Kelley Lynch

In Propria Persona

c/o Paulette Brandt

1754 N. Van Ness Avenue

Hollywood, California 90028

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

LEONARD NORMAN COHEN, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KELLEY LYNCH, et al.

Defendants

)

Case No: BC338322

Assigned to Judge Robert Hess

Department 24

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION; DECLARATIONS OF KELLEY LYNCH, PAULETTE BRANDT, AND JOAN LYNCH

Hearing Date: 17 January 2014

Time: 8:30 AM

Department: 24

TO THE COURT AND PLAINTIFFS:

Defendant Kelley Lynch hereby opposes Plaintiffs' 239 page Points & Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Vacate; Opposition to Dismissal of Complaint; Declarations of Scott Edelman, Michelle Rice, Robert Kory, and Leonard Cohen.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

From April 1988 through October 2004, Defendant Kelley Lynch worked as Leonard Cohen's personal manager. She also served in a variety of other capacities although never as Cohen's business manager. Some of the positions she fulfilled music and literary publishing administrator, publicist, surrogate mother to his daughter, and personal slave. Defendant did not handle any matters having to do with corporations, finances, investments, accounting, tax preparation, business structures, business management, and so forth and so on.

Leonard Cohen had a team of professional individuals handling these matters for him. Those individuals include, but are not limited to: Burt Goldstein (accountant), Frank Amato (accountant), Peter Shukat (transaction attorney), Jonas Herbsman (transaction attorney), Greg McBowman (royalty consultant/accountant), Bud Talbot (investor/Dean Witter Reynolds), Jean Ransick (bookkeeper), Neal Greenberg (financial consultant, adviser, and investor), Richard Westin (personal tax and corporate lawyer), Ed Dean (trust, estate, and tax attorney), Ken Cleveland (accountant), Reeve Chudd (estate planning attorney), Rich Feldstein (business manager), Peter Lopez (transaction attorney), Arthur Indursky (transaction attorney), Don Friedman (transaction attorney), and Stuart Fried (transaction attorney).

In October 2004, Leonard Cohen understood that Kelley Lynch planned to report what she felt was tax fraud to the Internal Revenue Service and hired a new accountant and lawyers. On or around October 27, 2004, Lynch's lawyers faxed Richard Westin (Cohen's tax lawyer) in an attempt to arrange a meeting and discuss various corporate structures and other business matters between Cohen and herself. In response, Cohen showed up to the meeting with Westin and Ricardo Cestero (Greenberg, Glusker) and suddenly accused Lynch of receiving overpayments with respect to her personal management commissions and willfully attempted to disregard corporate entities and her ownership interest. He and his representatives also inexplicably began assigning items to Lynch's alleged "column" that were inconceivably bizarre. For instance, they took the position that Lynch bought houses for Cohen's son and girlfriend. Essentially, Leonard Cohen almost immediately took the position that he was the alter ego of these corporate fictions. He continues to assert this legal stance when he refers to corporate accounts as his bank accounts.

On April 15, 2005 and thereafter, following Lynch's confirmation from her representatives that Leonard Cohen (and possibly others) committed criminal tax fraud, and having filed her 2003 tax returns and paid taxes due, Lynch reported these allegations to the Internal Revenue Service. She also began documenting everything she has gone through in emails to the IRS Commissioner's Staff and others. That would now include the FBI, DOJ, Treasury, CIA, NSA, FSB, Dennis Riordan, the news media, and others. Finally, Lynch provided the IRS with an abundance of evidence supporting these allegations.

Defendant Kelley Lynch misappropriated nothing whatsoever from Leonard Cohen. Leonard Cohen is the party guilty of misappropriation and a willful disregard for corporate books, records, stock certificates, notarized documents, other evidence of ownership interest, and Lynch's Indemnity Agreement from Traditional Holdings, LLC that Cohen specifically instructed Westin to prepare for Lynch. That would explain why he testified at the March 23, 2012 bail hearing before Judge Samuel Mayerson that Lynch stole nothing from him - just his "peace of mind." He also testified that he and Lynch were in a purely business relationship and confirmed this two times in follow up questions. Cohen's testimony, in Lynch's trial, that he lied to Judge Mayerson because Lynch insists that they did not have a brief intimate or sexual relationship was and remains absurd and preposterous. His testimony at the March 23, 2012 bail hearing must not have supported the prosecutor's theory of the case, particularly given the fact that prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter works in the Domestic Violence Unit of the City Attorney's office and the order Lynch requested in Boulder, Colorado was and remains a civil harassment order based on a relationship whereby Lynch was Cohen's "business manager." Nothing whatsoever was raised with respect to "domestic violence," a "brief intimate relationship," or a "sexual relationship." Cohen evidently made a conscious decision to simply unlawfully modify the order when he filed it with LA Superior Court on May 25, 2011 creating a new order that Lynch was neither served nor notified of. Given the fact that Lynch was under the impression that the "permanent" order expired, which has been consistently and repeatedly confirmed for her and others, it would be humanly impossible for her to have knowingly or willfully violated a court order - regardless of Judge Robert Vanderet's shameless, outrageous, and dishonest comments during Lynch's sentencing hearing. The Boulder County Court Clerk's office continues to maintain that the 2008 Boulder, Colorado restraining order expired on February 15, 2009 after a motion to dismiss was entered on January 12, 2009. Both Lynch and Paulette Brandt have independently confirmed this numerous times over the past month or so. Nevertheless, Lynch was arrested, extradited from the Bay Area (without being appointed a lawyer and without being afforded the required extradition hearing), tried, convicted, and sentenced for violating a domestic violence restraining order and evidently annoying Leonard Cohen with respect to tax documentation he refuses to provide her and with respect to legitimate issues related to business and legal matters. That would include, but is not limited to, slanderous allegations, false accusations and perjury raised in his declaration supporting the Boulder, Colorado order, and statements he made to Lynch about Phil Spector. Lynch can think of nothing more legitimate than giving an individual the opportunity to refute what they feel might be inaccurate information about themselves. LA Superior Court, Cohen and his representatives, City and District Attorney of Los Angele, and others evidently disagree. Lynch believes this is simply due to a culture of deception, deceit, arrogance, and unconscionable conduct that is apparently acceptable in Los Angeles County.

Lynch is also relating to an outrageous probation violation matter that involves her former prosecutor, Sandra Jo Streeter, of the Domestic Violence Unit, her colleagues, and emails to DCA Streeter and DCA Vivienne Swanigan from Stephen Gianelli and other parties who have engaged in a campaign of harassment with respect to Lynch and others. This conduct has gone on for years now. The City Attorney has actively condoned, encouraged, and directed at least one of these individuals (Stephen Gianelli) to communicate with Lynch, further harass her, and communicate messages to her from the City Attorney. That message is as follows: members of the City Attorney's office are not in a "conspiracy" with respect to Lynch. At least one member of the City Attorney's office, Vivienne Swanigan, has shared information about Lynch, their plans with respect to Lynch, and details regarding her court appearances with a man who has been criminal harassing and stalking Lynch for years while continuously attempting to frighten, scare, intimidate, harass, stalk, and bully Lynch's sons, sister, brother-in-law, friends, former business colleagues, and others. This individual seems intent on alienating Lynch from her family and friends while isolating her through his conduct. The fact that the City Attorney of Los Angeles approved this conduct, permitted it to take place for over a year, and then charged Lynch with an intent to "annoy" her prosecutor is inconceivably outrageous.

Leonard Cohen has willfully and intentionally disregarded corporate governance and records proving Lynch had an ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC and Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. His latest legal filing is replete with fraudulent assertions, perjured statements, and rotten apples and oranges logic.

Kelley Lynch's commission for her services as Cohen's personal manager was 15%. She worked as his personal manager from April 1988 through October 2004 when she refused to meet with him and his tax lawyer to unravel their handiwork. Cohen has evidently now conceded that Lynch was his personal manager although in her 2012 trial he testified that "no" she was not; she was his business manager which was and remains a perjured statement. As of August 2005, Lynch had no fiduciary obligations with respect to LC Investments, LLC (an LLC she had no involvement with whatsoever), Traditional Holdings, LLC (since the extinguished annuity obligation was not due to make payments until January 2012 and Cohen's loans, advances, and personal transaction fees exceed the amount of the actual annuity), or Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. (as Lynch was simply compensated with a straightforward 15% ownership in this entity and the intellectual property that was assigned and which was non-revocable). She was compensated with 15% of all intellectual property dating back to 1967. Leonard Cohen is well aware of this, dictated a portion of the minutes, and understood that these assignments were non-revocable. He has a pattern of blaming his representatives in order to breach contracts. And, in this case, after attempting to force Lynch into a deal or settlement (including an offer of 50% community property), and in light of the fact that Neal Greenberg sued him in June 2005, and in order to establish a flimsy and lame legal defense, Leonard Cohen and his paid witness lawyers conjured up allegations related to fraud, conversion, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, etc. Unfortunately, they were unable to conjure up a trust document proving that Kelley Lynch held her ownership interest in these entities in trust for Leonard Cohen. It would have been impossible for Lynch to breach any fiduciary duty with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC for a number of reasons. Those include, but are not limited to, Cohen's extinguishing the annuity obligation from the Traditional Holdings, LLC federal tax returns in the year 2003 (without Lynch's knowledge); extinguishing her promissory note re. Traditional Holdings, LLC from the federal tax returns in 2002 (without Lynch's knowledge); taking millions in loans and paying personal transaction fees from corporate assets that appear to total well over the annuity amount; and, refusing to repay these loans and/or advances. That does not begin to address the fact that Lynch was egregiously misled and fraudulently induced into assisting Cohen with Traditional Holdings, LLC, other Cohen related entities, and entering into agreements with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC when the entity itself did not exist.

Leonard Cohen did not attach an accounting to the default judgment or Kevin Prins' declaration. He attached an unaudited ledger that lists random numbers without back-up documentation. A great deal of this information was allegedly provided to Cohen by his financial investor and consultant, Neal Greenberg. The SEC charged Neal Greenberg with fraud and he has now lost all of his clients' money and these statements are untrustworthy, accounts were co-mingled, and Greenberg (together with his host of companies) have engaged in fraud with respect to Lynch. Cohen's personal tax lawyer, Richard Westin, handled the structuring of the corporate entities and the annuity as well as prepared the tax returns, etc. Cohen personally met with Neal Greenberg ... him, selected him, signed the documents hiring him and his firms, and refused to permit City National Bank and others to invest the Traditional Holdings, LLC assets as Lynch suggested. She even met with representatives of City National Bank, and other firms, and attempted to convince Cohen that Neal Greenberg's investments were risky and aggressive. Cohen insisted on staying with Greenberg. The ledger is simply a list of numbers. An accounting, on the other hand, takes into consideration corporate ownership interests, assets, liabilities, and equity. It should also address Leonard Cohen's loans, advances, and/or transaction fees. Furthermore, LC Investments, LLC issued Lynch (and transmitted to the State of Kentucky and Internal Revenue Service) K-1 partnership documents for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. These partnership documents note that Lynch is a partner and had $0 income from LC Investments, LLC for those periods. That would completely undermine the ledger. Lynch was not a partner and both Cohen and Kory testified about the K-1s that Lynch has continuously asked that they rescind and they have steadfastly refused to do so. These are just some of the issues Lynch has been attempting to address with Cohen since approximately October 21, 2004. Lynch maintains that the Court does not have jurisdiction over her, LC Investments, LLC (which does not appear to exist), or the two entities entered into the default but not named as parties to the lawsuit: Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Traditional Holdings, LLC. The latter two entities also appear to be devoid of actual business purposes, offices, and substance and/or form. They are nothing other than an illusion meant to deceive the IRS, other taxing authorities, and Lynch herself.

