Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:55 PM
Subject: Re:
To: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, ": Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, 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>, "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>, "USLawEnforcement@google.com" <USLawEnforcement@google.com>, Feedback <feedback@calbar.ca.gov>, mike.feuer@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>
Hello IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and ICE,
This criminal is out of control. He's immune and deranged. He understands the Treaty re. extradition between Greece and the United States.
His latest criminally harassing emails have been addressed. The Criminal Stalker has been advised to cease and desist. His latest slander and false accusations have been addressed. Gianelli is NOT responding to me when he grabs my posts and harasses me over them. The man is a professional criminal. That is abundantly clear. No wonder people think lawyers are whores.
All the best,
Kelley
P.S. This cartoon could apply to "Stephen Gianelli," who appears to be moonlighting for the Spector prosecution and an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen's legal defense team.
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com> wrote:
Stephen Gianelli,I am responding to your two latest criminally harassing, defamatory, libelous, and threatening emails. Grabbing blog posts from riverdeepbook.blogspot.com and criminally harassing and stalking me over them is not responding to me. I am aware that many people, including myself, view you as a psychopath but that does not excuse your deranged conduct.My cease and desist letters have failed, for six straight years, to persuade you to bring you conduct to an immediate end. You have relentlessly targeted me, my sons, sister, friends, business associates, and others. You are now threatening witnesses. Those would include, Clea Surkhang, Dan Meade, Palden Ronge, Paulette Brandt, and Linda Carol.The truth is the defense to slander and you do not have the truth on your side. Neither does Leonard Cohen. You are the individual who continues to write me about Von Watteville, her threats to sue me (per Robert Kory's advice after she received Paulette Brandt's rent demand), and it is you who is using the words "prostitute" in these emails. You and your client should file the lawsuit you are threatening. You have an address for service and do not need to know where I reside. I do not know you and/or Karina Von Watteville and you both revolt me.I have no idea what video link you are referring to but believe 1) you are a liar; 2) you had Linda Carol's You Tube account shut down; and, 3) you belong in prison. I have been very clear about that fact.Is Von Watteville anticipating her next civil judgment. Has Sam Manning's estate settled over the house she is attempting to obtain from them? I can subpoena discovery in that matter. Did Von Watteville, as she advised me (in front of witnesses), obtain a $200,000 accident judgment, settle for $80,000 and plan to go after an insurance company? Did Von Watteville, as she stated in front of me (and witnesses) obtain a financial settlement from Eddie's estate or family? Von Watteville does not owe the man she resided with (just prior to Paulette) $4,000? The man didn't kick her out and Paulette's old friend (who she hadn't spoken to or seen in years) didn't email and call to say that Von Watteville was being kicked out and would end up homeless? That man didn't dump Von Watteville's property on Paulette Brandt's front yard? File the lawsuit and stop criminally harassing me over the matter. Continue to argue with the Small Claims Court. The Court awarded Paulette Brandt $6,700. The "evidence" the Court ORDERED Von Watteville to disclose to Paulette at both hearings was concealed and withheld - including your argument about statue of limitations. The Court should understand that it is arguing with a lawyer - and not Von Watteville who signed the declaration under penalty of perjury. The Court did not grant Von Watteville the $10,000 she attempted to obtain from Paulette Brandt in response to her Small Claims Complaint. Therefore, the Court did not believe your client who was given the legal two months notice required to request that someone vacate your premises in Los Angeles. These matters are before the Small Claims Court and I am not a party to that matter. Therefore, you lied when you said I am attempting to "extort" the rental arrears from Von Watteville and there's a reason people think lawyers are whores. You should be attacked as Exhibit A.I have received your threat re. our potential future property and Von Watteville's desire to seize and sell that property. I suppose that would include my share of intellectual property that Cohen stole via a default in a matter I wasn't served. Tell Von Watteville not to hold her breath although I understand that perjury and fraud is rampant before LA Superior Court. The 9th Circuit is aware of that fact as well.Cease and desist, Criminal.Kelley LynchFrom: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:34 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated , May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>Yes I am.From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 8:23 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Kelly.Sopko; OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; lrohter; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; stan.garnett; USLawEnforcement @google.com; Feedback; mike.feuer@lacity. org; mayor.garcetti
