From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Cases: BC338322 & BC341120
To: Jeffrey Korn <jeffkornlaw@live.com>, "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, police <police@cityofberkeley.info>, sedelman <sedelman@gibsondunn.com>, JFeuer <JFeuer@gibsondunn.com>, "kevin.prins" <kevin.prins@ryan.com>, rwest0@gmx.com, "steve@blottermusic.com" <steve@blottermusic.com>, "steve@radicalmusic.com" <steve@radicalmusic.com>, Sherab Posel <poselaw@gmail.com>
Hello IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
I am reviewing the documents Korn provided me re. the related case. Cohen, always the story teller, and his lawyers have fabricated yet another narrative. See Cohen's embellished stories about Phil Spector (three versions of his alleged gun story re. Spector are now before LA Superior Court), Yom Kippur War, Bay of Pigs, and Janis Joplin. Cohen acknowledges abandoning his property a year earlier. My lawyers advised him, in their October 27, 2004 letter to Westin, to make arrangements to pick up his property. He did not. I had no legal obligation to deliver these to him. Lindsey is a liar. See the custody matter and destruction of my sons' lives. He also owes me a tremendous amount of money and advised Rutger, after the SWAT incident (where LAPD concluded, and told Rutger this, that my dog was my hostage and they were taking precautions), to go into Cohen/Kory's offices and sign over/transfer my house to Cohen. My son immediately called his father, advised me and others of this situation, and refused to respond to Lindsey's calls. I have the LASD inventory which is unacceptable. I had no water color journal. I did not have Cohen's correspondence from 1990 -2004 at my home. That was in my office and he and his daughter removed those files. I did have evidence related to the off-shore accounts, gifts from those accounts to Dominique Iserrman and Flemming Schmidt (and letters to me), letters to me from Burt Goldstein's office re Cohen's numerous social security numbers, and Herschel Weinberg's letters to me, etc. Letters to me and my letters to others, on my letterhead, are NOT Cohen's property. Furthermore, I advised IRS Commissioner's Staff (with Edelman copied in) that I intended to ship this evidence to IRS in Washington. Lindsey lied if he advised Cohen I took anything without his knowledge or planned to sell any of this. I had many valuable items - including water colors Cohen did and signed for me, etc. that I could have sold. TRY to find evidence that I have sold anything. I wouldn't sell anything of this man's if my life depended on it - and it did.
Fascinating that Lindsey, who owed me money, was so busy helping Cohen while my son and I were being evicted. He and Cohen coordinated the custody matter. Make no mistake about that. Every word in those documents is also fraudulent and perjured. I didn't have an original manuscript of anything. I may have had old photocopies of materials that were previously at Machat & Machat's offices in New York City. Cohen's archived body of work with his journals, etc. are featured in the boxes in my former offices on the documentary Brusq did. I didn't have Cohen's financial records from 1990 to 2004. Cohen removed them from my offices and those include corporate and partnership documents related to companies I have an ownership interest in.
Cohen and Edelman demanded that I, in October 2005, deliver items to Edelman's office. Cohen abandoned this property and I had NO OBLIGATION to return it - whatsoever. Raoul Felder advised me, and he was present when Sergeant Fernandez rang my doorbell (and permitted Rice on my personal property), that his seizure was illegal. Please speak to him. I am about to review the document Greenberg filed asking the Court to preserve this evidence. His Amended Complaint was attached so Freeman had an alternative set of facts but evidently preferred Cohen's fabricated narrative and blatant disregard for all corporate records and governance, stock units, signed and notarized agreements, federal tax returns, etc.
I acknowledged NOTHING to Lindsey. I have some of his emails explaining why he was allegedly meeting with Cohen and Kory. The man is pathetic.
Cohen didn't terminate me. I refused to meet with him and Richard Westin. Cohen advised me that Westin planned to fly in the last weekend of October. Evidently that was factual as Cohen and Westin met with my lawyers. I refused to attend. That's when the novel defense was presented: overpayments re. my fees as personal manager. This is nothing other than criminal obstruction of justice related to criminal tax fraud. That's my personal opinion. The State of Kentucky advised me that IRS should go back to when Cohen first obtained a green card in 1970 and audit him.
All the best,
Kelley
Kelley
Although Cohen terminated Lynch an entire year ago, she still maintains possession of numerous items of Cohen’s personal property. This property – to which Cohen is unable to attach a specific value, given is nature – includes: (1) Cohen’s personal correspondence in the form of handwritten letters and facsimiles dating from 1960 to approximately 1995, including but not limited to correspondence with Dominique Issermann, Burt Goldstein, and Herschel Weinberg; Esq; (2) Cohen’s business correspondence dating from 1980 to 2004; (3) a notebook of watercolor drawings created by Cohen; (4) Cohen’s personal journals from 1960 to 1990, which contain his drawings, sketches, lyrics, notes, poems and other writings; (5) Cohen’s financial records from 1980 to 2004, which he believes contain items such as tax returns and bank statements; and (6) Cohen’s original manuscript of one of his early novels, “Beautiful Losers.”
Cohen has expressly demanded, by himself and through his attorney, that Lynch return this property … Lynch however still has not returned Cohen’s property and the only feasible motivating factors for Lynch’s refusal to do so are to compromise the privacy of Mr. Cohen and his family, friends, and associates and out of spite – as evidenced by the relentless barrage of emails she has sent to third parties after her termination in which she attacks Cohen – and an intent to sell Mr. Cohen’s personal belongings for a substantial sum. See Declaration of Steve Lindsey. Indeed, Ms. Lynch has acknowledged that she took these items without Mr. Cohen’s knowledge or consent and implied that she may sell them as they might be worth a great deal of money.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
P.S. I didn't 'vacate" my office. My lease ended MONTHS after Cohen and I parted ways and after he/his daughter picked up whatever they felt entitled to - including corporate and partnership documents, my business files, etc.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
Bald-faced lie. Cohen and his daughter picked up whatever boxes and documents Cohen felt entitled to - from my offices. NOTHING was taken to my home. Cohen just feels comfortable lying about these matters. Well, these lies work before LA Superior Court so why change tactics, right?KelleyUpon her termination, Lynch vacated her office and removed much of its contents – including a number of boxes containing Cohen’s personal property – to her home … Cohen had no access to these boxes since that time.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
DOJ's Criminal Divisoin,
Gianelli harassed me over Chad Knaak before I filed the Motion to Vacate. He apparently discussed him with one of Cohen's representatives. Perhaps Lindsey provided information about me as well. In any event, Chad Knaak's girlfriend did NOT resemble the individual in the proof of service and did not live with me - EVER. She did meet Sergeant Fernandez, who confirmed in front of her that he saw no gigolo, and she was extremely upset because her mother had just been murdered. These people are animals.All the best,Kelley
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Edelman,
For the record, I do NOT attend hearings in matters I am not a party to and where I was not served the summons and complaint. I had more than one witness present when Chad Knaak phoned your office. Your hearsay declaration re. that call is deceitful and blatantly false.Kelley Lynch
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Norman Posel,
Cohen's lawyers provided the latest judge with a copy of your email to me confirming that you advised me that Cohen/Kory planned to destroy me and my children and advising me that you would check with Dave Chipman, Greenberg's lawyer, to see if there was a document in the file re. this matter. Korn has now referred to evidence they provided the Court as "hearsay."Kelley Lynch
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