Lynch will attempt to succinctly respond to the absolutely convoluted 239 page Opposition to her Motion to Vacate. Lynch was not served the summons and complaint in this matter. She had no female co-occupant and did not resemble Jane Doe. She finds the photographs from some unknown 1990s New Year's party and her visit with His Holiness Kusum Lingpa in 2007 (and not the summer of 2006) offensive. This is a serious matter, the allegations with respect to tax fraud are egregious, her life has been destroyed over this, her sons and family members have suffered horrendously, and Leonard Cohen and his advisers would have no idea what color her hair was in August 2005. As of that time period, Cohen (who readily admits in his declaration that Lynch would change her hair color although he did leave out the fact that she also once died it dark black, causing her to spend an excruciating 8 hours at a Beverly Hills hair salon in an attempt to remove the permanent vegetable dye and return her color to its more natural shade of ash blonde; Mario Lara, her celebrity hair dresser, does feel that Lynch should return to a blonde color and nearly blanched when Lynch recently suggested that he dye her hair blue for a change; Lynch has also, inadvertently, worn her hair in a reddish shade and once the chlorine changed her blonde hair to some strange green tint) had not seen Lynch for approximately 10 months. Michelle Rice (who has stated in her declaration that Lynch had blonde hair and brown roots in October 2005) did not meet Lynch until a number of months after the process server stated that he served Lynch's female co-occupant. Much to His Holiness Kusum Lingpa's disappointment, Lynch did color her hair platinum prior to their August 2007 lunch. He preferred Lynch with brown hair. On a separate note, Lynch is quite curious to know who provided Leonard Cohen with the photograph of herself with His Holiness Kusum Lingpa. The photograph was taken on August 20, 2007. The reason Lynch recalls this date is due to the fact that her son, Rutger, joined them and had recently had his bandages removed and His Holiness was battling cancer. This was the first time Lynch saw what had actually happened to her son's hand and fingers and it was quite traumatic. As His Holiness had been tortured in communist occupied Tibet, while imprisoned over a 20 year period of time, his right hand was disfigured and Lynch felt great relief that he was present for this entirely nauseating event. She was quite happy that His Holiness was able to visit with Rutger and really seemed to cheer him up immensely during lunch. Lynch believes it is possible that Norman Posel, who represented Neal Greenberg and was His Holiness Kusum Lingpa's translator on this trip - although not present at the lunch - may have provided Cohen with this photograph which is truly sinister. Declarations of Kelley Lynch and Paulette Brandt.

Lynch has no recollection, whatsoever, of receiving the summons & complaint in the mail.

Service could not possibly have been completed on September 3, 2005 as Lynch was not served the summons and complaint and repeatedly advised Cohen and his representatives of this fact. Cohen's lawyers, understanding Lynch was pro per, refused to communicate with her. This is a common legal ploy or tactic that the City Attorney's office also engages in with respect to Lynch. It permits various lawyers, and others with motive, to scream harassment or annoyance at later point in time. It is also a way to entrap individuals who are unfamiliar with unconscionable and vulgar legal tactics and the fact that many members of the legal community will willingly lie - about people, to the court, to jurors, and probably to one another. While Lynch has worked, years ago, as a legal secretary, assistant, and paralegal, she has always worked for ethical individuals and has never in her life seen anything like what she has dealt with throughout the various legal matters involving Leonard Cohen or her 2012 trial. That would include, but is not limited to, the conduct of Leonard Cohen, DA Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, DCA Sandra Jo Streeter, other members of the District Attorney and City Attorney's offices (including Captain Jack Horvath and an investigator by the name of Marko), Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, Scott Edelman and, to some degree, Jeffrey Korn. Lynch is now well aware of the tactics these types of individuals will employ against her. In fact she feels as though she is literally in a John Grisham novel that involves some extraneous and entirely sinister characters by the names of Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, Kelly Green, Michelle Blaine, the 14th Sheepdog ...

Lynch did not fail to answer Cohen's complaint or neglect to participate in litigation. She was not served the summons and complaint. Additionally, Lynch was under the impression that there was one default judgment in this case. As Cohen acknowledges, he filed a default against Lynch on November 22, 2005. Billboard Magazine then published an article announcing the fact that Cohen was awarded a judgment against Lynch in March 2006. Exhibit B At that time, Lynch was homeless and did not have the luxury to read excessive news accounts and would not have received any mail sent to her former Brentwood address since she and her son, Rutger, were evicted by LASD on December 28, 2005 as Leonard Cohen and his lawyers understood. Lynch did not refuse to attend anything. Apart from not being served, Lynch did not have transportation, was homeless throughout most of 2006, did not have a computer or the ability to download documents, had no agreement with respect to email service (an issue Cohen raised originally in this matter so it is bizarre that he would now insist that this could conceivably be viewed as proper service), and did not have the money to attend a hearing. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers seem to view Lynch's state of homelessness as a luxurious condition where she was evidently quite busy. Lynch begs to differ. Lynch understood that a judgment was requested in November 2005; a judgment was entered in December 2005; another judgment was allegedly entered in March 2006; and, she was under the impression that the May 2006 judgment related to Richard Westin. She had no idea that an individual could obtain two (or more) default judgments against someone in one case. It's entirely novel from her perspective.

Lynch believes it is important for the court to understand that she was dealing with an onslaught of legal matters, documents, and creditors. A custody matter was coordinated with the SWAT/Killer King incident of May 25, 2005. Process servers and repo men were leaving cards at Lynch's door. She was under the impression that one of the cards related to Cohen's lawyers attempt to serve her on August 24, 2005. It was nothing other than a coincidence and turned out to be related to a different matter. It may have been related to Neiman Marcus. This is why Lynch had Chad Knaak phone Scott Edelman to advise him that she had not been served the lawsuit. She was obviously aware of the lawsuit because Richard Cromelin of the LA Times, and others, brought it to her attention and advised her that Scott Edelman of Gibson Dunn was the attorney noted on the Complaint. Richard Cromelin politely suggested that Lynch use the statement attributed to her in the August 17, 2005 LA Times article announcing Cohen's lawsuit against her and Westin. Exhibit ____. Although Edelman's declaration contains hearsay regarding Chad Knaak's call, Lynch may have said something about "tax fraud." She most definitely advised Cohen and his representatives that she refused to participate in tax fraud or anything having to do with a cover up related to tax fraud. That does not negate the fact that she was not served the summons and complaint and/or repeatedly advised Cohen and his representatives that she had not been.

Lynch did indeed file a Motion to Vacate/Modify the Default Judgment on August 9, 2013. This was the first opportunity Lynch had to truly go through the documents posted online (and contained in the IRS binder provided to her lawyers during her 2012 trial), research the legal issues, and respond. Lynch addresses her hardships in the declaration attached hereto. Lynch's original Motion contains declarations from her son, John Rutger Penick, and herself.

Lynch supplemented her Motion on December 24, 2013 and included a supplemental declaration from herself and another from her old and dear friend, Paulette Brandt.

The basis, as opposed to the gist, of Lynch's claims to equitable relief are the fact that she was not served the summons and complaint, had no female co-occupant, does not resemble the Jane Doe, contends that the proof of service is evidence of extrinsic fraud, and was unaware that the judgment entered against her in May 2006 related to her. There was also a tremendous amount of confusion with respect to the actual numbers of default judgments as well as the amount the court graciously provided Cohen while wrongfully conveying Lynch's property to him.

Lynch did advise the court that the process server also failed to obtain the name of the party he allegedly served. That was not her main claim and therefore Lynch will restate her main claim: Kelley Lynch was not served Leonard Cohen's complaint and summons in the instant matter. She and her son, John Rutger Penick, had no female co-occupant. She does not resemble the Jane Doe. Her hair was short and brown. Her eyes are blue and not black. She weighed approximately 102 pounds. She is approximately 5'6". Lynch therefore contends that the judgments (regardless of the number of judgments entered against her) are void for lack of service and jurisdiction. Lynch has now provided the court with the declarations of herself, John Rutger Penick, Paulette Brandt, and Joan Lynch. She does not have any paid witness lawyers prepared to file declarations so they are more folksy and organic than Cohen's professionally prepared documents. Kelley Lynch, Paulette Brandt, and Palden Ronge will testify at the January 17, 2014 hearing. Not one individual has a reason to lie. Lynch had no reason to evade service and brought the fact that she was not served to Cohen and his representatives attention relentlessly. Prior to the entry of any judgment, Leonard Cohen and his representatives had the opportunity to simply serve Lynch with the summons and complaint. That would include long before Lynch and her son were evicted from their Brentwood home. They elected not to do so. Lynch does believe that the process server should have obtained a name so the individual could be identified and located. Lynch further believes that no such individual exists. She does not plan to speculate about what might have happened. Kelley Lynch is convinced that her witnesses and declarations are far more credible than Leonard Cohen's self-serving and creepy declaration about Lynch's appearance years, hair color, and slender physique well before and long after they parted ways, and his lawyers who are paid to represent, protect, and defend him. In fact, Robert Kory is the individual who has defended Leonard Cohen in letters and meetings with Agent Luis Tejeda of the Internal Revenue Service. He, and the other lawyers, are on Cohen's payroll and Lynch tends to doubt that they will say anything that might displease their celebrity client or expose themselves to liability. That defies logic. Each and every one of their statements are gratuitous, self-serving, and deeply offensive.

Defendant's mother, Joan Lynch, provided Lynch with a declaration prior to having a stroke on December 26, 2013. That declaration is attached hereto. Lynch believes this matter, and the related and coordinated probation matter, contributed to her mother's stroke. Her mother's memory is now suffering and her declaration is, for all intents and purposes, a death bed utterance. See Exhibit C. Attach emails from David McCourt re mother's medical condition.

Plaintiffs have offered no evidence whatsoever that would support a theory that Lynch was served the summons and complaint or properly notified of the default judgments against her. Furthermore, the default judgments remain confusing to Lynch and she is not particularly sure how many default judgments have been entered against her. Lynch's August 24, 2005 email communication with Edelman does not state that Lynch was served. It advises Edelman that she intends to sue him for emotional distress over the situation. That is factual. Lynch has no idea what was communicated to her via email. Her email accounts were shut down years ago. She was homeless throughout 2006 and was unable to download documents and did not have a computer. Cohen and his representatives understood that Lynch no longer lived in Brentwood, was homeless, checked her emails at the Apple Store, and refused to communicate with her. They had months to properly serve her. Lynch did not confirm receipt of PDF files. She responded to the email and said she had not read the documents. This narrative does not negate the fact that Lynch was not served the summons and complaint and/or the fact that the proof of service with respect to the summons and complaint is evidence of extrinsic fraud.

Lynch responds to the Declarations of Leonard Cohen, Scott Edelman, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory in her declaration attached hereto. Robert Kory cannot rebut anything having to do with the Internal Revenue Service or federal tax matters. The Court can simply review the correspondence he attached to the IRS and will easily be able to confirm that Robert Kory does not work for and/or represent the Internal Revenue Service. He is in no position to speak for or on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service. The only evidence that exists with respect to the Internal Revenue Service and/or Treasury that relates to their position with respect to this matter is Agent Kelly Sopko's March 2007 email to Lynch advising her to report the allegations of Leonard Cohen's criminal tax fraud to IRS Agent Luis Tejeda who is, as Kory loves to advise various courts, the head of fraud for the Western Division of the United States. Unfortunately, Judge Robert Vanderet felt is was inappropriate for Agent Tejeda to testify at Lynch's 2012 trial although Lynch only discovered Cohen's fraudulent IRS refund on April 9, 2012 when prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter provided Lynch's lawyers with an IRS binder that contained, among other things, Agent Sopko's email, Robert Kory's letters, evidence related to the refund, and a handful of random legal documents. Lynch, to this date, is unable to obtain a complete copy of the IRS binder from her public defenders. For some reason, they refuse to provide her with her file. She has received some of the IRS binder documents and the index which is how she knows what was contained therein.

