From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM
Subject: Re:
To: DOJ, FBI, IRS cc: Multiple Parties
Hi DOJ,
I'm moving through the transcript slowly to ensure that you have a relatively complete transcript. As of page 78, no evidence has been provided and no foundation has been laid for anything except the 2005 restraining order, proof of service, a CD from 2008, an incoherent transcript of that CD; and the 2008 Boulder order and 2011 California order. Cohen is just making up testimony, neurotically and discursively testifying about evidence that has not been entered and does not exist, and the judge thinks that's acceptable. Well, that's not what the Best Evidence rule states. It states very clearly that if the writing exists then it cannot be interpreted. Furthermore, the jury was given utterly incoherent, fabricated, and fraudulent transcripts. Here's the transcript until page 77. It's pure hearsay and thoroughly deranged.
All the best,
Kelley
PROSECUTION OPENING
Streeter: So the people believe that the evidence will show in the case of People of the State of California vs. Kelley Lynch that during the 80s, Mr. Leonard Cohen, who was a singer ... struck up a relationship with Ms. Lynch. They had a brief intimate relationship, and then at some point after that the relationship ended in the late 80s when Mr. Cohen’s business manager died, Mr. Cohen hired Ms. Lynch, first as his personal assistant, and then ultimately as his business manager. But unfortunately around 2004 or so, things started to go not very well between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch. And Mr. Cohen ended the business relationship that he had with Ms. Lynch. Unfortunately, that was not the end of it for Ms. Lynch, the evidence will show. The evidence will show that shortly after the termination of the business relationship by Mr. Cohen that Ms. Lynch began an onslaught, a campaign of harassment on Mr. Cohen, and that harassment -- that harassment has continued or did continue up until February 29, 2012. But during this campaign, the evidence will show, that Ms. Lynch started against Mr. Cohen, she did not just limit her contact toward Mr. Cohen. Ms. Lynch contacted other people that were close to Mr. Cohen. The evidence will also show that Ms. Lynch started sending emails and voicemails to Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, Michelle Rice and Robert Kory. In fact, there is a voicemail that Mr. Kory received from Ms. Lynch where Ms. Lynch says, “This is never going to end. Nothing will abate, even if I fucking drop dead, okay? RT 37-39 [See emails to IRS, online posts, etc.]
Streeter: The evidence will show that Mr. Cohen applied for and got a permanent forever restraining order, no contact order against Ms. Lynch. RT 39
[Lynch was unaware until this hearing that it never expired; was repeatedly told, as were others, that it expired on February 15, 2009; and this is a new “domestic violence” order and the California order does not explain when that expires. The word “permanent” is a serious constitutional issue – it’s not merely confusing; it is positively inexplicable to use this word for something that does expire in various jurisdictions. Original order, read into record, stated that communications with a lawyer does not violate order. Lynch asks that the order be made permanent because “These people are insane.” KL asks to whom she can communicate re. serious legal and other issues. KL notes that she would like it “permanent” because she views Cohen as dangerous to her. Cohen lawyer mentions my emails to him and notes that they refer to IRS and Bruce Cutler. States that they are “irrelevant” to this situation. KL testifies that she was never served Cohen’s Los Angeles lawsuit. Judge never advises KL that the order never expires.]
See Exhibit A: Transcript of Boulder, Colorado hearing. No evidence presented; no witnesses testified; Lynch was unable to confront Cohen – per the Confrontation Clause; his paid lawyers were the alleged witnesses.]
Streeter: Ms. Lynch came to that hearing where the Court issued the permanent restraining order. And there was a discussion about whether or not Ms. Lynch should be ordered to stay away from Mr. Cohen … the end of it right, one would think. One would think the evidence will show. No such luck. The evidence will show, no more than the ink was barely dry on the restraining order in Colorado, Ms. Lynch was at it again. RT 39-40
[The testimony proved that KL did not contact Cohen or his lawyers in 2009 and 2010; Cohen personally testified that he never heard from KL until September 21, 2011 after she was advised by FTB to get the information she required to file her 2004 and 2005 tax returns.]