This is Cohen's "retreat cabin" You can review the footage to see the boxes stored at my offices. You will also see Cohen in LA, eating at a jewish deli, and recording songs. This was NOT a strict religious retreat and that's why Cohen is sitting in front of a computer. Furthermore, this man left Mt. Baldy, where he had a deluxe guest cabin, in or around 1999. That is publicly documents. Cohen did NOT come down from Mt. Baldy and discovery irregularities in anything. His personal bank statements went to his home. He is a liar. He continues to argue ALTER EGO in the Related Case. I was not served most of those documents and Cohen's declaration (Boulder) confirms that he understood I was homeless in Santa Monica. He testified that he understood where I was from descriptions in my emails. And, this unconscionable man hired a PI to stalk me. My PD advised me to file complaints with Berkeley PD re the harassment of my landlord and co-workers by Cohen's PI.I am now reviewing the Related Case documents. Korn failed to provide me with many documents - including Cohen's original declaration; Lindsey's declaration; proof of service re. the Complaint; etc. That's their plan and there is a pattern and practice before LA Superior Court of entering judgments against me when there was no service. Also, the fraudulent "domestic violence" orders are now before many departments at LA Superior Court. That demands an investigation. So do the federal tax matters being argued before Freeman, Hess, Vanderet, and others.All the best,Kelley
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi DOJ's Criminal Division,
Prior to signing this document, I want to review it with a fine tooth comb. I did NOT have sex with Oliver Stone or Richard Westin. The lies are inconceivable. That is why these two motions and the attendant schedules are taking me an inordinate amount of time. After that, I will file State Bar Complaints, Complaint with Criminal Grand Jury of Los Angeles and DA's Justice Integrity Division, and mail a formal complaint to DOJ requesting an audit of the City Attorney's Domestic VIolence Units, grant funds, and LA Superior Court's domestic violence abuse - including their attempt to extort fines/fees re. DMV in the Phil Spector/IRS 2012 trial.Gianelli is now harassing me over my planned federal lawsuits, Leonard Cohen, federal tax matters, and Phil Spector.All the best,KelleySCHEDULE OFFACTUAL ALLEGATIONS & STATEMENTSNEAL GREENBERG AMENDED COMPLAINTI, Kelley Lynch, agree with the following factual statements and was a witness to much of what was addressed in Neal Greenberg’s Amended Complaint (Denver District Court, Case No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB). Therefore, Neal Greenberg and I are in agreement with respect to the following facts. See Neal Greenberg Amended Complaint & Exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof. Kelley Lynch opposes all statements raised in Greenberg’s Complaint and not contained in the following excepts taken directly from the Amended Complaint. See Amended Complaint attached hereto and made part hereof.Dated: 23 October 2014___________________________________ Kelley LynchNeal Greenberg. Vs. [HEADING]Denver District Court, Case No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTBJudge Lewis BabcockDefendant Leonard Cohen (“Cohen”), a noted recording artist, acting directly on his own behalf, and through his agent and attorney, Robert Kory (“Kory”), has threatened to take or has taken, improper and unlawful actions, including bribery and intimidation of a witness, subornation of perjury, defamation …Cohen’s extortion scheme was eventually exposed by Lynch and ultimately frustrated …Cohen has made clear that he asserts rights over certain investment funds that belong to Traditional Holdings, LLC (“Traditional Holdings”), a dissolved Kentucky entity that was managed and 99.5% owned by Lynch and 0.5% owned by Cohen.From the early 1990s, impressed with a new strategy used by other Hollywood celebrities to cash in on their future revenue streams from IP rights and increase short-term income (called a “Pullman
or “Bowie” bond, after the artist David Bowie who first used it), Cohen … worked aggressively with advisors, including Greg McBowman, to auction off portions of his IP to the highest bidder.Lynch arranged for Cohen to have a first meeting with Greenberg in 1996 to discuss Cohen’s investment options for the proceeds from the anticipated First Sony Sale.During this meeting, and at Cohen’s request, Greenberg suggested ways in which Cohen could structure the investment of his proceeds from the First Sony Sale so as to reduce tax consequences and generate substantial income.Cohen worked with, and began to be represented by, a creative tax attorney and law professor from the University of Kentucky, Richard Westin (“Westin”). Cohen also had other advisors and consultants working with Lynch on his business, music and tax matters, including Greg McBowman … Ken Cleveland, as well as Stuart Fried and other attorneys at the law firm of Grubman Indursky & Schindler, P.C.Ultimately, Cohen decided to transfer some of the income from the First Sony Sale into charitable remainder trusts. On October 30, 1996, Cohen established three trusts: the Sabbath Day Charitable Trust (the "Sabbath Day Trust"), the Cohen Family Charitable Trust (the "Cohen Family Trust"), and the Cohen Remainder Trust (the "Remainder Trust") (collectively, the “Trusts”).Cohen … repeatedly withdrew large amounts of the Trusts’ assets. On repeated occasions, TAS notified Cohen (both directly, when possible, and per instruction through Lynch) that Cohen was spending more than recommended from the Trusts, and thus, was draining down the Trusts’ principal.On one such occasion, on April 13, 2001, Greenberg, on behalf of TAS, wrote to Cohen: “I am writing to you to discuss the income withdrawals you’ve received from your portfolio and to provide you with some helpful guidelines for the future. When we originally constructed your portfolio in 1997, you may remember that we had extensive conversations about how much you required for your annual living expenses.”In or about 1999, Cohen put more of his IP up for auction. In 1999, Sony and Cohen … negotiated for a second sale of IP to Sony for about $8 million (the "Second Sony Sale"). The artist royalties to be sold were represented by Cohen as being held by another … entity, Blue Mist Touring Co., Inc. ("Blue Mist"). Cohen was the Chairman, President, and majority shareholder of Blue Mist, owning 425 shares, while Lynch was the Assistant Secretary and minority shareholder of Blue Mist, owning 75 shares, or 15% of the company.Cohen asked Westin, and in the spring of 2000, Greenberg, to provide advice about how to invest the anticipated proceeds from the Second Sony Sale and minimize the sale’s tax burden.Cohen leapt at this opportunity to minimize his tax burden [via Traditional Holdings, LLC], just as he had explored all possible means of reducing his taxes in years past, such as by seeking a tax credit for donating his papers to a Canadian museum [University of Toronto], and using artifices in dealing with Sony to avoid paying any Canadian taxes (as a Canadian citizen) on his royalty income earned in Canada.Westin’s proposed plan had the following basic components: a limited liability company – which eventually became Traditional Holdings – would be created. Blue Mist would transfer certain IP assets to Traditional Holdings in exchange for a deferred annuity, to be paid to Cohen beginning in about 10 years. Traditional Holdings would then sell the assets it received from Blue Mist to Sony. The tax plan prevented Cohen, the annuitant, from owning more than a de minimis interest in Traditional Holdings. Therefore, Cohen would own less than 1%, and another person – who ultimately was Lynch – would own the remaining LLC interest (more than 99 percent).Westin outlined this proposal to Cohen and Lynch both orally and in a series of letters and other written communications between October 2000 and December 2000. See, e.g., Exh. 1 attached.In these written communications, Westin explicitly warned Cohen that since the annuity plan gave significant transactional control to Lynch, and also potentially placed tax and other burdens upon her as majority shareholder, the plan would work only if Cohen and Lynch maintained (as they had in the past) a long-term relationship of personal and professional trust which would secure their mutual obligations as manager of the obligor (Lynch) and annuitant (Cohen). See, e.g., Exh. 2 attached.Cohen carefully reviewed, understood, and signed off on the ownership structure of Traditional Holdings – including the fact that Lynch would own 99 percent of Traditional Holdings’ membership interests, so as (among other reasons explained by Westin) to avoid any suggestion of self-dealing.First, Cohen reviewed the Traditional Holdings Articles of Organization, and reviewed and executed the Traditional Holdings Operating Agreement, which set forth in detail the entity’s ownership structure and managerial procedures. See Traditional Holdings Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement (Exh. 3 attached).Second, Cohen participated, at his request, in conference calls with Westin and Lynch and/or Greenberg during which the structure was carefully reviewed.Third, Cohen talked about the structure of Traditional Holdings privately with Lynch, including when he forced her to discuss it with him while he took a bubble bath.Fourth, in addition to several explanatory faxes he received from Westin describing Traditional Holdings, Cohen communicated specific questions, through Lynch, relating to Traditional Holdings’ ownership and transactional structure, which questions Westin answered in a letter written directly to Cohen on December 4, 2000, and faxed (as with his prior memos) directly to Lynch and Cohen. See, Exh. 2.Moreover, regardless of whether Lynch owned 1 percent or 100 percent of the shares of Traditional Holdings, Cohen knew or should have known that she had or came to have authority – through a durable power of attorney and pursuant to