phil Spector has effectively received a death penalty. At this moment in time, Steve Cooley was running around demanding executions. The ACLU weighed in on that matter and I was working on an ACLU campaign. Cooley actually wanted people executed using a drug that is used to kill animals. My friends and I - working on this campaign - would play a game where we would run for President and appoint our cabinets, etc. I appointed an FBI and CIA director. Captain Jack Horvath evidently believes I am the President of the United States and my mother is the Deputy Director of the FBI. Horvath lied to the court and advised the court that I contacted the DA’s office in 2007. That is a bald faced lie. The DA’s investigator came to my house - unannounced - in 2005; I filed my complaint re. Leonard Cohen with their Major Fraud Unit in 2006; and, in 2007, I met with Investigator John Thompson and Detective Silva and was advised that I was probably a witness in the Phil Spector trial. This situation led to absolutely deranged conduct on the part of the DA’s office with respect to me and I ultimately advised them - after speaking with an attorney in Colorado - that I would take the 5th amendment if they attempted to call me as a witness due to their outrageous and unconscionable conduct with respect to me. During my trial, the DA’s investigator was present in the courtroom while Leonard Cohen testified - repeatedly - about Phil Spector and ultimately about one version of his highly embellished Phil Spector gun story. An email -that was not sent to Leonard Cohen or his lawyers - was entered into evidence. Cohen testified that he received that email. The prosecutor elicited testimony about that email. The email was sent to Dennis Riordan (Phil Spector’s appellate attorney) and it essentially stated that Leonard Cohen has told me - for 20 years - that Phil Spector never held a gun on him. Cohen told me, after meeting with detectives from the Sheriff’s Department, that he advised them that Phil Spector never held a gun on him and he advised them that his stories about Phil Spector were good rock and roll stories. I was absolutely shocked when one of my trial lawyers showed me Cohen’s email to Streeter re. Phil Spector which, as I have said, has been concealed.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/
http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.
The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was upset and Mr. Cohen and fought with the District Attorney, the LA County District Attorney’s didn’t file charges against Mr. Cohen. RT 40
Francisco, one interesting point. For years, I have filed complaints with LAPD re. Leonard Cohen’s ongoing harassment of me; Stephen Gianelli’s targeting of me and my children (who both lived in LA at the time - including my younger son who was a minor); Cohen’s theft from me, etc. I have heard nothing from LAPD and yet LAPD’s Threat Management Unit (a celebrity unit) became involved with the Leonard Cohen situation; visited Leonard Cohen at his lawyer’s office; and their report simply sets forth what Cohen advised them. Ultimately, Detective Viramontes/LAPD advised me that Cohen did not feel comfortable with my requests for tax information. That is an outrageous situation and I absolutely was entrapped by Leonard Cohen - and probably the City Attorney’s office and District Attorney’s office - when the Colorado order was registered in California on May 25, 2011 and I was not served or notified of the order. One must wonder - how did LA Superior Court obtain jurisdiction over me? The City Attorney has argued - in their reply brief - that it is irrelevant if I wasn’t served or notified. That’s preposterous and due process is a fundamental right. Either the City Attorney is lying or they are absolutely incompetent.
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: Did you ever contact any authorities regarding Mr. Cohen? Any law enforcement?
Lynch: Yes, actually. Repeatedly.
PD: And when did you do that?
Lynch: For a number of years. I’ve contacted LAPD for years about Leonard Cohen. I’ve contacted the District Attorney’s office. I’ve filed a complaint with the District Attorney’s Major Fraud Unit. I’ve kept the District Attorney copied in on emails, you know, so that no one can deny later that I have attempted to report these types of tactics that have been used against me. I’ve contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation about it. I’ve contacted Agent sopko, who is Intelligence with the Treasury, with the IRS. RT 476
Streeter’s correct. This case is not about whether or not I stole or misappropriated anything about Leonard Cohen. It is an all out attempt to discredit me, sabotage the IRS and my future litigation matters, and appears to involved illegal discovery about Phil Spector. Streeter’s very clear in her closing argument - it weighs on my credibility. Actually, I think Streeter’s misconduct, lies, concealment of evidence, and ongoing attempts to elicit perjury really weighs heavily on her credibility and have advised the IRS that I believe she should be investigated and prosecuted. I assume this is one of the reasons she decided to lie to LAPD about me - after the appeal was filed which is absolute retaliation on her part. Sandra Jo Streeter is a liar; she is absolutely aggressive; she met a celebrity; and I personally believe she should be disbarred and jailed for her conduct. Of course, no one holds prosecutors accountable for their misconduct so that is my idealized version of the justice system. The evidence - corporate books, records, etc. - proves that Cohen has stolen from me, concealed facts and evidence from LA Superior Court in his retaliatory lawsuit against me, and has taken the position that he is the alter ego who engaged in self-dealing with respect to the corporate entities that LA Superior Court wrongfully conveyed to Leonard Cohen - based on perjury in his declaration. These corporate entities were NOT held in trust for Leonard Cohen and there is not trust document. There is a deranged fictional narrative. Leonard Cohen heard I reported his tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer/IRS (and others) on April 15, 2005 and retaliated.
Streeter Closing:
The case is not about -- about the unlawful -- whether or not Ms. Lynch was ever charged criminally with stealing from Mr. Cohen, although it does weigh a bit on her credibility issue. All right. RT 562
Streeter Opening:
Michelle Rice, Leonard Cohen’s lawyer who has made her career targeting me, wrote me an email on February 14, 2011 LYING to me when she advised me that the Boulder civil harassment order that I requested was registered in California. I then phoned LA Superior Court and determined that this was a bald faced lie. Boulder Municipal Court Clerk’s office advised me that the Colorado order expired in 2010 and there are many varied definitions of permanent - which can include an order that expired in two to three years. How can a California court enforce an order when they have no jurisdiction? Rice’s lies about this letter were utterly pathetic. The Colorado order does NOT mention Robert Kory or Michelle Rice. That is a bald-faced lie on the part of prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter. I have no idea why my trial lawyers didn’t object to her misconduct or file a motion regarding the misconduct. Maybe they were just lazy. Who knows. They never bothered to meet with me and the bailiff pointed this out repeatedly. They had facts wrong; Mike Kelly lied to me repeatedly; and - to date - they refuse to hand over my file which I believe has harmed me with respect to this insane appeal.
But the evidence will show Ms. Rice has a job to do to protect her client’s interest, share a letter in February 2011 reminding Ms. Cohen [sic] that there is a permanent Colorado restraining order. And that the California courts will enforce that restraining order. RT 41
Let’s talk again about that Colorado restraining order … It says “Do not contact Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, Michelle Rice and Robert Kory.” That’s what it says. RT 41
Michelle Rice Direct:
Public Defender: Let me know where it shows that Mr. Kory is a named person …
Rice: Well, he’s not named … RT 359
PD: And isn’t it also true that your law office’s address is only included under places of exclusion; isn’t that correct?
Rice: That is correct.
PD: Your name or Mr. Kory’s name, does it appear anywhere in that restraining order? … On the order itself, if your name or Mr. Kory’s name on there as a person that Ms. Lynch is prohibited from contacting? RT 359
Rice: Not specifically … RT 360
Streeter Opening:
Leonard Cohen has breached many agreements with me - oral, written, implied, explicit, you name it. I own 15% of all his intellectual property. The non-revocable assignments date back to 1967. They were assigned to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. Leonard Cohen advised LA Superior Court that this entity was held in trust for him. That is a bald-faced lie and absurd. I also own 99.5% of Traditional Holdings, LLC which is basically worth the value of the private annuity - $4.7 million. I do not want a penny of that but want to address - ultimately - the fact that I legally own this. Why? Because Leonard Cohen needed assistance with his tax and estate planning, used me horrendously, and then decided to defraud me. He has also withheld commissions, worth millions, from me which were addressed at my trial. This man is a thief. He is a fraud. He has done this to his prior manager/attorney. He lies about Phil Spector. And he lied extensively throughout this trial - including with respect to the IRS and his fraudulent refund. This man, who has an outrageous sense of entitlement, feels absolutely comfortable lying and perjuring himself in every court he rolls into. That’s why he gave Judge Robert Vanderet a glowing review - he understood that the man wouldn’t even hold him accountable for confessing, on the stand, to perjuring himself. What more could another Hollywood fraud want?
I suppose I do talk about tax fraud a lot. I have, after all, been documenting - in emails - the destruction of my life (and everything I’ve gone through since reporting Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to the IRS) for the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, Phil Spector’s attorneys, and the news media. This is clearly what concerned Leonard Cohen. Streeter raised the fact that I was posting online. She evidently thinks she has the right to silence me. This woman was gushing in her cell phone about celebrity Leonard Cohen and his calm demeanor; skipping out of the court room to advise Cohen that the LA Times would take one still photograph; lying through her teeth; breaking items - like the podium; and generally conducting herself as the moronic lunatic that she is. She is hugely overweight and rolled into court - first day of trial - wrapped in a skin tight spandex outfit that highlighed her rolls of fat. I have never seen a more unprofessional individual in my life but, then again, I haven’t spent that much time with LA Confidential up close and personal. They make the individuals who work in the entertainment industry look like saints and brain surgeons. Leonard Cohen is required, by the IRS, to provide me with Form 1099 for the year 2004. He has steadfastly refused to do so and testified that he knows what a 1099 is. His lawyer, Rice, lied when she testified that she is not permitted to provide me with tax documents. She obviously feels entitled to email me and lie to me and, I might add, the IRS, FBI, Treasury, Dennis Riordan, Ron Burkle and others - including, I believe, Alan Jackson. The only ruse here is the trial which is a Stalinesque Show Trial and a circus brought to you, using taxpayer dollars, by Leonard Cohen, the City Attorney, and the District Attorney. Leonard Cohen does not want to provide me with a 1099 because he has lied about my receiving overpayments with respect to my personal management commissions. The illegal K-1s his 100% owned entity transmitted to the State of Kentucky and IRS completely undermine the fraudulent expense ledger. The K-1s, from LC Investments, LLC, for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 state that I received $0 income from this entity and yet income is alleged on the fraudulent expense ledger which in no way resembles an accounting and does not take into consideration corporate ownership interests, assets, liabilities, or equity. Leonard Cohen’s loans and personal transaction fees (totalling nearly $3 million) are not addressed and yet he testified that he used corporate assets to purchase things such as homes for his girlfriend and son. In any event, Detective Viramontes/LAPD has been clear with me - the IRS must obtain the 1099 I need from Leonard Cohen. At that point, we will see what he considers income. One thing he doesn’t consider income - the income he received from the sale of certain assets to Sony Music in 2001. His disdain for ordinary income taxes is unparalleled. Sandra Jo Streeter repeatedly lied to the jurors when she stated that I have the tax documents I require. That would include a proper accounting, taking into consideration the corporate ownership interests, assets, liabilities, and equity. Streeter concealed the fact that Leonard Cohen (as the sole owner of LC Investments, LLC) has provided me with illegal K-1s for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 and refuses to rescind them. Robert Kory testified that I asked that they withdraw these K-1s. Leonard Cohen’s declaration (part of the IRS binder in Streeter’s possession) clearly notes - he is the 100% owner of this entity. Streeter concealed this evidence of criminal conduct on Cohen’s part from the jurors. Streeter lies when she says that Cohen doesn’t have the information I required. Of course he does. All employers are required, by the IRS, to provide a 1099 or similar tax document to their employees and there are penalties for failing to do so. The ruse here - the entire trial. Leonard Cohen testified that he knows what a K-1 and 1099 are. Streeter simply lies and this is a classic example of how she does that. My trial lawyer advised me that judges don’t know she lies. I suppose that’s because she baby talks to them. It’s nauseating and obscene.
In some of these emails there are mention by Ms. Lynch of failed business agreements and failure by Mr. Cohen to live up to his agreement of what she believed their business relationship was. And indeed one of the things, the evidence will show, that she talks a lot about is tax fraud and the need to have the tax return … Indeed the most important thing that she mentions every so often the tax statement is merely a ruse. RT 42
The evidence you will see from December 18 … emails by Ms. Lynch to Mr. Cohen, exactly one of all those emails that Ms. Lynch specifically asked for her K-1 form it is. RT 42
I have not asked for a W-2 and could care less what Cohen knows. As an employer, who has many professionals working for him, he is required to understand IRS reporting and filing requirements. He has a clue about these forms but testified that he couldn’t teach it. The man is pathetic. Leonard Cohen has this information. He simply does not want to hand it over. It creates further complications for him with respect to his tax fraud.
Let’s talk about Ms. Lynch’s need for the tax form or tax return -- The evidence will show that Ms. 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 and I never had a brief intimate relationship or dating relationship. Please address the perjury in the motion/writ. This man lies as easily as he breaths.
Leonard Cohen Direct
Streeter: And did you ever have an intimate relationship with her?
Cohen: Yes I had a brief intimate relationship with her. RT 49/50
Streeter: Let’s stick with when you first ended the relationship. That one year period about when you ended the relationship, on average how often would Ms. Lynch call you at home?
Cohen: I’m not sure. There have been so many phone calls over the last six years that it’s hard to determine exactly when the longer -- when he more abundant periods were. RT 52
I don’t think my requests for tax, accounting, and financial information; demands to cease and desist; etc. have to be requests for conversations but this is a perfect example of one of Leonard Cohen’s carefully crafted garbage statements.
Streeter: How come you stopped talking to her on the telephone?
Cohen: Well, they weren’t really invitations of conversation. RT 53
Leonard Cohen is essentially the author of the default judgment that was procured via fraud, perjury, lies, and concealment. The retaliatory lawsuit was clearly an attempt obstruct justice due to the fact that I reported his tax fraud to the IRS.
With respect to these corporate entities, Francisco - this is what my former lawyers think Cohen and his representatives created:
Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. owns the intellectual property (assignments dating back to 1967 are non-revocable)
LC Investments, LLC (Cohen personally and other entities) collect the income
Traditional Holdings, LLC sold IP assets to Sony in 2001 that it did not own.
The intention, according to Robert Kory, was to roll Traditional Holdings, LLC into LC Investments, LLC. I asked for, and was provided, an indemnity agreement when asked to assist Leonard Cohen with this creative planning. It did not sound appropriate to me. This indemnity agreement has also been concealed.