Lynch reasserts her argument that Leonard Cohen is the alter ego of the sham corporations known as LC Investments, LLC, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., and Traditional Holdings, LLC. She also maintains that she owns 15% of the publishing that was to be assigned to Old Ideas, LLC, as noted in the liner notes re. the "Dear Heather" studio album.

Lynch strongly disagrees with the gratuitous and self-serving argument that these corporations are properly formed. These corporations do not even have offices. Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. evidently continues to have its principal place of business at Lynch's former business P.O. Box. Exhibit ___. As of August 9, 2013, when Lynch filed her Motion to Vacate, the same was true for Traditional Holdings, LLC. The Court improperly imposed a constructive trust for Cohen's benefit, wrongfully conveyed Lynch's property (including 15% of all intellectual property dating back to 1967) to Cohen, wrongfully held that Cohen does not owe Lynch monies or commissions, and seems to have concluded that a trust document can be entered into or agreed upon long after Lynch and Cohen parted ways and without her knowledge, consent, or agreement. No trust document exists and Lynch's share of these corporate entities, and their attendant assets, were not held in trust for Leonard Cohen. He simply appears to have conjured up a defense, moved offensively, and - at the same time - saw an opportunity to breach yet another contract and benefit from his outrageous conduct.

Leonard Cohen has a long and sordid history of fabricating and embellishing stories. Those include, but are not limited to, his fictional narratives about Kelley Lynch, Phil Spector, Janis Joplin, Suzanne Elrod (the highly demonized mother of his children), Ann Diamond (who has falsely been accused of stalking him), Barrie Wexler (who has falsely been accused of stalking him), and others, as well as his role in the Bay of Pigs and Yom Kippur War. That would explain why he now has three entirely different versions of his highly embellished good rock and roll gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court. Lynch has no idea which version the government believes. She personally doesn't believe any of them and that would include the version that involves a crossbow and not an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. The reason for this is because Kelley Lynch actually knows Leonard Cohen and worked with him closely for approximately 20 years (including when she worked with his former entertainment attorney and manager, Marty Machat).

Lynch addresses the prejudice to her should the court elect not to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case as well as her views with respect to Cohen's obscene allegations regarding the alleged prejudice he would suffer. His age is irrelevant and was obviously raised to elicit sympathy from the court. Leonard Cohen could care less about her age, the ages of her sons, her elderly parents' ages, or anything else related to the unconscionable harm he has done to Lynch's life He is more concerned with his carefully crafted comments such as the one that dazzled Lynch's prosecutor in her 2012 trial - that Lynch views Cohen as the author of her misfortunes. That is far too poetic for Lynch. She views Leonard Cohen as an inveterate liar, consummate fraud, con artist, thief, swindler, hustler, and is in complete agreement with His Holiness Kusum Lingpa's assessment: "an asshole who is going to hell."

Lynch moves to vacate default judgment, quash the service of the summons and complaint (as it is evidence of extrinsic fraud), and obtain a mandatory dismissal of the complaint under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 583.210 and 583.250 for failure to serve the summons and complaint within three years of filing, or in the alternative to dismiss the judgment and be granted leave to file an answer to the complaint and be heard on the merits of the case. She moves in propria persona in a timely manner particularly given the fact that the judgment is void and due to the unconscionable ordeal she has been and continues to deal with.

Lynch's requested relief should be granted because (i) the substituted service of the summons and complaint is evidence of extrinsic fraud and does not comply with the statutory requirements under Code of Civil Procedure 415.20(b), and therefore the default judgment is void for lack of service; (ii) the proof of service of summons on Lynch is invalid and defective (and not merely due to the fact that the process server failed to obtain a name of the "Jane Doe" co-occupant he allegedly served); (iii) Lynch's motion to quash the service of the summons and complaint is timely and the evidence supports her position that she was not served and no evidence prove otherwise; (iv)the summons and complaint were not validly served on Lynch, pursuant to CCP Sections 583.210 and 583.250, and the return of summons and complaint were not made within three years of commencing the action; (v) Lynch did not avail herself of CCP Sections 473 and 473.5 or any other identical statutory scheme; and (vi) Lynch has met her burden of producing competent objective evidence of extrinsic fraud to overcome Plaintiffs' alleged prima facie case of valid service; (vii) Lynch has provided (and expands upon this evidence in the declarations attached hereto) evidence of excusable neglect entitling her to equitable relief under a theory of extrinsic mistake and/or fraud; and, (viii) Lynch has established essential elements of a claim for equitable relief and the right to be heard.

The Default Judgment Is Void

And Should Be Vacated

On August 24, 2005, process server Leon Moore (First Legal Support Services) stated, under penalty of perjury, that he served Lynch's co-occupant Jane Doe. Lynch was never served the summons and complaint and no such Jane Doe exists. Lynch maintains that Moore did not repeatedly attempt to serve her as she had no transportation, lived high in Mandeville Canyon and had been injured in two car accidents (that were no fault of her own), and was home throughout this period of time. Lynch does not resemble the generic Jane Doe described in the proof of service dated August 24, 2005 at 9:00 AM and Lynch would not have advised Edelman that he "attempted to serve" her if she had actually been served. Lynch has no recollection, whatsoever, of receiving an envelope from First Legal Support Services containing the summons and complaint and any attached documents. Lynch has no idea if the process server completely failed to serve her; gutter served someone else; or had the wrong address. She knows this: the process server did not repeatedly attempt to serve her; there is no Jane Doe; and, she was not served and repeatedly advised Cohen and his representatives that she was not served. They could easily have remedied the situation by validly serving Lynch. They elected not to. Lynch is aware of the reasonable diligence necessary to satisfy CCP Section 415.20 and 417.10(a). Lynch challenges Plaintiffs assertion that the process server repeatedly attempted to serve her and then validly served a female co-occupant Jane Doe. Lynch maintains that what was actually calculated was the complete failure to serve her the summons and complaint (and other documents) and Cohen and his representatives' refusal to communicate with her knowing full well that she was self-represented. The complete failure to serve Lynch did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of service and deprived Lynch of her right to be notified and heard. It also deprived Lynch of the opportunity to confront her accusers, compel witnesses, and present a defense. In other words, Lynch was completely deprived of her constitutional right to a fair trial and due process of law.

The Proof of Service

Is Void

Lynch does indeed argue that the default judgment is void due to a defective proof of service, the validity of which makes the judgment void on its face and subject to collateral attack at any time.

Lynch does not argue that the Proof of Service is void because the name given her alleged co-occupant "was Jane Doe." She did not argue that the Proof of Service was defective because the process server did not provide the name of Lynch's neighbor. Lynch argued that she was not served the summons and complaint, other documents in this matter, and was and remains completely confused about the number of default judgments allegedly entered against her. As a side note, she has stated that the process server should have obtained a name of the individual he allegedly served so that this person could be identified and located.

As Lynch had no idea that there was a second related case, until Judge Freeman's court reporter brought it to her attention in 2010, she cannot address why this would be the case apart from the fact that she was completely unaware of the related case. She was aware that Sergeant Fernandez, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, showed up at her house with what appeared to be a valid court order. She is also aware that Raoul Felder, whom Lynch phoned, advised her that the search and seizure was probably not legal but cautioned her not to argue with the Sheriff's Department because they could then arrest her. Lynch is also aware of the fact that the Sheriff's Department seized partnership documents and other property belonging to Lynch.

Leonard Cohen abandoned his alleged property, which included corporate books and records, and was well aware that Lynch stored boxes in her garage as a courtesy to him for years. Lynch had no obligation, whatsoever, to make arrangements on her own to transport the property from her house to Cohen's. This is simply further evidence of arrogance on Cohen's part. He and/or his daughter, Lorca Cohen, were given permission in October 2004 to enter Lynch's offices and remove whatever they felt belonged to Cohen. Lynch's mother was present when this occurred. They went through everything and took everything that belonged to Leonard Cohen. Cohen seems to have removed property belonging to Lynch who. contrary to his assertions, did not move his property from her office on Keniston Avenue to her new office in Santa Monica or her home office. Cohen failed to make the appropriate arrangements and the property was abandoned for nearly one year. After Lynch advised the IRS Commissioner's Staff that she was shipping all boxes to them in Washington, copying in Cohen and/or his representatives, Cohen decided to move legally and addressed evidence related to payments made to off-shore accounts (Dominique Issermann and Flemming Schmidt) while holding a green card; documents related to Burt Goldstein (which would include communications with respect to Cohen's numerous social security numbers); and other evidence that support the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed tax fraud. Leonard Cohen simply made up an entire list of fictional items, including his water color book, that he apprised the court were at Lynch's home. He did mention ancient business documents that were stored in Lynch's garage. Lynch may have had a handful of items related to work she had been engaged with prior to her parting ways with Cohen but whenever she took a document or file home, she made copies so that one copy would be in her official office files and the other in her home office. Therefore, Leonard Cohen would have retrieved anything and everything stored in Lynch's office and maintained in her home office apart from boxes stored as a courtesy and an original copy of a Codicil to his Last Will & Testament that Lynch gave to her lawyers and advised them to return to him. Furthermore, everything with Leonard Cohen's name on it at Lynch's Brentwood home did not belong to Leonard Cohen as LASD advised her. That would include, but is not limited to, all corporate records that Lynch had an ownership interest in or personal items and artwork that Cohen had given her as gifts.

Lynch's argument has merit. Cohen's fictional narrative does not. Lynch feels that it would have been professional to obtain the name and physical address of her alleged neighbor who was evidently so helpful to the process server. Even a description might have proven useful. As Plaintiffs themselves have argued, all that is required under CCP Section 417.10(a) is the NAME OF THE PERSON "to whom a copy of the summons and complaint were delivered." It is Lynch's position that had the process server obtained anyone's name, including Jane Doe, it would give credibility to Plaintiffs' fraudulent theory. It is entirely possible that the process server never visited Lynch's residence and was merely given an incomplete or inaccurate description. Plaintiffs have, in the alternative of service, come up with a narrative and provided the court with evidence proving that, time after time, Lynch advised Cohen and his representatives that she was not served. She was frustrated. Make no mistake about that. She also found it shocking that Scott Edelman refused to communicate with her and repeatedly advised her that he would speak to her attorney - knowing that she was representing herself. This forced Lynch into a highly compromised position and this tactic has been used against Lynch relentlessly. That includes with respect to the related probation violation case and a City Attorney who not only permitted a stranger to criminally harass and stalk Lynch, while maligning and slandering her to their office and her prosecutor, but actively encouraged and directed one Stephen Gianelli to harass Lynch and communicate information to her from their office. In other words, Stephen Gianelli functioned as a member of the City Attorney's office. They also provided this individual, who could be a serial murder, with information about Lynch, her whereabouts, what she was wearing and the color of her hair possibly, and other information. Lynch knows for a fact that this is an affirmative defense on the part of the City Attorney with respect to her and outright retaliation. In fact, Lynch attempted to abandon her appeal due to the ongoing unconscionable conduct on the part of the City Attorney.

What defies logic is the fact that after repeatedly receiving information that she was not served, Plaintiffs steadfastly refused to serve Lynch and, to make matters worse, their representatives refused to communicate with Lynch. Defendant, Kelley Lynch was not served. She is also not the newly identified Jane Doe.