her role as Traditional Holdings’ manager – to act, and give directions, on Traditional Holdings’ and on his own behalf. See, e.g., Exh. 3.Likewise, no matter who owned the majority of shares of Traditional Holdings, the obligation to fulfill a deferred annuity obligation to Cohen remained the same. Thus, Cohen's interests in the firm (the long term annuity payments) were identical, no matter how his purported ownership interest in the assets were held and invested in the interim.In December 2000, Westin created Traditional Holdings as a Kentucky limited liability company. Lynch was named as the initial manager in the Articles of Organization, and both Cohen and Lynch were appointed as managers in the Operating Agreement. Id. Also in December 2000, Cohen signed a Private Annuity Agreement with Traditional Holdings which document sets forth Traditional Holdings’ annuity obligations to Cohen. See, Private Annuity Agreement (Dec. 7, 2000) (Exh. 4 attached). Lynch signed the Private Annuity Agreement on Traditional Holdings’ behalf. Westin maintained, and continues to maintain, that the company and its annuity contract with Cohen are legitimate under prevailing interpretations of the federal tax code.To purchase her ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, Lynch was required to submit to Traditional Holdings a promissory note for $240,000. It was agreed that Lynch would receive a salary and/or distributions from Traditional Holdings sufficient to pay down the $240,000 promissory note and to cover tax liabilities. See, Exhs. 2 and 3.As set forth in the Operating Agreement, Traditional Holdings was authorized to issue loans to its members, Cohen and Lynch, as long as the loans were paid back before the annuity obligations commenced. See, Exh. 3.In April 2001, the Second Sony Sale was completed. The gross proceeds of the Second Sony Sale were approximately $8 million, less certain identified costs, expenses, and holdbacks for undelivered work.Of these proceeds, Cohen had already requested and received $1 million as an advance in November 1999. Cohen was well aware of this $1 million advance because it became the subject of a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service in 2002.Of the remaining proceeds of the Second Sony Sale, [certain] amounts were paid to cover the costs involved in closing and negotiating the Second Sony Sale:$350,000 Grubman Indursky & Schindler, P.C. (attorneys for Cohen)$333,750 McBowman Consulting Group (consultants for Cohen)$30,450 Epstein Backer & Green, P.C.$1,101,250 Stranger Management (commissions to Lynch's company)Kelley Lynch comments in bold: The following amounts, as confirmed in Cohen’s Complaint, should have been fully addressed in Neal Greenberg’s Amended Complaint. Cohen’s Complaint, Clause 61, confirms that transaction fees related to the 1st and 2nd Sony deals totaled approximately $4.7 million and listed the following amounts:$1.2 million – Stranger Management$350,000 – legal fees (Grubman, Indursky firm)$350,000 – consultant fees (Greg McBowman)$500,000 – for federal income taxes and penalties due on Sony’s $1 million advance paid on the sale in 1999.$100,000 – Richard Westin legal fees$200,000 – Leonard Cohen’s settlement fees re. failed CAK bond dealAdditionally, Cohen withdrew approximately $592,000 as a “shareholder loan” from the Traditional Holding account to purchase homes for his son and girlfriend. The Greenberg Complaint confirms that $2,084,518 belonging to Traditional Holdings, LLC was deposited into Leonard Cohen’s account. Leonard Cohen also personally received $1 million advance on the Traditional Holdings, LLC 2001 sale and failed to transfer this amount to the corporate entity. The above expenses, loans, income and deposits total: $6,376,518.00. In addition to this, a Promissory Note was prepared and signed by Leonard Cohen. That Promissory Note addressed an additional approximate amount of $355,000 Leonard Cohen owed Traditional Holdings bringing the total to: $6,626,518.00 with interest in the amount of 6% per annum.None of these listed expenses had anything to do with either the formation of the annuity plan orwith Traditional Holdings’ dealings … Westin did receive a modest fee for his work on the Traditional Holdings documents, and for consulting with Sony on Cohen and Traditional Holdings’ behalf.Agile Group [sent] official monthly statements to Cohen at the Larchmont Address (the record address for Traditional Holdings) setting forth the performance of the Traditional Holdings’ funds invested in the Agile Safety Fund. See, e.g., Exhibit 6 (example of monthly statements sent by independent outside administrator). In addition, Agile Group, LLC sent monthly letters to Cohen which, as a courtesy, summarized the deposits into and withdrawals from the Agile Safety Fund by Traditional Holdings. Id. (example of monthly summaries sent by Agile Group, LLC).No sooner had Traditional Holdings been funded, however, than Cohen – just as he had done with the Trusts’ assets from the First Sony Sale, and notwithstanding Greenberg’s prior warnings about draining down investment money – began to dissipate the Traditional Holdings funds, jeopardizing his own long-term annuity interests, as well as the company’s legitimacy. Greenberg and others were immediately alarmed by Cohen's desire and tendency to treat this company like his own personal piggybank, out of which he could borrow or take distributions against his annuity benefits.For example, almost immediately after the funding of Traditional Holdings, Cohen took out a loan for $50,000. This was followed, during 2001 and 2002 alone, by several loans to Cohen … to cover tax liabilities, houses for Cohen's son and his current girlfriend, and living expenses. These 2001-2002 loans to Cohen –amounting to over $1 million – were deposited directly into Cohen’s personal bank account at City National Bank in Beverly Hills, California.In March 2002, Greenberg [spoke to] Cohen directly by telephone, Cohen “admitted he was spending too much and seemed a little shaken when [Greenberg] reminded him how much he had just spent on gifts to friends."Lynch repeatedly assured Agile Group, LLC and TAS that the loans from Traditional Holdings were being properly documented with Westin’s assistance. Cohen’s tax attorney, Westin, also was aware of and in regular communication with Lynch [Cohen, Greenberg, and Cohen’s other representatives] concerning the shareholder loans and other aspects of the affairs and management of Traditional Holdings.The March 5, 2002 Traditional Holdings Board Meeting Minutes, prepared at Westin’s direction, state “that the level of borrowing was undesirable and [the members] expressed their assent that further borrowing was discouraged, even though the borrower’s [Cohen’s] credit and collateral were good.”Cohen, however, gave no sign that he had any intention of abating his spending habits. In an e-mail to Lynch dated March 4, 2002, Cohen thanked Lynch for “keeping [him] informed,” and instructed her to “give lots of money to everyone.”Because these shareholder loans were to be repaid, and because it was necessary to protect the entity’s integrity for tax purposes, these shareholder loans were properly characterized, on Cohen’s tax attorney Westin’s advice, as Traditional Holdings assets when calculating the entity’s value.Lynch, on Cohen’s behalf, sent e-mails to Colorado in response to Greenberg’s warnings, defending the loans, giving assurances that all of the loans were proper and documented, and assuring that they would be paid off when Cohen received the money from another, upcoming Sony transaction.In October 2004, Cohen and Lynch had a major falling out, the details of which remain unknown to Plaintiffs. As a result of this falling out, the Third Sony Sale – which appeared to be on the verge of consummation – never happened.On October 21, 2004, Cohen personally contacted Greenberg by e-mail and informed him that Lynch was “busy with other aspects of [his] career,” and therefore, Cohen had “relieved her of all financial responsibilities.” Cohen further stated that Lynch “need not be copied on your statements or reports,” and that Cohen's new accountant would “be in touch.”On October 22, 2004, Cohen sent another e-mail to Greenberg stating that Lynch “no longer represents me,” and directing Greenberg not to “respond to any of her instructions.”On or about October 24, 2004, Cohen again communicated directly with Greenberg by e-mail, stating that his business address was no longer the Larchmont Address or Keniston Address. With allegations flying fast and furious from Cohen – and later Kory – that Lynch was acting without due authority from Cohen, remarkably, a request to change Cohen's record address was left on Plaintiffs’ general voice mailbox by Anjani Thomas. Only later did Plaintiffs learn the identity of Ms. Thomas – Cohen’s current girlfriend, and Kory’s ex-wife. Thus, Plaintiffs demanded an original signature from Cohen on a document verifying the new addressGiven Lynch’s position as manager and 99.5% owner of Traditional Holdings, and learning of the apparent schism between Lynch and Cohen, Agile Group, LLC became concerned about whose directions as to the Traditional Holdings account it was legally obligated to follow. On October 24, 2004, Agile Group, LLC communicated with Westin – Cohen's attorney who had created Traditional Holdings – and inquired: “Does Leonard in