The steps on the tax returns re. Traditional Holdings, LLC are as follows:
2001 - Leonard Cohen did not report the sale of IP to Sony Music. He has said that this deal was $8 million. In 1999 he personally received the $1 million income advance from Sony. He never transferred this to TH and this is where he begins his ongoing attempt to prove that he is the alter-ego of this entity who engaged in self-dealing. The deal was ultimately worth $6.3 million because live albums were required to be delivered and they were not delivered as of the date the deal closed in 2001. With respect to Leonard Cohen’s personal transaction fees and the purchase of homes for his girlfriend and son (using corporate assets), his loans from TH come to approximately $4 million. He has many other loans from this entity and there are also corporate distributions, etc. However, this is a sham entity and fraudulent transaction and, therefore, Traditional Holdings, LLC issued Leonard Cohen a 1099 for wasting the entire $8 million. I believe he has delivered at least one of the live albums required to complete the deal. Deducted from the sales price, also concealed, were amounts Leonard Cohen needed to recoup re. his record contract with Sony. Therefore, those monies really went directly to Leonard Cohen and were beneficial only to him. I think they totalled something in the vicinity of $500,000.
2002 - My promissory note, which was the instrument with which I allegedly “invested” in Traditional Holdings, LLC was extinguished from the 2002 return. Cohen’s tax lawyer, Richard Westin, prepared these returns. When he and Cohen met with my former lawyers they asked hm: Why didn’t you set the annuity up legally? Westin’s response - this is how they do things in Kentucky. He also advised me, and the State of Kentucky advised me otherwise, that LLCs in Kentucky do not have to file state tax returns. They were extremely concerned about state tax returns and the Franchise Tax return. In fact, this seemed to freak Cohen’s tax lawyer out in the summer of 2004 when things become psychotic with Cohen, Greenberg (Cohen’s financial adviser who helped create this tax planning and the corporate structures, etc.). At that point, Westin advised me that Greenberg would screw me over and he would stand up for me. In the fall of 2004, Cohen and I received a letter from Westin (who was preparing tax returns and had the corporate books and records in his possession) advising us that the IRS could overturn the structure of TH if they noticed a disregard for form or substance, etc. That’s when I decided that I had the evidence I needed to report Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to the IRS. I had been gathering evidence since the moment an Ogden, Utah IRS agent issued a document request and found Cohen’s tax lawyer evasive. Leonard Cohen, in his retaliatory lawsuit, stated that I refused to hand over corporate records. The only corporate records I had were the corporate books for Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., LC Investments, LLC, and Traditional Holdings, LLC. These were transmitted to Greenberg, Glusker in 2004 (they briefly represented Cohen) by my lawyers. I wanted them formally transferred and documented with a transmittal letter. My promissory note created huge problems in 2002 when I asked how I would begin paying the payments. Corporate distributions were to be released to me so that I could pay this. I began to feel as though I was in a cicular tax situation where I had no idea how monies could be distributed to me and I personally would not be required to pay taxes on them. Cohen’s lawyer assured me that this was not an issue and said he would ultimately recharacterize the nature of these distributions. Apparently he has with respect to the $500,000 mentioned in Cohen’s lawsuit. There was never a $500,000 payment to the IRS for the $1 million income advance Cohen personally received from Sony in 1999 which was the subject of an IRS audit. He prevailed in that audit and did not pay $500,000 in taxes at that time.
2003 - Cohen’s tax lawyer extinguishes the private annuity obligation itself. Robert Kory, and my lawyers, advised me that this created a gift to me of $4. 7 million. I don’t view being used horrendously to evade income taxes as a gift but if it’s a gift, Leonard Cohen should pay the gift taxes. That’s precisely the legal advice I was given a well. Leonard Cohen doesn’t want to address Traditional Holdings corporate distributions in a 1099. That is very clear. I view all of this as a very complex step transaction that involves at least three corporate entities and absolute fraud on tax returns prepared by Leonard Cohen’s advisers. Cohen testified that I handled IRS filings. That’s a bald-faced lie. I might have mailed certain documents but he hired professionals to handle all of this.. His testimony was and remains pathetic. Leonard Cohen’s version of events has fashioned him as a victim. Leonard Cohen is no one’s victim. Ask yourself this - why can’t Canada’s National Treasure live in Canada? Why did he abandon a green card in 1988 and reobtain one a few years later? I think the answers are obvious. Sandra Jo Streeter really likes Cohen’s carefully crafted garbage statements. I was very clear - the default judgment was based on fraud, perjury, concealment, and lies. I was not served the complaint and the proof of service re. the complaint is perjured. I did not have a female co-habitant. The default judgment was not served on me and I was not notified when it was entered against me in May 2006. I was homeless. Furthermore, the news media published articles that the default had been entered against me in March 2006. I was homeless at that point as well.
Streeter: When you say “author of her misfortune,” did she elaborate what her misfortune was?
Cohen: … 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
PHIL SPECTOR
I have not ACCUSED Leonard Cohen of testifying before a Secret Grand Jury in Phil Spector’s matter. Mick Brown/UK Telegraph and I began emailing one another in 2005. He was about to attend a hearing in the Phil Spector matter and we planned to meet. I wanted to give Mick Brown a master tape of Phil Spector’s that I thought he would appreciate but that has been destroyed or seized by the Sheriff’s Department. If they saw Cohen’s name on something - for instance partnership documents - they seized them which I believe was and remains illegal. Mick Brown had written a book on my teacher, 16th Karmapa, and was involved in an ongoing dialogue with my teacher the 14th Sharmapa. Mick Brown was also writing a book on Phil Spector. He wrote me, at one point, according to my recollection and said he had the Grand Jury transcripts and Cohen testified about Phil Spector. Mick Brown and I have since communicated about this matter. He was kind enough to write my public defender during the trial and clarified that Leonard Cohen’s statements were presented to the Grand Jury. There may also be some confusion due to the fact that statements are referred to as testimony in the UK. In any event, Leonard Cohen’s statements - according to Mick Brown - were presented to Phil Spector’s Grand Jury. I have been very clear that I heard about this from Mick Brown and it is outrageous that Cohen blamed me for this. It is very similar to the situation with Ann Diamond/Freda Guttman’s version of events re. Lorca Cohen’s comments that her father molested her. That is not my accusation. I did not accuse Leonard Cohen of testifying in Phil Spector’s Grand Jury but I believe this testimony was introduced for sinister purposes and I view it as illegal discovery and am convinced that’s why the DA’s investigator was hanging out in the courtroom and lunching with Cohen on the taxpayer’s dime, no doubt. Leonard Cohen’s statements were also used by the prosecutors in Phil Spector’s trials and these motions are available online at LA Superior Court and on the internet. I personally believe Leonard Cohen’s good rock and roll stories and embellished stories about Phil Spector did ultimately help convict Phil Spector. That is my personal opinion and nothing will ever change my mind. They are still being repeated throughout the internet, in articles, etc. whenever someone wants to argue that Phil Spector holds guns on people. Leonard Cohen told me, for 20 years, that Phil Spector never held a gun on him. I think it’s clear that people know where a gun is pointed at them if it actually happened. Cohen’s testimony that he wasn’t threatened when someone held a gun to his head but was threatened by my emails (with the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB and Phil Spector’s attorneys copied in) was and remains absurd. Please note - Steve Cron was my lawyer. He had previously represented me; I asked him to be present for the meeting with the detectives from the Sheriff’s Department; and I did not sign a conflict waiver. At first, Cohen testifies that Steve Cron represented him and he had attorney/client privilege with him. That’s absurd. He can’t have attorney/client privilege with my lawyer and you don’t have attorney/client privilege with LA Sheriff’s Department present. Furthermore, he lied. Steve Cron told me to leave when I advised him that I did not want to be dragged into Phil Spector’s trial; was a close friend of Phil Spector’s; had met with him after the Clarkson incident and he explained to me how she shot herself. Cohen was well aware of the fact that Phil Spector and I had dinner after the Clarkson incident and I have always felt that he placed the so-called anonymous tip to the DA’s office about Phil Spector and my friendship. After all, in 2004/2005 he was represented by former DA Ira Reiner. I was not in Cohen’s house. Steve Cron advised me to leave before Detectives Tomlin and Fournier arrived. I met them on my way out and they seemed like professional men to me. Cohen then told me they were surprised that his stories were 30 year old good rock and roll stories. He told me he advised them that Phillip never held a gun on him. And he called Detective Tomlin a “darky.” He finds that type of comment amusing. The man is a lunatic.
Streeter: What about -- did she ever mention Phil Spector or Phillip in any of those?
Cohen: She accused me of testifying before a Secret Grand Jury which resulted in the conviction of Phil Spector. RT 57
Streeter: Okay, in any of her emails, did she ever mention Phil Spector?
Cohen: 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: Did you have any involvement in the Phillip Spector trial?
Cohen: None whatsoever … May I qualify that?
Streeter: Yes.
Cohen: At the very beginning of the trial, after the -- the death of Lana Clarkson was made public, I was visited by two sheriffs from LA County. And they interviewed me as to my relationship with Phil Spector. My attorney, Mr. Cron, was present at the time. I told the detectives that Phil Spector had produced an album of mine in 1977, and they asked me about some stories that were circulating in the newspaper about his use of guns in the studio. I told them of my experience. Then they asked me when I’d last seen Phil Spector. I said the last I’d seen him was shortly after the record was released, which I think was 1977 or 1978, and I hadn’t seen him since. When they discovered that I hadn’t seen him since, they were no longer interested in interviewing me and left. So that was some connection I did have with the trial. Subsequent to that, I’ve had nothing to do with the trial whatsoever.
Streeter: When you spoke to the detectives do you know where Ms. Lynch was?
Cohen: My attorney, Mr. Cron, asked Ms. Lynch to leave the room, so that I think the attorney/client privilege would not be challenged.
Streeter: But she was somewhere around?
Cohen: She was in my house. RT 159
Francisco, this email is disturbing. It was not sent to Cohen or his lawyers. I would assume Streeter and Cohen are aware of that fact. Streeter has Cohen review the email to confirm that he was a recipient. He testified that he was after reviewing the document. He was not and was forced to acknowledge this on the witness stand. I believe Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson was a recipient. How did Streeter obtain this email? It was sent to Dennis Riordan and involves Phil Spector and a gun. I believe the Spector testimony was planned and coordinated. Please use this as an example of Streeter’s eliciting perjured testimony and Cohen perjuring himself, yet again. I have no idea why Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson were repeatedly raised at trial but know this - Cohen appears to have information that Steve Cooley or those near to him were reading my emails and that information has been concealed. Who near to Cooley was reading my emails? Did they also read my letter to Alan Jackson? That letter was hand delivered, by Investigator William Frayeh, to Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, and DDA Truc Do. What happened with my Complaint to their Major Fraud Unit? Do they think Leonard Cohen’s lies about Phil Spector are irrelevant when a man’s life is at stake? Do they think targeting me is acceptable and appropriate conduct on the part of the government? Or, do they think we’re in LA Confidential and they had to nail a celebrity?
Email dated April 18, 2011 - to Dennis Riordan. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers were not copied in on this email. I believe Alan Jackson was.
Streeter: Just look at the first page on the date, see if that refreshes your recollection. Let me know when you’ve done that … Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you received an email on April 18, 2011 at approximately 8:11 AM in the morning?
Cohen: Yes, this is the email I received.
Streeter: If you could look at it and see if that email helps you recall whether or not there was any mention of either a Phil, a Phillip or Phil Spector in the email?
Cohen: In this particular email, Mr. Spector is called Phillip. 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
Leonard Cohen - Cross:
Public Defender: Now, one of these emails that she mentioned was sent on April 18th, 2011 .. Now, Mr. Cohen, do you remember testifying about that email?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
PD: Do you remember testifying about that email?
Cohen: Yes, I believe I did.
PD: And when you testified about that email, you said that you remember receiving that email? RT 265
Cohen: I think iI did.
PD: Can you point out where exactly on the list of recipients that your email address shows up?
Cohen: Perhaps I missed this one.
PD: But you did testify, though, that you remember receiving that email, correct? Do you remember testifying to that?
Cohen: I believe I did. RT 266
PD: And so you’ve had a chance to look over that email, the recipients?
Cohen: Yes.
PD: And your email is not on that , correct?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 266
Streeter: Is there any mention of Mr. Spector in that email?
Cohen: Yes, Ma’am, there is.
Streeter: And is there any mention of you?
Cohen: Yes. It says, everyone wants to know about Cohen’s perjury in the Phil Spector matter. RT 162
Streeter: And is that something that Ms. -- prior to that date of December 17th, 2011, is that something that Ms. Lynch has accused you of, of perjuring yourself?
Cohen: Yes. Ms. Lynch has continually accused me of testifying against Phil Spector in the Secret Grand Jury. RT 163
Streeter: Is there any reference to a Cooley and another person in page 1?
Cohen: Yes, there is.
Streeter: And can you read that sentence that refers to Mr. Cooley?
Cohen: Cooley and Jackass must run for office, and if an innocent man must take the fall, sobeit. RT 198
My son had a serious accident at Whole Foods in Brentwood, California. There is clearly criminal negligence in that matter. I have reviewed the depositions and it is outrageous. OSHA’s attorney felt there might be criminal negligence and advised me to contact the DA’s office about this matter. They could care less if my son lost his fingers. This is an outrageous situation and I have no idea why Streeter had Cohen testify about this or elicited testimony about my son’s accident. From my perspective, she is a vicious woman and my mother is in disbelief that Cohen testified about Rutger’s accident. I’m not. Leonard Cohen is postively evil from my perspective. Well, I was correct. The DA doesn’t care that there is criminal negligence in my son’s Whole Foods matter and aligned himself with Leonard Cohen. It absolutely has the appearance of a classic legal conspiracy.
Streeter: Is there any reference to Mr. Cooley?
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
Steven Machat is Marty Machat’s son. His father was Cohen’s manager/attorney. Leonard Cohen has stolen from Steven and Marty Machat who owned 15% of Stranger Music and Cohen’s intellectual property. He spoke to my public defender and was going to fly into LA to testify on my behalf but had a scheduling conflict. I have no idea why the trial wasn’t continued and why my lawyers didn’t obtain a declaration from Steven.