There Is NO Evidence That Lynch

Had Actual Notice of the Summons & Complaint

Service Was Not Effected on Kelley Lynch

On August 24, 2005, Lynch asked Chad Knaak (a friend of her son's who briefly stayed with Lynch) to phone Scott Edelman to advise him that she had not been served and would hold him personally responsible for her emotional distress with respect to the Leonard Cohen lawsuit. Obviously, due to the fact that the LA Times (and others) contacted her and information was repeated to Lynch, members of her family and friends, she was aware that Cohen filed a lawsuit against her and does not deny or dispute that fact. Lynch, however, was not given the opportunity to review the summons and complaint and respond. It would have been impossible for Lynch to merely go online, gather information from various inaccurate news articles, guess about the actual allegations, and prepare and file a response. Scott Edelman's name was attached, immediately after Cohen's lawsuit was filed on August 15, 2005, to many articles about this case. Exhibit ____. The fact that Lynch wrote Edelman, albeit inaccurately, that if he should "try to serve this fraudulent lawsuit on me one more time, I will hold you personally responsible for mental duress" merely serves to support Lynch's argument that she was not served. Why would Lynch write Edelman about an attempt to serve her when, in fact, the process server stated under oath that she was served on August 24, 2005 at 9 AM. Lynch has already explained the confusion over this issue. She did not have a phone, was unable to promptly return a call to the individual who left a business card for her, Chad Knaak used a cell phone to contact Edelman, and the matter did not relate to Cohen's case. Lynch believes it related to Neiman Marcus.

It is completely irrelevant and immaterial if Edelman had no prior contact with Lynch. Lynch has attached evidence that Scott Edelman's name was associated with this case as early as August 17th or 18th, 2005 and this information was repeated to Lynch by a number of people. So there is more than one reasonable explanation for how Lynch knew to contact Scott Edelman and had Chad Knaak advise him that she was not served and would hold him accountable for mental duress. Lynch did not, contrary to Cohen's mythical explanation, read Edelman's name on the complaint because Lynch was not served the summons and complaint.

Lynch did not agree to email service with Leonard Cohen and the court did not order it. However, that does not negate the fact that she was not served the summons and complaint and the proof of service is evidence of extrinsic fraud. Lynch addresses all assertions made in Scott Edelman's declaration in her own which is attached hereto. Lynch spoke with someone at "We The People" who advised her that, if she was served the summons and complaint, they could help her respond to Leonard Cohen's lawsuit. She has no recollection, at this time, as to why "We The People" suggested a Motion to Quash.

Lynch's comment with respect to Scott Edelman's signature does not negate the fact that she wasn't served the summons and complaint. Lynch made no comment about Edelman's signature appearing on the last page of Cohen's complaint. Lynch simply went online and found legal documents filed by Scott Edelman. She did comment on his signature. That comment is irrelevant and immaterial. However, at some point in the fall of 2005, Lynch had no internet connection and had to rely on brief usage of her neighbors or son's computers. She also did not have a printer with which to print out documents. In any event, Lynch was not served the summons and complaint.

DATED: January 8, 2014

Ms. Lynch,

I have finished reading Jeffery Korn’s opposition, including the declarations of Edelman, Rice, Kory, and Cohen. I also received your email of 4:00pm yesterday (LA time), presumably on a recess from your probation hearing. Calling me a “liar”.

Your sworn declaration testimony is so at odds with YOUR OWN EMAILS as well as the timing of Chad’s phone call to Edelman’s office the day service occurred as to leave no doubt you tried to mislead the court in a big way in your moving papers.

· You lied about having blond hair with dark roots in August of 2005;

· You lied about not being provided the papers in support of the judgment or the judgment until I posted them on-line in 2010 (five years later). Edelman’s office emailed you EVERYTHING and also mailed you everything. You were notified by email of every hearing including the default hearing. And you acknowledged those emails by replying to them.

· You told Edelman’s office you were not going to participate in the lawsuit “for the sole reason” that it is “tax fraud”. These are your words in an email responding to a notice of the time and date of the default hearing.

· You lied about not being served by substitute service because Chad called Edelman’s office with you screaming about “tax fraud” in the background THE VERY DAY SERVICE ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED. That same day you also sent an email confirming Chad’s threat to sue if Edelman tried to serve you “with this fraudulent lawsuit again”. Clearly, you received the papers the day they were left at your residence because Chad immediately called and you immediately emailed Edelman’s office even though you had no way of knowing who Edelman was at that point unless you saw his name on the Complaint.

· You were placed on the electronic service list for the Colorado federal court case on 2008 and received Cohen’s motion for summary J that attached a copy of the California judgment to it via email service.

There is a lot more and it is all proven with YOUR email communications and the timing of Chad’s phone call.

The court has no choice but to conclude that you lied in your moving declarations in numerous respects and will – as a result – necessarily find that your declaration testimony is insufficient to overcome the presumption of proper service created by the proof of service on file with the court.

And then there are the overwhelming legal reasons to deny the motion, including your lack of diligence in filing the motion for over seven years, your failure to explain why you did not appear and contest the suit, your failure to come forward with admissible evidence of a viable defense to the Complaint, and the prejudice to Cohen that would be created under the circumstances.

Its all over except the ruling denying your motion and in the process you have shown without a doubt who the “liar” is: KelleyLynch.

And Ms. Brandt, you really need to read Kelley Lynch’s emails to Scott Edelman’s office dated August 25, 2005 through the default hearing that Lynch was notified of and said she would not attend because the who lawsuit was “tax fraud”.

Ms. Lynch - your 2005 emails attached to the Opposition show that you have been threatening to sue Edelman since August of 2005 - i.e. for over TEN YEARS. And in that time you have sued NO ONE let alone Edelman.

Your threats to sue EDELMAN, LAPD, Cooley, Jackson, Santa Monica PD, Boulder PD, Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey, Michelle Rice, Robert Kory, Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Blaine, Susanne Walsh, and scores of bloggers for all manner of alleged wrongs continually for the last decade were all bullshit - because they never happened.

Past behavior is the best predictor of future performance, you have no legal or financial resources to sue anyone, and no one - especially me - believes that you ever will.

No doubt ten years from now you will still be threatening to sue Edelman, Cohen, Gianelli and others though.

Pretty pathetic.

Your perjury exposed by your own emails sent to Plaintiff's counsel the very day you were served 8-24-2005

Inbox

STEPHEN R. GIANELLI

9:40 AM (33 minutes ago)

to me, Ray, mr.synt4xerror, karen, karen, wfrayeh

This shows:

1.      Kelley Lynch’s testimony in support of the motion to vacate – that she never received a copy of the lawsuit – is untruthful; and

2.      It is strong circumstantial evidence that Kelley Lynch was in receipt of the Complaint on August 24, 2005, because as of that date the only information that Lynch could have had that Scott Edelman represented Leonard Cohen in the suit was on the face of the Summons and Complaint.

3.      In page two of the attached email (in the “PS”) Kelley Lynch admits she was within earshot when Chad Knaaks called Edelman’s law firm to complain about service that day, as referenced in the email (“I heard him with you, he was incredibly polite”). Edelman’s assistant, who fielded the call, said that when “Chad” called a woman was screaming “this is tax fraud” in the background.

4.      There is just no other reasonable explanation for Chad’s phone call the same day as the Complaint was served (WITH Ms. Lynch yelling “this is tax fraud” in the background), followed by Kelley Lynch’s email to plaintiff’s counsel admitting she within hearing range of Chad’s phone call (when Plaintiff’s counsels name was previously unknown to Lynch but was on the papers served) than a copy of the suit was left with “Jane Doe” at the residence on August 24 – whether “Jane Doe” was Kelley Lynch, or another female with blond hair and dark roots who happened to answer the door and receive the Complaint.

Not only were you served by email with notice of the default hearing and with the default judgment and all supporting papers - you REPLIED to those emails!

And yet you testified in support of the motion that you had no opportunity to read the Complaint the judgment or the papers supporting it until "an individual named Stephen Gianelli" posted them online in 2010"!

You PERJURED yourself!

It's over.

The default judgment and all supporting papers were served on you by GD&C via US mail AND via email on January 24, 2006 as follows, per proof of service appended as exhibit to Edelman declaration:

You called me a liar for stating that the documents appended to the opposition prove that you were given advance notice of the ex parte hearing for entry of default judgment and responded via email stating that you were not attending for the “sole reason” that the suit against you constituted “tax fraud”.

Here is a cut and paste of your email to GB&C dated January 19, 2006 - PLUS EXCERPT FROM MY EMAIL THAT SAID HAVE FUN AT MY EX PARTE.

ADVISED FERNANDEZ TO THROW IT IN THE TRASH AND ASKED HIM IF EVERYONE IN CALIFORNIA WAS HELPING COHEN WITH HIS TAX FRAUD:

Please see the attached language from the 2005 civil harassment restraining order against you.

You announced your intention to move to set aside Cohen's default in emails to me in 2010. Since that date you have sent me many thousands of emails saying you would do so, and have sent me draft pleadings.

You have also sent me 20,000 emails on other subjects.

"Cease and desist"?

Ha!

Your own emails, including your email dated August 24, 2005 (attached), prove that you received Cohen's lawsuit the day it was left at your residence pursuant to the code section allowing substituted service.

You had Chad call Edelman that very day (with you screaming "this is tax fraud" in the background) to reference service of the suit.

On August 24, 2005 the only way you would have known that Edelman was Cohen's attorney in the suit was by reading the complaint you received that day.

Additionally, you were emailed all of the documents and also invited to attend the default hearing.

You lied in your declarations and you were served, knew about all allegations and proceedings and refused to participate - saying in a January 2006 email that you would not participate because it was "tax fraud".

Perjury is a felony offense punishable by 3,4 or 5 years in state prison.

Ron Burkle is on my witness list that a judge just reviewed. Gianelli doesn't know him. Mother wanted me to marry Ron. Is that a crime? For the record, Karen, you wrote Cutler also. My public defender called him. He and Gianelli should gt married. GIanelli loves name dropping him.

Thank you so much for all the updates on mother. It's very worrisome.

Maybe Gianelli would like to witness tamper with Ron Burkle. He's an arrogant idiot and a criminal. I know what your lawyer thought about him. Why? We are family.

You didn't have an agreement with Lawrence. I had one and it's in writing. He was talking about suing you. The man is a freak. I know he was writing and slandering me to you. Let me quote Yongtzin RInpoche after speaking to me and Michael Ingrassia about Gianelli's emails: CALL THE FBI AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND REPORT IT. I did. I spoke at length to the Oakland FBI. I then spoke to the very professional LAPD TMU. I have no problems with them. And, I spoke to Berkeley PD. They would like to speak to the FBI directly. Let me quote Berkeley PD; This is a waste of taxpayer dollars and tll us about Cohen and the IRS and Phil Spector and Cohen. Very professional men also. They would like to speak directly to the FBI. They also know this - I had no idea there was a restraining order. That's Brady material. The police are part of the prosecution team. That is favorable to me, no?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/157116027/Kelley-Lynch-Leonard-Cohen-IRS-Ray-Lawrence-Stephen-Gianelli-Etc

Anyway, Karen, we spent five days in Berkeley together. Ray Lawrence also harassed a detective in the Bay Area and told me that his colleague, at Kaiser Permanente, hacked the detective's email account. That's heavy, no? I saw the email from this detective's corporal. Lawrence showed me. I was helping him organize his paperwork. The man didn't live there from February through June. I never saw him. Paulette is aware that he went through all my paperwork and repacked everything and tried to HIT ON the man picking up my belongings. That man was upset.

Love,

Kelley

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

2/14/13

to Dennis, commissioner, Washington, ASKDOJ, Kelly.Sopko, Doug.Davis, SandraJo.Stree., ajackson, Truc.Do, wfrayeh, jthompson, OIGCOMPL, MEDIA, chaleffg

Hello Mr. Riordan,

I do think Phillip and his legal team will have to investigate the LAPD SWAT incident re. me - and the insanity with respect to Killer King. I suppose that ANNOYED Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson. Doesn't explain Streeter. SWAT's in the air. I think any parent would fear for their son's life. My aunt asked me if Rutger ever talks about it. NO ONE is speaking to Rutger until it's you, Phil Spector's legal team, or the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, or FTB.