There is – the evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was upset and Mr. Cohen and fought with the District Attorney’s office, the LA County District Attorney’s office didn’t fie charges against Mr. Cohen. And some of those emails that were sent to Mr. Cooley, the email will say “Execute Steve Cooley.” RT 40 [Parody emails] The evidence will show the evidence stopped, virtually stopped. None from Ms. Lynch. When did they start back up? About the time Mr. Cohen’s world tour was over in 2011. RT 40
Ms. Rice, one of Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, decided to send out a letter, okay? Perhaps it might have appeared a bit forceful. But the evidence will show Ms. Rice has a job to do to protect her client’s interest, share a letter in February 2011 reminding Ms. Cohen [sic] that there’s a permanent Colorado restraining order. And that the California courts will enforce that restraining order. (RT 40-41) [Michelle Rice lied in her February 14, 2011 email and KL confirmed this fact with LA Superior Court at that time; contacted Boulder Court, yet again, and was advised that the order expired on February 15, 2009.]
Exhibit: Michelle Rice February 14, 2011 email wherein she lied and said the Boulder order was registered in California.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
Exhibit: Michelle Rice February 14, 2011 email wherein she lied and said the Boulder order was registered in California.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
And in that month of February, when emails were being sent by Ms. Lynch before the letter to – letter from Ms. Rice, Mr. Kory Mr. Cohen’s other attorney, and Mr. Cohen were the only people getting emails from Ms. Lynch … Let’s talk again about that Colorado restraining order that the evidence will show Ms. Lynch agreed to. It’s not just that the Colorado Court said, “Stay far, far, far away from Mr. Cohen.” No. That’s not just what it says. It says “Do not contact Mr. Cohen’s attorneys, Michelle Rice and Robert Kory.” That’s what it says. [The Colorado order does not say that; it notes that the “place of business” re. Kory law offices is to be avoided.] RT 42 Emails again to Steve Cooley, FBI, [Agent] Sopko [U.S. Treasury.] You name it, she sent it. Everybody, same type of things. RT 42
Now, in some of the emails there are mention by Ms. Lynch of failed business agreements and failure by Mr. Cohen to live up to his agreement of what she believed their business relationship was. And indeed one of the things, the evidence will show, that she talks a lot about is tax fraud and the need to have the tax return. But the People will submit to you or show to you that this so-called business relationship, or not honoring their business relationship, indeed the most important thing that she mentions every so often the tax statement is merely a ruse. For example ... the evidence you will see ... that Ms. Lynch specifically asked for her K-1 form ... Let’s talk a little bit about Ms. Lynch’s need for the tax form or tax returns -- the evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was Mr. Cohen’s business manager. The evidence will show that Mr. [sic] Lynch -- Mr. Cohen has no clue as to what a W-2 form is, a 1099 9is, a K-1 form. The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch is the one that had all of that information, knew all that information. Mr. Cohen did not have it, does not have it and does not understand what it means. Okay. (RT 42-43)
Streeter: So 2006, thereabouts, Mr. Cohen also got a restraining order in California against Ms. Lynch. And you will see from the email she acknowledges the California retraining order, as well as the Colorado restraining order. RT 43
DEFENSE OPENING
Public Defender: This case is very much about relationships and how relationships can often get messy. You’re going to hear about a messy personal relationship. Kind of interweaved with a messy professional relationship. That’s when you’re going to hear that once money became involved, well then attorneys became involved. And once attorneys became involved, there is a lot of finger pointing. That’s what this case is truly about. Now there is, As Ms. Streeter mentioned, the relationship between Mr. Leonard Cohen and Ms. Kelley Lynch, it’s a long history. They started working together in 1988. And you’re going to hear that they had a very successful working relationship for many – most of those years. In 1988 he gave her a raise and gave her more responsibilities. During that time when it became more than just a business relationship. It also became a sexual relationship. You’re going to hear, even though Ms. Streeter said it was a brief encounter, that this was a longstanding intimate relationship. And then around 2005, that’s when things began to change. Mr. Cohen found himself in a bit of a financial crisis. (RT 44-45)
NOTE: This information about a “sexual relationship” was pulled from LAPD’s report. There was never a “sexual relationship,” Lynch has no idea what a “sexual relationship” is, and she advised her lawyers that in addition to a business relationship she and Cohen had a personal friendship. The relationship wasn’t messy. Leonard Cohen heard Lynch intended to report what she felt was tax fraud to IRS. Cohen didn’t give KL a raise in 1988. She didn’t work for him at that time; she worked for his attorney and personal manager. When this individual passed away, Cohen hired Lynch. Cohen did not find himself in a financial crisis and this information appears to have been picked up from news accounts and Neal Greenberg’s lawsuit.
