From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:51 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen
To: "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>
Hi,
Actually, Rice was sent the email (re. IRS matters) at 5.44 AM, IRS at 5:50 and then Dennis Riordan. Someone should really cross-examine Streeter over all of this. She elicited willful perjury from Cohen (who reviewed the email to Mr. Riordan and testified that he was copied in; during cross-examination he changed his story) and ignored all IRS matters, concealing them from the jurors. I can assure you that this pro con artist hasn't just done this to me. Every prosecution she's been involved with should be reviewed.
All the best,
Kelley
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>, Teresa Low <teresa.low@doj.ca.gov>, PIU <piu@doj.ca.gov>, OIGCOMPL OIGCOMPL <oigcompl@lapd.lacity.org>, MEDIA RELATIONS PIO <pio@lapd.lacity.org>, chaleffg <chaleffg@lapd.lacity.org>, pkelly@lasuperiorcourt.com, Steven Machat <smachat@gmail.com>, jwalker <jwalker@walkersewell.com>
To the IRS Commissioner's Staff,
I would like your opinion on this issue: is it proper under federal income tax law, to treat an investment loss as a theft loss? I believe Traditional Holdings was an investment. I also believe my Indemnity Agreement supports the fact that I couldn't understand how this was an investment. My interest in the intellectual property (that was in Blue Mist in 1999) is clearly theft. That's just outright theft as of the date of the default judgment. Is Traditional Holdings theft? I filed a 1099 (prior to seeing that Freeman permitted Cohen to put these two entities into the default judgment which I think is an outrage and why would that happen since the only issue is I didn't appear) for $8 million that Cohen wasted. That was on behalf of the corporation. I maintain that position. The entity was dissolved and final returns were filed. I have to now uncheck the "final return" box on the Traditional Holdings returns because I was only able to read the complaint and default when Jihad Gianelli posted them online in April 2010. And, I believe there is investment theft but I don't know what investment amount is - would it be 99.5% of $8 million less any annuity payment to Cohen. This is why my lawyers realized I didn't have a fiduciary obligation until the payments were due in 2011 and by that time Cohen's adviser (not mine) lost everyone's money. That is now a mitigating factor. And, he has argued that he's the "alter ego" of these companies. My question - what is the IRS' position on investment theft in this matter? Until the royalty statements (on all FOUR streams of income - book publishing was included because I was his "literary agent") are reviewed, I cannot amend my tax returns. This is very simple and clear to me. Maybe the IRS will now have to value these assets because I don't believe I should be arrested for attempting to file tax returns. Apparently LA Superior Court and others disagree with me. It's a little scheme - using restraining orders, fraud, perjury, etc., to further your criminal tax fraud. Of course, I want an opinion on the default judgment itself. Why is there discussion about "benefiical ownership" without evidence? Even if a default, you would assume that someone would have to offer proof which is not merely stating that "I own something" and then some accountant saying he assumes that's a fact. I would like an IRS opinion on this and the other issues I have raised. The Opinion letter I'm asking for is an explanation. None of this makes sense to me.
Kelley
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Mr. Riordan,
I suppose Cohen believes perjuring himself in Phillip's matter is a game for you. No one understands why he had his lawyers copy you or the IRS, FBI, DOJ, and Treasury in on his last round of threats to me. People are shocked that I am now being called a "whore" and "slut" by Jihad Gianelli who is clearly affiliated with Cohen. That still is not a defense to theft, tax fraud, etc. I think I can just write Phillip rather than offering sex to you or his other attorneys. Maybe Cohen came up with this - he also accused me of having sex with Oliver Stone. This was what he and Kory went to meet with Lindsey about. I suppose they thought that accusing me of having sex with Oliver would someone aid them in their criminal tax fraud defense. Oliver Stone should absolutely be called the witness stand and asked why he believes Cohen/Kory dragged him into this matter. I can assure you that Oliver and I never had sex. But, then again, Cohen and Lindsey appear to be perverts and LA Superior Court seems to love lying frauds. People are continuing to comment on how corrupt LA is - and they are referring to the District Attorney as well.
