Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:14 PM
Subject: Re:
To: IRS, FBI & DOJ cc: Multiple Recipients
Hello IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I've reviewed Leonard Cohen's perjured testimony re. the statutory required dating relationship. I am attaching Part 3 of the March 23, 2012 hearing where Cohen confirms we had a purely business relationship. As you know, I spent nearly two years attempting to obtain that transcript. I finally was able to locate the court reporter who prepared and sent this to me August 14, 2014
In any event, there are serious problems with this section. First of all, my court appointed lawyer has no idea that I worked for Marty Machat in 1988 and, after his death, Cohen hired me - he did NOT promote me. I was hired to work as Cohen's personal manager and worked on many complex matters immediately after Marty Machat's death. Those would include working to negotiate the buy-back of Suzanne and other copyrights; negotiating music and book publishing deals; assisting the promoter with respect to issues related to the "I'm Your Man" tour, etc. When Cohen was purchasing homes for his son and girlfriend, I was provided with Powers of Attorney because he was travelling and needed assistance with a wide variety of issues. I didn't ask for Powers of Attorney.
The prosecutor advised the jurors that Cohen and I had a brief statutory required dating relationship in the mid-80s. Cohen testified that he has no idea when it ended or why. It just, according to this man, ended. I would like to say once again that sexual harassment and indecent exposure are not a statutory required dating relationship. When Cohen lies, he blames other people. That is why, although I did not testify that we were not "lovers," Cohen blamed me for his perjured testimony that was taking place during this line of questioning. He testified honestly at the March 23, 2012 about this matter and the fact that I never stole from him. He lied when he said I "failed' to file my tax returns. I am being prevented from filing them and this has gone on for approximately 10 years now and demands an investigation and prosecutions. The ongoing criminal harassment of my witnesses, who have provided declarations, family members, and others will not change that fact.
It is also important to note that the court appointed lawyer lifted "sexual relationship" out of LAPD's report. I have no idea what one is and I was Cohen's personal manager, worked in other capacities, and was not his hooker. As Machat noted - Cohen is a misogynist and that's factual.
All the best,
Kelley
P.S. My agreement was 15% of all gross income and a 15% ownership interest in all IP. Machat & Machat had the same deal with Cohen. Steven Machat is well aware that I was Cohen's personal manager and everyone in the industry was.
Now, in 1988, you actually – you promoted her, in essence, correct? Cohen: I don’t understand what you mean. PD You gave her a raise in 1988? Cohen: I don’t know if I gave a raise or not. She handles all those affairs. PD: So you have no idea if you raised your agreement with her where she would receive 10% of profits, and you raised that up to 15%? Cohen: I don’t recall the moment that that took place, although it did take place over the years. PD: Okay. So you would agree with me that, through time, you were trusting Ms. Lynch with everything. Cohen: Through time I entrusted her implicitly with all my affairs. PD: Okay. And you gave her a power of attorney? Cohen: That’s correct. PD: Now, you would agree with me that Ms. Lynch, she knew you very well? Cohen: Correct. PD: And you would talk often? Cohen: Yes, we would. PD: And how often would you talk? Cohen: We would talk almost every day. PD: Okay. Would you be working in the same building? Cohen: Sometimes we worked in the same building. PD: So you would be communicating most through how, voice mails or phone calls? Cohen: We communicated face to face, through telephone calls, and later through emails. PD: And how would you say that you actually contacted Ms. Lynch on a daily basis? Cohen: We were in touch on a daily basis. PD: Okay. Now, you also mentioned earlier that there was a brief intimate relationship between you and Ms. Lynch, correct? Cohen: That’s correct. PD: You wouldn’t say that that was probably the best idea, to have a romantic relationship with your business partner, correct? Streeter: Objection; relevance. Court: Overruled. Cohen: I don’t think it goes to the description of romantic. PD: But it was a sexual relationship, correct? Cohen: It was an intimate relationship, yes. PD: Was it a sexual relationship? Cohen: It involved a sexual -- yes. PD: Now, it was - It was actually spanning years, correct? Cohen: I’m sorry? PD: It actually spanned years, correct? Cohen: I don’t know how long it spanned, Sir. PD: Okay. But you would agree with me that it was on and off for a period of time? Cohen: Yes, Sir. PD: Now why did that – that part of the relationship, what you called the intimate part of the relationship, why did that end or when did it end? Court: Those are two different questions. PD: I’ll go with the latter. PD: When did it end? Cohen: I don’t remember exactly when it ended. Like many relationships, it -- it just dissolved. PD: But it’s fair to say that it ended before your business relationship ended, correct? Cohen: That’s correct. PD: Okay. And do you know why it ended? Cohen: I would say that part of the relationship exhausted itself and dissolved naturally. RT 276 PD: Okay. Do you remember testifying on March 23rd at another hearing? Cohen: March 23rd, yes. PD: Of this year. You were in this courthouse testifying, correct? Cohen: That is correct. PD: Now, you were asked if this was -- if your relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship. Do you remember that? Cohen: I did. PD: And you actually said that it was, yes, purely a business relationship. Cohen: I have said repeatedly that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady denies it. So I did not want to insist. PD: I’m not asking you about what Ms. Lynch said. I’m asking about what you said. You said that yes, that it was purely a business relationship, correct? Cohen: May I explain. PD: I’m just asking for if that’s what you said on March 23rd. Cohen: Yes. PD: In fact, you were asked a follow up question that -- asking you if that was the extent of it, and again you said yes, that was the extent of it, correct? Cohen: Correct. RT 273-277