Cohen: 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 and who has stolen millions from his father and himself. RT 206
Public Defender: I know I’ve made a lot of these objections, but a lot of these I don’t think go to the relevance of he knows about Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson that don’t reference Mr. Cohen. RT 209
I have no idea why Streeter continually elicited testimony about Phil Spector’s appellate attorney, Dennis Riordan, but suspect it relates to the email entered into evidence; the DA; Spector prosecutor; and the investigator hanging out in the courtroom and lunching with Leonard Cohen. Was the man a cop? Who knows? If he’s Captain Jack Horvath, he’s a liar. Make no mistake about that. Investigator Brian Bennett rolled by my house about Phil Spector in 2005. Horvath advised the court that I began contacting the DA’s office in 2007. That would be the year the DA’s investigators advised me that I was probably a witness in the Phil Spector matter.
Streeter: Did you hear the mention of a gentleman by the name of Dennis Riordan in that last sentence Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: No, I didn’t. RT 234
Streeter: Did you hear a mention of a Dennis Riordan in there, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Yes, I did. RT 234
Streeter: Do you recall if Ms. Lynch has mentioned Dennis Riordan in any of her emails?
Cohen: Many times, but I just don’t remember at this moment what the connection is. RT 235
Streeter: Is Mr. Riordan one of the recipients? Is there, like, Dennis --
Cohen: He’s the first recipient. RT 237
Streeter: Does it say Dennis Riordan or Mr. Riordan?
Cohen: It says dennis@riordan-horgan.com.
Streeter: Who’s the name on the first line of the actual text of the email?
Cohen: Mr. Riordan.
Public Defender: Object to relevance. RT 237/238
This is factual. Supreme Court John Roberts once addressed a hapless toad in California. Given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Phil Spector’s matter, I have concluded that a hapless toad in California has more rights than Phil Spector. Streeter appears to have a bizarre obsession with subject line law and the number of times I am forced - in a given email - to request the 2004 1099 Cohen is obligated to provide me, ask Cohen to rescind the illegal K-1s, etc. What do you know about subject line law, Francisco? Perhaps it’s merely a waste of taxpayer dollars. Nevertheless, this area of law fascinates Sandra Jo Streeter who doesn’t like to hear the truth about herself but feels perfectly comfortable lying about me - including to LAPD after the appeal was filed. I see right through this woman and her bullshit antics.
Streeter: What is the subject line of this email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: One hapless toad who chose to live in California has more rights than Phillip.
Streeter: That Phillip, is that the Phillip, Phil Spector. RT 238
Streeter: And is Mr. -- Dennis Riordan one of the recipients?
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
Streeter: And what is the subject of that email?
Cohen: The subject is re. Let’s wish Phil Spector a Merry Christmas. He has loved my son Rutger since he was born. RT 249
Steve Cooley should have received a subpoena. How does Leonard Cohen know that people near to him were reading my emails? Leonard Cohen believes the IRS was reading my emails. I would assume that explains the perjury, insane comments about his alarm, etc.
Leonard Cohen Cross:
PD: Do you think Steve Cooley was reading all of these emails?
Cohen: I wouldn’t be surprised if he was.
PD: But you don’t know?
Cohen: No, sir.
PD: Do you believe that he was?
Cohen: I believe that people close to him were.
PD: Do you believe that the IRS was reading every single one of these emails?
Streeter; Objection; relevance.
Court: Sustained. RT 305
Francisco, Leonard Cohen is concerned that people will believe me. He also understood, prio9r to my arrest, that I was writing a book. I think this figurea into my arrest. Streeter was focused on my online posts. She’s egvidently never read the U.S. Constitution and doesn’t understand that the truth is the dfeense to slander. I am telling the truth. Leonard Cohen just doesn’t like tit.
PD: 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 say that?
Cohen: Information that was …
PD: Well, you said that you were worried about what other people would think regarding these emails. RT 306
Francisco, Leonard Cohen has now changed his story. Steve Cron is no longer his attorney but rather AN ATTORNEY.
PD: Now, I want to talk to you about what you mean by threatened. You actually -- you were telling us about Phil Spector. You were testifying about talking to the LAPD.
Cohen: Yes, sir.
PD: And you talked to the LAPD with your attorney, correct?
Cohen: With an attorney present, yes, sir. RT 308
PD: You started talking about an interview or a story about Phil Spector, correct?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And how he would oftentimes have guns when you were producing an album, correct? He would have guns in the studio when he was producing an album with you?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 308
PD: Was he drunk at the time when he had these guns?
Cohen: I don’t remember, sir.
PD: Was he hostile at the time?
Cohen: Not to me.
Francisco, I think the appellate court should be made aware of the email Cohen sent Streeter with a different version of his Phil Spector gun story. I will insert a copy of that at the end of this document. That version involves a gun to the neck. I think we should also address the fact that Phil Spector’s prosecutors used a version that involves a semi-automatic held to Phillip’s chest. The email to Streeter, from Cohen, proves that he - yet again - perjured himself. I suppose that’s why she feels comfortable concealing that piece of extremely relevant evidence.
PD: But he actually put a gun to your head? Is that correct?
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: It was a revolver?
Cohen: No, it wasn’t a revolver. It was an automatic.
PD: But you weren’t actually -- you didn’t feel threatened when he put a gun to your head?
Cohen: No, sir. RT 309
Kelley Lynch Direct:
PD: And what happened after you were present?
Lynch: I explained to Steve Cron that the detectives had asked me to arrange an appointment with Leonard Cohen and I did not want to be dragged into Phil Spector’s matter. I thought it would affect the custody of my child to some degree, and I just really did not want to be dragged into it. So Mr. Cron advised me to leave the house before the detectives came. I was leaving and ran into Detectives Tomlin and Fournier out on the steps of Leonard Cohen’s house.
PD: You heard the story about Phil Spector putting a gun to Mr. Cohen’s head?
Lynch: Well, I’ve heard that he put a gun to his neck and I’ve heard he’s put it to this head.
PD: Now, is this what you learned from Mr. Cohen prior to that interview with the police?
Lynch: No, it is not.
PD: And what were you under the impression of?
Lynch: I was not under the impression, I was told. RT 467
PD: Now, you heard voice mails and emails regarding the Phil Spector issue, and you mentioned in the email about -- something about a Grand Jury. What did you mean in those emails?
Lynch: What I meant is that Mick Brown of the UK Telegraph wrote me -- and advised me that he was writing a book on Phil. That he had Grand Jury testimony, and that Leonard Cohen had testify against Phil Spector. He later wrote, recently, and said he was confused. It wasn’t actually testimony - this was in the past couple of days, and it wasn’t actually testimony. Statements were given of Leonard Cohen’s to the Grand Jury. So I was confused and because Mr. Brown felt that Leonard Cohen had given testimony, I thought he testified and was shocked. RT 468
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: Directing your attention to the last one. The subject line of that one is about Phil Spector, correct?
Lynch: Yes, it is.
Streeter: It has nothing to do with your taxes, correct?
Lynch: No, it doesn’t. It has to do with the fact that I think Leonard Cohen 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.
Streeter: So it wasn’t just the taxes -
Lynch: No, it wasn’t just the taxes. It’s a very serious matter where I’m not represented by a lawyer. RT 502
Streeter: So it’s not just the taxes that you were contacting Mr. Cohen --
Lynch: 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 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’ve said earlier. I’ve copied Leonard Cohen in so that everybody is on the same page and I cannot be accused later of saying one thing to one person and another thing to another person. RT 502
Streeter: You sent the email to Mr. Cooley, the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles.
Lynch: Yeah, I had sent -- I had filed a complaint with the Major Fraud Unit of the District Attorney’s Office about all of this. RT 503 I have no idea what Mr. Cooley can do … Mr. Cooley’s website says that they handle fraud over $300,000 and 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 I’ve been clear with you, right?: There are fraudulent matters … RT
Francisco, I have been very public with my views on the Los Angeles District Attorney and suspect this has something to do with the decision to retaliate against me and target me during this intent to annoy trial.
Lynch: I think the DA should be investigated for what’s gone on here.
Streeter: So that’s a yes.
Lynch: That’s my personal opinion.
Streeter: So that’s a yes.
Lynch: Yeah. Yeah, I think he should be legally taken down and investigated. I’ve been very clear about this.
Streeter: And you don’t think that Mr. Cohen should feel any --
Lynch: I don’t think Mr. Cohen should feel anything about what I say about Steve Cooley. He doesn’t know the man. RT 511 Why would that annoy Leonard Cohen? Is he protecting Steve Cooley? I mean, that seems like a real stretch. RT 511
Defense Closing:
I want to focus on that threatened comment. He says every time he sees a car slow down, he gets a little worried because of the emails that my client sent him. This is coming from a man who says he recorded an album with Phil Spector, a man who was constantly drunk in the studio, volatile and always had guns on him. And a man who once pulled Leonard Cohen, put his arm around him, put a gun to his head. And what did Mr. Cohen say? I wasn’t threatened by that. But he’s threatened by my client sending him email? Does that sound reasonable and credible to you? RT 585
Now, this case has nothing to do with Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson or the District Attorney, Steve Cooley. And I have no ideea why the prosecution spent so much time discussing the references to those people in the emails. It has nothing to do with Oliver Stone. RT 595
Francisco, Leonard Cohen’s sexual harassment of me is not my intent to annoy this man. He would have me read legal and business documents to him while he took bubble baths. I explained this to a friend of mine who then asked me if he had a small penis. The fact that the Domestic Violence Unit of the City Attorney’s office views sexual harassment as an attempt to annoy someone is positively inconceivable. If Leonard Cohen doesn’t want people talking about his penis (or asking about it) then he should note expose himself to his female manager. This is irrelevant to the prosecutor. She is, from my perspective, a lunatic.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Streeter: And is there an S. Cooley -- is an S. Cooley one of the recipients?
Cohen: Yes, S. Cooley is a recipient.
Streeter: What is the subject, Mr. Cohen, of that email? RT 259
Cohen: And, yes -- oh, subject. Re: And, yes, Leonard Cohen does have a small, if non-existent penis …
Streeter: The first sentence in the email.
Cohen: Glen [Glenn Greenwald/Guardian UK], Michael asked the crucial -- the crucial question his week. Does Cohen, who would have me read business legal documents while he was in the bubble bath, have a small penis? RT 260
Streeter: Was the IRS one of the recipients?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
Streeter: IRS.
Cohen: Yes, the IRS is a recipient. RT 261
I think the prosecutor attempted to mislead the jury re. the elements of the intent to annoy insanity. Cohen’s being annoyed is not an element of this so-called crime that I view as unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. Who knows what annoyed means. Furthermore, the judge did not correctly instruct the jurors on the actual elements of this alleged crime. But, that’s not prosecutorial misconduct - just a point I’m raising for you, Francisco. “Both by the volume and the content.” Sounds like someone was hanging out with lawyers.
MISLEADING - COHEN’S BEING ANNOYED IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME. JURY INSTRUCTIONS DID NOT ACCURATELY ADDRESS THE ELEMENTS OF INTENT TO ANNOY.
Streeter: Were you annoyed by that email?
Cohen: Both by the volume and the content. RT 262
Streeter: Were you annoyed by the voice mail messages?
Cohen: Annoyed and alarmed by the voice mail messages. RT 262
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: And the subject about that email is Mr. Cohen’s penis.
Lynch: … My gay friend, Michael, asked me, what size Mr. Cohen’s penis was, and felt that perhaps he’d like to discuss that. RT 506
The people clearly do not understand why sexual harassment is unacceptable in a business relationship - and that includes exposing oneself to their female personal manager.
Streeter: Are the people correct in understanding that you don’t see that as annoying to send out a mass email about a gentleman’s penis size?
Lynch: I have no idea. Mr. Cohen didn’t mind looking at people defecating on one another in front of me.
Streeter: Do you consider that annoying, Ms. Lynch.
Lynch: I have no idea. I would consider it annoying to have to ask for tax information for six years. RT 508
Francisco, Leonard Cohen went into my son’s father’s office - with his lawyer Robert Kory - and falsely accused me of having sex with Oliver Stone. Why would a prosecutor believe that this was meant to annoy Leonard Cohen? Leonard Cohen’s conduct appears to annoy Leonard Cohen who dragged Oliver Stone into this situation for reasons I cannot even imagine. This was evidently one of his first lines of defense with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud and his full; understanding that I intended to report it to the IRS.
Lynch: Because he went into my son’s father’s office and said I had sex with Oliver Stone.
Streeter: Okay. So you remember saying that, right?
Lynch: Because he went into my son’s father’s office and -- after we parted ways, and said I had sex with Oliver Stone, which I did not.
Streeter; Do you think that’s annoying?
Lynch: No I think it’s outrageous that he would go in and lie about that … He accused me of having sex with his tax lawyer, which I did not. I found that outrageous. To my son’s father.
Streeter: You don’t think that’s annoying.
Lynch: It was indeed annoying to me. Unbelievable. RT 509
Streeter: Do you think it’s annoying -- would be annoying to Mr. Cohen?
Lynch: 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
I have no idea what Cohen’s testimony is about. Bob Dylan is a friend of Phil Spector’s. He helped Hurricane Carter who was wrongfully imprisoned and I thought he could help Phil Spector. Paul Shaffer is a very very close friend of Phil Spector’s and is not someone Cohen inew when I managed him. I knew Paul Shaffer and ran into him when I was with Cohen at the Juno’s once. Leonard Cohen and this prosecutor seem dead set on silencing me and seem to believe that I am not permitted to speak freely to individuals like Bob Dylan, Paul Shaffer, or Dennis Riordan. That evidently annoys Leonard Cohen.
BOB DYLAN AND PAUL SHAFFER
Streeter: Do you know a person by the name of Paul Shaffer?
Cohen: Yes, I know him.
Streeter: Who is that?
Cohen: Paul Shaffer is David Letterman’s band leader.
Streeter: Do you know a person by the name of Dylan?
Cohen: Yes, I do.
Streeter: Who is that? RT 256
Cohen: That’s Bob Dylan.
Streeter: Were you ever with Mr. Dylan when Ms. Lynch was in your employ?
Cohen: I met with Bob Dylan several times. We have a cordial acquaintanceship.