I'll let you know if Cohen or his rotten lying thugs threaten me again - over my federal tax returns - unless they decide to copy you in on their threats. I'm assuming they view Phillip's matter as a game. What else could you assume based on their conduct? Perhaps you could assume that Leonard Cohen's drug and alcohol abuse has caught up with him.
Love,.
Kelley
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
To the IRS Commissioner's Staff,
Let's see how Rice responds this time. I have been threatened with arrest and this situation is now preposterous. Rice evidently doesn't want to address the fact that they illegally altered my federal tax returns via a default judgment in a matter I was not served. I continue to maintain that Cohen and his legal representatives should be prosecuted over this situation. I need all royalty statements dating back to 1967 in order to amend my tax returns. I also want to include the total theft amount on those returns - since Cohen has proven that he believes he is the "alter ego" of these entities and defrauded me. The man was not in a brain coma when he signed all these documents many of which were notarized. I also don't believe Mary Martin or Judith Berger stole "Suzanne" and two other copyrights from him. I saw the corporate books and the stock purchase agreement and these three songs were not part of that deal. He's on tape on "Bird On A Wire" accusing them of theft. He cannot stop lying.
Rice is aware that I'm not referring to the lawsuit but rather my need to amend my tax returns. I want to amend them beginning with whatever year Ken Cleveland first started doing both of our returns. He was conflicted and I don't believe anyone represented me. I tend to doubt anyone is taking the stands (lawyers, etc.) to lie and say they represented me and not him. I would like to remind you that Robert Kory was concerned about contacting the IRS for copies of the Traditional Holdings tax returns. They've come a long way and seem to feel emboldened.
I'll send you any threatening response from Rice, et al., unless the moron decides to copy you in again. That is definitely my opinion.
Kelley
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Michelle Rice,
It is now April 9, 2011. I would like to amend my federal tax returns. At this point, even though I was not served Cohen's lawsuit and the proof of service (below), is perjured, Cohen has gone into court to prove that he defrauded me re. Traditional Holdings, LLC and Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. Therefore, I need to complete a forensic accounting that takes into consideration all assignments (that Cohen understood were non-revocable) dating back to 1967. The assignments include all streams of royalty income - including book publishing. These assignments do NOT relate to my commissions as Cohen's personal manager. I was never Cohen's business manager and the lies and fraud in his lawsuit are inconceivable.
There is nothing belated in this request and law enforcement is not going to be used to prevent me from amending my tax returns. Once the forensic accounting has been done, I will then file a final amended return showing the amount that Cohen has stolen from me. That amount will include my commissions that were withheld after I changed accountants, was advised Cohen committed tax fraud (criminal in nature), refused to meet with him/Westin, refused to hand over the corporate books and records, refused to participate in what I viewed as illegal mediations, refused to accept an offer of 50% community property (presumably to lie and say Cohen was defrauded by his advisers), etc.
In order to prepare this accounting, I need all royalty statements dating back to 1967. As for the actual narrative of what factually occurred - that will be addressed in my book "River Deep, Mountain High" and if Cohen would like to meet me in court to hash out any fraudulent allegations of slander, etc. that will be just fine. He should be prepared to call Freda Guttman to the witness stand and I will call my former brother-in-law, Van Penick, about the allegations of molestation, Cohen having sex with his 15 year old nanny, etc. Cohen should be clear about this - he doesn't have attorney/client privilege with me and I was not on his legal team. Cohen wrapped Westin and Greenberg into attorney/client privilege and I personally believe all three of them created the criminal tax fraud that Cohen then used to destroy my life - targeting my children, elderly parents, sister and her husband, etc. Karen and David McCourt did NOT use Cohen's "cash" to start their business but, as usual, Cohen lies as easily as he breaths. Fortunately, they are well represented and I absolutely believe they should file a lawsuit against Cohen over these allegations. Cohen also falsely accused my parents of depositing his money into off-shore accounts. And, it appears to me, that Cohen perjured himself in Phil Spector's murder trial and he should recall that I had my attorney (Steve Cron) present for the interview with the LAPD detectives.