Like Ms. Streeter mentioned, there were questions about the IRS and taxes. And so he panicked. He got his attorneys involved and the finger pointing started. The plan was to get Ms. Lynch to work with Mr. Cohen and to pin the blame on his financial consultant. But Ms. Lynch refused to go along with that plan. She said no, I’m not going to falsify anything. I’m not going to go out and do what you tell me to do, and she refused. And so what his attorneys did at that point, well, they said, well she’s not going to help us, that means she’s going to hurt us. So they went after Ms. Lynch the best way they knew how. Using the legal process. As Ms. Streeter mentioned, these are his attorneys. They have one job and one job only. To protect their client at all costs. That’s what the evidence is going to show happened here. (RT 45)
Since that day, you’re going to find out that the attorneys have done everything in their power to harm Ms. Lynch. That she’s lost everything. Her job, her money, her child, all orchestrated and involved with the attorneys in this case. They are involved in that entire process. Because if they ruin her credibility, well, that helps Mr. Cohen. And they have done everything in their power to hurt Ms. Lynch’s credibility … And yet they wanted to go and they went and tried to hurt her economically and to put a restraining order on her so they couldn’t have any contact during the litigation. That was their intent. That was their purpose. (RT 45-46)
There is a wealth of evidence, much of it intentionally concealed or suppressed, supporting the conclusion that Ms. Lynch did not intend to annoy Leonard Cohen and did not willfully or knowingly violate a restraining order. As Ms. Lynch’s counsel told jurors in his opening statement: There were questions about the IRS and taxes. (RT 45) You’re going to see that a lot of this is asking for legitimate purposes to get information that she needed for her taxes. Information that he did not want her to have. Information that his attorneys did not want to give her. (RT 46)
You’re going to see that a lot of this is asking for legitimate purposes to get legitimate information that she needed for her taxes, information that his attorneys did not want to give to her. (RT 46)
Ms. Lynch is presumed innocent. That means every single time she takes that chair she is presumed innocent. And it’s the burden of the prosecution -- Streeter: Objection; argumentative. Court: Overruled. (RT 47) You find out it’s their burden to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s what their job is. And unless they can meet that job, you must go with that presumption. Streeter: Objection; argumentative. Court: This is argument. (RT 47)
What we’re going to ask is that you keep an open mind. That you don’t just take Mr. Cohen’s word for it. He’s a celebrity. He’s a performer. He’s an entertainer. That means - that means he’s charismatic. He knows how to get people on his side. (RT 47) Because it’s their burden to prove every single element beyond a reasonable doubt. (RT 47)
Ms. Lynch is presumed innocent. That means every single time she takes that chair she is presumed innocent. And it’s the burden of the prosecution -- Streeter: Objection; argumentative. Court: Overruled. (RT 47) You find out it’s their burden to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s what their job is. And unless they can meet that job, you must go with that presumption. Streeter: Objection; argumentative. Court: This is argument. (RT 47)
What we’re going to ask is that you keep an open mind. That you don’t just take Mr. Cohen’s word for it. He’s a celebrity. He’s a performer. He’s an entertainer. That means - that means he’s charismatic. He knows how to get people on his side. (RT 47) Because it’s their burden to prove every single element beyond a reasonable doubt. (RT 47)