your view have equal authority over the accounts that we manage? What if there are contradicting directive on those accounts that we manage? For example if KL says 'take money out' and LC says don’t take money, what is your view . . . .” Westin confirmed that because Cohen held a membership interest in Traditional Holdings, Agile Group, LLC could share information with him about Traditional Holdings’ investments. Westin could not, however, answer the issue of conflicting directives, and instead referred Agile Group, LLC to Traditional Holdings' governing documents (drafted by Westin), which documents provided little, if any, guidance on the issue.At or about this same time (October 22-24, 2004), Cohen phoned Greenberg. Cohen said that he thought Lynch had been taking money from Traditional Holdings without Cohen's authorization. He claimed that Lynch was using the money to support a gigolo and to fund shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus, and suggested that Lynch and Westin may have colluded to defraud him. When Greenberg reminded Cohen that Westin had warned Cohen in 2000 that "the biggest risk" from Westin's tax avoidance plan “was that Lynch would own his [the] assets and he would have lost control,” Cohen stated that he recalled that initial warning.According to Lynch, however, Cohen regularly visited his management offices, often in Lynch’s presence, and reviewed and discussed his mail with her, all of which was kept on his desk to facilitate such review, including all correspondence, reports, and statements from the Agile Safety Fund’s independent, outside administrators, and from Plaintiffs.Cohen then turned to his agent and attorney Kory to deal with Lynch, Westin, and Plaintiffs.Based on these checks, Agile Group, LLC calculated that, of the loan money withdrawn from Traditional Holdings:a. $2,084,518 had been deposited into Cohen’s own personal bank account;b. Lynch personally had outstanding loans of approximately $293,000, which loans she represented had been disclosed to and sanctioned by Cohen;Her abrupt termination frustrated Lynch's ability to make good on any loans through her share of receipts from the Third Sony Sale, the "Dear Heather" album, a pending sale of original lithographs, or other sources, and left her in a precarious financial position …In November 2004, Lynch was asked by [Cohen] to appear without the benefit of counsel at a meeting with Cohen, Kory, and … Greenberg, Glusker law firm acting as legal counsel for Cohen, and to sign certain legal documents related, inter alia, to unwinding Traditional Holdings on the spot [settle with Cohen]. Lynch refused to do so without benefit of counsel, and subsequently received advice from a variety of legal, accounting and tax professionals, including but not limited to Mike Taitelman, Dale Burgess, Dianne DiMascio, and an IRS officer named Betzer, that she was wise not to sign, because such action could have been fraudulent.[NOTE: Lynch did not receive this specific advice from IRS Agent Betzer. Lynch spoke to Agent Betzer on April 15, 2005 and thereafter about the allegations re. Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud and numerous corporate entities. Agent Betzer first advised Lynch to bring this matter into the IRS with an attorney and then later instructed her to contact the IRS fraud unit.]Lynch claimed that she had substantial, unsatisfied interests in Cohen's business entities and/or intellectual property. If Cohen were to attempt to recover money from Lynch, she would likely assert counterclaims alleging that Cohen owes her, and has never paid, substantial amounts of money; and, according to Lynch, and upon information and belief, such possible improprieties included, but were not limited to, the retention by Blue Mist and other persons or entities of IP that should have passed through Traditional Holdings to Sony, the failure to reference or disclose the annuity obligation, loan obligations, and other important matters on Traditional Holdings’ corporate tax returns, and Cohen’s failure to properly document Traditional Holdings’ transactions.Because any attempt to recover money from Lynch was likely to be both futile and treacherous, Cohen, Kory, and other unnamed co-conspirators (including Steve Lindsay, Betsy Superfon, and John Doe Nos. 1-25) … conspired ...Thus, for example, although the attorneys and accountants involved in the Second Sony Sale structured and received hefty fees for that transaction, which Kory charged were excessive, Cohen and Kory decided not to pursue any of those persons because they would not be easy targets, and because many of them – principally Sony and its law firm and advisors –continued to do business with Cohen profitably. Instead, Cohen and Kory decided to go after Plaintiffs, none of whom had any role whatsoever in that Sony transaction and/or received any benefit therefrom.[NOTE: In a Memorandum Kory provided to Lynch’s lawyers, Ira Reiner and Kevin Prins, he raised issues related to fraud in the inducement against members of the Grubman firm and Greg McBowman. Kory advised Lynch’s lawyers that they were considering going after Ken Cleveland. Kory also advised Lynch that she had a cause of action against every one of Cohen’s representatives and they would assist her with those claims if she provided testimony against Cohen’s representatives and advisers.]He [Leonard Cohen] told Greenberg to "be a man" and contact his insurance company. “Please do talk to the insurer. A great deal of suffering can be avoided.”Cohen with affirmative support from Kory, Steve Lindsay and Betsy Superfon, and John Doe Nos. 1-25, all acting toward a common end and each for his or her own purposes, began to direct an extortion scheme …Cohen and Kory indicated that, unless Plaintiffs obtained insurance funds … Cohen would go out on tour to promote his new album, and would give interviews to reporters in which he would state or insinuate that he was touring because he had been bankrupted by the improprieties of his financial advisors.Cohen and Kory knew full well that, from Plaintiffs’ perspective, once a celebrity were to raise such allegations of fraud and breach of duty against them, the damage would already be done, no matter the ultimate outcome.Cohen and Kory began to pressure Lynch to assist in the extortion scheme against Plaintiffs. Specifically, they requested that she falsely testify … Cohen sought to obtain … testimony from Lynch knowing that the testimony would be false.Lynch's cooperation in Cohen’s extortion scheme was critical. Cohen believed that he could not only use Lynch as a witness against Plaintiffs, but could also buy or coerce her silence as against himself at the same time.Thus, Cohen pressed for private "mediation" as an alternative to a public lawsuit, knowing full well that with Lynch's cooperation and silence, many of the critical documents concerning Cohen's financial affairs – documents that indubitably show … his aggressive tactics to avoid taxes at all costs, and his desire to capitalize on and benefit from all of his intellectual property during his lifetime to fuel an extravagant lifestyle – would not be the subject of discoveryThus, by deliberate misrepresentations and omissions of critical facts … Cohen could knowingly and deliberately misrepresent his objectives and sophistication as an investor, his long history of aggressive tax management, his long history of exploitation of his IP for immediate gain and profit, his profligacy …For example, Cohen affirmatively misrepresented to Plaintiffs that Lynch had simply forged his signature on various documents, knowing full well that she had not done so, or had signed with his full authority (as borne out by his subsequent actions – such as purporting to state claims based on agreements with TAS bearing his signature, and revoking a power of attorney bearing his signature that he acknowledged executing).Cohen likewise falsely asserted that at no time had he authorized any of the shareholder loans from Traditional Holdings, and made various accusations against Lynch for which he had no basis in fact …As one example, he claimed never to have known, prior to November 2004, that Lynch was the majority shareholder of Traditional Holdings, thereby implying that he had been deceived by Plaintiffs and Westin. He also denied receiving information about Lynch's role as managing the obligation to pay his annuity, and denied ever receiving any information from Plaintiffs other than some monthly email summaries, even though he was easily able to retrieve Plaintiffs’ other written warnings, reports and correspondence from [Lynch’s] own Keniston office address in 2004, and was reported by Lynch to have regularly visited the office, reviewed his mail, and discussed Traditional Holdings' loans and his other accounts with her on a regular basis.In particular, starting in March 2005, Cohen began to assert that Plaintiffs were responsible for the loss of $8 million, which figure included many millions of dollars which they knew Cohen had, in fact, received and previously spent in support of his own extravagant lifestyle.