For the record, I advised Steven Machat that I sent Boies Schiller a copy of Marty Machat's letter to Carter/Irving Trust transmitting Machat & Machat's check for $30,000. That represented Machat & Machat's final payment for their 15% share of intellectual property that was (at that time) assigned to Stranger Music, Inc. It's clear to me that Cohen has a pattern of defrauding his advisers, lying, and - obviously - committing perjury. I will address my views on the lying thief and con artist (Leonard Cohen) in my book but am once again demanding the information I require to amend my federal tax returns for the years (as of now) 1999 - 2011. Cohen's fraudulent default judgment wrongfully altered my federal tax returns and LA Superior Court has no jurisdiction over my federal tax returns as all attorneys understand. Furthermore, Cohen was not the beneficial owner of these entities.
Finally, I am demanding that Cohen rescind the illegal K1s he issued to me from LC Investments, LLC. These were transmitted to the IRS and State of Kentucky. Cohen stated in his declaration that he is the 100% owner of LC Investments, LLC. Please review all corporate books and records that were willfully concealed from the court in Cohen's fraudulent garbage lawsuit against me that was and remains retaliation for my reporting his tax fraud to the IRS.
Kelley Lynch
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29620753/Cohen-vs-Kelley- Lynch-Proof-of-Service- Complaint
Kelley’s Conversation w/ Steven MachatFebruary 13, 2010Steven confirmed that he visited with Cohen in 2007 regarding the film “Bird On A Wire.” When he went to see Cohen he wanted to discuss Buddhism. Steven was living with Semina who was Muslim. Cohen refused to discuss Buddhism and noted that he was now Jewish.“He introduced me to his groundskeeper” – Robert Kory. “He had Robert Kory in the background taping me.” “Leonard Cohen was so scared.” – he said “I found your film, Bird On A Wire.” He said “I have had it since 1990.” The reason Cohen gave for keeping this film rather than returning it to Steven Machat was “to keep it away from Avril.” [Avril Giacobbi] At this point Kory apparently begins coughing. The film is not given to Steven at this point in time.
Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:59 PM
Re: Notice of Violations of Permanent Restraining Order - Cease and Desist
Just my thoughts.
Will go over the rest again later. Be safe.Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 3:32 PM
Re:
Great speaking with you. You and I agree - Leonard Cohen is a fraud
and a thief. It's incredible that when you visited Cohen re. Bird On
A Wire he introduced Robert Kory as his grounds keeper. Wasn't it
illegal of Kory to record your conversation with Cohen? Kory is
indeed scum. The situation with the theft of you and your father's
publishing (and "When I Need You" which I know for a fact you and your
father negotiated) is unconscionable but this is what Cohen does. It
is indeed ugly.
Thanks for reminding me that Spector Records owned "Death Of A Ladies
Man." It's incredible that Leonard Cohen stole them from Phillip and
sold them to Sony. I do recall that Sony International released the
tapes internationally. I would assume Phillip knows that the royalty
split with Cohen was 50/50 - to be paid directly to Phillip because it
was not to go against Cohen's recoupment.
Cohen and Kory thought you were in a conspiracy with you? The slander
is outrageous, isn't it Steven? You're dead right - he hates women
and he is a misogynist. I know this. Ann Diamond knows this. Others
know it.
Why would Cohen have to borrow money? He received a $1 million
advance in the fall of 2004 and the only amount I received was my
commission. Cohen refuses to give me a 1099 and I have no idea what
they are calling it. When I amend my 2001-2010 tax returns (once
Cohen gives me the forensic accounting; rescinds his fraud lawsuit -
we agree ... he sued me to force me into a deal; rescinds the illegal
K1s, etc.) I'll address this.
I absolutely intend to sue Robert Kory. You should sue him as well.