Streeter: How come you stopped talking to her on the telephone? Leonard Cohen: Well, they weren’t really invitations of conversations. Streeter: What do you mean the phone calls were accusations? Cohen: Well – Well, she began to indicate that I was the author of her misfortunes and everything happening to her was my fault and she would, she would repay me with the same kind of kindness as I had shown her. That was said in a menacing tone. [Absurd; furthermore it is a Tibetan Buddhist saying – I will repay your kindness. The threat is alleged KL’s “tone” of voice.] Streeter: Okay when you say “author of her misfortune,” did she elaborate what her misfortune was? Cohen: Well, she … after the default judgment, she began to be very clear that I had finger counted (?) some kind of fraudulent against her and I deserved to be taken down and shot. RT 53
Streeter: You mentioned you didn’t talk to her, so are the People correct in understanding that these statements you’re telling the jury were voicemail messages. Cohen: There are some voicemail messages that said, “You’re going to be sorry you ever met me … There was a – the voice messages were meant to produce a feeling of menace.” RT 54 Streeter: When you heard those voicemail messages, how did it make you feel? Cohen: It alarmed me and frightened me. Streeter: Were you concerned about your safety? Cohen: I was concerned about my safety, and more the safety of my children and grandchildren. RT 54
Streeter: Can you tell us a little bit about how you saved the voicemail messages? … Cohen: The first group I transcribed myself and typed into my computer and emailed them to my attorney. Streeter: Who are your attorney or attorneys? Cohen: My attorneys are Robert Kory and Michelle Rice. Q: Did you have a business office in or near their law office? Cohen: Yes, I have an office in their office at 9300 Wilshire. Streeter: All right. So the first ones you’re saying you would transcribe and send – Cohen: The first few I transcribed by hand. [SWAT include – and they are not accurate, possibly intentionally so, because the only time I would say Adam Cohen and Anjani Thomas together would be when KL advised Cohen that he purchased homes for them using TH assets.] The next batch I recorded. I recorded them from my home answering machine into a Sony cassette player and I gave the cassettes to my lawyers … Then the third batch I recorded with my sound engineer; they work with my own recordings. We put them on CDs and those I handed to the lawyer. And then recently I have a little sophisticated recorder that allows me to turn it into MP3 that I can mail my lawyers. Streeter: Now, how do you go about dating your – the voicemail messages that you get from Ms. Lynch? Cohen: Usually I would send them under a letter cover, an email letter cover, with the date and the time and the telephone number that the call originated from. RT 55-56
Streeter: Did Ms. Lynch ever mention People that both you and she knew? … Cohen: She talked about some well-known singers that both of us know. Streeter: I’m sorry … well-known – Cohen: She talked about some well-known singers that both of us knew. Streeter: Such as who, Mr. Cohen? Cohen: Such as Bob Dylan. Streeter: What about – did she ever mention Phil Spector or Phillip in any of those? Cohen: Yes, she accused me of – she accused me of testifying before a Secret Grand Jury which resulted in the conviction of Mr. Spector. Streeter: Do you know Mr. Spector? Cohen: I knew him. He produced a record of songs that we wrote together. It was in 1977. Streeter: But you had no dealings with him since then; is that right? Cohen: No, I don’t believe – I haven’t seen him. I don’t remember if it was ’77 or ’78 that the record came out. But since then, no, I have had no contact with him. RT 56-57
BBC Radio Interview With Leonard Cohen:
Transcript of BBC Radio 1 programme about Leonard Cohen, broadcast Sunday 7/8/94. Hesitations, "you know"s and other verbal tics have largely been removed, except where useful to indicate the rhythm of the spoken words (LC becomes particularly hesitant when talking about his time with Phil Spector). Due to the fact that it was (apparently) unscripted, the grammar represents patterns of speech, and may appear odd at first sight. Songs in brackets were played (usually in part) during the programme, and often faded into the background during the following speech.