Happy Valentine's Day. Everyone loves the drone card. Of course, Streeter might view that as a "threat." She does, after all, have an innocent person to set up. My entire family is in disbelief over the "dating relationship" insanity with Cohen. I wonder what Phillip's views will be on that matter since I worked for him at that time and was very close to Janice.

Love,
Kelley

\He's your $9-million man

by Gurinder on Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:33 pm

From this morning's Globe and Mail (March 2, 2006)

He's your $9-million man

A judge has granted Leonard Cohen a multimillion-dollar judgment against the singer-songwriter's ex-manager. But can he collect?
JAMES ADAMS

Globe and Mail Update

A judge with Los Angeles County Superior Court has granted Leonard Cohen a default judgment of $9-million (U.S.) against the Canadian singer-songwriter's former manager.

Judge Kenneth Freeman made the ruling earlier this week in response to a civil suit Cohen filed last August alleging fraud, negligence and breaches of contract and fiduciary duty on the part of Kelley Lynch, who served as his business manager from early 1988 through October, 2004.

Meanwhile, another defendant named in the suit, investment adviser and tax lawyer Richard Westin, reached an out-of-court settlement with Cohen last month, details of which are subject to a confidentiality agreement.

Cohen's legal difficulties made international headlines last year after the creator of Suzanne became tangled in a web of claims and counterclaims that had him lashing out against Lynch, who'd briefly been his lover in 1990, for mismanaging his financial affairs. At the time, another previously trusted adviser, Neal Greenberg, was suing Cohen for conspiracy, extortion and defamation of character.

The Montreal-born Cohen, 71, has alleged that Lynch over eight years had siphoned off more than $5-million of his savings, so that by late 2004 his retirement nest egg had been reduced to about $150,000. Westin, now teaching law at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, was named in the claim because Cohen alleged that Westin helped Lynch with the $12-million sale of both Cohen's music-publishing company and artist royalties. Most of these proceeds went into a Lynch-created company, Traditional Holdings, of which Lynch had 99.5 per cent ownership.

Cohen alleged Lynch and Westin "misled [him] into believing Traditional was owned and controlled 99 per cent by Cohen's children," Adam, now 34, and Lorca, 32.

To pay his legal bills and replenish his accounts, Cohen has been in the public eye in an unprecedented way lately, visiting Toronto last month to be inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame; publishing, this coming May, his first collection of new poetry in 22 years; serving as producer and lyricist for a new CD in April by his current muse, Anjani Thomas; appearing in a feature-length documentary, Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man, to be released later this year, and returning to the studio for a new set of Cohen songs that could be issued later this year or in 2007.

He's even taped a 30-second TV commercial for Book of Mercy, the new poetry collection. And there's serious talk of a singing tour later this year.

In the meantime, Cohen has to find a way to collect on the default judgment. Lynch neither responded to Cohen's suit of last summer nor filed any counterclaim. A subpoena of her financial records last fall was ignored.

Last August, she claimed her phone had been disconnected because she didn't have enough money to pay her bill. "We're still trying to figure out where all the money went," said Scott Edelman, one of Cohen's lawyers, this week. Nevertheless, he said he was "glad this chapter has ended successfully. Now we'll continue to focus our efforts on recovery from Mr. Greenberg."

An investment banker who lives in Boulder, Colo., Greenberg sued Cohen and Lynch in June last year (amended in August) claiming, on the one hand, that Lynch pilfered money from Cohen and, on the other, that the singer-songwriter and his lawyer (and ex-husband of Anjani Thomas) Robert Kory were plotting to make him the "fall guy" for Cohen's woes.

Lynch hired Greenberg as a money manager for Cohen in 1996. Over the years, according to Greenberg's statement of claim, he attempted to keep Cohen informed of his accounts, eventually warning Cohen that both his and Lynch's spending and borrowing habits were seriously harming Cohen's investments.

Greenberg alleges that, after Cohen realized the extent of his financial predicament in late 2004, the singer-songwriter and Kory informed Lynch that they'd be willing to "forgive" her failings if she joined them in a conspiracy to extort funds from Greenberg. If Greenberg didn't co-operate, according to Greenberg's filing, "Cohen would go out on tour . . . and give interviews to reporters in which he would insinuate that he was touring because he had been bankrupted" by Greenberg and others.

As a result, said Greenberg, his "spotless professional reputation" would be besmirched.

Cohen attempted to block or stall Greenberg's suit by trying to get Greenberg's complaints heard before an arbitration panel of the U.S. National Association of Securities Dealers.

Appearing in court in Colorado on Dec. 16 last year, Cohen's lawyers argued that an agreement their client inked in 1997 with Greenberg provides that "any dispute or controversy" had to be considered first via arbitration, not in court. However, the judge ruled that agreements signed in 2002 superseded the 1997 accord, with the result that Greenberg's suit still stands.

Yesterday, Edelman said he wasn't planning to appeal that ruling. Instead, he'll be proceeding with his own action against Greenberg "either in district court or arbitration court."

LINK: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... nment/home

Last Updated: Thursday, 18 August 2005, 09:51 GMT 10:51 UK

Singer Cohen sues former manager

Singer Leonard Cohen has accused his former business manager of taking $5m (£2.7m) from his savings accounts while he spent time in a Buddhist monastery.

Mr Cohen, 70, alleges that Kelley Lynch took millions from his accounts while he was at the Mount Baldy Zen Centre, in California, between 1994 and 1999.

Ms Lynch, who was sacked in late 2004, had been his manager for 17 years.

The legal action also names tax lawyer Richard Westin, whom Ms Lynch allegedly hired to help her defraud Mr Cohen.

"This civil action is another case of a tragedy that has become all too familiar in the music industry," said Mr Cohen's attorney, Scott Edelman.

'Silent one'

The complaint filed on Monday accuses Ms Lynch of "greed, self-dealing, concealment, knowing misrepresentation and reckless disregard for professional fiduciary duties".

Mr Cohen claims Ms Lynch siphoned off amounts far in excess of the 15% to which she was entitled.

Ms Lynch and Mr Westin could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

Mr Cohen was ordained as a Zen monk during his time at the monastery and given the name of Jikan, or "silent one".

He returned to recording at the end of the 1990s, releasing a new album, Dear Heather, to mark his 70th birthday last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4162134.stm

Last Updated: Friday, 3 March 2006, 11:15 GMT

Cohen 'unlikely' to recover money

Singer Leonard Cohen is "unlikely" to recover $9.5m (£5.4m) which a court has ruled was stolen by his ex-manager.

Kelley Lynch, who worked for the musician for 17 years, has failed to respond to allegations that she plundered his retirement savings.

Ms Lynch, who was fired by Cohen in 2004, refused to return photographs and memorabilia despite a court order.

The 71-year-old's case against Ms Lynch claimed that he was left with funds of approximately $150,000 (£85,592).

Cohen's lawyer Scott Edelman said of Ms Lynch: "She's hard to get in touch with. I don't know where she lives and I don't have a phone number for her.

'Creative endeavours'

"We don't know what she did with the money. But she knows what's going on because she leaves me with phone messages at all hours," he added.

Mr Edelman also said that an attempt to recover Cohen's possessions from her home with a truck and a police presence was unsuccessful.

Ms Lynch was unavailable for comment.

A Superior Court judge in Los Angeles granted the default order in favour of Cohen earlier this week.

A second person named in the legal action, tax expert and lawyer Richard Westin, reached an out-of-court settlement with Cohen last month, the details of which were not disclosed.

Mr Edelman said the singer was "glad" this part of the legal process had been completed.

"He would prefer to spend his time on creative endeavours," added the lawyer.

Cohen, who released a new album to mark his 70th birthday last year, was living at a Buddhist monastery in the 1990s when the financial irregularities took place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4770120.stm

Judge grants Leonard Cohen multimillion-dollar judgment against ex-manager

JAMES ADAMS

Globe and Mail Update

Published Thursday, Mar. 02 2006, 4:24 AM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Aug. 22 2012, 3:20 PM EDT

A judge with Los Angeles County Superior Court has granted Leonard Cohen a default judgment of $9-million (U.S.) against the Canadian singer-songwriter's former manager.
Judge Kenneth Freeman made the ruling earlier this week in response to a civil suit Cohen filed last August alleging fraud, negligence and breaches of contract and fiduciary duty on the part of Kelley Lynch, who served as his business manager from early 1988 through October, 2004.
Meanwhile, another defendant named in the suit, investment adviser and tax lawyer Richard Westin, reached an out-of-court settlement with Cohen last month, details of which are subject to a confidentiality agreement.
Cohen's legal difficulties made international headlines last year after the creator of Suzanne became tangled in a web of claims and counterclaims that had him lashing out against Lynch, who'd briefly been his lover in 1990, for mismanaging his financial affairs. At the time, another previously trusted adviser, Neal Greenberg, was suing Cohen for conspiracy, extortion and defamation of character.
The Montreal-born Cohen, 71, has alleged that Lynch over eight years had siphoned off more than $5-million of his savings, so that by late 2004 his retirement nest egg had been reduced to about $150,000. Westin, now teaching law at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, was named in the claim because Cohen alleged that Westin helped Lynch with the $12-million sale of both Cohen's music-publishing company and artist royalties. Most of these proceeds went into a Lynch-created company, Traditional Holdings, of which Lynch had 99.5 per cent ownership.
Cohen alleged Lynch and Westin "misled [him]into believing Traditional was owned and controlled 99 per cent by Cohen's children," Adam, now 34, and Lorca, 32.
To pay his legal bills and replenish his accounts, Cohen has been in the public eye in an unprecedented way lately, visiting Toronto last month to be inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame; publishing, this coming May, his first collection of new poetry in 22 years; serving as producer and lyricist for a new CD in April by his current muse, Anjani Thomas; appearing in a feature-length documentary, Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man, to be released later this year, and returning to the studio for a new set of Cohen songs that could be issued later this year or in 2007.
He's even taped a 30-second TV commercial for Book of Mercy, the new poetry collection. And there's serious talk of a singing tour later this year.
In the meantime, Cohen has to find a way to collect on the default judgment. Lynch neither responded to Cohen's suit of last summer nor filed any counterclaim. A subpoena of her financial records last fall was ignored.
Last August, she claimed her phone had been disconnected because she didn't have enough money to pay her bill. "We're still trying to figure out where all the money went," said Scott Edelman, one of Cohen's lawyers, this week. Nevertheless, he said he was "glad this chapter has ended successfully. Now we'll continue to focus our efforts on recovery from Mr. Greenberg."
An investment banker who lives in Boulder, Colo., Greenberg sued Cohen and Lynch in June last year (amended in August) claiming, on the one hand, that Lynch pilfered money from Cohen and, on the other, that the singer-songwriter and his lawyer (and ex-husband of Anjani Thomas) Robert Kory were plotting to make him the "fall guy" for Cohen's woes.
Lynch hired Greenberg as a money manager for Cohen in 1996. Over the years, according to Greenberg's statement of claim, he attempted to keep Cohen informed of his accounts, eventually warning Cohen that both his and Lynch's spending and borrowing habits were seriously harming Cohen's investments.
Greenberg alleges that, after Cohen realized the extent of his financial predicament in late 2004, the singer-songwriter and Kory informed Lynch that they'd be willing to "forgive" her failings if she joined them in a conspiracy to extort funds from Greenberg. If Greenberg didn't co-operate, according to Greenberg's filing, "Cohen would go out on tour . . . and give interviews to reporters in which he would insinuate that he was touring because he had been bankrupted" by Greenberg and others.
As a result, said Greenberg, his "spotless professional reputation" would be besmirched.
Cohen attempted to block or stall Greenberg's suit by trying to get Greenberg's complaints heard before an arbitration panel of the U.S. National Association of Securities Dealers.
Appearing in court in Colorado on Dec. 16 last year, Cohen's lawyers argued that an agreement their client inked in 1997 with Greenberg provides that "any dispute or controversy" had to be considered first via arbitration, not in court. However, the judge ruled that agreements signed in 2002 superseded the 1997 accord, with the result that Greenberg's suit still stands.
Yesterday, Edelman said he wasn't planning to appeal that ruling. Instead, he'll be proceeding with his own action against Greenberg "either in district court or arbitration court."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/judge-grants-leonard-cohen-multimillion-dollar-judgment-against-ex-manager/article4100082/

Hellalujah

After an unpleasant brush with celebrity, a Boulder investment banker files suit against Leonard Cohen.