Streeter: How about Mr. Shaffer? Was he ever around when Ms. Lynch was in your employ?
Cohen: I -- I believe -- I wouldn’t say she was around, but I did bump into him a couple of times under professional circumstances.
Streeter: And Ms. Lynch was present?
Cohen: No. RT 257
Leonard Cohen was interviewed in the late 80s by Mikal Gimore for a story he was preparing for Rolling Stone. At that time, Cohen was fascinated by the fact that Mikal Gilmore’s brother, Gary Gilmore, was executed by a firing squad. He told me that Mikal Gimore was completely unhinged by this situation and Cohen seemed to enjoy toying with Mikal Gilmore which horrified me. Cohen was delighted that Mikal Gilmore was actually unable to complete the article for Rolling Stone. After this interview, Leonard Cohen began telling me that he wanted to die by a firing squad. He went into great detail about this - discussing what he would have for his last meal and the fact that he would ask for one final cigaerette. This is when I seriously began thinking that I should get the FBI’s Quantico on the phone so that I was in possession of a professional profile of this deranged madman. When he began studying serial murderers, and became obsessed with Jeffrey Dahmer’s interview about remorse, I was absolutely alarmed and began joking with people that I now had Quantico on speed dial. In any event, this is a figure of speech and there is no evidence that I can assemble a firing squad or who the individuals on that squad might be. It’s just another case of Leonard Cohen’s insane conduct annoying him.
MIKAL GILMORE - EXECUTION OF HIS BROTHER
Streeter: If you could read it, Mr. Cohen.
Cohen: Leonard Norman Cohen should be taken --
Public defender. Objection. I believe he’s just picking and choosing the part that he’s asked to read.
Cohen: Leonard Norman Cohen should be taken before a firing squad and shot. RT 245
http://www.amazon.com/Shot-
Execution
Gilmore was executed on January 17, 1977, at 8:07 a.m. by firing squad at Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah. The night before, Gilmore had requested an all-night gathering of friends and family at the prison mess hall. On the evening before his execution, he was served a last meal of steak, potatoes, milk and coffee; he consumed only the milk and coffee. His uncle, Vern Damico, who attended the gathering, later claimed to have smuggled in three small, 50-millilitre Jack Daniel's whiskey shot bottles which Gilmore supposedly consumed. He was then taken to an abandoned cannery behind the prison, which served as its death house. He was strapped to a chair, with a wall of sandbags placed behind him to trap the bullets. Five gunmen, local police officers, stood concealed behind a curtain with five small holes, through which they aimed their rifles. When asked for any last words, Gilmore simply replied, "Let's do it!" The Rev. Thomas Meersman, the Roman Catholic prison chaplain, administered the last rites to Gilmore. After the prison physician cloaked him in a black hood, Gilmore uttered his last words to Father Meersman: "Dominus vobiscum" (Latin, translation: "The Lord be with you.") Meersman replied, "Et cum spiritu tuo" ("And with your spirit")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, targeted both of my sons. They were meeting with my younger son’s father. His name is Steve Lindsey and Ray is my younger son. Kory was begging me to meet with him and I documented all of this, at the time, for Boies Schiller who advised me to go wired to my meetings with Cohen/Kory. In fact, because I advised them about Investigator Brian Bennett’s unannounced visit - and provided them with a transcript of my conversation with Janice Zavala Spector (Phil’s ex-wife and the mother of his children), they advised me to have Investigator Brian Bennett wire me for these meetings. I did advise Bennett in 2005 that Leonard Cohen lies about Phil Spector; should be arrested; was attempting to blackmail me; and discussed the situation with respect to Robert Kory and my son. Bennett, at the time, told me that his wife would “kill” Kory if he did to her what he did to me. In any event, Ray and I stopped into see Kory. He appeared freaked out and unhinged. Ray had heard a tremendous amount of information re. Cohen’s tax fraud and confirmed what he heard about Leonard Cohens tax fraud; the missing state tax returns; my intellectual property that was stolen and commissions that were withheld; and their threats of jail. When we left, Ray told me I forgot to mention Michael Maunts of the State of Kentucky (who I spoke to about Cohen’s tax fraud as Traditional Holdings, LLC is a Kentucky entity) and told me that I should have advised Kory to “go fuck himself.” This was all documented for Boies Schiller as it unfolded - as was my luncheon meeting. In fact, Norman Posel/Boies Schiller wanted to fly in to attend my luncheon with Robert Kory. Cohen and Kory were meeting with Lindsey and encouraging him to have me enter into some form of a deal with Cohen. In fact, Lindsey even had his father - Mort Lindsey - speak to Cohen and Kory. Cohen thought I had great respect and a close relationship with my father-in-law which I did. Mort Lindsey then called and asked me to make a deal with Cohen. I refused. I thought I was being asked to engage in criminal conduct and that’s precisely what Boies Schiller advised me. They wrote me that recording Kory would not be a set up because Cohen/Kory were asking me to participate in criminal conduct which seemed to include conspiracy, extortion attempts, insurance fraud, etc. The judge in the Intent to Annoy insanity didn’t seem to want reality addressed. The conspiracy was and remains real and was well documented for Boies Schiller. In fact, Greenberg’s lawyer confirmed (and I spoke to the FBI in Denver about this) that they have evidence regarding witness tampering that involves Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Steven Clark Lindsey, and Betsy Superfon (a friend of Lindsey’s). The FBI and I discussed the fact that I should be careful in my attempts to obtain evidence from Greenberg’s lawyer which I agreed with. Dan Scheid, Greenberg’s lawyer, confirmed that he had this evidence - in writing - and that email was given to the IRS and others.
Betsy Superfon is a friend of Steven Clark Lindsey’s who befriended me sometime in 2004. She was evidently negotiating with Cohen/Kory on my behalf - without my knowledge, awareness, or approval. At some point, a friend of mine - Yongzin Rinpoche - and his wife visited and Rinpoche instructed me to invite Superfon over. At that point, I asked her to contact Cohen/Kory about the deal they were interested in making with me. She told me she spoke with Cohen who advised her that I was the love of his life; he felt remorseful and terrified; and would give me anything I wanted - including my share of BMT and TH. I asked her to have Kory put the deal in writing and fax it to me. She then spoke to him and advised me that Kory told her this was not the type of deal you could put in writing so I concluded that it was illegal and she later told me she felt the same way. Kory then suggested that he, Superfon, and I meet for lunch. I decided not to because I felt I had enough evidence that they were attempting to engage me in criminal conduct and an illegal deal. Cohen/Kory ultimately filed a declaration in Ray’s custody matter which I view as an attempt to obstruct justice, coercion, blackmail, etc. Lindsey advised me that Cohen/Kory were encouraging him to take Ray away from me and it was clearly planned and coordinated with the SWAT incident.
On May 25, 2011, I kept Ray home from school. This led to a psychotic SWAT incident where I was falsely accused of having a hostage. I had kept Ray home from school because he did not feel well and his father’s conduct was becoming increasingly aggressive and disturbing. His father was angry that he stayed home and wanted to pick him up and drive him to school. I did not want this man on my property. He had viciously attacked me in front of His Eminence Choegon Rinpoche only a couple of weeks previously. His Eminence Choegon Rinpoche confirmed this in writing and that email was forwarded to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff. Rinpoche was startled by the level of Lindsey’s aggression. I phoned Rutger, who was driving nearby with his friend, and asked him to immediately come home, pick up Ray, and drop him at the bottom of the hill with Lindsey. I was sick of this man coming onto my property, and calling me names like cunt and whore in front of my children. He was utterly abusive to both of my sons and was becoming increasingly unhinged over his relationship with Dinah Englund and the birth of their daughter. Englund is actress Cloris Leachman’s daughter. Rutger picked Ray up and took him to the bottom of the hill where, surprisingly, Leachman was waiting to pick up Ray. Rutger then saw Lindsey and approximately 7 squad cars racing up my hill. What then unfolded was and remains criminal. I was accused of having a hostage although Rutger was clear with LAPD - I was in the house alone. I was in a bikini. I was ultimately accused of holding my dog hostage and LAPD told Rutger that they were taking precautions because my dog might be my hostage. Rutger was told Inglewood PD was present. He was told that these maniacs would shoot his mother and dog. He witnessed Lindsey lying to LAPD. There was no hostage. What I witnessed was LAPD endangering my son’s life; using him illegally as a hostage negotiator; and placing his life in danger by rushing my house and using him as a human shield. Of course, there was no hostage and my dog lived with me. I dove into the pool to avoid any type of physical encounter with these lunatics. After all, Phil Spector had explained his encounter with Alhambra PD to me and my former boyfriend was a member of SWAT and had spent hours explaining his tactics (and boredom) to me. He got sick and tired of waiting around to shoot and kill someone. Rutger brought me a brocade jacket and LAPD - who advised me they were there to help me - handcuffed me in my bikini and brocade jacket. I was then taken to Killer King and questioned about Phil Spector. The entire Killer King file is falsified and has been provided to the IRS, other agencies, and the DA’s office. It can never be explained away. After I was taken from my property (which I viewed as a kidnapping), Rutger received a phone call from Steven Clark Lindsey asking him to go into Kory/Cohen’s office and sign over/transfer my house to them. This story has been well documented. In fact, I ultimately made an appointment with the LA FBI to discuss this situation and to file a complaint. I felt it related to Leonard Cohen’s criminal tax fraud. This is what ultimately led me to not only report Cohen’s tax fraud to the IRS but to call the IRS in Washington due to the high profile nature of this situation and the tactics being used against me. I was then advised, by His Holiness Kusum Lingpa, and others, to begin documenting everything in emails for the IRS and others with witnesses involved. These emails became the subject of the intent to annoy Stalinesque Show Trial that is nothing other than an attempt to sabotage the IRS, discredit me, and relates to Phil Spector and possibly a form of illegal discovery and an attempt to have Leonard Cohen - who the news media quotes - advance his garbage Phil Spector gun stories. After all, as my public defender advised me (when noting that the DA’s investigator was lunching with Cohen) - the DA doesn’t want the Phil Spector verdict overturned.
I have never accused Cohen of ripping Rutger’s fingers off. Rutger is convinced that had I made a deal with Cohen (he too was hearing endless details about the insanity that was unfolding), he would have been in college full time. He is aware that Cohen offered me 50% community property, presumably to lie and say he was defrauded by his advisers. Rutger is correct. In his freshman year of college he would not have been working. I think it’s an important moment of transition. Why Cohen was testifying about this incident is inconceivably obscene and vile. Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter is a vulgar woman who appears willing to do anything for a celebrity and I think LA Superior Court really deserves her. I can’t think of a better match. In fact, I think she and Judge Vanderet should get married. She can baby talk him, break their furniture, and he can tolerate her lies and misconduct. That’s my idealized view of the grave injustice system in LA Confidential.
RUTGER AND RAY
Streeter: Does she have another child?
Cohen: Yes, she has another child.
Streeter: What’s that child’s name?
Cohen: Rutger Bennett. [Penick]
Streeter: Does she ever mention Rutger --
Cohen: Yes, many times she suggested I was responsible for an accident that befell him. RT 58
Streeter: Did she ever mention any of her children in any of the voicemail messages?
Cohen: Yes, many times. She -- she accused me of being indirectly responsible for her losing custody of one child. RT 57/58
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: … And what was the custody issue?
Lynch: That I was taken to King-Drew by LAPD, I lived in Brentwood, and when I was released 24 hours later a custody matter had been filed.
PD: One day after that incident with the police, did Mr. Kory have a declaration in that case?
Lynch: The same day, May 25, 2005. RT 462
Public Defender: Now,, you said something about Rutger losing his fingers. Now, is there any reference to this in the emails that you’ve heard?
Lynch: I believe there is, yes. I think Leonard Cohen testified to something about it.
PD: And did you ever say that Mr. Cohen cut off Mr. -- or your son’s fingers?
Lynch: No, I did not.
PD: What did you mean when you talked about blaming Mr. Cohen?
|Lynch: I don’t blame Mr. Cohen. My son, Rutger, personally believes that if I had not gone to the IRS, reported this tax fraud, created a contentious situation with Leonard Cohen, that he wouldn’t have lost his fingers.
PD: You’ve never accused Mr. Cohen for being responsible for cutting off --
Lynch: Well, he doesn’t have a meat grinder at Whole Foods, so it would be impossible. RT 472
I have been clear about this situation. The only parties I want speaking to my traumatized son about the SWAT incident are the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Phil Spector’s legal team. I have given Phil Spector Rutger’s cell phone that contains photographs of the SWAT incident, including LAPD license plates.
Sidebar:
Public Defender: The other potential witness I’ve been trying to speak with is her son Rutger. He’s tried to get out of work today but says he’s off tomorrow.
Court: And what testimony can he offer?
PD: He’[s listed pretty much on every email as well.
Court: -- So is Cooley.
PD: I guess the big portion of his testimony is he was present during that 2005 incident with the SWAT team.
Court: I think that is very, very tangential. RT 529
Defense Closing:
[Robert Kory} He called the father weeks later and he filed a strategic and malicious declaration in the custody matter which resulted in my client losing her son. This was part of the plan, ladies and gentlemen. RT 589
Cohen was evidently forthcoming and candid with biographer, Sylvie Simmons, about his drug use and abuse. That would include prescription speed or meth. Her perjured himself during the trial when he stated that my mentioning his drug abuse was an attempt to assail his reputation. Streeter, inexplicably - but who could explain her - advised the judge that her eliciting this testimony was an attempt to prove my alleged common plan and scheme. Leonard Cohen’s own conduct evidently annoys him and he thinks other people are now responsible for his drug abuse. His use of prescription meth was not behind him when I knew him. Leonard Cohen’s use of drugs is well documented. His drinking has been publicly documented as well - including his interest in $2,000 bottles of Chateau La Tour that he consumed on tour. Leonard Cohen likes people to believe that he lives a humble existence and seems to think $1 million advances are nothing. He is the elite and his celebrity has afforded him the type of justice LA Confidential likes to dole out to ordinary people. The Deputy City Attorneys repeatedly advised these judges that this insane intent to annoy Leonard Cohen case was an unusual case because he is a celebrity. I have never heard anything as absurd and outrageous in my entire life. The City Attorney of Los Angeles thinks I should be blamed for Leonard Cohen’s conduct. That is criminally insane from my perspective.