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch email dated , May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PMHi IRS, FBI, and DOJ,This criminal stalker grabbed this post off my blog (that he has attempted to blackmail me over in an attempt to silence me), deleted information, and is lying that he's responding to me. He's not. The Criminal Stalker, Gianelli, was not copied in. Please review the original. That's the best way to authenticate and confirm information. You will not find his email address on this email or post.The Criminal Stalker/Agent Provocateur/Infiltrator/Witness Tamperer/Moonlighting Liar has been advised once again to cease and desist. All the best,KelleyOn Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:Stephen Gianelli,You continue to criminally harass me. You are copying Paulette Brandt and Linda Carol in and falsely accusing Linda Carol of libeling your client, Karina Von Watteville, over her declaration that will be submitted to Judge Hess and others. It is indeed relevant and material. That would include, but is not limited to, her call to Robert Kory following receipt of Paulette Brandt's rent demand letter. The Small Claims Court granted the judgment to Paulette Brandt initially. You are now arguing directly with the Small Claims Court. I am not a party to that matter and would assume the Court can determine that Von Watteville did not write her legal argument contained in the declaration signed under penalty of perjury. A lawyer did - you.My emails to you are cease and desist emails that address your slander, witness tampering, witness intimidation tactics, defense of Leonard Cohen. You are the individual criminally harassing me. You just grabbed a post from my public blog, riverdeepbook.blogspot.com, removed information from it, and emailed it to me in an attempt to defend Leonard Cohen and harass me. You are writing about Kevin Huvane and Bryan Lourd (CAA) who you do not know but have criminally harassed. I am convinced you wrote and sent the "bloody stump" email falsely accusing Oliver Stone of criminal conduct. You created the moniker 14th Sheepdog when you attempted to slander the 14th Sharmapa. The bloody stump email was sent by the 17th Shitzu. I have contacted LAPD's TMU about this incident and your threats that they will prosecute me for being victimized over a disturbing and vulgar email stating that i should be murdered, raped, and commit suicide. You do not know me, Paulette Brandt, or Linda Carol, but just wrote that Paulette Brandt and I should commit suicide. The stakes are obviously high and lows are inconceivably vile, deranged, and vulgar. You have harassed and threatened, insulted, or attempted to intimidate nearly every one of my witnesses who submitted a declaration to Judge Hess in Case No. BC338322. You are not an attorney of record in that matter but your conduct was brought to his attention. Is fraud upon the court ridiculous? Well, perhaps that's because courts do not take it seriously. You have been criminally harassing me, my sons, and many others for six straight years now. You publicly stated that you spoke with Kory/Rice in May 2009 and that's when you impersonated a journalist by the name of "Joff Belark" and wrote a false and slanderous article for me on your blog dedicated to Phil Spector since Doron Weinberg joined Phil Spector's legal team. Your best posting buddy hates your idol, Bruce Cutler, which is quite bizarre.The article on the Darwin Exception where your buddy, Kelly Green, was posting relates to Phil Spector. You argue Phil SPector prosecution theories online. See Truth Sentinel's interview site with me and Paulette Brandt where you have slandered and attacked me and falsely accused Ann Diamond of stalking Leonard Cohen. I worked with Cohen for approximately 20 years and Ann Diamond did not stalk him. You stated on this site that Mick Jagger/Rolling Stones obtained a restraining order against Ann Diamond. That is a bald faced lie. Dennis Riordan's brief clearly states that Clarkson's DNA was on the bullets. Bruce Cutler advised the jury that the gun was not Spector's. That's precisely what he told Mick Brown. See your comments below. You appear to be moonlighting for the Spector prosecution team. They evidently believe that Eminem wants to "dry hump" Pat Dixon. You are the individual who publicly stated that Pat Dixon was involved in the deranged Boulder PD roll by at Deneuve Construction. I have asked IRS, FBI, and DOJ to investigate that matter. I have spoken with FBI extensively about that matter. I suppose their agent was correct - LAPD wasn't behind it although Officer Storbeck told me he heard from LAPD. LAPD doesn't know me so their call to Boulder PD is potentially criminal. I've documented all of this for DOJ.I am not emailing you about Case No. BQ003717. You emailed me about that matter. You also attempt to infiltrate matters and elicit information. You're an amateur Agent Provocateur and liability from what I can tell. The