… according to Lynch and others, he was prepared to admit or agree with Lynch that she owed Cohen nothing.Having garnered the support of Lynch's then-attorney, Dianne DiMascio (“DiMascio”), Cohen feltconfident enough in January 2005 to misrepresent to Plaintiffs’ counsel, through Kory, that Lynch was then of the view that she, along with Cohen, was a victim of the misconduct of Plaintiffs and Westin.Cohen and Kory continually sought to purchase or coerce Lynch’s cooperationIn a demand letter from Kory to DiMascio, Kory wrote: I want to reemphasize my position that I am willing to work with you as part of a settlement between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch in going after Westin’s and Greenberg’s insurers as a source of restitution.Thereafter, on January 11, 2005, Kory wrote to DiMascio, telling her that [Ira Reiner believed] “properly framed letters to Greenberg and to Westin would cause their insurance companies to show up.”Lynch declined to attend the meeting in person. Instead, DiMascio went to the meeting on Lynch’s behalf in early February 2005, after which she reported to Lynch: “[Cohen and Kory] want your cooperation in pursuing [the Plaintiffs] and Richard Westin. In this regard, they seem to want you to acknowledge that you knew that Neal [Greenberg] and Richard [Westin] wanted to defraud Leonard and that you approved their conduct.”Repeatedly, from at least November 2004 through April 2005, Kory made knownto Lynch, directly, through counsel, through Steve Lindsay (the father of Lynch’s youngest childand one of Cohen’s record producers), through Lynch’s accountant Dale Burgess, throughaccountant Mike Taitelman, and through others among her friends and relatives, that he hadextraordinary negotiating authority from Cohen to "forgive" any obligations of Lynch, to treatthem as a gift, to make additional payments to her or her family members (including disguised as"palimony" on the pretext that Cohen is the father of one of her children), to make good onLynch's shares of IP rights or legal entities, or even to dedicate a hefty percentage to her ofwhatever funds could be extorted from Plaintiffs and other advisors with her cooperation.Kory tried to do this directly in late spring 2005 when he met Lynch for lunch and tried to persuade her to work with Cohen to “go after” Plaintiffs [and all of Cohen’s representatives].Cohen and Kory also worked indirectly. For example, they recruited Lynch’s erstwhile friend and longtime “friend” of Steve Lindsay, Betsy Superfon, a person of some notoriety due, among other reasons, to her entrepreneurship in the telephone sex trade. On numerous occasions, Kory [and Cohen] used Lindsay and Superfon to try to “broker” deals with Lynch …In one such conversation, in May 2005, Superfon, according to Lynch, called Greenberg “the kingpin” and a “criminal” and pleaded with Lynch to cooperate with Cohen for “[her] heart, [her] health, and [her] kids” and recommended that Lynch “get out of this.” Superfon promised that she could “settle this for [Lynch] immediately,” and stated that “Leonard and Kory [are] trying to get you out of this situation.”When Lynch requested a settlement agreement in writing during a later conversation, Superfon, according to Lynch, stated that when she asked Kory to fax Lynch a settlement, Kory said “you can’t fax this kind of a deal. It has to be discussed.” [Superfon advised Lynch that she personally believed the deal they were offering was illegal.]Through Lindsay, Superfon and other friends, relatives and acquaintances, Cohen and Kory delivered the message that giving in to Cohen’s wishes would be in Lynch’s best interest.When these tactics to draw Lynch into his extortion scheme proved futile, Cohen and Kory – according to Lynch – turned to far more aggressive means to obtain her cooperation. Indeed, as heard by other witnesses, Cohen and Kory vowed to “crush her,” and planned to use restraining orders and other means to prevent her from serving as a credible witness regarding both Cohen's affairs and in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without success to draw her.Consistent with that vow and plan, and according to Lynch and other witnesses, and on information and belief, Cohen and Kory's tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage Lynch have included, inter alia, the following:a. contacting City National Bank, where Lynch, Lynch’s son .., all had personal banking accounts, and convincing City National Bank to put a freeze on … their accounts;b. alleging that Lynch's father and mother were depositing funds for Lynch in secret offshore bank accounts … ;c. threatening Lynch that she would go to jail if she did not cooperate, and having her younger son's father, Steve Lindsay, who was also Cohen’s record producer, repeat these threats in the child's presence;d. threatening to “go to child services,” encouraging Steve Lindsay to file legal action to remove Lynch’s younger (and his) son from her custody, and submitting affidavits (from Kory and Superfon) supporting that effort;e. in a coordinated fashion with Lindsay’s child custody petition, encouraging or directing Steve Lindsay to call in a warning to the LAPD (not related to Traditional Holdings, but on some other, unknown pretext) that caused a police team to descend, guns drawn, on Lynch's home, resulting in her being handcuffed and taken involuntarily, in her bathing suit, to a hospital psychiatric ward and medicated without her consent, before being released the next day, during which time Kory attempted to persuade Lynch’s older son, Rutger, to sell Lynch’s house and provide $3 million; andf. paying two paroled convicts to make [false] statements [about Lynch’s older son].These and other tactics brought Lynch to the point of … financial ruin.Cohen’s scheme to force Plaintiffs into a contrived mediation without discovery or publicity might have succeeded, had not Lynch refused to cooperate. Instead, she made the unilateral decision to provide to Plaintiffs' legal counsel a variety of documents and other information that they might not have otherwise seen … See, e.g., Facsimile Message from K. Lynch to S. Posel (March 17, 2005) (Exh. 11 attached).Fortunately, Lynch [permitted Boies Schiller to review] not only historical files, but also the details of Cohen and Kory's illicit offers made to her through attorney DiMascio, through accountant Dale Burgess, and through other intermediaries, and shared every detail of Cohen and Kory's attempts to negotiate with or threaten her in order to obtain … testimony ...Cohen and Kory continued to heighten their efforts to bribe or coerce Lynch into giving … testimony … without knowing that Lynch had already exposed their scheme …Cohen and Kory alleged that Plaintiffs “proposed the sale of Cohen's ‘illiquid assets,’ including Cohen's various royalty interests,” and contended that “Cohen was convinced by [Greenberg] of the financial necessity to sell off his royalty interests during his lifetime . . . .”Cohen and Kory alleged that Plaintiffs were liable for “actual damages of at least $8 million,” which was an amount even greater than the total proceeds of the Second Sony Sale. In fact, Cohen and Kory made this allegation with full knowledge that Cohen had already received at least $1 million in advance of the Sale closing, that the gross proceeds had been reduced by specific costs and charges, that were well over $1 million had been paid out to third parties to cover closing costs from the Sale, and that Cohen had received at least $2 million of the remainder into his own personal bank account.Cohen reviewed the Traditional Holdings governing documents (detailing that arrangement), that he repeatedly received and understood both oral and written explanations of this very fact, and that [Lynch was not] behind the formation or structure of Traditional Holdings.Thereafter, on June 3, 2005, Plaintiffs provided Kory, as promised, a draft complaint … with extensive documentary support … The draft complaint also revealed to Cohen and Kory, for the first time, that Lynch and others had already exposed the extortion scheme. In particular, the draft complaint demonstrated that Plaintiffs were aware of Cohen’s scheme to use economic compensation, emotional intimidation, and other forms of undue pressure to coerce Lynch to provide … testimony …At all relevant time periods stated herein, Kory acted, at a minimum, as an agent, attorney, joint venturer, and/or co-conspirator of Cohen …Cohen and Kory knew that the false, disparaging, and defamatory press release was not made in furtherance of any lawful objective or within the scope of the litigation commenced by Plaintiffs, and that the intended recipients were not involved in or closely connected with the litigation.As a result of Cohen and Kory’s improper and unlawful conduct, the false, disparaging and defamatory press release was immediately published on, inter alia, the following interactive and other websites:(a) www.leonardcohen.com (the official Leonard Cohen website, which has a link to the chat room for the Leonard Cohen files, where the statement was published);(b) http://www.cmumusicnetwork.co.uk/daily/050616.html (states that “Kory told CMU” and then quotes the Cohen and Kory press release);