High old times: His days of pharmaceutical hijinks are no doubt long behind him, but in Simmons’ biography, Cohen is candid about his enthusiastic drug use back in the day. He took Maxiton (speed), Mandrax, hashish, opium and acid. Cohen told Simmons: “My [1966] novel Beautiful Losers has a bit of acid in it and a lot of speed.”
http://www.timescolonist.com/
DRUG ABUSE
Streeter: Was there ever any discussion about alcohol or drugs in any of the voice mail messages?
Cohen: There were accusations that I was on drugs … She often accused me of being on drugs. RT 59
Streeter: In any of the emails do you recall if she ever accused you of alcohol or drug usage?
Cohen: She routinely accused me of drug abuse. Not alcoholism, but drug abuse. RT 61
Streeter: Is there a specific drug that she accuses you of using, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: No, she doesn’t specify. I think she -- she accuses me of being on legal meth. RT 136
Streeter; Is there any mention of drug use in that email Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: I can’t see any mention. RT 137
Email - December 17, 2011
Streeter: Now, looking at that, was there any mention in that email about drug usage on your part?
Cohen: Yes, I’m accused of abusing drugs. RT 139
Streeter: How did it feel to not only be accused of being a drug user but have her send out such accusations to people that you don’t know?
Cohen: It’s not a pleasant sensation … I felt my reputation was being assailed and the reputation of my family. RT 142
Streeter: And do you recall any mention in that voice mail message about drug usage on your part?
Cohen: Yes, I’m accused of using drugs. RT 154
Sidebar:
Public Defender: 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.
PD: The evidence that was presented points to, perhaps, defamatory in nature. And I do think that if that’s the case that the people be precluded from saying that because drug use was mentioned, therefore, it was harassing and threatening.
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 … that was the reason the people did that.
PD: … Those messages referred to prior drug use and not necessarily current drug use. RT 433
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM
Subject: Request for Tax Information
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Jewel of Activity <welcomingflowers@yahoo.com>, info <info@kibi-edu.org>, "YesheRimpoche@aol.com" <bhakhatulku@yahoo.com>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, GGreenwald <GGreenwald@salon.com>, Steven Machat <smachat@gmail.com>, Teresa Low <teresa.low@doj.ca.gov>, PIU <piu@doj.ca.gov>, OIGCOMPL OIGCOMPL <oigcompl@lapd.lacity.org>, chaleffg <chaleffg@lapd.lacity.org>, MEDIA RELATIONS PIO <pio@lapd.lacity.org>, police <police@cityofberkeley.info>, baldymonk <baldymonk@aol.com>, rkory <rkory@rkmgment.com>, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Cc: scooley <scooley@da.lacounty.gov>, ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>
Cohen,
Check your voice messages. I am demanding the information I require
for my tax returns - including asset valuations. See the assignments
that were notarized; minutes (with language dictated by you); etc. I
also want the illegal K1s from LC Investments, LLC retracted.
Lynch
P.S. People are asking me when I intend to sue you for slander. That
is definitely going to happen. We are going to litigate the fact that
you have illegally (from my perspective) altered my federal tax
returns via a default judgment based on perjury, lies, fraud, and one
preposterously absurd fictional narrative that contains no facts from
what I can tell.
IN THREAD OF EMAIL:
> Michael understands that Phil Spector is a wonderful man while Cohen
>>>> (a self-proclaimed former drug abuser, psychiatric case, rotten
>>>> alcoholic, and - from my perspective - a nasty pervert) is pure evil.
>>>> Here's something that really gets people - his crime spree and perjury
>>>> in so many courts in the U.S. while he cannot live in Canada because
>>>> (as Van Penick informed him) he has tax and residence problems there.
>>>> Oh yes, and as Cohen told me one night, the IRS doesn't ask where you
>>>> paid your taxes the prior year while Canada Revenue does. Cohen
>>>> clearly is out of touch - completely - with reality.
>>>> I have placed yet another call to Cohen demanding a 1099 for the year
>>>> 2004. And no, I did not do volunteer work on "Dear Heather" and the
>>>> commission was due me. See my emails to Leonard Cohen or Sony's
>>>> letter thanking me for cutting through the over-lawyering. Leonard
>>>> Cohen is a thief, like Marnie, who cannot stop himself. I also asked,
>>>> in my message, a request for a valuation of the intellectual property.
>>>> Cohen understood that compensation for my past work (language he
>>>> dictated in the minutes) was non-revocable. His lawyers and Neal
>>>> Greenberg (HIS financial adviser, who has now lost everything, and
>>>> someone I could not stand and who I thought was a greedy criminal but
>>>> Cohen connected with him when they met in LA) drove home the point
>>>> that Cohen must understand that this compensation of intellectual
>>>> property was NON-REVOCABLE. I called Neal Greenberg immediately after
>>>> returning from Cohen's house after we had this discussion in his
>>>> kitchen. I also informed Cohen, via my voicemail, that I do NOT own
>>>> 15% of LC Investments, LLC although Westin thought I should and Cohen
>>>> had me ask Westin if I could be compensated since I owned the
>>>> intellectual property. My lawyers confirmed this - I own 15% of all
>>>> the intellectual property regardless of where Cohen has now placed it.
>>>> Michael, who dealt with a Spanish version of Cohen and also went to
>>>> the tax authorities, has nailed this "shell game."
I think the tax matter is quite clear. Leonard Cohen is legally obligated to provide me with a 1099 but simply doesn’t want to. He doesn’t want to rescind the illegal K-1s. He doesn’t want to provide me with an accounting that takes into consideration corporate ownership interests, assets, liabilities, and equity. Etc. Leonard Cohen’s sense of entitlement and greed is unparalleled. His belief that he can simply continue to lie about Phil Spector is unconscionable. His attempts to blame his wrongdoing on me is inconceivable. But, this is pure Leonard Cohen who I view as positively evil. A man obsessed with his own reputation who has an absolute disregard for the truth and uses religion to dazzle awe inspired journalists and others. I’m not sure what religion embraces this type of conduct - theft, fraud, lying, destroying people’s lives, etc. Perhaps it’s something Satanic. Cohen liked to dabble in the occult and his favorite book was “Morning of the Magicians.”
The Morning of the Magicians, first published as Le Matin des magiciens, was written by Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier in 1960. It became a best seller, first in French, then translated into English in 1963 as The Dawn of Magic, and later released in the United States as The Morning of the Magicians. A German edition was published with the title Aufbruch ins dritte Jahrtausend (Departure into the third Millennium).
In a generalized and wide ranging overview of the occult, the book speculates on a variety of Forteana, mysticism and conspiracy theories such as secret societies, ancient prophecies, alchemical transmutation, a giant race that once ruled the Earth, and theNazca Lines.[1] It also includes speculations such as Nazi occultism and supernatural phenomena conspiracy theory that the Vril Society and the Thule Society were the philosophical precursors to the Nazi party.[2]
The book has been credited with playing a significant role in bringing these kinds of ideas into the popular culture, spurring a revival of interest in the occult during the 1960s and 70s, and being a forerunner to the popularization of New Age ideas.[3] In a 2004 article forSkeptic Magazine, Jason Colavito wrote that the book's tales of ancient astronautspredated Erich von Däniken's works on the topic, and that the ideas are so close to the works of H. P. Lovecraft such as "The Call of Cthulhu" or At the Mountains of Madness(published in 1928 and 1931 respectively) that Colavito claims it is probable that Lovecraft's fiction directly inspired the book.[4] Notably short on references or sources, the book has also come under criticism.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
FEDERAL TAX MATTERS
Streeter: And do you also recall discussion about K-1, criminal K-1?
Cohen: Yes, that was a constant theme.
Streeter: Do you know what a K-1 is, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Well, I didn’t until I asked.
Streeter Who did you ask.
Cohen: I asked my attorney. RT 82
Streeter: Who took care of filing documents with the IRS?
Cohen: That was Ms. Lynch. RT 82
Streeter: When Ms. Lynch was in your employ as business manager, what role you had in taking care of the financial documents?
Cohen: … Ms. Lynch was handling all financial affairs. She would choose the accountants, the lawyers … RT 83
Streeter: Now, there is a mention of the K-1... Do you know what a W2 is?
Cohen: W2? No, I don’t.
Streeter: How about a 1099?
Cohen: A 1099, yes, is issued by an employer to an employee.
Streeter: Did you ever issue one of those when Ms. Lynch was in your employee?
Cohen: No, I never even saw the documents. RT 83
Streeter: Do you recall any mention of a business relationship that you and she may have had?
Cohen: Yes, she spoke about her -- her taxation. RT 156
Streeter: The people recall you testifying previously that Ms. Lynch has on some occasions asked about getting tax returns; is that correct?
Cohen: Yes, many times.
Streeter: Amended tax returns; is that correct?
Cohen: Yes, Ma’am. RT157
Streeter: Do you recall of those emails how many had a request for tax information?
Cohen: Yes, I do. RT 167
Streeter: That’s the only email that made mention of a request for tax information?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 170
Leonard Cohen Cross:
Public Defender; You said that you were unfamiliar with what a K-1 was, correct?:
Cohen: Yes, sir.
PD: Okay. 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.
PD: And is it fair to say that you’ve gotten emails through the years referencing a K-1?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 280
PD: Now, since you’ve been receiving emails requesting tax information, have you called these peo9ple to say can you get me this tax information? RT 280
PD: 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
PD: There were requests in those emails for tax information, correct?
Cohen: Yes, sir. RT 281
Did you ever bring that attention to whoever handled your taxes?
Cohen: Yes, sir. And it was determined by two courts of this country and the IRS that -- RT 281
Cohen: It was determined, sir, that I had no tax responsibility in regard to Ms. Lynch. The two courts had decided that money had been taken from me … 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 and awarded me a tax refund, so Ms. Lynch has 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.
PD: Do you remember what my question was? RT 282
One of the main issues with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC was Leonard Cohen’s level of borrowing was dangerous to the structure and could lead the IRS to believe that this was nothing other than self-dealing on Cohen’s part and an attempt to evade paying taxes. In 2004, Leonard Cohen’s advisers - Greenberg and Westin - became increasingly upset by his level of borrowing. Greenberg pretended it was due to the fact that Cohen might run out of money but we were pursuing a multi-million deal; I was negotiating a multi-million lithograph deal; Cohen just received $1 million from Sony re. Dear Heather (but advised me not to let Greenberg know this); and planned to tour behind Dear Heather. Leonard Cohen’s loans from this entity are assets although Streeter attempted to mislead the jury by stating that there was only $100-150K left in some bank account that I am not clear about. There are millions of dollars in assets and Cohen understood that his loans had to be repaid at 6% interest. I was under the impression that they had to be repaid within 3 years. Robert Kory wrote, and I gave this document to the iRS, and asked if Leonard Cohen’s loans would be forgiven. In jury debriefing, a juror advised my lawyers that he relied on Streeter’s LIE that Cohen only had $150,000 or $100,000 left. Streeter actually thinks that Leonard Cohen can defraud a corporation; take loans like this entity was his personal piggy bank; disregard corporate governance; and then blame me for his conduct? That’s her rotten logic. Streeter, knowing that Cohen admitted buying homes for his girlfriend and son, with these assets, continued with her insanity about the $100-150K. Her obsession with the IRS and federal tax matters is fascinating and I continue to believe that the IRS should investigate this and prosecute her for an attempt to obstruct justice. As my trial lawyer noted - she attempted to sabotage the IRS.
Public Defender: And in fact you had actually taken money from that account to buy homes, correct?
Cohen: Yes, I had.
PD: You took money from that account to buy a house for your son, correct? RT 287
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: To buy a house for your girlfriend, correct?
Cohen: Yes.
PD: Okay. So you -- it’s fair to say that you did take money from that account?
Cohen: That’s correct, yes.
PD: You were aware enough about that account to know that you could take money from that account?
Cohen: That’s correct. RT 288
Streeter - sidebar: 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
After Marty Machat’s death in 1988, Leonard Cohen and his lawyer (recommended by his brother-in-law), Herschel Weinberg, began unraveling certain matters related to Leonard Cohen. That would include abandoning his green card (which he later re-obtained); unwinding off-shore accounts (and later his Swiss bank account that he personally opened); sorting out his numerous social security numbers (his accountant who he had while with Marty Machat, Burt Goldstein handled this after Cohen explained to us that he had more than one social security number); advising Sony that his recording contract had inadvertently been assigned to a corporation (which I believe was an LC Productions in Nevada); etc. All of this activity pre-dates me. but I do believe Leonard Cohen was aware that you could have more than one social security number since he did from what he told me and Burt Goldstein. In fact, when I spoke to Burt Goldstein about Cohen’s tax fraud and the IRS Commissioner’s Staff about this situation and the social security numbers, etc. he asked me if I would be a witness for him. My answer - absolutely. From what I could tell, Burt Goldstein’s work was impeccable. Steve Lindsey recommended Ken Cleveland to Lindsey when the IRS audited the charitable gift of stock to Mt. Baldy Zen Center that relates to the 1997 intellectual property sale to Sony. It is my opinion that the IRS should audit this again, particularly as Kory was quite concerned about this and advised me that the holding periods were illegal. Cohen, Greenberg, and Westin were actively involved in the 1997 deal and ulltimately were wrapped in attorney/client privilege together, leaving me in the dark as to what they were actually up to although I had my suspicions which began to grow when I heard details related to collapsible corporations, aggressive tax planning, etc. In fact, Grubman/Indursky also became concerned and were clear - Greenberg and Westin, on Cohen’s behalf, handled the tax and corporate structures. I had nothing to do with them but Leonard Cohen likes to lie and even attempted to blame (and I have this in writing) his lawyers (Grubman, Indursky) and royalty consultant (Greg McBowman) for engaging in fraud in the inducement with respect to them. That is absurd and laughable. Leonard Cohen, from what i could tell, was going to blame them for his wrongdoing as well. In fact, Stuart Fried/Grubman firm emailed me that Robert Kory was lying about them with respect to me. Robert Kory is a liar who the IRS should also prosecute from my perspective.
Social Security Number
PD: You never changed your social security number, correct?