domestic violence order is evidence of fraud. I will file a motion to vacate that. You are not the attorney of record in that matter. Michelle Rice is.So you have admitted that you are targeting me over my public statements and blogs and included evidence of that fact. You have now written that Linda Carol libeled Karina Von Watteville. I wouldn't take that to the bank. LAPD shouldn't either. We'll see what unfolds. You/she has an address for service should we follow through with Kory's advice to file a fraud lawsuit re. my handful of cease and desist letters with IRS, FBI, and DOJ copied in. I suppose ICE thinks this 1977 tax memorandum to Leonard Cohen is irrelevant.My RICO lawsuit is none of your business. I have, however, sent DOJ the first draft of the RICO suit against Leonard Cohen. I'm reviewing the Hobb's Act re. EXTORTION.You weren't copied on the email I posted to my blog that you included in this harassing email. You are obsessed with my blog, me, and my witnesses. Therefore, supplemental declarations will now be presented to Judge Hess.I have once again advised you to cease and desist, Gianelli. It's an elementary legal concept. I understand you believe you're immune and that's why you sent me the U.S. treaty with Greece on extradition. Perhaps you could be deported. You've made it clear in your not so veiled threats that you may have Mafia connections. Or, did your last email about the Mafia mention that you were bluffing?Kelley LynchTruth Sentinel Episode 40 (Phil Spector, truth, lies, guilt and innocence, murder trial)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB1WMxTwnHg Truth Sentinel Episode 39 (Leonard Cohen, truth, lies, guilt, innocence, law, MK Ultra)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVXTY0ATTR8 Leonard Cohen Tax Planning Memo to Bill Dubey/Elmer, Fox, Westheimer & Co., CPAs from Ken Fratco dated August 22, 1977Basis for TaxationLeonard Cohen has ties with several jurisdictions which could serve as a basis for taxing income earned by him. These jurisdictions are Canada, Greece, and the United States. I would like to set-out the basis for taxation in each of these countries. Canada taxes the world-wide income of its residents. Canada defines residents as those individuals physically residing in Canada. Greece also taxes the world-wide income of its residents; however, the Greek law defines residents as those individuals who have an actual dwelling place in Greece and who are domiciled in Greece. The U.S., on the other hand, taxes both citizens and residents on their world-wide income. The U.S. definition of residents is much broader and more encompassing than that of Canada or Greece. Any individual who resides in the U.S, for other than on a temporary basis or any individual who considers himself a domiciliary of the U.S., whether or not physically present in the U.S., is considered to be a resident of the U.S. All three countries tax income from a source within their respective jurisdiction paid to non-residents; there are, however several exceptions established by treaty.Because of the facts of Leonard Cohen’s case, a closer examination of what is considered U.S. source income and how it is taxed is necessary. Any compensation paid by a U.S. corporation is considered to be U.S. source income. If that compensation is paid in connection with the performance of personal services in the U.S. by a non-resident alien then such income is considered to be effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business and is taxed at the graduated income tax rates which apply to citizens and residents (IRC Sec. 871 (b)(1)).If the non-resident alien does not perform personal services within the U.S. then such compensation paid will be taxable at a flat 30% rate (Reg. 1.864-3 and IRC Sect. 871(a)(1)).RecommendationsLeonard Cohen, while remaining a Canadian citizen, should continue to reside outside of Canada. He should, however, from time to time, accomplish acts which establish Canada as his domicile - the place he truly considers his home. Such actions, of course, must not include actually staying in Canada for other than temporary, short-term trips. Because Canada only taxes individuals who are residents, continued citizenship and domicile will not subject him to Canadian taxes and will aid him in preventing taxation by the U.S. or Greece on world-wide income.Because the U.S. taxes non-resident aliens on U.S. source income and because compensation paid from a U.S. corporation is considered U.S. source income, only royalties and performance income from services performed in the U.S. should be funneled into the U.S. corporations. Royalties and performance income from sources outside the U.S. will not be taxed by the U.S. as long as Leonard Cohen remains a non-resident alien and as long as such income is not funneled through the U.S. corporation.Leonard Cohen’s stays in the U.S. should be continued under a non-resident visa (H-1 qualifies as such) and should be temporary in nature. Temporary residents, even of long duration, merely for the purpose of transacting business or engaging in employment is not sufficient to establish residency. Hutchins v. Commissioner, 8 TCM December 18, 178. It should be noted, however, that residing in the U.S. for one year sets up a presumption of residency. Even