Cohen stopped a deal on October 21, 2004. I, and others, worked on
that for a very long time. I intend to sue him for my commissions;
publishing; and I intend to sue him for theft. It is absolutely
theft. I think the default should be thrown out of court -
particularly as two companies were snuck into the default judgment
that weren't parties to the lawsuit.
I think your father would be proud that you and I have decided to be
honest about Phil Spector. Robaitaille may have been his lover. She
also, I believe, sold her story. We both know she worked for Phillip
when I worked for you and your father. I never once heard any stories
from her about Phillip and guns. Did you Steven?
Talk to you later. Get some sleep.
All the best,
Kelley--
Best regards,
Steven
Steven Machat
The Machat Company
2 Old Brompton Road, Suite 541
London
SW7 3DQThe conversation skips ahead to a conversation Steven had with Robert Kory. Steven told Kory “I will get into a war to get this [Bird On A Wire film] back.” Steven called Kory. He said “I want that film and I want it now.” Kory told Steven “You can’t threaten Leonard.” Steven asked Kory “Who the fuck are you?”At some point, Robert Kory met with Steven. Steven’s lady, Misha, was present. Kory told Steven “We can stop this book.” Kory is referring to Steven’s book “Gods, Gangsters and Honour.” Steven informed Kory “You can’t stop truth.” They eventually sent Steven 294 reels of the Bird On A Wire film. It was missing the edited version and possibly negatives. “I had to find Tony Palmer. Kory and Cohen figured he can’t do this [make the film].” “They had the audio inside the tapes.”Steven talking about Cohen: “They fuck over women.” He may also be referring to Kory. I note that Cohen and his son are misogynists. We briefly discuss what Cohen/Lindsey have done to Ray: “That is horrible” notes Steven.Steven cannot understand how Cohen gets away with what he gets away with. I mention that Greg McBowman noted that Cohen is “Teflon.” Steven cannot believe that just about every single word in Cohen’s lawsuit is a lie. It is inconceivable to him that anyone would file such fraudulent and perjured documents.“Kory is such scum.” Steven mentions that this is interesting to note: “They told Misha (Palestinian) … he volunteered that he and Leonard Cohen opened a charity in Israel.” Steven said he didn’t believe they deposited anything into the charity.We talk about Cohen meeting with Avril Giacobbi at Chemical Bank. I recalled that Cohen told me he was giving Avril a check for Marty/Machat & Machat for $35,000 he owed them in expenses. Steven said they met Stuart Kahn at Chemical Bank downstairs from our offices. Steven and I both recall that Avril Giacobbi went down to Chemical Bank with Marty’s signature on a document. Steven informs me that this check was never deposited into Marty/Machat & Machat’s account. He mentions Flemming Schmidt. Steven knows that Flemming was Cohen’s promoter. I bring up the monies paid to Flemming and Dominique Isserman from Cohen’s off-shore account: $100,000 to each. We discuss the fact that one account was with Loyens & Volkmaars.Somehow the bearer bonds are brought up. Steven asks “Why would Dad have bearer bonds. Anyone can steal them?” I don’t really know. I mention that I saw the bearer bonds at Cohen’s once and they/it was issued to R&M Productions. Steven confirms that R&M Productions refers to Roz & Marty and says “That s where we put our publishing” referring to his father and himself. I tell Steven that Cohen informed me that he was advised to open these types of off-shore accounts by Rolf Budde. I believe there may be other off-shore accounts and that Cohen probably stole back Marty/Steven’s publishing in R&M Productions. Steven tells me he could never stand Herschel Weinberg and says Cohen was referred to him by Esther Cohen. I tell Steven that both Esther and Victor Cohen were friends with Herschel Weinberg who has died.Steven is extremely upset about “When I Need You.” He told Cohen and Kory: “I want my song back” and mentions that Celine Dion did a cover of that song.I ask if Cohen/Kory