Excerpt [Cohen]: He’s [Phil Spector] not mad any longer, I’ve spoken to him on the phone recently, he’s really quite reasonable and calm, but we were, you know, I was flipped out at the time …
Streeter: All right. Did does Ms. Cohen [Lynch] have any children? The Court: Ms. Kelley – Ms. Lynch. Streeter; I’m sorry. Does Ms. Lynch have any children? Cohen: Yes, Ma’am. She has two sons. Streeter: Did she ever mention any of her children in any of the voicemail messages? Cohen: Yes, many times. She – she accused me of being indirectly responsible for her losing custody of one child. Streeter: What was that child’s name? Cohen: That child’s name was Ray Lindsey – Streeter: Does she have another child? Cohen: Yes, she has another child. Streeter: What’s that child’s name? Cohen: His name is Rutger Bennett [Penick]. Streeter: Does she ever mention Rutger – Cohen: Yes, many times she suggested I was responsible for an accident that befell him. RT 57-58
See Exhibits – Declarations of Joan Lynch (probation retaliation and additional); Sangye Khandro, Clea Surkhang, Dan Meade, Palden Ronge, Paulette Brandt, Schedule re. Neal Greenberg …
Streeter: Now, you mentioned that Ms. Lynch sent emails. Would you say her emails were short or long? Cohen: Her emails were – her emails were routinely very long. Sometimes as long as 50 pages. RT 58-59 [Emails to Cohen were paragraphs; included in the alleged emails were threads with evidence for Lynch’s reference.]
Streeter: Was there ever any discussion about alcohol or drugs in any of the voicemail messages? Cohen: There were accusations that I was on drugs or crack or – she often accused me of being on drugs. RT 59 Streeter: Did she ever talk about your prior business relationship in any of the voicemail messages? Cohen: Yes, often. Especially toward the end it was often part of the content. RT 59 Streeter: Did Ms. Lynch ever curse on the voicemail messages? Cohen: She would routinely curse on her messages. RT 59
Streeter: Did she ever make threats on any of the voicemails? The very tone and volume of the emails suggested a threat. Streeter: Did she also mention taking you down in any of her email messages? Cohen: Yes, her email messages often threatened to take me down or worse. Streeter: Do you know what Ms. Lynch’s email address is? Cohen: I – she’s changed her email address several times. PD: Objection; speculation & lack of foundation. Court: Overruled. Cohen: I think it’s kelleylynch@hotmail.com. PD: Objection; speculation. Court: Overruled. RT 59-60 [Not Lynch’s email address; blogs and email accounts targeted by Gianelli, Blaine, Walsh …]
Not Lynch's email address.
She accused me of testifying before a secret grand jury which resulted in the conviction of Phil Spector. RT Streeter: Okay, in any of her emails, did she ever mention Phil Spector? Cohen: She often mentioned Phil Spector, repeating over and over that I had testified before a Grand Jury and I was involved in the conviction of Phil Spector. RT 60-61
Exhibit – Ann Diamond Draft Article; Mick Brown Emails; ballot with Phil Spector on it.
Streeter: Okay, and any of the emails did she ever mention her son Ray Lindsey? Cohen: Yes she did. Streeter: Did she mention her son Rutger in the emails? Cohen: Yes, Ma’am. RT 62
NOTE: The following email from Cohen, showing his obsession with Lynch’s son, also proves that the alleged emails were altered when forwarded and his personal comments removed.
baldymonk@aol.com
<baldymonk@aol.com> Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:35 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
correction:
i see Rutger is copied in
<baldymonk@aol.com> Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:35 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
correction:
i see Rutger is copied in
Transcripts are entirely incoherent and fraudulent.