though such presumption may be rebutted by proper evidence Leonard Cohen’s stays should be monitored and should not extend to a year. Income from royalties and performance income outside the U.S. should be funneled through a corporation incorporated in a “tax haven” country. This will prevent taxation by the U.S. and will most likely limit withholding by other countries where royalties and performance income are earned.As far as Greece is concerned, so long as Leonard Cohen’s domicile can be established for being elsewhere, there is no basis for taxing any income other than from Greek sources. The fact that Leonard Cohen maintains a house in Greece and will, from time to time, stay in Greece will not in and of themselves cause taxation. His trip to and ties to Greece should be reviewed periodically to prevent any presumption of domicile.Scott, if - as Kelley Lynch now claims in her second post of today - "Clarkson's fingerprints were on the bullets" found in the gun that killed her, Phil Spector would never have been convicted and his lawyers would certainly have introduced it and his wife would certainly be mentioning it and his many post conviction appeals would certainly mention it. But none of the above happened, because LANA CLARKSON'S FINGERPRINTS ARE NOT ON ANY BULLETTS, and I challenge Kelley Lynch to post a link her that says they are. I followed both trials, I spoke frequently with Spector's defense attorney for the retrial, and I have read every post conviction brief filed on Phil Spector's behalf - and this is simply another one of Lynch's MANY lies. Should Mr. Spector receive a fair trial? I have been answering that question yes ever since I started reporting about the case in 2008. But if you start misrepresenting the trial evidence you lose all credibility as an advocate for a retrial at all.Scott, excuse me. Clarkson's DNA was on the bullets. You can read through Dennis Riordan's brief to the District Court that I sent you. That evidence is critical because it means she loaded the gun, it was her gun (Cutler - who Gianelli appears extremely interested in although I'm not - told Mick Brown the gun was not Spector's), and she fired the gun. I did read somewhere that someone said her fingerprints were on the bullet but for now I can only correct this and confirm that her DNA was. Gianelli is evidently moonlighting for the prosecutor. As I noted, he sets up reasonable doubt theories that can be attacked and/or refuted. Your classic amateur agent provocateur/infiltrator. Not bright - but extremely aggressive and vile. He engages in criminal witness tampering as well. Every witness who has provided me with a declaration has been criminally harassed by Gianelli, Cohen's fan Walsh, and others. It is highly coordinated. In any event, Scott, thank you for your fair reporting on the Spector case. I would assume some other cyber terrorists will show up as well. Perhaps Kelly Green, Gianelli's vulgar posting pal who HATES Spector and Cutler, will. I usually assume IT is Alan Jackson. Hard to say without a proper investigation. Gianelli has relentlessly targeted me and others for five years. My sister's attorney advised him to cease and desist years ago. He continues, right through today. to criminally harass her. Kelley+Kelley Lynch Lana Clarkson's DNA was not found on the bullets either. Lana Clarkson's saliva was found in a swab taken of Mr. Spector's genital area - suggesting that Mr. Clarkson may have performed a sexual act on Mr. Spector prior to her death. In addition, the bullets in the gun that killed Clarkson matched .38 caliber bullets of a distinctive type ("P+ loads") found in a partially empty package of bullets found elsewhere in Spector's home by police and the gun itself matched the empty holster found in the entry table drawer near Clarkson's body. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE AT TRIAL that it was Mr. Spector's gun that killed Clarkson. The only dispute centered around WHO WAS HOLDING the gun when it discharged and killed her. The defense never claimed it was not Clarkson's gun in either trial or in ANY of Spector's post conviction appellate briefs. My theory of how Clarkson got the gun (if she shot herself) is that Spector - who never left the house unarmed - was wearing the gun on his person at the House of Blues, and Clarkson saw Spector doff the gun and return the gun (still in the holster) to the drawer when they arrived. Clarkson then returned to the entry, and removed the gun from the drawer where she saw Spector place it leaving the holster where it was. KELLEY LYNCH IS SIMPLPY MAKING THIS DNA "EVIDENCE" UP AS SHE GOES ALONG. Which is par for the course, because she lies about everything.