Cohen: No, I didn’t change my social security number. RT 303
Streeter: How come you haven’t changed your social security number.
Cohen: I don’t think that’s -- I don’t think you can change your social security number. RT 319
Michelle Rice wrote and lied to me on February 14, 2011. She advised me that the civil harassment order (that she ultimately wrongfully registered as a domestic violence order for reasons I cannot imagine since Cohen and I were NOT in a dating relationship and she knows that the original order can only be modified by the Colorado court) was registered in California. I think they intentionally decided not to serve me and, rather, entrap me. I was not served or notified of the California order but Streeter attempted to mislead the jurors by lying about the fact that I said I wasn’t served the Colorado order. Of course I attended the Colorado hearing but, after hearing from the judge that Cohen personally appeared in Colorado, I read the file and was shocked by the extensive perjury in his declaration - I then addressed this in my Motion to Quash and attached evidence as well … I view that as exculpatory evidence but Streeter thought it was cute to question me about why I didn’t have a family member obtain this from my storage space in Berkeley - Cohen’s lawyers were served). Rice is clear - I was asking for tax information. Leonard Cohen has the information necessary to provide me with the IRS required 2004 1099 and to rescind the illegal K-1s issued for 2003, 2004, and 2005. In fact, I recently spoke with the IRS and they instructed me to contact Cohen to advise him that these K-1s should be rescinded as I am not a partner on LC Investments, LLC. They also raised identity theft as an issue. Robert Kory is Cohen’s business manager. I was not. Cohen just continues to lie about this fact. The man cannot stop lying and his lawyers are more than happy to perjure themselves. I suppose they are making substantial money and this is a motivating factor even though Streeter’s comments about this situation during her so-called closing arguments were psychotic.
Michelle Rice Direct:
Streeter: Do you remember what was said in that first email that you got a half hour later? … It was a fraudulent restraining order. What else did she say?
Rice: That she had valid reason for contacting me and it was in, you know, she wanted tax information. Something to that effect. RT 333
Providing me with tax information would not be a violation of a restraining order. LA Superior Court and Boulder Municipal Court cannot override IRS reporting and filing requirements although Kory wrote and lied to Agent Tejeda/IRS about that fact. See IRS binder that Streeter concealed. According to my attorneys notes, Streeter had this binder for approximately two weeks and only handed it over to them on April 9th, during the trial, at which point we issued a subpoena for Agent Tejeda/IRS. The judge then evidently decided to conceal Agent Tejeda/IRS from the jurors. In debriefing, the jurors advised my public defenders that they wanted to hear more about the IRS situation. Cohen, Kory, and Streeter attempted to mislead the jurors by advising them that the IRS and FTB were pursuing me. That is a bald-faced lie.
Rice: 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
Public Defender: To your knowledge, has Mr. Cohen ever directly sent Ms. Lynch any documentation?
Rice: It would be a violation of the restraining order. RT 362
Public Defender: But you believe that she wasn’t represented by counsel?
Rice: That’s correct. RT 368
PD: Even though you felt you were a protected person, you directly contacted Ms. Lynch and you gave her misinformation … RT 370
Sidebar: IRS Binder and Agent Luis Tejeda/IRS
Public Defender: We received a binder from Ms. Streeter that was provided to her by one of the witnesses that includes, you know, we believe a highly relevant witness that goes to Mr. Kory’s anticipated testimony based on what she provided us. He’s an agent of the IRS and we have subpoenaed him. We received that information on Monday. We subpoenaed him, he’s received that subpoena, but pursuant to federal regulations he has to clear that before he can testify with the appropriate authorities. I spoke with the agent this morning. That request is being considered and evaluated by their attorneys. And as I said, they’ll give me an answer by this afternoon regarding whether or not he will be able to testify and as to what he will testify to. Based on the fact that we received the binder on Monday …
Court: What does his testimony go to?
PD: We also think that … they go to the … motivation of the people’s witnesses. RT 385
Public Defender: Our plans are we want to find out about Agent Tejeda.
Francisco, the judge is lying here. Whether or not I knew of Agent Tejeda’s existence is irrelevant. I was unaware of the fraudulent refund Cohen obtained (confirmed by the IRS according to documents in the IRS binder) in or around December 2005 - based on fraudulent information conveyed to the IRS about me. I have now challenged this refund (discovered at trial) with the IRS and have filed fraud form 3949a, at the suggestion of the IRs regarding the refunding and the illegal K-1s. I would like to note here that Stephen Gianelli filed a fraudulent form 3949a with the IRS about me. This man does not know me; has no idea about my tax returns or payments; and simply lied to them (retaliatory, no doubt) when he filed this form in October 2012. As someone just noted - what would cause someone who doesn’t know me to go to these lengths and that does bring up the question of motive. As you know, he contacted you repeatedly. This is a lawyer who knows I am represented but he attempts ,from what I can tell, to infiltrate matters. This Stalinesque Show Trial has exposed me to dangerously unstable lunatics and that includes Leonard cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, who also attempted to lure my minor son into privately communicating with her. She appears to gather information for Robert Kory and Michelle Rice. This is how Leonard Cohen operates. I don’t kno9w if you’ve ever dealt with Vanderet but he seems to have deprived me of a defense and my compulsory witnesses. Who knows what his motive is. As far as I‘m concerned, it’s just more insanity with LA Confidential. I knew there was something wrong with the man the moment he began allowing Leonard Cohen to interpret my emails. Leonard Cohen has bias and motive. He is also a pathological liar. His testimony should make that clear. In any event, Vanderet also didn’t want to delay the trial. As a number of lawyers have noted - what was his hurry? He couldn’t wait two hours, for us to hear back from Agent Tejeda/IRS - before sending this to the jury. He also lied about me during sentencing. I found that pathetic and this man had the audacity to comment on my views of the justice system. Well, he should see what LA Confidential looks like from the other side of the bench.
Court: I will tell you my strong view is I’m not going to delay the trial for Agent Tejeda. You guys, whether you knew his name or not, you were well aware of the relationship, if any, and I think it was quite tangential of the merits of the IRS thing long before the trial, and I’m not going to delay at this point the trial.
PD: … He said he was going to call … Your ruling is not that he’s not precluded from testifying; it’s that you won’t delay the trial.
Court: I won’t delay the trial. RT 432
Public Defender: Of a potential witness that we had mentioned. I believe we’ll wrap this up.
Court: IRS. What is the status.
Public Defender: We weren’t able to hear back from him.
Court: Who is this person?
Public Defender: Mr. Luis Tejeda 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
Robert Kory Cross:
Francisco, the IRS binder contains letters from Kory to Agent Tejeda/IRS and the IRS. Kory was clear with Agent Tejeda/IRS - he and Cohen understood I had received an email from Agent Sopko/Treasury and that was a game changer. Prior to that email, they evidently thought my emails to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff were simply a nuisance. Of course, Kory told my lawyers in 2005 that he was concerned about even requesting copies of the TH tax returns from the IRS because they didn’t want to alert the service … They have become emboldened. After Kory understood I met with Agent Sopko and received an email from her advising me to report Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Tejeda/IRS, Kory began writing to him and lying to him. He transmitted the fraud retaliatory legal documents to Agent Tejeda and there were certain documents from Cohen’s retaliatory lawsuit in that binder that I had never seen before. I never saw an ad, as Kory testified. I was advised by Agent Bill Betzer/IRS to report the tax fraud to the IRS Fraud Unit. I didn’t contact Agent Sopko/IRS. She contacted me in 2007 (over a year after the refund was obtained) and advised me that she would like to fly in from Washington to meet with me. How would I find Agent Sopko? In any event, Gianelli has referred to her publicly as my federal pet so when he trashes you - know you’re in good company. After contacting her, using the ruse that I was spamming her (which is psychotic), he then contacted the FBI. I think he wanted to the FBI to investigate whether or not I was actually spamming Agent Sopko/Treasury. I think this man will go to any length to sabotage and infiltrate matters that relate to Cohen[‘s tax fraud and Phil Spector. Why would he call Investigator Frayeh to find out if he thought Judge Pat Dixon (former powerful DDA) was good looking? That’s when I wondered if Gianelli was gay. He doesn’t like that. Who knows - maybe he’s just criminally insane. Hard to say. I don’t know this dangerously unstable lunatic who has relentlessly targeted me, my family, and others. He has lied about a conversation with my ex-husband who he called. My ex-husband has no idea what this lunatic is talking about. He emailed me that my ex-husband wouldn’t let me on his boat when I was in Ft. Lauderdale a while back and questioned whether or not I wanted to rekindle our romance. The man is obsessed with me. People in my life have consulted lawyers over this man’s conduct. He does not care. He is unstoppable and has now transmitted fraud about me to the IRS.
Kory: We submitted the documents at length to Luis Tejeda, who is the head of fraud for the Internal Revenue Service in the Western United States. After Ms. Lynch … in 2007, Ms. Lynch contacted in response to, I think, a general ad encouraging employees to turn in their employers if the employees knew 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
I have never written that the IRS and FTB are pursuing me relentlessly but Kory evidently thinks he’s in Les Miserables. The man’s T.M. practice must have gone to his head and he thinks he is now above the laws of reality and, most certainly, perjury. Robert Kory practices T.M. - or did - and was involved in some failed amusement park deal called Oz prior to becoming Cohen’s personal and business manager. He now has a sense of self-importance. People view him as a maniac. I agree.
Kory: All I know is the -- she writes in her emails and she complains that the IRS and the Franchise Tax Board are pursuing her relentlessly. So I don’t know the -- I suspect, but don’t know the substance of why they‘re pursuing her. RT 423
Robert Kory is clear. I have asked that they withdraw the illegal K-1s that are evidence of criminal conduct. He thinks that request is sophisticated. Evidently their position is that everyone has to be a moron with motive. Leonard Cohen fraudulently reported a theft loss to the IRS and received a refund of approximately $700,000. Kory thinks this is a zero sum game but I have just filed a fraud form 3949a, after a conversation with the IRS, and do not view this as a game. He does. That’s clear. Leonard Cohen paid taxes on money he didn’t receive? I find that impossible to believe. I, on the other hand, paid taxes on behalf of a corporation that Cohen has decided he is the alter ego of. I can assure you, Francisco, that I didn’t make a charitable donation to the IRS on behalf of Leonard Cohen. Mr. Cohen’s refund has been challenged.
Kory: 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 were reporting, that we had reported to the Internal Revenue Service that money that Mr. Cohen had paid taxes on he did not receive. And therefore, Mr. -- when we reported that to the IRS we declared a theft loss. Mr. Cohen got a tax refund. RT 426
I’ve addressed the fraudulent expense ledger which I do not trust for one moment. These lunatics were moving things around from column to column. Cohen’s girlfriend’s house was actually in my column and his son’s house now appears to be in an undetermined column. That’s one example of the fraud on this ledger. The illegal K-1s totally undermine the ledger. Cohen has transmitted the K-1s to the IRS advising them that I had $0 income from LCI in 2004 and yet he has listed income, I believe, in the fraudulent ledger. How do they reconcile this insanity. I have asked for IRS required Form 1099. Cohen simply doesn’t want to hand it over. Do you see Kory’s logic - if someone gets a refund, somebody else pays the taxes. Not so quick. The fund has been challenged. Cohen stole from me. The IRS is in possession of the corporate books and records, etc.
Kory: As I read them, 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 426 It’s a zero sum game. If somebody gets a tax refund somebody else has to pay the taxes. RT 427
Did Robert Kory give my advisers the 2004 1099? I just called my former lawyers to discussed his testimony and to advise them that I am waiving attorney/client privilege for the IRAs, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Phil Spector’s attorneys with respect to them. They simply wanted that put in writing. I didn’t fire my accountant. He completed my return for 2003, advised me what to pay, and that was the work he was hired to do. I have no idea why Kory perjured himself over this situation. I did fire DiMascio & Berardo but I didn’t fire the lawyers I hired thereafter. That would include Mike Taitelman, Bert Deixler, and Zia Modabber who ultimately advised me that he had a conflict of interest. Robert Kory and Sandra Streeter’s use of the word RUSE is preposterous.
PD: … She requested tax information... did she request that information, Mr. Kory?
Kory: I -- I suppose … RT 427 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 2004. By then we had completed our forensic accounting, all the information was given to her. Very sophisticated tax lawyer and to her tax accountants, and she fired them. RT 428
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: You said that your business relationship ended on October 21, 2004?
Lynch: Essentially, yes.
PD: Why did it end?
Lynch: well, it’s a complicated answer, but I would say because Leonard Cohen heard I was going to the Internal Revenue Service about what I was told is criminal tax fraud. RT 458 I was told by Mr. Kory that there’s fraud, tax fraud on every entity: Blue Mist Touring, Traditional Holdings, LC Investments. There were problems with the Stranger Music deal that had tax issues. The IRS would demand information going back years, and the holding periods with respect to copyrights that were sold are illegal … He asked me if I would mediate with Mr. Cohen in a private mediation on Mr. Cohen’s side against his advisors. Particularly they wanted to go after Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin and their insurance companies. Mr. Kory told me that … Arthur Indursky, Don Friedman and Stuart Fried of Grubman, Indursky firm committed fraud in the inducement, as did Greg McBowman. RT 459
Public Defender: Were you asked to give false information that would hurt Mr. Greenberg and help Mr. Cohen?
Lynch: I don’t know if I was asked to give false information. I would not characterize the conversation that way. I was asked to testify that Neal Greenberg defrauded Leonard Cohen, and I most certainly do not feel that Neal Greenberg defrauded him. I feel that Leonard Cohen, Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin were wrapped in attorney/client privilege and they all defrauded the U.S. government.
PD: Did you ever agree to any of that?
Lynch: No. I felt I was being asked to participate in criminal conduct. RT 460
Public Defender: Now, you mentioned earlier about IRS and tax situation. Were you ever contacted by any tax authorities regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes?
Lynch: I don’t know if I was contacted regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes. As I reported the tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer, I was working on paying my own taxes, and he suggested that I contact the Fraud Unit with anything I had to report. And so I contacted the Fraud Unit by phone and then I filed a complaint online with the IRS. And I also called the IRS in Washington.
PD: When were you told to contact the Fraud Unit?