Exhibit 1. Voicemail from December 2008. Streeter has transcript.
Streeter: Your Honor, I think I counted wrong. I have 13 transcripts, not 14. RT 62 Streeter: Do you want me to pass them out to the jury now? Court: If that’s what you want to do. Public Defender: Your Honor, I would object at this time. Court: Are you going to play them now? Streeter: I’m going to refresh recollection, then I’ll play it. Court: Okay, refresh his recollection first. RT 63
Exhibit 2. CD related to Exhibit 1.
Streeter: And if I can pass the transcripts out now. Court: Yes. PD: I still do have an objection. Court: I think the objection – is it that it has lots of – PD: Yes. Court: Do you plan on playing the others right now? Streeter: Yes. Well, at some point. Court: Okay. I’ll instruct the jury – and I’m sure they’ll follow my instruction - - to confine their – we’re going to be passing out transcripts, and the first conversation that Ms. Streeter is going to address is on the transcript. So if you’ll confine your review to just the first page … RT 63-64 PD: I do have an objection as to – foundation as to date. Court: Overruled. She can play it and then try to lay a foundation. RT 65 Streeter: I just played you People’s number 2 … Now, we were talking about the dates and how you dated – you mentioned that you would send the voicemail messages almost immediately to your attorneys; is that correct? Cohen: That’s correct. RT 65-66 [NOTE: This alleged voicemail would not violate the alleged California domestic violence order.]
Streeter: At some point, Mr. Cohen, did you ever get a restraining order against Ms. Lynch. Cohen: Yes, Ma’am. Streeter: When was that? Cohen: That was 2006, I believe. Streeter; Okay. Did you -- get more than one restraining order against Ms. Lynch? Cohen: Yes, we got one, 2006. And then Ms. Lynch left the jurisdiction, moved to Colorado. And in 2008 we got a permanent restraining order against Ms. Lynch from Colorado; and then in 2011 we got another restraining order. It was the Colorado restraining order domesticated, made applicable in California, that was in 2011. RT 66-67
Evidence – Cal DOJ’s emails, etc. Neal Greenberg Complaint – planned to use restraining orders to discredit Lynch & undermine her ability to serve as a witness. Streeter works in the Family Violence Unit, DA’s office. The order is NOT domestic violence. ATTACH first page – Streeter is family violence; attach page where she states that Cohen and Lynch were in a statutory required dating relationship.
Streeter: Let’s talk about what finally made you or what caused you to get a restraining order for the first time in 2005 against Ms. Lynch? Cohen: There was the volume and menacing quality of the emails. It would be imprudent not to take those threats seriously. RT 67
Streeter: Now, you mentioned that you had this long relationship with Ms. Lynch for, like, 17 years? Cohen: That’s correct. Streeter: She knew your children? Cohen: Yes, she was very helpful and drove my daughter to school. And our families were close. Her father was my bookkeeper; her mother was the office manager. We spent Thanksgiving, Christmases together. Ms. Lynch at various periods, when I was recording at my own studio in the back of my house, would come every day and eat lunch with us. The families were very close. Streeter: And did you – were you close to her children? Cohen: Yes, I knew her children well. They were around often. I can’t say I knew them well, but I certainly knew them and they were around from time to time. RT 67-68
Streeter: Was it hard to get the restraining order in 2005? RT 68 [No, because Lynch was not present for the hearing.]
Exhibits 3 (2005 restraining order) and 4 (2005 restraining order proof of service).