(c) http://xrrf.blogspot.com/2005/06 leonard-cohen-mr.-big.html (referencing the quoted statement as “released by Leonard Cohen’s lawyer” and referring to it as the “Attorney Robert Kory Statement”); (d) http://blogs.theage.com.au/malcontent/archives/2005/06/ leonard_cohen_s.html (also referencing the quoted statement as “released by Leonard Cohen’s lawyer” and referring to it as the “Attorney Robert Kory Statement”; also later reported by MalContent to have been “emailed by an industry rep to MalContent”); andLeonard Cohen sued by investment company, alleging civil conspiracy, extortionJune 2005Musician and legend Leonard Cohen is being sued by a Colorado investment company Agile Group, which alleges Cohen and another person threatened to irreparably damage Agile's reputation in order to extort millions of dollars from Agile and its insurer. The case is related to claim by Cohen that Agile bears responsibility for the alleged misappropriation of Cohen's invested funds by Cohen's former manager. Read it here.Don's ask me why, but Cohen's classic, Everbody Knows comes to mind.A statement released by Leonard Cohen's lawyer points to the truth of this sad state of affairs:ATTORNEY ROBERT KORY STATEMENT
IN RESPONSE TO AGILE GROUP SUIT
INVOLVING LEONARD COHEN"The suit filed by the Agile Group Monday, June 6, 2005 is completely
consistent with Agile's reckless disregard for its client and his
investments.We had hoped to reach an out-of-court settlement with Agile that
returned to Mr. Cohen some portion of the retirement money the firm was
authorized to administer on his behalf. Instead, in the middle of
negotiations to determine Agile's responsibilities to Mr. Cohen to
compensate him for money lost under their management, Agile launched a
surprise attack in an effort to besmirch the reputation of one of its
notable clients.Agile repeatedly failed to alert Mr. Cohen to true account balances
while allowing improper and unauthorized withdrawals by Cohen's former
business manager. In doing so Agile failed to protect Mr. Cohen's
interests and retirement savings and knowingly misled him by providing
inaccurate financial reports.We will of course file a counter suit that lays out in detail how Agile
acted in a reckless way that violated the firm's fiduciary
responsibilities towards Cohen and consequently resulted in the loss of
Mr. Cohen's retirement savings."· Posted by: Adrian du Plessis at June 14, 2005 08:07 PM(e) http://bcbr.datajoe.com/app/ecom/pub_print_article.php?id= 58402 (the website for the Boulder County Business Report, published in Colorado, which references Kory’s posting of the statement on Cohen’s website, and re-publishes the statement). 181. In addition, Cohen made false, disparaging, and defamatory statements and republishedfalse, disparaging and defamatory e-mails to a reporter for an industry publication known as MacLeans, knowing that the statements would be immediately published by MacLeans to the general public via the internet and other print publications. The MacLeans article, published via the internet on August 17, 2005. SEE ATTACHED. [Excerpt: Cohen wrote (Greenberg) in November 2004 … “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.”]The wrongful conduct described herein was attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, willful and wanton behavior, and bad faith.Consistent with their prior threats, Cohen and Kory have knowingly published or caused to be published false information concerning [Lynch and possibly others] in the public domain …The false, disparaging, and defamatory press release and other statements are not protected by any statutory or common law privilege because the statements were not made in furtherance of any objective of litigation, either lawful or otherwise, and because the intended and actual recipients of the statements were not involved in or closely connected with the litigation.The … statements, and other defamatory statements, were communicated to and understood by third parties to be defamatory, and have harmed [Lynch and possibly others] reputation in the community.Cohen and other co-conspirators not currently named as Defendants herein (including Robert Kory, Steve Lindsay and Betsy Superfon) committed one or more unlawful acts in furtherance of these common goals and objectives.The unlawful goals and objectives of the conspiracy included inter alia the following: (a) The extortion and/or attempted extortion of money or property from Plaintiffs and their insurers [and others, including Lynch] in Colorado [and elsewhere] to recover alleged losses sustained by Cohen as the result of his own exorbitant spending habits, his own neglect and mismanagement of his financial, legal and personal affairs … The making of substantial threats, that were reasonably likely to induce [Lynch and possibly others] that the threats would be carried out, and would causesignificant economic hardship or damage to the reputation [of Lynch and possibly others] with the intent to induce [certain parties] to perform acts against their will; The offering of benefits [to properly compensate Lynch with respect to her ownership interest in numerous corporate entities; for services rendered; and so forth] to a witness and/or members of the witness’ family with the intent to influence the witness to testify falsely or unlawfully withhold truthful testimony; The use of threats, acts of harassment, or acts of harm or injury to persons [including Kelley Lynch] or property, directed to or committed upon a witness and/or members of the witness’ family to intentionally attempt and/or actually influence the witness to testify falsely or unlawfully withhold truthful testimony; The intentional attempt to induce a witness to testify falsely or unlawfullywithhold truthful testimony; The generation and dissemination of a false, disparaging and defamatory press release and other similar statements to third persons with the knowledge, intent, and directive that such statements be disseminated by media publication and the internet throughout [the world].Cohen’s conduct described herein was attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, and willful and wanton behavior.Cohen and the other co-conspirators not currently named as Defendants herein (including Robert Kory, Steve Lindsay and Betsy Superfon) knowingly conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a “pattern of racketeering activity” … The acts of racketeering activity which Cohen and the unnamed co-conspirators, and the enterprise committed, attempted to commit, conspired to commit, solicited, coerced or intimidated others to commit included, inter alia: (a) Mail fraud; (b) Wire fraud; (c) Interference with commerce by threats; (d) Criminal extortion; (e) Bribing a witness; (f) Intimidating a witness; (g) Tampering with a witness. [The witness is Kelley Lynch]The predicate acts described herein formed a pattern of racketeering activity, were related to the conduct of the enterprise, and were related to each other as part of the common plan …Cohen and his agents and attorneys have engaged, and are continuing to engage, in a continuous and relentless pattern of malicious and unwarranted conduct, as described more fully herein [and in Lynch’s legal documents in various related matters and elsewhere].Judge Babcock’s December 5, 2005 order dismissing Robert Kory from this case [due to lack of personal jurisdiction] contains the following statements. The tactics and purported thuggery Judge Babcock refers to are ongoing and ineffective: They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.”RE: JUDGE LEWIS BABCOCK’S ORDEROnly the above allegations or statements in Neal Greenberg’s Amended Complaint are factual.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, D. COLORADO.GREENBERG ASSOCIATES. INC. v. COHEN(D. Colo. Dec 05, 2005)Decided December 5, 2005GREENBERG ASSOCIATES. INC., d/b/a Agile Advisors, Inc. a Delaware corporation, TACTICAL ALLOCATION SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Agile Allocation Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, AGILE GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, GREENBERG ASSOCIATES SECURITIES, INC., d/b/a Agile Group, a Delaware corporation, and NEAL R. GREENBERG, a Colorado resident, Plaintiffs, v. LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California, ROBERT KORY, a United States citizen residing in California, KELLEY LYNCH, a United States citizen residing in California, and JOHN DOE, Numbers 1-25, Defendants.Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB-MJW.United States District Court, D. Colorado.December 5, 2005