By Laura Bond Thursday, Jun 30 2005

When Neal Greenberg met Leonard Cohen over dinner in 1996, the Boulder banker gushed that it was a rare honor to dine with the iconoclastic writer and musician -- a celebrity since the late '60s for his cerebral, soul-baring songwriting. They ate and talked, and within several months Greenberg was responsible for investing and managing the bulk of Cohen's fortune.
Nearly ten years later, millions of dollars that Cohen had invested through Greenberg's Boulder-based firm, the Agile Group, are gone. But Greenberg would like everybody to know that, to quote a Cohen song, the deal is rotten, but it isn't his fault. So last month, he filed suit in Boulder District Court, claiming that Cohen and his attorney, Robert Kory, had conspired to falsely blame him for Cohen's financial woes and had threatened to use Cohen's celebrity to extort money from Greenberg.
Leonard Cohen, a conspirator? The artist who lived for five years as a Buddhist monk?

Jay Bevenour

In 1996, the same year that Cohen entered the Mt. Baldy Zen Center in California, Greenberg was hired to look after more than six million dollars that Cohen generated when he auctioned off portions of his intellectual property -- culled from a lucrative catalogue that included such hits as "Suzanne" and "Hallelujah" -- to Sony Music International. Notoriously unapproachable, Cohen rarely handled business matters himself: Kelley Lynch, his partner and manager, had done his bidding since they'd commenced an on-again, off-again romantic relationship in the '80s. Lynch opened his fan mail and bills, brokered deals with his record company and fielded questions from his attorneys, accountants and bankers, including Greenberg.
In 2001, Greenberg's company took over the management of a new influx of assets from a second sale of Cohen's work to Sony, which grossed approximately eight million dollars. Yet over the next few years, even as the firm's investments regularly turned monthly profits, the balances dwindled. According to the lawsuit, Lynch made frequent withdrawals of hundreds of thousands of dollars, telling Greenberg that the money was for Cohen, to support his "extravagant 'celebrity' lifestyle." Whoever and whatever the money was for, Greenberg was legally bound to release it: By granting Lynch power of attorney and a majority ownership in a corporation created to manage his assets, Cohen had given Lynch free rein over the funds.
In January 2004, Greenberg sent Cohen one of many letters warning that he was on course to go bust.
"I don't know much about your ability to create another album and sell it, so I can't speak to that," Greenberg wrote. "But I do know that at the rate funds are being withdrawn, you will run out in a few years... I URGE YOU TO CURB YOUR SPENDING. It is at a very dangerous level."
In October, Cohen ended his relationship with Lynch, both professionally and personally. He began looking closely at the accounts she'd managed for him, and eventually told Greenberg that he suspected Lynch had been forging his signature, withholding information and taking his money. "Cohen claimed that Lynch was using the money to support a gigolo and to fund shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus," Greenberg's suit reads. Elsewhere, the complaint states that Cohen told Greenberg he'd never received any "subsequent written warnings about his excessive spending, and that Lynch 'must be intercepting his mail.'"
Cohen soon got a new lawyer, Robert Kory, a Hollywood attorney known for his aborted attempt to build a Wizard of Oz theme park on a polluted ammunition plant outside of Kansas City. A former leader of the transcendental meditation movement, Kory shared Cohen's interest in Eastern philosophy and his taste in women: Kory's ex-wife is Cohen's current girlfriend, the singer Anjani Thomas. According to Greenberg's suit, Cohen and Kory also shared a plan to deceive him.
The lawsuit alleges that when Kory entered the picture, the blame for Cohen's financial woes shifted from Lynch to Greenberg. Rather than try to get money from Lynch, Cohen suggested that Greenberg's insurance policy should cover his losses. According to the lawsuit, Cohen told Greenberg to "be a man" about things, saying, "Please do talk to the insurer. A great deal of suffering can be avoided." When Greenberg didn't go for being the scapegoat, his suit contends, Cohen and Kory threatened blackmail and intimidation to get him to come to the table.
"Cohen and Kory... began to threaten to publish false statements about Greenberg with the intent of harming" his business, the lawsuit reads, "such as by indicating that unless Greenberg obtained insurance funds to satisfy Lynch's alleged obligations to Cohen, Cohen would go out on tour to promote his new album and give interviews to reporters in which he would insinuate that he was touring because he had been bankrupted by improprieties of Greenberg and other financial advisors.
"Greenberg was selected as a target not on the basis of any genuine potential for liability to Cohen, but rather out of the perception that Greenberg... out of fear for his reputation, would prove an easy target to shake down."
In April, Kory sent a letter to Greenberg, urging mediation and a settlement to recoup some of the eight million dollars they claimed he'd allowed to dissipate. (Kory attached a copy of a glowing newspaper article about Cohen -- which hinted the artist might win a Nobel prize -- suggesting that Greenberg might "find it interesting.") Instead, Greenberg and his attorney, Sherab Posel, started building their own case. That same month, they arranged for a meeting at Denver International Airport, where they planned to show proof that Greenberg had acted properly and that Cohen knew, or should have known, what was happening to his money. Posel flew in from New York; neither Cohen nor Kory showed up. (They didn't respond to Westword's requests for comment, either.)
"We were left with no choice" but to litigate, Posel says. "Either we made an effort to try to present the facts and take our chances with the court of public opinion, or we simply allowed ourselves to be bullied into submission and pay lots of money for nothing other than averting the threat posed by Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory no matter that it lacked any basis."
"It's a very unfortunate unfolding of events," he adds. "We are certainly hoping that they will come to their senses and stop what is very disturbing and unprofessional behavior."
The claims in the case -- on all sides -- get even more disturbing. The lawsuit alleges that Cohen and Kory employed "tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage" Lynch if she didn't take Kory and Cohen's side against Greenberg. One of the suit's wildest-sounding charges accuses the pair of instigating an incident in which the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT Team descended on Lynch's home and arrested her in her bathing suit; later, Lynch was involuntarily admitted to a psych ward and drugged. Lynch, who's suggested that Cohen's money dissolved due to his own lavish spending, has supplied documents and information to support Greenberg's case against Cohen and Kory.
After Greenberg and the Agile Group announced his lawsuit, Cohen chat rooms and fan sites seized on the banker as a greedy shark out to steal an artist's hard-earned cash. Yet while Greenberg's career has considerably less flash than does Cohen's, it's imbued with its own quiet distinction: After twenty years in the investment business, Greenberg now manages more than $550 million in assets. He's never been sued by a client for mismanagement of funds.
In a statement after the suit was filed, Kory described it as a "surprise attack" that was "completely consistent with Agile's reckless disregard for its client and his investments." Cohen's attorney, Joe DePlasco, cited Kory's statement when questioned by Westword. DePlasco and Kory have vowed to counter-sue. So far, though, no one's heard a peep about that; attorneys working for Greenberg and Agile have been unable to locate Kory.
As the song says, the deal is rotten...

http://www.westword.com/2005-06-30/news/hellalujah/full/

A 'devastated' Leonard Cohen

Moderators: MarieM, Wybe, Maarten, pekka, Henning, Andrew (Darby), dick, tomsakic, jarkko

Topic locked

159 posts • Page 1 of 11 • 12 3 4 5 ... 11

A 'devastated' Leonard Cohen

by Gurinder on Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:53 pm

The Canadian music icon is broke and the lawsuits are flying. It's a sordid tale involving allegations of extortion, SWAT teams, forcible confinement, tax troubles and betrayal.

I said there's been a flood
I said there's nothing left
-- Leonard Cohen, from The Letters, on his album Dear Heather

From the MacLeans article:

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/finan ... 7#continue

August 17, 2005

A 'devastated' Leonard Cohen

The Canadian music icon is broke and the lawsuits are flying. It's a sordid tale involving allegations of extortion, SWAT teams, forcible confinement, tax troubles and betrayal.

KATHERINE MACKLEM

I said there's been a flood
I said there's nothing left
-- Leonard Cohen, from The Letters, on his album Dear Heather

Take an iconic artist, mix in missing millions, hints of tantric sex, a lawsuit replete with other salacious details, and a ruptured relationship with a long-time, trusted associate, and you've got the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster. Except in the case of Leonard Cohen, it's a true tale, with the bizarre twist of a Tibetan Buddhist suing a Zen Buddhist, Cohen. For the 70-year-old poet, singer and songwriter, it's a nasty, rapidly escalating legal battle that on the one hand accuses him of conspiracy and extortion, and on the other has him accusing both his highly trusted personal manager and long-time financial adviser -- the Tibetan Buddhist -- of gross mismanagement of his financial affairs. The case exposes not only private details of Cohen's finances, but also a dramatic tale of betrayal.

The conflict, which Cohen and others have tried to keep out of public view, has left him virtually broke -- he's had to take out a mortgage on his house to pay legal costs -- and facing a multi-million-dollar tax bill. But the artist, who is soon to release a new album with his collaborator -- and current girlfriend -- Anjani Thomas, is today remarkably calm about the potentially embarrassing conflict. Still, when he discovered last fall that his retirement funds, which he had thought amounted to more than $5 million (all figures U.S.), had been reduced to $150,000, he wasn't so sanguine. "I was devastated," Cohen says. "You know, God gave me a strong inner core, so I wasn't shattered. But I was deeply concerned."

So far, only one formal court filing involving Cohen has been made. In June, Boulder, Colo.-based Neal Greenberg, Cohen's investment adviser of almost a decade, launched a hyperbole-laden claim in Colorado against Cohen, who lives in both Los Angeles and Montreal. The suit accuses Kelley Lynch, who was Cohen's manager and is also named in the suit, of siphoning money from the songwriter. It also accuses Cohen and his lawyer Robert Kory of conspiracy, extortion and defamation. It alleges the two, in an attempt to recover at least some of Cohen's lost money, threatened to besmirch Greenberg's reputation and concocted a plan to force Greenberg to give Cohen millions of dollars.

The suit paints an almost preposterous picture of Cohen as an artist who led a lavish celebrity lifestyle and then turned bitter and vindictive when he discovered the money had run out. For example, the suit quotes Lynch describing how Cohen demanded she discuss business matters while he soaked in a bubble bath, and how later he was somehow involved in calling a SWAT team to her home, where she was handcuffed and forcibly taken to a psychiatric ward while in her bathing suit.

None of the allegations have been proven in court. Cohen is expected to file a countersuit this week. More lawsuits are likely to join the fray. And Lynch, who has sent turgid, raw and wrathful emails hither and yon, is threatening to sue just about everyone.

The conflict was triggered last fall when Cohen was tipped off by an insider that a lot of money was missing from his accounts. All that remained of his retirement savings was the $150,000, funds that today he can't get at as a result of the tangled legal web he finds himself in. Greenberg's suit portrays the soulful songwriter as an artist who paid little attention to his financial affairs and so was easily duped by a conniving personal manager. Cohen says he tried quietly, and confidentially, to find out from his various managers where the money had gone. Cohen calls the case "a tragedy," suggesting he was exploited by trusted advisers. He uses words like "greed, concealment, and reckless disregard," and says firmly he did nothing wrong. "I can assure you, within reason, I took every precaution except to question the fidelity of my closest associates."