contacted Steven again. Steven says “They tried to stop the movie. They let us show it at the fan gathering.” Steven explains that he put together some type of fan gathering that 2,500 people attended. His son, Baron, attended. Baron had never really met his grandfather or was too young to remember so this event was especially important for Steven. “At this festival … I was watching my son meet this …” [Marty] Steven notes that the film Bird On A Wire contains the scene with Cohen licking acid off the paper. Sony then writes Steven that he doesn’t have the rights. Steven threatened to sue and advises Sony that “Leonard Cohen gave us permission to put it out” and mentions something about the fan club showing. Steven gave Sony an email from Robert Kory that Leonard Cohen liked the film, saw it, and gave permission. Sony advises Steven “You don’t have the mechanical licenses.” Steven advises Sony that the “movie was finished in 1972. No one signed a license with you and Sony other than my father. Marty gave blanket licenses forever on the mechanicals – gratis.” Steven advised Kory that he can sell the tapes which include valuable footage of Cohen as a boy. At the festival, Steven spoke to Cohen’s fans about his father. Apparently the fans were upset with Steven. Steven felt his father’s presence during the entire situation.Somehow we end up discussing Robert Shapiro. Steven had mentioned that Phillip was not properly represented originally:“My daughter shot heroin with Brent Shapiro.” I called Robert Shapiro and said “I’m Steven Machat. We know each other. We were at a wedding [a friend of Steven’s wife got married.] Shapiro remembers Steven from the wedding. Steven tells Shapiro: “I’m sitting here with Brent. We are here with my daughter. They were shooting heroin.” Shapiro then says “I don’t know you. You could be anyone” and tells Steven “This conversation is ended.” Steven tells Shapiro “Your son is crying out to meet with you.” Steven tells Shapiro that Brent would like to talk to his father. Shapiro tells Steven “Fuck you” and hangs up.We discuss Devra Robaitaille and the DA’s interest in her. Steven says “She was Phil Spector’s assistant when I first started with Dad.” I ask why Steven thinks she turned on Phillip and he notes that they may have been lovers and seems to believe she was disgruntled.We discuss Cohen and his good rock ‘n roll comments about Phillip. Steven tells me that Cohen did not have attorney/client privilege with my lawyer, Steve Cron, the day he met with LAPD detectives about Phillip. Steven said Cohen once told him that “Phil Spector is insane” and says something about a “gun.” Steven asked Cohen “Were their bullets in the gun?” He says something about a “toy gun” that I’m not clear about. Cohen tells Steven “You’re just like your father.” I ask if he recalls that his father disarmed Cohen once. He does. Steven tells me that Cohen obstructed justice in a murder trial.Steven mentions something about Phil Spector and stolen tapes. He mentions Warner Bros Records and Death Of A Ladies Man. Sony said they got the tapes from Leonard Cohen. I suppose Steven spoke to Sony about this situation. Steven tells me that the tapes belong to Spector Records. Leonard Cohen had been dropped from Columbia at the time. He tells me that Cohen sold Phillip’s masters to Sony. The record came out on Sony overseas. The royalties were supposed to be paid to Phillip. The royalty split between Cohen and Phillip was 50/50. Phil Spector was to get all the royalties paid to him so Cohen’s share would not go against his deficit with Sony. I advise Steven that Phillip had me call Sony, after his father’s death, to advise them that they were paying his royalties through to Cohen.Steven tells me that Cohen is worried about how far Steven will go. I ask what Cohen had to say about me. He tells me “They thought I was in a conspiracy with you.” I ask why. Steven says “Because they are guilty.” He is talking about Cohen and Kory. Cohen started to talk about me. Cohen asks Steven “Do you know how good she was at it?” He mentions something about a $490,000 