ORDERLEWIS BABCOCK, Chief JudgeThe defendant Robert Kory moves for dismissal of all claims against him on the alternate grounds that I have no personal jurisdiction over him, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against him, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The motion is adequately briefed and oral arguments would not materially aid its resolution. For the reasons stated below, I find and conclude that I have no personal jurisdiction over Mr. Kory and I GRANT the motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).Because Mr. Kory has contested the Court's jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have "the burden of proving jurisdiction exists." Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995). *22 "Where, as in the present case, there has been no evidentiary hearing, and the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits and other written material, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists." Id.In resolving factual questions:The allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits. If the parties present conflicting affidavits, all factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor, and the plaintiff's prima facie showing is sufficient notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving party. However, only the well-pled facts of plaintiff's complaint, as distinguished from mere conclusory allegations, must be accepted as true.Id. (citations omitted).I. Allegations The allegations of the Amended Complaint are substantially the following. In 1997, the defendant Leonard Cohen, a resident of California, retained the plaintiffs, directed by the plaintiff Neal Greenberg and headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, to create for him charitable trusts and to manage the assets placed into those trusts. (Throughout the Amended Complaint and their briefs, the plaintiffs refer to themselves individually and in the aggregate as "Greenberg." They do not reveal the nature of their relationships to each other. I have attempted to be as precise as the pleadings and the record will allow.) Mr. Cohen allegedly drew extravagant sums from the trusts, depleting the principal amounts and impeding the plaintiffs' efforts successfully to invest the funds in profitable ventures. The defendant Kelley Lynch, Mr. Cohen's manager, oversaw and had power of attorney over, all of Mr. Cohen's financial dealings. Mr. Greenberg allegedly repeatedly warned Ms. Lynch and Mr. Cohen that Mr. Cohen was spending too much and that, absent a change of habit, he would become destitute. *33 In October, 2004, Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch allegedly parted ways and began to issue competing directives to the plaintiffs. They each blamed the other for Mr. Cohen's financial distress. Mr. Cohen claimed that Ms. Lynch had deprived him of substantial sums of money. Thereafter, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory, Mr. Cohen's personal attorney and a California resident, allegedly conspired to extort the lost sums from the plaintiffs by tarnishing the plaintiffs' reputation, asserting spurious claims, and coercing a settlement from the plaintiffs' insurance carrier. This they intended to accomplish by using Mr. Cohen's fame as a prominent recording artist to publish defamatory statements about the plaintiffs to the press. They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.Mr. Kory sent an allegedly defamatory demand letter to Mr. Greenberg's attorney, wrongly accusing the plaintiffs of fraud and various breaches of fiduciary duty. After the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Messrs. Cohen and Kory allegedly published defamatory statements on Mr. Cohen's web site, blaming the plaintiffs for the lost monies, asserting that the plaintiffs had wrongfully permitted Ms. Lynch to withdraw unauthorized sums, and asserting that the plaintiffs had provided Mr. Cohen with fraudulent accounting records. Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch now dispute entitlement to the funds remaining in the trusts. Each seeks immediate acquisition of the funds.Mr. Kory allegedly submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by his purposeful and repeated written and telephonic communications with the plaintiffs and his direction of Mr. Greenberg's activities, performed in Colorado. Additionally, Mr. Kory allegedly reserved a *44 conference room at the Denver International Airport and scheduled a meeting, which he, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Greenberg's counsel were to attend. Messrs. Kory and Cohen allegedly failed to appear for the meeting, which Mr. Greenberg attended.II. The recordA. Kory affidavitMr. Kory has provided two affidavits replete with refutations of the plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations. He is licensed to practice law in California, where he resides and has his law practice. He last traveled to Colorado in 1985 or 1986 for a ski vacation. He has no business or property interests in Colorado.In the fall of 2004, Mr. Cohen retained Mr. Kory to investigate suspected losses from an entity denominated Traditional Holdings, LLC ("Traditional"), which the plaintiff, Tactical Allocation Services, LLC ("Tactical") managed for Mr. Cohen under Mr. Greenberg's direction. In the ensuing weeks, Mr. Kory contacted Tactical's Boulder, Colorado office on two or three occasions. Tactical responded by sending information about Mr. Cohen's accounts to Mr. Kory in California. Thereafter, Mr. Kory communicated predominantly with Tactical's legal counsel, Sherab Posel, whom Mr. Kory believed to be resident in New York. Though he engaged in at least one email exchange with representatives of Tactical located in Boulder, Mr. Kory communicated Mr. Cohen's asserted legal claims against Tactical and related requests for information to Mr. Posel, who responded on letterhead imprinted with New York addresses.In April, 2005, Mr. Kory and Mr. Posel scheduled a mediation for June 5, 2005, which was to occur in Colorado. Mr. Kory reserved a conference room at a hotel near the Denver airport in anticipation of that meeting. After Mr. Posel disputed the veracity of Mr. Cohen's *55 claims and threatened litigation, Mr. Kory cancelled the room reservation in Colorado and remained in California.B. Barnett affidavitTimothy Barnett, Tactical's Vice President who works in Boulder, has produced correspondence — emails and letters — between Mr. Kory and representatives of the plaintiffs in Colorado and New York. Numerous emails and letters between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett throughout the period beginning in November, 2004 and ending in June, 2005 addressed Mr. Kory's requests for information about the accounts that Tactical managed for Mr. Cohen and Tactical's efforts to comply with those requests. Contrary to Mr. Kory's assertion, these communications number in the dozens. Many of the communications indicate that copies were sent to Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Posel, among others. Emails exchanged on December 15 and 16, 2004 detailed plans for a conference call involving Messrs. Kory, Barnett, and Posel. The three set up another conference call in March, 2005. Other emails reference telephone calls between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett and calls and conversations between Mr. Kory and Mr. Posel.In an April 10, 2005, twenty-seven page demand letter to Mr. Posel, Mr. Kory asserted claims against "the Agile Group, Neal Greenberg and his partners" on Mr. Cohen's behalf. Mr. Kory made repeated references to the "several telephone conversations and e-mails regarding" the claims that he and Mr. Posel had previously exchanged. He invited a further response from Mr. Posel. Thereafter, Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett exchanged emails only discussing the scheduling of a mediation meeting for June 5, 2005. Mr. Posel and Mr. Kory continued to communicate in writing about Mr. Cohen's allegations. On June 4, 2005, Mr. Kory wrote to Mr. Posel by email cancelling the mediation, but making no reference to the lawsuit that the plaintiffs had purportedly *66threatened. In a June 9, 2005 email, Mr. Kory expressed surprise at the contents of a draft complaint that Mr. Posel had sent him the day before.By letter on June 2, 2005, Mr. Kory sent to Mr. Barnett two checks for deposit in Mr. Cohen's accounts. On June 7, Mr. Barnett responded in writing, noting that Mr. Cohen had terminated his relationship with the plaintiffs.III. Discussion"To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action, a plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne,46 F.3d 1071, 1074 (10th Cir. 1995). Because, as set forth below, I conclude that the Colorado long-arm statute does not reach Mr. Kory, I need not consider the constitutional question. The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kory has submitted to jurisdiction in Colorado by the "commission of a tortious act within this state." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-124(1)(b). Colorado courts have held that the tort provision of the long-arm statute may be satisfied either 1) when tortious conduct occurs in Colorado, or 2) when tortious conduct initiated in another state causes injury in Colorado. Wenz, 55 F.3d at 1507; Classic Auto Sales, Inc. v. Schocket, 832 P.2d 233, 235-236 (Colo. 1992).The plaintiffs first argue that Mr. Kory committed tortious conduct in Colorado. Directing into Colorado communications by which a tort is committed constitutes conduct sufficient to satisfy the statute if the tort is completed by the plaintiff's receipt in Colorado of the communications. Id. at 236; Broadview Financial, Inc. v. Entech Management Services Corp., *77859 F. Supp. 444, 448 (D. Colo. 1994). However, merely communicating with a person resident in Colorado is, in itself, insufficient to bring a defendant within the reach of the Colorado statute. Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Lukoil, ___ P.3d ___, 2005 WL 3097588 (Colo. 2005).Mr. Kory's several communications with Mr. Barnett concerned Mr. Kory's attempts to elicit information from Mr. Barnett that would prove useful to Mr. Cohen. Though the plaintiffs feel that Mr. Kory solicited their cooperation in bad faith — Mr. Kory used much of the information the plaintiffs provided to construct claims against them, even as he repeatedly commended them for their diligence — the gravamen of their claims against Mr. Kory is that he conspired to defame them and to extort money from them by asserting frivolous claims. Mr. Kory directed to Mr. Posel in New York, and not to Mr. Barnett in Colorado, the communications by which he allegedly accomplished those torts. The plaintiffs have not argued — nor does it appear from the record — that the exchange of information and documents between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett was tortious. Nor could the plaintiffs premise liability on Mr. Kory's later-reneged reservation of a conference room in Colorado. I am left to determine whether the plaintiffs have suffered an injury in Colorado as a result of Mr. Kory's allegedly tortious acts. Wenz,55 F.3d at 1507. Tortious-activity jurisdiction obtains under the statute when "the injury itself" occurs in Colorado. McAvoy v. District Court, 757 P.2d 633, 635 (Colo. 1988).Further, the injury in the forum state must be direct, not consequential or remote, and loss of profits in the state of plaintiff's domicile is insufficient to sustain long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Hence, when both the tortious conduct and the injury occur in another state, the fact that plaintiff resides in Colorado and experiences some economic consequences here is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Colorado court. Amax Potash Corp. v. Trans-Resources, Inc., 817 P.2d 598, 600 (Colo.Ct.App. 1991) (citations *88 omitted).The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kory directed the injurious consequences of his wrongful activity toward Colorado because they, who have an office here, were the intended recipients of the harm. They cite D D Fuller CATV Const., Inc. v. Pace,780 P.2d 520(Colo. 1989) for the proposition that Mr. Kory could, therefore, have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Colorado. However, they have not addressed the prior question where the injury occurred. Nothing in the record, Mr. Barnett's correspondence from Colorado included, appears to demonstrate that the plaintiffs suffered an injury in Colorado. Indeed, the only business the plaintiffs are alleged to have lost was transacted with Mr. Cohen, who resides in California. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that1) Robert Kory's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(2) [13] is GRANTED; and2) the plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Kory are dismissed.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Richard Westin,
I am confirming that you and I never had sex. I never had sex with Oliver Stone either. This was evidently Cohen's first line of defense - stirring up a custody matter with my son's father. Yongzin Rinpoche was present for your brief visit.For the record, I intend to file motions in the near future and one will include a signed copy of this document confirming what I agree with in Neal Greenberg's Colorado lawsuit. The perjury and fraudulent misrepresentatives are extensive.I cannot imagine why you settled or what mistake you rectified but based on what I am reading Cohen appears to have taken the position that federal tax returns are fraudulent. I have asked Korn to confirm that. I also intend to file a federal lawsuit and continue to be criminally harassed by a psychopath lawyer known as Stephen Gianelli who argues Cohen's federal tax, corporate, and other matters. He is now writing me about Phil Spector.The attached document will be signed and I intend to provide you and Greenberg's lawyer, Norman Posel, with a copy. If you read through the factual statements you will see that Cohen and Kory planned to use restraining orders to discredit me. Posel also wrote that Cohen/Kory planned to destroy me and my children.
Kelley Lynch
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeffrey,
I await your response to the very serious federal tax and corporate matters I have attempted to address with you. Those issues include, but are not limited to, the 2004 IRS required form 1099 Cohen failed to provide me or IRS; LCI illegal K-1s for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 (transmitted to State of Kentucky & IRS showing $0 income - and completely undermining the fraud expense ledger); TH K-1s for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 (transmitted to IRS and others showing income); phantom income TH shifted to me that was not distributed; the "mistake" Westin evidence rectified re. TH (per Cohen's testimony in my 2012 IRS/Phil Spector trial); etc.I am reviewing the handful of documents you provided me re. the Related Case. I would like to point out that my lawyers advised Cohen to pick up his property in their letter to Westin of October 27, 2004. Cohen and his daughter, Lorca Cohen, retrieved all property they felt entitled to from my offices. Cohen understood I worked out of my home every day. I stored old business records for Cohen from the time he renovated his garage (and turned it into a recording studio and guest suite) and he understood that. I did not have Cohen's water color notebook. LASD never found any such notebook. He was the last individual to use that when he scanned the journal from his home. Since his daughter, and others, were caught in my office one evening taking Cohen's property and mine (he should recall this and witnesses were present), perhaps he should speak to those parties.Cohen took all archived materials in the boxes in the office I set aside for him as well. Please see this Brusq's documentary re. those boxes. I took NOTHING to my home after Cohen and I parted ways. Steve Lindsey, who coordinated a custody matter with Cohen and Kory, had not seen me for months and had nothing to do with my business affairs. We separated in 1997 and he did not live with me, have access to my home office, and was not authorized to ransack my garage or review my files and documents. He did find a letter once and felt Cohen was obsessed with me. He also wrote and told me that Cohen/Kory stopped by his office to advise him that i had sex with Oliver Stone while Lindsey and I were together. Oliver Stone was also dragged into my 2012 trial. He and I did not have sex and I explained that to the prosecutor who thought my comments refuting that false accusation were meant to annoy Cohen. Cohen and Kory clearly meant to stir up a custody matter. They also advised Lindsey that I had sex with Richard Wesitn in order to obtain an annuity obligation. The allegation is false, misogynistic, and obscene.For the record, Cohen borrowed or caused to be expended approximately $6.7 million from the TH "retirement account" that was NOT his. It was a corporate account and Cohen continues to argue alter ego.I would appreciate, and have asked this previously, your advising me who the alleged "informant" was. Betsy Superfon advised me that it was her former roommate, Julie Isenberg. Isenberg worked for me for approximately one week in August 2004, was highly supervised, spent a great deal of time on the phone looking for work, and had no ability to review evidence, corporate records, financial statements, etc. She could hardly pack a greeting card order. Superfon also advised me that Isenberg assaulted her maid, stole her jewelry and dog, and was last seen stripping and doing drugs in Vegas. Is that the "informant?' How about the "gigolo?" Can you identify that individual for me?I am finishing up the motions i Intend to file in the near future. It is taking me longer than I anticipated due to the inconceivable perjury, fraudulent misrepresentations, and insane fabricated narrative. Once again, those motions will include a motion to dismiss the fraudulent registration of the Boulder order as a domestic violence order and a motion asking the Court to refer Cohen for a perjury prosecution.Kelley LynchPlaintiff’s Memorandum of Points & AuthoritiesRe: Writ of PossessionCase No. BC341120Filed: October 12, 2005Cohen’s memorandum supporting the issuance of a writ of possession against Lynch re. personal property. Introduction states that Lynch never returned his property. Cohen understood Lynch worked from her home, on a daily basis, in the afternoons and was well aware of the fact that she stored boxes of old records in her garage as a courtesy to Cohen. This does not explain why Cohen failed to respond to Lynch’s lawyers October 27, 2004 letter advising him to make arrangements to pick up his property. He and his daughter picked up whatever they felt entitled to at Lynch’s offices.Cohen Employs Lynch As His Personal Assistant & Business ManagerCohen employed Lynch as his personal assistant and business manager for approximately 17 years. Lynch maintained many of Cohen’s business and personal files and other possessions in her office.See Cohen declaration – CAK matter (personal manager); Steven Machat’s book excerpts (personal manager); other evidence; and Cohen’s statements to Streeter (via email) that Lynch worked as his personal and business manager since 1988. See testimony where Cohen advises jury that Lynch did NOT work as his personal manager. See latest documents Korn filed – Lynch was evidently Cohen’s personal manager. See Richard Feldstein (Cohen’s business manager). Etc.Lynch Is Terminated For Wrongfully Taking Millions Of Dollars From CohenAfter Lynch’s former employee revealed that Lynch had wrongfully misappropriated millions of dollars from Cohen – nearly all of his retirement savings – Cohen reviewed his bank accounts and confirmed extensive irregularities.Alter Ego; failure to address his $6.7 million in loans (to be repaid within 3 years with 6% interest; etc.) Cohen understood Lynch planned to go to IRS, etc.