Untoil Cohen fired her last fall, Kelley Lynch had been his personal manager for almost 17 years. Back in 1988, she'd been working as an assistant to his then-manager, who died that year. Because she was knowledgeable about Cohen's business affairs and recording contracts, he had her take over. Over the years, the two developed a personal and professional relationship. Fifteen years ago, they had a brief affair. "It was a casual sexual arrangement. It was mutually enjoyed and terminated," he says. "I never spent the night." The end of the affair didn't affect their bond. "We were very, very close friends," Cohen says today. "I liked her immensely. Our families were close -- she was helpful when I was raising my daughter; I employed her father." He even named her in his living will, giving her the power to decide, in certain circumstances, if he would live or die. He handed her vast powers of attorney. He trusted her implicitly. And he believed the relationship was mutual. "She wrote dozens of emails to me, thanking me for my help. We used to correspond regularly, relentlessly." He says that in 2004, while he was recording his most recent album, Dear Heather, with a small team at his home-recording studio, Lynch would come by almost daily. "People were very tight. Kelley was taking care of business, I was producing the album. It was all taking place in this little duplex and the garage that was converted into a studio. Kelley would come over, and I would generally prepare lunch for everyone."

The cosy arrangement was shattered one day last October when a young man, the boyfriend of a casual employee of Lynch, spoke to Cohen's daughter, Lorca, who owns an art deco furniture store and who lives downstairs from her father in the L.A. duplex he owns. "Your father really ought to look into his accounts, because he might be surprised at what he finds," he said. Lorca told him that her father trusted everyone involved and that besides, "he's about to retire, anyway." As Cohen senior tells the story, the young man replied, "He won't be able to retire."

Alarmed, Lorca called her father, who was in Montreal. Within a couple of days, he returned to Los Angeles and immediately went to his bank. There he discovered, as he puts it, "improprieties." Lynch had linked her American Express bill directly to his personal chequing account, he says, and just days before his visit to the bank, he'd paid a $75,000 Amex bill on her behalf. He never learned what purchases the card had been used for, but says the credit card company reimbursed him. Cohen immediately removed Lynch's signing powers on the accounts. The next day, Cohen told Lynch she no longer had access to the bank accounts and he fired her. That afternoon, Cohen says the bank notified him that Lynch went to a different branch and attempted to withdraw $40,000 from one of his accounts. He then called a lawyer and brought in a forensic accounting firm, Moss-Adams, which, in an investigation of all of Cohen's holdings, discovered "massive improprieties." In all, the accountants discovered about $8.4 million had over time disappeared from his holdings, Cohen says. His retirement funds had been virtually depleted.

Neal Greenberg, a banker with a thriving investment firm, had been brought in by Lynch to manage Cohen's money in 1996, two years after Cohen went up Mount Baldy to study to be a Rinzai Zen Buddhist monk. But now, he was worried. Over two decades, Greenberg had built a successful company, the Agile Group, and managed more than half-a-billion dollars of other people's money. He enjoyed, as he says in his suit, a "spotless professional reputation." And suddenly, here was Leonard Cohen, not just a prized client but one with a high profile, suggesting that Greenberg was party to the disappearance of Cohen's retirement savings.

Over the years, he says, he warned Cohen that his funds were being rapidly depleted, but it seemed the artist paid no heed. And now, Cohen and his lawyer, Kory, claims the Greenberg suit, were threatening "that Cohen would go out on tour to promote his new album and give interviews to reporters in which he would insinuate that he was touring because he had been bankrupted by improprieties by Greenberg and other financial advisers." Greenberg must have envisioned his business and his career in absolute tatters. He sued.

Greenberg's lawsuit lays out the business background to the dispute. Cohen's success as a singer and songwriter generated millions in royalties, the suit says, and in the 1990s, Lynch, as Cohen's trusted personal manager, began to investigate auctioning his intellectual properties, including copyrights to his song catalogue and continuing royalties for his songs. Lynch, along with a tax consultant named Richard Westin, arranged two deals for Cohen's properties. The transactions were eventually completed, one in 1997, the other in 2001, with Sony Music. From the first sale, about $5 million was transferred to trusts that Greenberg had been enlisted to manage and that would protect Cohen from an upfront tax hit. Greenberg says he invested the proceeds wisely, making lots of money for the trusts. But Greenberg also claims that Cohen's "consistent and prolific spending" to support "his extravagant 'celebrity' lifestyle" eroded the gains he had made on his client's behalf.

The second sale of Cohen's intellectual property, in 2001, was for $8 million. With Westin, Lynch put that money into a newly formed company named Traditional Holdings LLC that also was intended to shield Cohen's earnings from a major tax hit. Lynch was named as owner of 99.5 per cent of the company, leaving Cohen holding just 0.5 per cent. Greenberg alleges that Cohen, well aware of the structure and its dangers, signed off on it. Westin had explained to Cohen, the suit says, that "the plan would only work if Cohen and Lynch maintained (as they had in the past) a long-term relationship of personal and professional trust." Traditional Holdings could also issue loans to its owners, Lynch and Cohen.

As soon as the new company was in place, "Greenberg was immediately alarmed by Cohen's desire and tendency to treat this company [Traditional Holdings] like his personal piggy bank," the lawsuit alleges. It goes on to claim Cohen took a $1-million advance on the second sale of assets to Sony, Lynch took a commission of $1.1 million, and fees for lawyers and accountants ate up another $714,000. And then, over the next few years, Lynch regularly borrowed money from the Traditional Holdings account in amounts of tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes for herself, sometimes acting for Cohen. The lawsuit claims that while Greenberg sent a monthly email statement to Cohen, it was always Lynch who told Greenberg to release the loans.

The Greenberg suit claims Lynch, always acting as Cohen's agent, told Greenberg what to do regarding the funds. For instance, Lynch instructed Greenberg to send Cohen the monthly email status reports, but Greenberg says she directed him to leave out day-to-day activities and the status of Traditional Holdings loans. Because the loans were to be repaid, Greenberg included them in the statements as assets, which meant that it appeared as though nothing had been taken out.

Greenberg, who declined to comment for this article, claims in his suit he repeatedly stressed to Cohen that his spending was seriously draining his investments. In one warning letter, Greenberg told Cohen that Traditional Holdings had only $2.1 million left. Considering how quickly the money was leaving the account, Greenberg wrote, "I think you should consider your situation quite desperate." It's not clear if Cohen ever received this letter. On this, Cohen and Greenberg agree: they say many of Greenberg's attempted communications with Cohen were intercepted by Lynch.

On other points, Cohen disagrees. He was vitally interested in his financial affairs, he says. "It wasn't that I wasn't involved -- on the contrary, I took great pains to pay these professionals well and to solicit their advice and to follow it," he insists. "And, I was receiving a report every month from Neal Greenberg indicating that my retirement savings were safe." Cohen insists he was not made aware that Lynch had been named the majority owner of Traditional Holdings; instead, he says that in an early description of the company's structure, he had been told that his two children, Lorca and Adam, would be its principal owners. He says he was shocked to learn that Lynch had almost complete ownership. The mistake Cohen admits to is that "I paid close attention to everything except the possibility that my closest associate would embrace any irregularities in the discharge of her duties."

Cohen also says he learned only recently that the two sales of his intellectual property to Sony were unnecessary. He understands now that those properties earned roughly $400,000 a year, before taxes. That was plenty for him to support what he calls his modest lifestyle. Cohen accuses Lynch of creating the deals in order to boost her own income. He paid her 15 per cent of his income, which generally earned her $90,000 a year, he says. With the sales of his intellectual property bringing in revenue in the millions, it boosted her income to seven figures.

Greenberg's lawsuit becomes more disturbing as it describes what happened after Cohen realized he'd lost millions of dollars. Greenberg says Cohen pressured him to go after his firm's insurance company for the money to repay him. "Be a man," Cohen told Greenberg, the suit says. By threatening his reputation, it appeared to Greenberg that Cohen, on Kory's advice, had decided to target Greenberg's and his insurance company's deep pockets. Then, alleges the lawsuit, Cohen and Kory began to pressure Lynch to join them in "their extortion scheme." From November 2004 to April 2005, the lawsuit says, Kory repeatedly let Lynch know, sometimes directly, sometimes through friends or other intermediaries, that Cohen was ready to "forgive" Lynch's obligations to him, and that she in fact could receive a hefty cut of "whatever funds could be extorted from Greenberg and other advisers with her co-operation."

Greenberg's suit alleges that when Lynch refused to participate, Kory and Cohen vowed to "crush her." It goes on to say their "tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage Lynch" included threatening her that she would go to jail, and "paying two paroled convicts to make statements that they had observed Lynch's older son brandishing a gun and threatening to kill someone."

Lynch's response, to all of this has been bitter, scattered and in some cases difficult to comprehend. In a rambling exchange of emails with Maclean's last week, she denied any wrongdoing. She also declined to discuss the Agile Group's lawsuit, describing it as "bogus" and "slanderous," while promising to file her own complaints against Cohen and other principal players in the case. She added her phone had been disconnected because she lacked money to pay the bills.

In the meantime, she's been showering Cohen and others with invective-laden emails that alternately voice misery and hurl accusations at friends and former colleagues. Many of these lament losing custody of her 12-year-old son, Ray, to his father, music producer Steve Lindsay. A few devolve into the outrightly bizarre. One missive, sent July 17 and obtained by Maclean's, invites Greenberg in highly explicit terms to Lynch's home for an evening of tantric sex. "First I want to study the inner channels with you," it says. "Why not -- let's see who is better at tantric sex -- you or me."

So troubling have the messages become that several people who know Lynch fear she's become unhinged. "I'm afraid she's suicidal," says Lindsay, her ex-husband, adding that in his judgment she's been acting erratically for the better part of a year. Cohen too sent Lynch a message last fall spelling out his concern in verse: You can't tell the difference between a threat / and a helping hand, he wrote. You can't tell the difference between a threat / and a solemn warning / from one of the few people / who still cares about you and your family.

Lynch's apparent troubles have had punishing legal consequences. Lindsay has obtained a temporary restraining order that prevents her from visiting her son. Tara Cooper, a former employee of a greeting card company Lynch started while still in Cohen's employ, has taken out a similar order after alleging that Lynch sent threatening emails and harassed her by phone. And two of her creditors -- upscale department stores Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman -- have filed collections claims against her in Los Angeles Superior Court.

This is the mess that Leonard Cohen -- a man many believe floats a few inches above the ground -- finds himself in. These days, he's Zen-like. In the course of a long interview by phone from his home in Los Angeles, the man sometimes called the poet laureate of pessimism sounded almost bemused. "What can I do?" he asks. "I had to go to work. I have no money left. I'm not saying it's bad; I have enough of an understanding of the way the world works to understand that these things happen."

His first choice of action when he learned his money was gone, he says, was to not do anything. Aware of how painful litigation could be, he says he wanted no part of it. "I said, 'I can walk away with nothing.' I said, 'Let me start again. Let me start fresh at 70. I can cobble together a little nest egg again.' " But he ran into a glaring, immediate problem: had he done nothing, he would have legally been responsible for the funds that had gone missing. And on that money, he'd owe millions in taxes, a sum he no longer had.

His next step, "his second-best choice," was to negotiate with his advisers about the missing money. He approached Lynch, asking her to open her books. "She resolutely and unconditionally refused to open her books to any scrutiny whatsoever and instead began a bizarre email campaign to discredit me in some kind of way, which has gone all over the place," Cohen says, adding that he's launching a lawsuit this week with great reluctance. "I don't want anybody hurt. It's not my nature to pursue and to contend with people that way." Cohen says all he wants is to find out where the money went. "I'm not accusing her of theft," he says of Lynch. Still, his countersuit will likely describe how money was removed from his accounts.