Amex bill. I don’t know that this is accurate – at all – and don’t believe it is. Steven tells Cohen that someone could spend that in one month. Steven and I discuss the fact that I had to put my card printing on my Amex card and other expenses. We were waiting for the Sony deal to close and Cohen’s terms were outrageous – a stock deal; net $4 million for him; $1 million for me (per Cohen). Steven asks Cohen why he didn’t file a criminal charge against me and asks if Cohen thinks the IRS won’t charge him. Steven then says “The workmen said it’s time to go to temple” and mentioned that Cohen is “hedging his bets.” Steven said Cohen “was so nervous.” Cohen told Steven that I took everything and he had to borrow money. We discuss the $1 million Cohen received in August/September 2004; the deal that Sony/ATV put an offer in for on October 21, 2010. Etc. Steven says “He owes you the commission on that.” Steven notes that “Robert Kory” thinks like this – “this” being what has unfolded. I note that Leonard Cohen thinks like this also. We discuss Ken Cleveland’s views on Robert Kory. We discuss my Indemnity Agreement and how difficult it must have been for Cohen to explain to Anjani Thomas my so-called 99.5% share of TH. I ask Steven why he thinks Scott Edelman would have willfully overlooked the corporate books and records. Steven says because Cohen “asked him to overlook them.” He thinks it’s a very very serious matter. He also thinks the situation with Boies Schiller attempting to find me lawyers is a very serious situation. Steven thinks it’s good that I documented my meetings with Kory for Boies Schiller because it serves as a record of what occurred.Steven advises me that I need to sue Cohen. He is concerned about statutes. I mention that fraud tolls the statutes. He advises me to sue Kory also. I tell Steven that he should sue Cohen and Kory also. He tells me that they “don’t know the law.” I believe he is talking about Cohen and Kory. He tells me he will be a witness for me. The fact that I have to amend my 2001-2010 tax returns and can’t is a serious legal issue from Steven’s perspective. We discuss the fact that two entities were snuck into the default judgment. Steven says that would be “thrown out of court,” notes that it’s illegal and notes that it’s THEFT. We discuss theft, wrongful conversion, suing for an accounting, etc. He advises me to go to UC Berkeley Law School. Says this would make a great thesis and have them help me with my lawsuit. He also advises me to write a book about “The Lawsuit.” I tell Steven I want to wait for Phil Spector and his legal team. Steven’s writing a book on the banking industry and other matters.Steven goes back to discussing Bird On A Wire. “Leonard Cohen acted like Mr. Big Shot. You see him in Israel telling the crowd he couldn’t sing. He told my dad he was going to incite a riot at that concert. He was going to tell them off.”I ask about his share of Stranger Music. Steven says “I told them I don’t want my share of Stranger Music. I don’t want anything to do with you.” He is very upset about everything Cohen has done to his father. He is upset about “When I Need You.” He told Cohen/Kory “That was my song. Give it back.” He explains that “Dad had me have my law school write the complaint” for the copyright infringement relating to Albert Hammond’s “When I Need You” and Cohen’s song “Famous Blue Raincoat.” I believe 17 notes were identical. I ask Steven if he thinks Cohen stole the melody from Albert Hammond. Steven said Cohen released the song first. Phil Spector probably knows the facts about this melody.From Wikipedia:The melody of the "hook" line, or chorus of "When I Need You" is identical to the part of the Leonard Cohen song "Famous Blue Raincoat," where the lyrics are as follows: "Jane came by with a lock of your hair, she said that you gave it to her that night that you planned to go clear." The melody of these lyrics matches the lyrics of "When I Need You" as follows: "(When I) need you, I just close my eyes and I'm with you, and all that I so want to give you, is only a heart beat away."