Lynch: I spoke to Agent Bill Betzer on April 15, 2005 after I paid my taxes in full. RT 463
PD: You heard voice mails regarding IRS; is that correct?
Lynch: Right.
PD: Can you tell us what you meant?
Lynch: What I meant by the IRS?
PD: Yes.
Lynch: Well, I did receive an email -- I mean I did receive a phone call from Agent Kelly Sopko of the Treasury regarding this matter. And I did meet with her and her partner, whose name is Brandon.
PD: What year was that?
Lynch: That was 2007. RT 464
PD: Did you write about this in any of your emails?
Lynch: Yeah, I did write about that.
PD: What did you write about in those emails?
Lynch: Well, I think I attached Agent Sopko’s email to me, saying that she found an appropriate individual for me, which is Agent -- to report this to, which is Agent Luis Tejeda of the IRS Unit in Los Angeles. And to go to Agent Tejeda with whatever information and evidence I had regarding this tax fraud.
PD: Did you ever notify Mr. Cohen or any of his representatives about this tax issue?
Lynch: Well, they have a copy of the email to me from Kelly Sopko. So yes, I did. RT 465
PD: Who is Doug Davis?
Lynch: Doug Davis is a tax advocate that was assigned to me to remove the lien while I attempted once again to get the tax information I needed to file my returns. RT 470
Public Defender: You mentioned earlier also about t tax information that you had learned about regarding -- or after your conversation with Doug Davis. What exactly did you -- what kind of tax information were you looking for?
Lynch: Well, Doug Davis was a very kind man and agreed to remove the tax lien. Because I would have ended up homeless again. But he told me he would give me 60 days to obtain -- first of all, we went over the fact that I was confused about what to call what I thought were my commissions on “Dear Heather,” because Leonard Cohen had said if he deposited it into his personal account, I wasn’t entitled to it. I have evidence proving otherwise … So he told me they don’t believe I did charitable or pro bono work. So Doug Davis told me to report that as income, and I told Mr. Davis this has been since 2004, I would call City National Bank to see if I could get copies of my bank statements, even though I don’t have the money. He said they probably won’t have them any longer. So, they didn’t call me back, they refused to call me back. I called their legal department. RT 477
Public Defender: What tax information were you requesting?
Lynch: I am trying to determine the total amount that i was given as a commission in the year 2004. Not just for “Dear Heather,” there are other royalties.
PD: Did you try to get this information from other sources?
Lynch: Well, I tried to get it from City National Bank, which would be the only other source.
PD: Did you actually have those actual physical records in your possession?
Lynch: No. I’ve lost everything.
PD: When did you lose everything?
Lynch: Well, I lost my house in 2005 and my storage in 2006. RT 478
PD: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever receive the documentation that you were requesting from Mr. Cohen?
Lynch: No, I have not. RT 479
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: You mentioned that you were trying to contact Mr. Cohen in reference to tax information you needed, right? That your 1099 or K-1?
Lynch: Many different tax and accounting and financial information I required to deal with my federal and state tax returns. I think we’re really clear, right? You’ve read the emails? RT 495
Leonard Cohen did not fire me. He heard I was reporting his tax fraud to the IRS; became hysterical; asked me to meet with him and his tax lawyer, hand over the corporate books and records, and help them unravel their handiwork. I refused. The IRS has never advised me that they believe money was missing out of Cohen’s account. But, once again, there is evidence that Cohen - and now the prosecutor - has taken the position that he is the alter ego of these entities. What evidence does Streeter have that this is the IRS’ position. She’s aware that Agent Tejeda/IRS received a subpoena so this is really quite psychotic. What is or is not income to me is none of Streeter’s business. She doesn’t work for the IRS and this is not Tax Court. I think all questions and testimony regarding federal tax matters should be viewed as prosecutorial misconduct and an attempt to obstruct justice.
Streeter: Now, once you were released from or quit Mr. Cohen’s employ, at some point later the IRS was of the opinion that the money that was missing out of his account, that was income to you, correct?
Lynch: I’ve never heard that. I’ve met with the agents for the Treasury and I’ve never been told that.
Streeter: Well, you mentioned --
Lynch: I talked to Agent Tejeda, I’ve never heard that.
Streeter: Well, you mentioned that the IRS came after you --
Streeter lies and misstates facts. I have never said that the IRS came after me. She is misleading the jurors.
Lynch: They didn’t come after me. RT 495
Streeter: Okay -- did the IRS ever contact you”?
Streeter is in possession of the IRS binder. It contains Agent Sopko’s email advising me to report Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Tejeda/IRS and notes that he is the head of fraud at the IRS in Los Angeles. Kory name drops him - he’s evidently the head of fraud for the Western Division of the IRS. I hope he’s clear about the ruse and the attempt to sabotage the IRS.
Lynch: No.
Streeter: After you quit Mr. Cohen’s employ, did the IRS ever contact you about paying back taxes?
What is this line of questioning about my back taxes? It is outrageous.
Lynch: No. I was arranging to pay taxes that were current that had nothing to do with this and they didn’t -- they sent me a tax notice in 2004. It has nothing to do with this situation, and I paid that. Since that, no I’ve never heard from the IRS that I owed the money. RT 496
Streeter: And the IRS never contacted you about any back taxes that you owe?
Streeter is clearly attempted to sabotage me and the IRS. She seems intent on keeping Cohen credible; discrediting me; and it involves Phil Spector, Steve Cooley, and Alan Jackson.
Lynch: The state told me that because I don’t have the tax infor4mation, I need to file my returns, including any deductions, business expenses, follow my prior year tax returns and guess. So I contacted the IRS for that, for those returns, and I was told the IRS would like me to file my 2004 and 2005 returns. I don’t owe any money. I lost my greeting card company. I have huge losses.
Streeter: So it’s your testimony that no one associated with Mr. Cohen, Mr. Kory, Ms. Rice, or any of his business people ever gave you information, the tax documents that you are requesting?
Does Streeter have a copy of the IRS required form 1099 for the year 2004? The IRS does not. I just spoke to them. They have copies of the illegal K-1s.
Lynch: For the years 2004 and 2005, that’s correct. RT 497
Streeter constantly misstates the evidence and will simply lie about my testimony. She shocks the conscience and that’s before one witnesses her gushing in a cell phone about celebrity Leonard Cohen. As I’ve said, it was obscene. Literally.
Streeter: Now, you mentioned that the reason that you continued to contact Mr. Cohen was solely for business purposes, that it was to get the information for the tax documents?
Lynch: Did I say solely for business purposes.
Public Defender: Misstates the evidence. RT 497
Lynch: One of the main reasons I contacted Leonard Cohen is for -- I have K-1s that were transmitted to the IRS that do not belong to me. I was not a partner on LC Investments. That causes tremendous confusion with my taxes. I have a default judgment where two companies have been -- Leonard Cohen said he’s the beneficial owner. That is not factual. I have the evidence. This caused my federal tax returns that were filed to be altered. This causes confusion for me … I have tried to get all of this clarified. I’ve asked for -- there is not a forensic accounting. there is a ledger. RT 497
Streeter: You didn’t feel that those were harassing, right, Ms. Lynch?
Lynch: Asking for information for my federal tax returns and state -- including when I’ve been garnished is harassment? RT 498 I feel like I’m being harassed by not being given the information. RT 498
Lynch: But Stranger Music is a tax problem, and I’ve gone to the IRS on that as well. So that is a tax matter, yes. RT 500
Francisco, what law says my requests have to be on the first page? What does extraneous material - meant for my own purposes (sent to the IRS, FBI, etc.) have to do with this matter? Streeter doesn’t care about criminal conduct. She’s got a celebrity on the stand and the DA’s investigator hanging out in the courtroom and lunching with Cohen. Hailey from the LA Times is also present. It’s positively LA Confidential.
Streeter: Where on the first page is there any mention about taxes?
Lynch: It’s on the second page.
Streeter: But on the first page. RT 507
Lynch: THe SWAT incident on the first page.
Streeter: That has nothing to do with your tax issues?
Lynch: But it has to do with criminal activity I believe. RT 507
Streeter Closing:
Why does Streeter find this interesting? “Every musician in LA knows what a 1099 is. What is her point here? People don’t know the difference between the IRS and FTB? Is she saying that ta
This is the other thing the people found a little interesting. She knows what a 1099 is a K-1 -- a K-1. Whoever heard of a K-1 before this case? The FTB and the IRS. Did anyone know there was a difference between the FTB and the IRS? Or what the FTB is? … This is a woman who knows what a K-1 is … RT 566
So this isn’t about Ms. Lynch being angry that she didn’t get her tax documents. RT 577 So what you have here, what this is proof of is not a woman who legitimately wants her IRS records or documents. It’s the unraveling of a con. RT 578
Defense Closing:
She was a whistle blower, reporting what she thought was criminal and fraudulent conduct. She’s asking for help from Steve Cooley, the DA, the IRS, the FBI, Department of Justice, lawyers she thought might help her. RT 581
Cohen was testifying he doesn’t know what a W-2 form is, he only learned recently that a K-1 form has to do with taxes, and that he only asked two real questions when things come up in his financial and legal affairs: Is it legal? Is it safe? And he doesn’t want to get involved too much in the intricacies of these legal issues because it inteferes with his creative process … But when my co-counsel was cross-examining him on issues such as a default judgment entered against Ms. Lynch, all of a sudden Mr. Cohen had details about how a forensic accounting was entered and the judge relied up0on that. He’s won two judgments against her. He knew details, where just on direct examination he doesn’t get involved in these type of things. It seems like he has a lot more to say than he was letting on to. RT 585
LORCA COHEN’S ALLEGATIONS THAT HER FATHER MOLESTED HER
Streeter: You mentioned -- you mentioned that Ms. Lynch often accused you of hurting other children; is that right?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
Streeter: Did Ms. Lynch in any of her emails accuse you of molesting your children?
Cohen: Yes, she did.
Streeter: Do you know what NAMBLA is, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: I think it’s an organization of male and that affirms or encourages re -- sexual relations between men and children.
Streeter; Did she ever mention that in any of the emails that she sent you, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Sounds familiar, but I can’t -- I can’t say for sure. I think so. RT 90
Streeter: You mentioned that you do recall her sending you emails in reference to the NAMBLA Association?
Cohen: Right.
Streeter: Is there any mention of that in that email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: Yes, there is.
Streeter: And after -- is there any mention of the minor children in reference to the -- that organization?
Cohen: To my minor children --
Streeter: Or minor children.
Cohen: I don’t think this particular email is referring to me.
Streeter. But there is mention of that?
Cohen: But there is a mention that a lawyer might be molesting her minor child and that he might be a member of NAMBLA. RT 91/91
From: Ann Diamond <anndiamond2011@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:54 PM
Subject: Re:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Hi Kelley
I deleted all posts on my FB wall re: this matter. It's not the place to talk about Cohen, Lorca, et al. I don't know what Walsh has going with Cohen but posting these comments as Phil Spector is definitely not the way to go either.
re: what Freda told me. I met her in the street one day in 1995 (I think) and she asked me if I thought the story Lorca had told her daughter, re; Cohen molesting her from age 4, could be true. I thought about it and said "Yes, it could." This was the first time I had my 15-year-old vague suspicion confirmed by anyone. After that I went home and went to bed for about 24 hours, after which I decided to move off the block. At the time it suddenly seemed to be that my whole history of living on Saint Dominique (from 1983 on) including threats, attacks, and other bizarre incidents, revolved around this secret.
Freda apparently later denied that she had said this, or she said I did not get her story straight, etc -- I think I heard this from Van Pennick, but didn't know whether to believe it.
A.
ARYAN NATION
Streeter: Looking at People’s 14,was there any mention of the Aryan Nation or Brotherhood in that email, Mr. Cohen?
Cohen: In this email, yes, Ma’am, there is. RT 133
Public Defender: I think per the rule of completeness -- RT 134
Streeter: Now when Ms. Lynch was in your employ, did you -- did you ever celebrate any Jewish holy days and invite Ms. Lynch to those celebrations?
Cohen: Yes, our family celebrates the Sabbath on Friday night, and Ms. Lynch was often invited to that evening.
Streeter: Are you saying that for the entire 14 years every -- you would celebrate every Sabbath?
Cohen: We occasionally missed, some of us were out of town. More or less is the custom of the family.
Streeter: And did you ever express to Ms. Lynch how important your Jewish faith was to her?
Cohen: I think she was well aware of that.
Streeter: How did it feel to get an email from Ms. Lynch that mentioned the Aryan Nation sent to you?
Cohen: Well, 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
Leonard Cohen Cross:
PD: You also mentioned that you were threatened with an email that referenced teh Aryan Nation. Do you remember that?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: Now, you just read the part that said Aryan Nation when you were asked about it, correct?
Cohen: Right.
PD: Now, the actual sentence says, P.S. More than one member of the Aryan Nation, so to speak, ended up protecting me on the streets of Santa Monica.” That’s what the whole sentence says, correct? And you’re aware that Ms. Lynch was actually homeless on the streets of Santa Monica.
Cohen: Correct.
PD: Nowhere does that sentence say anything about you correct? …
Cohen: This particular sentence has no mention to me, no.
PD: Okay. And --
Cohen: -- Although there is an implied menace there.
PD: So that was an implied menace to you?
Cohen: Yes, sir. When an enemy tells you that the Aryan Nation is protecting her, you would be concerned.
PD: So you consider Ms. Lynch an enemy?
Cohen: She considers me an enemy. RT 310
RESTRAINING ORDER - BOULDER 2008
PD: So why did you get a permanent restraining order in Colorado?
Cohen: … I was giving a concert in Colorado. I was going to be there for several days and thought it was prudent to defend ourselves against any intrusion. RT 319
Michelle Rice Direct:
Streeter: Okay. What is that?
Rice: This is the Form DV-600, register out-of-state restraining order, in the State of California.
Streeter: And is that the copy of the registration of the restraining order from Colorado?
Rice; Yes. RT 328
Streeter: Before you registered that restraining order -- I think that was in May of 2011 -- at some point in February of 2011, did you send a letter on behalf of Mr. Cohen via email to Ms. Lynch?
Rice: Yes. RT 328
Michelle Rice Cross:
Public Defender: Could you read that portion out loud, please.