Off the record sidebar. Not recorded. RT 69
Streeter: Now, after you got the restraining order in 2005, can you tell us what happened? Cohen: The emails certainly did not stop or abate. If anything, they continued and grew more and more threatening and violent. Streeter: What about the voicemail messages? Did they stop after you got the restraining order? Did those stop? Cohen: No, it didn’t stop. I can’t recall them exactly. They didn’t stop … Especially after the default judgment was made against Ms. Lynch, the emails and phone calls increased. Streeter: How did that feel after you got the restraining order and it didn’t stop anything? Cohen: I hoped that some action could have been taken … I hoped some action could have been taken on the basis of the restraining order but it was difficult to animate any response. RT 71-72
Streeter: Were there any other type of feelings you had after you got the restraining order the first time and that activity continued? Cohen: I – I began to – my sense of alarm has increased over the years as the volume of the emails has increased and the voicemails and the violence and the threats accelerated and intensified. So at any given period I was more alarmed than the period before since the intensity and the volume continued and increased and the declaration by Ms. Lynch that she would never back down – that she would never back down; that she would never stop; that she would never retreat. So of course over the years the sense of alarm, menace, discomfort and fear has accelerated. RT 72 [Failed to serve lawsuit; his lawyers refused to communicate with KL during litigation; refused to provide KL with IRS required form 1099 for 2004; IRS advised KL in 2007 that they were in receipt of illegal K-1s from LCI for the years 2003 and 2004 (Cohen refuses to rescind); etc.; no actual evidence to support his discursive, neurotic, and narcissistic testimony and lies.] RT 72
Streeter: Now, you mentioned that you got a second restraining order in Colorado; is that correct? Cohen: That’s correct. Streeter: And why did you get the one in Colorado? Cohen: One of the specific reasons was that I was giving a concert in – in Colorado in Denver, and we knew that Ms. Lynch was living there and we were uncertain as to whether as to what her actions would be if I were performing in the vicinity. We heightened security at the concert, and as part of those precautions we took out a restraining order against her in Colorado, since she had moved to Boulder, Colorado in the meantime. RT 73
Attach Boulder Verified Motion – Cohen’s concert is not mentioned; Lynch’s communications with third parties and online posts are; Cohen had threatened Ann Diamond with litigation the prior day (over her article); and his extraordinary flight to Boulder in the midst of his world tour was nearly one year prior to his concert.
Streeter: Now, do you know if the restraining order in Colorado was ever filed in California? Cohen: Yes, Ma’am, it was filed in California in May 2011.
Exhibit 5: Restraining order dated May 25, 2011 [Now transformed into fraudulent domestic violence order.]
Streeter: What is that document? Cohen: That is a – this is a document that registers an out-of-state restraining order. Streeter: The Colorado order? Cohen: That is – yes, this is registering the Colorado restraining order in California. RT 74 Streeter: After you received the Colorado restraining order, did Ms. Lynch stop contacting you? Cohen: In that period of time I was touring Europe and I didn’t consult my emails very often but Ms. Lynch was not calling or emailing during that period of time when I was on the road … Around 2009, 2001 … Whenever there was an article or review of my concert in any newspaper of the world Ms. Lynch would – RT 74-75
[NOTE: The actual reason, together with KL’s emails to IRS, etc. - for Cohen’s extraordinary flight into Boulder; also raised in the Boulder Verified Motion – Streeter mentioned the online posts to the Court as well – prior to the actual trial.]
Exhibit 6: CD from July 2011.
Sidebar: Public Defender: I did want to state on the record I did object numerous times to best evidence. I do believe that Mr. Cohen has been testifying to the contents of writings. And pursuant to 1523 he cannot testify to the contents of writings if – the best evidence would be the actual writings. Court: Well, I don’t believe his testimony to date has been meant as a substitute for the writings and the writings will come in. Streeter: Right. Court; So I think I tried to address each of the objections on its merits as I saw it, and – PD: I guess my concern is there is evidence on the record of threats being made – Court: Right. PD: Via email without – I think the jury might take what he says as an actual truth of – Court: They might. And they – he’s testified he’s received threats … [If] he is not telling the truth [you are free to argue that he is not].RT 77-78