In a 2006 interview with the Globe & Mail Cohen said:
I once had that nicking happen with Leo Sayer. Do you remember that song 'When I Need You'?" Cohen sings the chorus of Sayer's number one hit from 1977, then segues into 'And Jane came by with a lock of your hair,' a lyric from 'Famous Blue Raincoat'. 'Somebody sued them on my behalf … and they did settle,' even though, he laughs, 'they hired a musicologist who said that particular motif was in the public domain and, in fact, could be traced back as far as Schubert.[3]
The same melody can be heard in Elton John's "Little Jeanie" in the lyrics: "Stepped into my life from a bad dream / Making the life that I had seem / Suddenly shiny and new"
John Clark, an attorney, sued for Cohen/Machat & Machat over this song. When it came time for Cohen to take a deposition he said “Marty, I don’t want to be deposed.” I explain to Steven that Cohen doesn’t want to be deposed or appear in court. He’s scared.Steven tells me what Cohen and Kory should have done with respect to him: “We don’t want anything more with the Machats … you have 15% of everything Cohen created while Marty was the custodian.” Steven says “He is a fraud” about Cohen. We discuss what Cohen has done to Phil Spector and Steven says Phillip “should go after Cohen” for perjury, etc. He then describes a conversation he had with his father. Steven asked Marty “Why do you like this guy? He doesn’t look at you.” Ultimately, Marty, who had been ripped off in the past by clients, said “You’re right. Fuck you’re right. Fuck him.” Just before he died, Marty told Steven “Stay with Phil. Don’t lose Phil.” Steven is confused about what happened with Phillip. We discuss the fact that there was so much confusion at the time of Marty’s death and agree that much of it arose from Cohen and Avril Giacobbi. Steven tells me a story about Peter Gabriel phoning him to discuss a “curse” he thought Avril put on Steven’s daughter. This upset Steven because he didn’t know what to do with that information as he informed Peter. We also discuss the fact that the Machat family suing me confused many people – including Phillip and Peter Gabriel. John Waitt also appeared to be confused about this – I ran into John at a restaurant and he thought Steven was behind the suit. Steven and I agree – Cheryl Machat was behind the lawsuit. She felt I was involved with Avril. Steven knows that I never spoke to Avril again after the funeral. He believes Cheryl may have been jealous and was confused at that time. She apparently thought she and I would manage Cohen although she and I never discussed that. This would have been fine with me. I liked Cheryl. We agree that she is a difficult individual and discuss the incident between her and Cohen. Steven thinks it may have occurred in Montreal or Los Angeles sometime prior to 1974.Steven then tells me “I met Cohen’s guy from Mt. Baldy.” I explain that Cohen broke Roshi’s heart in half and sent me to see him with $9500 in cash and a note basically telling Roshi that Cohen left him for another whore – Ramesh Balsekar.We end up talking about Phillip again. I comment that it is interesting, karmically, that Steven and I have stood by Phillip. Steven tells me that Philip did not even ask him to. I tell him that Phillip did not ask me to either and we talk about the night I met with Phillip after the Clarkson incident and what he told me actually happened. Steven tells me Clarkson shot herself. We discuss F. Lee Bailey’s evidence on-line and how outrageous it is that LAPD is aware of this and has not done anything. Steven asks me who the murderer was and I say some Latino guy, I believe, and note that I had already heard this story about a failed drug deal from the brother of an LAPD homicide detective. Of course, none of this is all that shocking to Steven and me. We also discuss Barry Bonds. Steven mentions that it was absurd that some DA was digging around in the garbage. I assure Steven that they all dig around in the garbage so what’s unusual about that. He says Anderson can legally be forced to sit in jail (after I say he has 5th Amendment rights) but does agree – he can sue for false imprisonment afterwards and the tape was illegal. Somehow, we end up discussing Baby Doll Gibson. Steven is shocked that this was concealed from the jury. He says it’s an outrage that Phillip was told Gibson could testify only if he took the stand. He says that the Gibson matter is a reversible error. Then I mention Raoul Julia’s son and the fact that his testimony was concealed from Phillip’s jury. Steven tells me a story about Raoul Julia and “Street Fighter.” Steven asked Raoul Julia why he wanted to be in the film. Raoul Julia told him for his sons. He then tells Steven that he only has six months to live and he wants to spend it with his sons. This struck Steven hard. I tell Steven that Raoul Julia was a student of the 16th Karmapa and actually thought the 16th Karmapa and I were having dinner together at a hotel in Los Angeles one night – it was actually Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche who blessed the set of “Hamlet.” Steven served as music attorney on “Street Fighter.”At the end of the conversation Steven told me that Marty died because Avril never took him to get his “lungs cleared.”I mention that Marty viewed Phillip as one of his sons. Steven tells me his father told him “Phil could be your older brother.” We agree – Marty would be proud of us for standing by Phillip.