Rice: … Mr. Cohen’s protective order is registered in the State of California and will be fully recognized and enforced by California law enforcement. I want to take this opportunity to remind you that the Colorado order … can only be cancelled or modified by the court from which it was issued. RT 352
PD: So you told Ms. Lynch that you had filed it when in fact you hadn’t at that point? RT 352 And you didn’t actually file it until approximately three months later in Superior Court?
Rice: That is correct. RT 352
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: Did you ever see any declarations that were written regarding that 2008 order?
Lynch: The restraining order?
PD: In 2008, yes.
Lynch: After I asked the judge to make that permanent, I went back to the court because I had been shocked to hear from Judge Enichen that Leonard Cohen actually flew into Boulder for this. Because I didn’t even know he was on tour … Yes. So I went back and read his declaration, yes. RT 473
Public Defender: You said that you had requested that the order be permanent. What did you mean by permanent?
Lynch: … Then, that becomes permanent for a couple or a few years. That was my understanding.
PD: Okay. Did you believe that the order in Colorado had expired?
Lynch: Yes, I did. RT 476
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: But you didn’t appeal?
Lynch: I actually filed a Motion to Vacate with Judge Enichen after I went back and I realized that Leonard Cohen’s perjury and fraud was excessive.
Streeter: Do you have a document for that, Ms. Lynch?
Lynch: I believe my attorneys requested that. Mr. Cohen’s lawyers were served with that document. RT 512
Streeter: Do you recall asking Ms. -- the judge, may I attack this later -- this later as fraud and perjury? Do you remember asking that?
Lynch: Yeah. Then ultimately she said she is not a lawyer and she can’t give me advice. RT 519
Streeter: Do you recall saying to the court, may I sue later if it’s fraud and perjury? … Do you recall the court saying, No, I’m not giving you legal advice … RT 520
Defense Closing:
[Michelle Rice] She had an explanation. Guilty with an explanation … She made a lie, a material misrepresentation in an email to my client. But she had an explanation. If she didn’t want to concede it, she shouldn‘t have said that. Now, Ms. Rice also copied other people in that email. All the people that -- the government is saying that my client copied on all those emails too. Ms. Rice replied to all of them. They were all included in this email which she wrote to my client. Why? Ms. Rice had no explanation for that. RT 587
A permanent order was issued by a California court. But that permanent order in California, ladies and gentlemen, it expires in three years even though it’s called permanent. Now, when Ms. Lynch was in a Colorado proceeding, which seems similar, they issued a permanent order. Now, in California what we call permanent orders sometimes have an expiration date. And in this case, an expiration date was given in the California order. But in Colorado there is no expiration date on the order. So it is reasonable to believe that someone might think that there was an expiration date on an order that was called permanent in Colorado because there was an expiration date on a permanent order in California. RT 592
Now, I also want to talk about knowledge because there is no proof of service of this California order. RT 593 Ms. Lynch’s signature is not on the sheet. RT 593 There is no attached proof of service … In California, we have a thing called proof of service … But there is no such proof of service on the California 2011 order. None at all. RT 594
[Michelle Rice] She believed she could never send documents to Ms. Lynch because that would violate the restraining order. YOu may have missed that she said that. I didn’t believe I could send any tax documents to Ms. Lynch because of the terms of the restraining order … Now, if Ms. Rice, who’s a trained attorney, advocate for Leonard Cohen, doesn’t even understand the terms of the restraining order, how can Ms. Lynch? RT 593
PERSONAL MANAGER
Leonard Cohen Cross:
Public Defender: You -- actually, you hired her to be your personal manager in 1988, correct?
Cohen: No.
PD: : Well, when did you hire her?
Cohen: I hired her to be my business manager.
PD: In what year?
Cohen: I think it was 1988 or 1989. RT 271
PD: So any accountants would have been hired by Ms. Lynch?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And would that not have been any of your -- would you not have had any input in that?
Cohen: Very little, if not none. RT 272
PD: So you have no idea if you raised your agreement with her where she would receive 10% of profits [NOTE: It’s gross royalty income], and you raised that up to 15%? RT 273
Cohen: I don’t recall the moment that that took place, although it did take place over the years. RT 274
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Lynch: Leonard Cohen hired a business manager by the name of Rich Feldstein … Leonard Cohen felt that his tour manager was stealing from him. And so he asked me to find a business manager … I brought Rich Feldstein in, Mr. Cohen approved that. Don Was recommended him. He’s also Madonna’s business manager, so he’s well known in the industry. This is how it would happen. And then he came in and did an audit and there was no such truth to that allegation. RT 450
THE DATING RELATIONSHIP
Public Defender: Now, you also mentioned earlier that there was a brief intimate relationship between you and Ms. Lynch, correct?
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: You wouldn’t say that that was probably the best idea, to have a romantic relationship with your business partner, correct?
Cohen: I don’t think it goes to the description of romantic.
PD: But it was a sexual relationship, correct?
Cohen: It was an intimate relationship, yes.
PD: Was it a sexual relationship?
Cohen: It involved a sexual -- yes.
PD: It was actually spanning years, correc?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
PD: It actually spanned years, correct?
Cohen: I don’t know how long it spanned, sir.
PD: But you would agree with me that it was on and off for a period of time?
Cohen: Yes, sir. RT 275
PD: When did it end?
Cohen: I don’t remember exactly when it ended. Like many relationships, it -- it just dissolved. RT 276
PD: And do you know why it ended?
Cohen: I would say that part of the relationship exhausted itself and dissolved naturally. RT 276
PD: Do you remember testifying on March 23rd at another hearing?
Cohen: March 23rd, yes.
PD: Of this year. You were in this courthouse testifying, correct?
Cohen: That is correct.
PD: 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.
PD: And you actually said that it was, yes, purely a business relationship. RT 276
Cohen: I have said repeatedly that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady denies it. So I did not want to insist.
PD: 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?
Cohen: May I explain.
PD: I’m just asking for if that’s what you said on March 23rd.
Cohen: Yes.
PD: In fact, you were asked a follow up question that -- asking you if that was the extent of it, and again you said yes, that was the extent of it, correct?
Cohen: Correct. RT 277
PD: When you testified on March 23rd, you said that -- you didn’t give the same answer that you gave now, correct, regarding your relationship with Ms. Lynch.
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: When you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raised your right hand, correct?
PD: You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth.
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And then the same oath that you just took right now, correct? Before testifying correct?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And yet you gave two different answers, yes or no?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?
Streeter: Objection; argumentative.
Court:L Sustained. RT 321/322
In Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 397, a First District Court of Appeal decision written by P.J. Anthony Kline, the court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a petition for a restraining order because the trial court did not believe that the parties involved had been in a
dating relationship. The appellate court sought to define
"dating relationship" for purposes of the DVPA, and, based
on an examination of various definitions from other states
and sociological writings, crafted a definition in Oriola .
"[A dating relationship] is a 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.”
We also heard testimony about Mr. Cohen’s relationship with Ms. Lynch. At a prior hearing in this matter, he testified that their relationship was purely a business relationship. But then, when he testified on the stand in front of you, the jurors, he said under oath that they had a short, brief intimate relationship, a sexual relationship. And when he was asked, well, why the two stories? Why when you were under oath at the prior hearing did you say it was only a business relationship and now, under oath again, you’re saying, well, kit was also a little bit more, it was a sexual relationship also. Mr. Cohen’s response was, well, Ms. Lynch denies it an, you know, in my mind if she denies it then it didn’t really happen. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you’re ever in your entire life going to tell the truth, wouldn’t you do it under oath, under penalty of perjury and in a court of law? Mr. Cohen had two stories. What does that say about his credibility? RT 584
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
PD: So you know that a default judgment means that Ms. Lynch didn’t actually participate in that litigation, correct?:
Cohen: Yes, that’s what it means.
PD: 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.
PD: I’m not asking if she -- I’m asking if she actually did give her version.
Cohen: A default judgment implies that -- that only one version is given.
PD: And so that version was yours, correct? RT 297
Cohen: That version was upheld by the court, yes, sir.
PD: 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.
PD: But it was your version, correct?
Cohen: Yes, Sir.
PD: And that judgment was made in her absence, correct?
Cohen: Correct. RT 298
Kelley Lynch Direct:
Public Defender: Now, we also heard evidence about a default judgment in 2005. Are you familiar with that?
Lynch: Yes, I am.
PD: Now, did you ever receive any summons regarding that lawsuit?
Lynch: I was never served with a lawsuit. RT 468
PD: Did you ever get the complain in that case?
Lynch: No. I read the complaint when it was put online in April 2010 and I was astounded at the allegations. RT 469
stephengianelli
http://es.scribd.com/doc/
http://es.scribd.com/doc/
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: And so the last address that anybody knows that you had in Los Angeles around that time was on Mandeville Road, correct?
Lynch: Apart from my email address, yes, which everyone has.
Streeter: You did live on Mandeville Road?
Lynch: The last address people would have had in LA would be 1614 Ocean in Santa Monica …
Streeter: But prior to that, that other address that you had was on Mandeville Road, right?
Lynch: Until I lost my house in 2005, yes.
Streeter: Now, as far as the timing of when you lost your house, right now, as it stands, the only signal we have that is for you, right, Ms. Lynch?
Lynch: I don’t understand the question at all.
Streeter: Well, the information about when you did and did not lose your house, the only person that’s testified to that right now, as it stands right now, Ms. Lynch is you?
Lynch: Are you asking me -- are you telling me I’m the only person that testified that I lost my house?
Court: You don’t have to answer it. RT 485
Streeter: And look at the proof of service.
Lynch: Right RT 487
Streeter: And on the proof of service, which is about the fourth page, it lists as the address --
Lynch: 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road, and I told you I don’t know if I filed a forwarding address. RT 487.
Kelley Lynch Redirect:
Public Defender: Ms. Streeter also mentioned this judgment that she showed you during her cross-examination … Did you ever get this on or about May 15, 2006?
Lynch: I couldn’t have. I was homeless. RT 525
PD: Anywhere on this paper that she gave you that stated that you actually received this document?
Lynch: No, there’s not. RT 525
CONSPIRACY
Michelle Rice Direct:
Public Defender: 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. RT 358
Public Defender: And they named Ms. Lynch as one of the conspirators in that civil conspiracy; is that also correct?
Rice: I don’t believe Ms. Lynch was named as a coconspirator. RT 358
Robert Kory Cross:
Public Defender: 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 adviser, Mr. Greenberg?
Kory: Absolutely not.
PD: 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. RT 400
PD: Even though you just said that 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 an illegal lawsuit before it even got started against me. RT 403
PD: You were actually dismissed in that lawsuit because the Colorado court ordered that it didn’t have any personal jurisdiction over you pursuant to rule 12(b)12 of the Federal Laws of Civil Procedure? RT 406 Let me rephrase, Mr. Kory, there was no order of dismissal based on the actual merits of the Colorado lawsuit against you, was there?
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.
PD: … 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? RT 407
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: Now, your position is, if the people understand you correctly, that the meeting that Mr. Kory had with you was because Mr. Cohen was doing something illegal, right?
Lynch. No … No, that is not why we met. Is that what you’re asking? RT 490
Streeter; BYes.
Lynch: That is not why I felt we were meeting … we were trying to work out some of the problems between me and Mr. Cohen when I was no longer represented.
Streeter: But during the course of that meeting, if the people understand you correctly, Mr. Kory intimated to you that there was a lot of illegality going on with the tax information that had been filed on Mr. Cohen’s behalf, correct?
Lynch: We didn’t talk about the tax information that was filed. What Mr. Kory told me is that there was tax fraud on all entities. Specifically, Blue Mist Touring, LC Investments, and Traditional Holdings. That Leonard Cohen’s advisors created this, that I had a cause of action against every one of his advisors, and in particular they felt that Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin were to blame and had defrauded Leonard Cohen.
Streeter: And there was no mention that you had defrauded him, right?
Lynch: No, there was mention that I was used as a pawn. RT 491
Defense Closing:
[Robert Kory] On the stand his demeanor was condescending, argumentative. We asked him questions about a lawsuit in which he was named a defendant for civil extortion, conspiracy, outrageous conduct and defamation. But he didn’t even want to admit that he had been sued over what my client said happened by a third party. … And when I was asking him questions, what was his demeanor? Even simple questions. I want you to think about it. RT 588
TRADITIONAL HOLDINGS ASSETS - COHEN/ALTER EGO - SELF DEALING
Kelley Lynch Cross:
Streeter: At the point that you quit Mr. Cohen’s employ, there was only a hundred thousand dollars left in that account?
Lynch: I don’’t know about that. There were loans from Mr. Cohen that were not repaid. So there would need to be an accounting to determine what was left.
Streeter: There wasn’t millions in there?
Lynch: There were assets, okay?
Streeter: In the bank account?
Lynch: There were assets … that was one asset, the bank account, $150,000. There were other assets.
Streeter: But that bank account had only $150,000?
Lynch: Right, and there were other assets. RT 494 There were millions in other assets.
Streeter: And you had access to that bank account?
Lynch: No, I did not have access. Neal Greenberg was his financial adviser. I had no access. RT 495
Kelley Lynch Redirect:
Public Defender: And asked you questions about money that was not in his account.
Lynch: I don’t believe there wasn’t any money in his account. I don’t know what that means. RT 526
DEFENSE CLOSING:
Ms. Lynch has been requesting documents related to accusations made against her for over six years. Her wages have been garnished by the state tax authorities and she’s desperate to get these critical documents to clear her name and to move on with her life. She’s not represented by any attorneys in her civil matters. She represents herself. She’s trying to clear her name. RT 597 Nobody comes up and shows you a letter or a document or a receipt showing we turned these documents over to her … Nobody said that. Why not? Because it didn’t happen … They never gave her what she asked for. And they kept stone walling her and stone walling her. RT 597
The prosecution failed to impeach her on anything she said. They brought not one witness, not one document, nothing to impeach her story. Why not? Because it’s true. RT 598 I don’t believe Ms. Lynch -- or the evidence shows that Ms. Lynch intended to annoy or harass anybody. RT 598
Question: How can you tell the difference between an attorney lying dead in the road and a coyote lying dead in the road?
Answer: With the coyote, you usually see skid marks.
Answer: With the coyote, you usually see skid marks.