Cohen appears to have been blindsided by Greenberg's lawsuit. He insists that he and Kory were in the midst of mediation with Greenberg when the financial adviser's lawsuit was suddenly and unexpectedly filed. He says the mediation had been confidential, at Greenberg's urging, as he feared for his reputation. In an email to Greenberg, Cohen urges him to make good. "Dear Neal, I believed in you. I depended on you," Cohen wrote in November 2004. "When things went wrong, does it make any sense that you would make your warnings available to the only person in the cosmos who had an interest in deceiving me? A single, simple email informing me that my accounts were being emptied would have been enough. I answered EVERY SINGLE EMAIL you ever sent me. Fortunately, I have them all.

"Face up to it, Neal," the email continues, "and square your shoulders: You were the trusted guardian of my assets, and you let them slip away . . . Restore what you lost, and sleep well." In his sign-off, Cohen delivered as much a piece of advice as his own philosophy: "Put this behind you and it will dissolve." There's an irony here, that a man who has struggled much of his life to distance himself from the material world now, at 70, finds himself in an intense battle with it. Still, he's not defeated. "This has propelled us into incessant work," he says of himself and Thomas. He exudes optimism about their new CD. "It's one of the best albums I've heard." It's not closing time quite yet.

With CHARLIE GILLIS and BRIAN D. JOHNSON

Gurinder

Posts: 8

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:49 pm

Location: Toronto & Madagascar

Top

Leonard Cohen ~ he's not defeated

by lizzytysh on Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:29 pm

It always interests me how people choose to label threads. Headlines tend toward sensationalism, as did this one. After reading MacLean's in-depth article, I'd have gone with something along the lines of another quote pulled from it ~ "Leonard Cohen ~ he's not defeated."

lizzytysh

Posts: 24552

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm

Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Top

by Tchocolatl on Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:26 pm

"You know, God gave me a strong inner core, so I wasn't shattered. But I was deeply concerned."

"I can assure you, within reason, I took every precaution except to question the fidelity of my closest associates."

"I said, 'I can walk away with nothing.' I said, 'Let me start again. Let me start fresh at 70. I can cobble together a little nest egg again.' "

"What can I do?" he asks. "I had to go to work. I have no money left. I'm not saying it's bad; I have enough of an understanding of the way the world works to understand that these things happen."

"This has propelled us into incessant work," he says of himself and Thomas. He exudes optimism about their new CD. "It's one of the best albums I've heard." It's not closing time quite yet.

Dear Mr. Cohen. He is intact. Always changing and always the same, as Pico Iyer put it :

"Cohen takes us, at heart, into a mythic place, an ageless space alight with goddesses and God, where we see a lone figure walking down the road, in dark Buddhist robes, with a Torah in one hand and a picture of a woman in the other. Always in our sight even as he disappears into the dark."

Today 's the day of all quotes!

Tchocolatl

Posts: 3343

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Top

by Kush on Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:20 pm

Copied from CNN....I really hope things work out for him.

Leonard Cohen sues over alleged $5M fraud

Tuesday, August 16, 2005; Posted: 11:01 a.m. EDT (15:01 GMT)

Manage Alerts | What Is This? LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- Leonard Cohen sued his longtime business manager Monday for allegedly defrauding the rock poet of at least $5 million.

The complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court seeks damages for alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, professional negligence and other claims against Kelley Lynch. Tax lawyer Richard Westin was also named as a defendant for allegedly mismanaging Cohen's retirement funds.

The defendants were not immediately available for comment late Monday.

"This civil action is another case of a tragedy that has become all too familiar in the music industry -- a business manager and professional advisers exploit an immensely talented artist's loyalty and trust through greed, self-dealing, concealment, knowing misrepresentation and reckless disregard for professional fiduciary duties," according to the complaint filed by plaintiff's attorney Scott Edelman.

According to the suit, Lynch was Cohen's business manager for about 17 years until he fired her in October for allegedly taking money out of his personal and investment accounts. It was alleged that the amounts taken were far in excess of the 15 percent management compensation that Lynch was entitled to receive.

It is alleged that the fraud started while Cohen was taking time away from his career to focus on his spiritual life at the Mount Baldy Zen Center, east of Los Angeles. While Cohen was not recording or touring, Lynch allegedly started to pay herself a greater portion of Cohen's royalties. She also allegedly introduced Cohen to Westin, who is accused of helping Lynch to orchestrate the sale of Cohen's music publishing and artist royalties.

"Cohen believed that he had hired Westin and (his firm) to protect his retirement savings, but, in fact, they burdened the sale with transactions costs in excess of $4 million and they devised unnecessarily complex corporate structures that allowed Lynch to steal over $5 million for her own benefit without Cohen's knowledge or consent," the suit states.

Montreal-born Cohen, a novelist and singer/songwriter, is famed for writing such tunes as "Bird on a Wire," "Suzanne" and "The Future," which was used on Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers."

Kush

Posts: 2482

Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 1:21 am

Location: USA

Top

The 'media' continues to sully its already bad reputation

by lizzytysh on Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:21 pm

From:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2005/15/c0028.html

Quote:

Canadian Musician Leonard Cohen is broke and the lawsuits are flying
Mired in a legal battle with his money managers, short of funds and
facing a massive tax bill, Leonard Cohen is "devastated." This week, Maclean's tells the sordid tale of extortion, SWAT teams, Tantric sex, forcible confinement and betrayal that has embroiled a Canadian music icon. National business correspondent Katherine Macklem investigates the flying allegations and reveals how this Canadian star was left broke, and why he must now, at age 70, try to re-ignite his smoldering career. And having known Cohen for years, senior writer Brian D. Johnson gives readers the inside scoop on how Cohen lives his life out of the spotlight, revealing the truth about what accusers call "an extravagant celebrity lifestyle."

This blurb sinks to new lows. The media has only itself to blame when ~ and as ~ it loses its credibility by having people like this in its employ. To have condensed the article I just read into this goes beyond pitiful. It's unethical in a way that this media employee obviously chooses to ignore; this 'overview' was done using a negativity magnet, pullling out of context everything that smacked of sordidity and ruins. Sadly, an uninformed reader would likely read it as shadow and soot cast onto Leonard.

The unprincipled ways of some in the media is demonstrated to a 't' with this sham of a 'synopsis.' The real path and dynamics of this case and the character of the main person cast into the spotlight ~ all contained in the original article ~ haven't even been hinted at, much less addressed. The only hope that comes with this is that some blood-hungry readers may be sufficiently titillated to follow up and read the whole of the article, and get set straight. Unfortunately, good, objective, and balanced journalism was desecrated in the blurb; and, too likely, many readers will stop there, assuming they've gotten the jist of it, anyway. As journalism goes, however, it appears similar to something on the front page of a grocery-store, check-out paper "National Enquirer / Inquiring Minds Want to Know," alongside the headliner "Barbara Bush Gives Birth to Martian Baby ~ Baby To Visit Home on Next Space Excursion."

Anything related to the true Leonard Cohen has been seemingly-systematically left out. There are dedicated reporters whose reporting suffers as a result of mongers like this. Efforts to skew public opinion would also seem to be afoot. This piecing together of inflammatory snippets makes it appear that they relate to Leonard directly, in the form of indictment. There's a very serious problem in the world of the media. It impacts all of us, in its way, daily. It's intensely impacting Leonard right now.

"Looked through the paper.
Makes you want to cry.
Nobody cares if the people Live or die.
And the dealer wants you thinking
That it’s either black or white.
Thank G-d it’s not that simple
In My Secret Life."

"There's truth that lives
And truth that dies
I don't know which
So never mind"

I'm angry and heartsick to see what some people will do for a buck, and erroneously call it journalism.

~ Elizabeth

Last edited by lizzytysh on Tue Aug 16, 2005 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lizzytysh

Posts: 24552

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm

Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Top

by lizzytysh on Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:23 pm

Thank you, Tchocolatl, for pulling the positive quotes. I was going to do that, for my purposes; but, as it would be redundant at this point, there's no need. Thanks.

lizzytysh

Posts: 24552

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm

Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Top

by Anne on Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:28 pm

Here are two more stories about this.

The National Post:
http://www.canada.com/entertainment/sto ... 0656ca11fd

The MetroNews from reuters:
http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_enterta ... p?id=89781

Anne

Posts: 491

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 6:08 am

Top

by LaurieAK on Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:49 pm

I read this article last night via a link on another thread. I felt like I needed to take a shower afterwards. The whole thing is so sordid.
If what was said can be believed, it sounds as if Lynch has gone over the deep-end. Guilt can do that to a person and should.
The least plausible explanation seems to be that LC himself frivolously spent the works. And there does not seem to be an element of 'bad investments' to blame here, either.

So now it is up to the courts to straighten this all out.

Many rockstars have stood on the shoulders of this giant. What I would love to see in the vein of something positive happening is a benefit event held by those who have in the past acknowledged his genius and impact on their lives and careers...wasn't there something titled: I'm Your Fan?

These folks should step up and make this mess easier for Leonard by giving a concert to help defray the cost of the legal expenses it's taking to resolve this mess. It is the least 'they' can do. For me it just makes sense he should be 'honored' in this way.

regards,
Laurie

LaurieAK

Posts: 1338

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:00 am

Top

by lizzytysh on Tue Aug 16, 2005 7:20 pm

You know, Laurie, that's a very good idea. There have been so many. They don't even need to directly put their money where their mouth is; but moreso, their time [which could indirectly affect their money, of course, given time spent one place and not another] ~ which does, indeed, seem the least they could do.

lizzytysh

Posts: 24552

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm

Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Top

by Tchocolatl on Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:46 pm

Tks Lz

Good to see that you appreciate.

Really good idea guys. Let brain storm about this non official royalties thing. If only one penny would be send to Leonard Cohen each time the song Suzanne was sang, is still sing, by anybody, anywhere in the world, or will be sing, he would be rich again in the next hour and so would be the children of the children of his children.

"The publishing rights were pilfered in NYC but it is probably appropriate that I don't own this song. Just the other day I heard some people singing it on a ship in the Caspian sea." - LC

Source :

Does he have a fate? Is he condemn to be a gypsy until the end? To possess the world by having nothing?

Nothing but his golden voice in all sides of the term?

Tchocolatl

Posts: 3343

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Top

by LaurieAK on Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:04 pm

Really good idea guys.

Thanks. I thought so too, that's why I mentioned it.

Anybody have connections in the biz?

I saw that Bono is w/Interscope. Seems like he would be that kind of guy to get something like this off the ground...

Laurie

LaurieAK

Posts: 1338

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:00 am

Top

by lizzytysh on Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:05 pm

Every time I see the title of this thread, it's like hearing fingernails on a blackboard.

Does he have a fate? Is he condemn to be a gypsy until the end? To possess the world by having nothing?

Nothing but his golden voice in all sides of the term?

With Leonard's path through life, I feel that these are thoughts that he himself may contemplate.

In whatever way this ends, Leonard will come through it honourably.

~ Elizabeth

lizzytysh

Posts: 24552

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm

Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Top

by lizzytysh on Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:15 pm

If I had such connections, I seriously would've already left for the day and be on the phone. I wonder if Leonard would be inclined to sanction such an event, as it would be so much like a blinding floodlight on his so-highly-valued privacy. However, since that's already being so severely disrupted, at least this would have some benefit.

lizzytysh

Posts: 24552

Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm

Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Top

by Fljotsdale on Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:01 pm

Leonard is a strong man. He will survive this and come off with all flags flying.

Only just found this video of LC:
http://ca.youtube.com/user/leonardcohen?ob=4" target="_blank

This one does make me cry.