+Stephen Gianelli On page 18, line 4 of Dennis Riordan's Legal Brief (in pdf): "Clarkson's DNA was found on the gun and ammunition". I have not seen the original lab report. Granted, forensic evidence could sometimes be open to conflicting interpretations, but it would require a great leap of imagination to claim that in a "struggle", Clarkson's DNA could have ended up on the bullets INSIDE THE CHAMBER. The most logical explanation is that Clarkson loaded the gun+Alan Hootnick To the contrary, Alan - I carried a similar gun concealed for several years and all chambers of the cylinder are open facing forward (with the bullets exposed) with the exception of the cylinder being fired. Basically it is five or six (depending on the model) open tubes with bullets in them with the tips exposed. The fatal shot was fired with the very short (2-1/2" barrel) inside of Lana Clarkson's mouth - both sides agreed at trial. All experts also agreed that the bullet would penetrate the soft palette with great force creating high pressure inside Clarkson's head, which was then violently expelled in a "blow-back" action together with Clarkson's blood, brain matter and other tissue at high velocity back outside the mouth toward the gun and in the general direction that Clarkson was facing. The barrel of the revolver was in the center of this blow-back cloud of expelled gas, blood and tissue, with the open, loaded cylinders surrounding the barrel obstructing the mouth and receiving the center of the blast. Indeed, a primary defense argument was that given the force of this explosion of expelled gas, blood, and tissue from the wound, one would have expected Spector's white blazer to have been literally spray painted with blood if he was the shooter, and the relatively pristine condition of the jacket (with just a small pin sized drop of blood on it) proved Spector was neither in close proximity to Clarkson when the fatal shot was fired nor was he holding the gun. If the gun used was an automatic weapon I would tend to agree with you. If the DNA consisted of only epithelial DNA from skin tissue (transferred from fingers upon handling) I might agree with you. Additionally, given Spector's paranoia, the location of the matching "P+" bullets in another part of the home, the empty concealed carry holster in the entry table drawer, and Spector's habit of carrying concealed when he left the house, it is more likely that Spector doffed the gun and placed it, still in the holster, in the drawer when he walked in with Clarkson - thus accounting for how she knew where the gun was. I don't think it likely that Spector would keep a gun that was obviously designed for concealed carry, in a concealed carry holster, in the entry table drawer for ready access whenever he stepped out of the mansion, in an unloaded condition, nor do I think it likely that Clarkson took Spector's gun out of the drawer and then loaded it with bullets stored in another room. And as I said previously, IT WAS UNDISPUTED that Clarkson was shot with Spector's gun, the only dispute centering on who was holding the gun when it killed Clarkson.CA vs. Spector – Revisiting Opening Statements – Bruce Cutler
Posted by thedarwinexception on September 2, 2007OK – here’s a new and different quiz. Below you will find the text of the opening statement of Bruce Cutler. I went through it yesterday and today, trying to compare and contrast what Cutler promised and what was actually delivered. What the opening statements said we would find “from the evidence” and what we actually found when the evidence was all presented and given to the jury.I went through and found a lot of areas where Cutler promised something, only to find that this was not what was actually testified to at all. I found lots of innuendos and hints of explosive or blockbuster material that never materialized at all, and lots of misstatements of what the evidence would show.So, here’s your chance. This time you won’t be able to go through and research or look up answers. This time you’ll have to interpret, extrapolate and cogitate.Find areas of Cutler’s opening that didn’t match the testimony given. Find areas where Cutler says “the evidence will show…” when no, it really didn’t show that at all. And predict what areas Alan Jackson will jump on to refute what the defense said in opening statements that they didn’t actually deliver.And in the meantime, enjoy the revisiting of the opening statements. I think it’s important to take another look at them before closings, just to remind ourselves what we were promised, and keep these statements in mind when we are listening to closings.Ladies and Gentlemen – Good afternoon – I haven’t spoken with you since last week – I think it was on Wednesday of last week – so It’s been a week – as you know, I’m Bruce Cutler and I’ve come here to represent Philip Spector in this very, very serious matter. And with the court’s permission, I’d like to begin my opening remarks to you.Those photographs we saw, the remarks we heard from Mr. Jackson are not evidence – the photographs are, the remarks are not. It seems from Mr. Jackson that he has, from his opening statements, which is not evidence, a very negative view of Mr. Spector. It seems from Mr. Jackson’s opening remarks that he has depicted and described him in the most negative of terms. So it becomes a problem to alert you to what the evidence will show. Part of what the evidence will show is that being successful, accomplishing so much, achieving so much in life, doing so much for others, when you achieve so much, can come back to hurt you. The car is too nice, the restaurant is too nice, the evidence will show, the hotel in Manhattan, the Carlyle, is too nice, the evidence will show, fame and success comes back to haunt you.The evidence will show this was a tragic accident and that it’s a sad thing for any jury to see photographs that you saw. And the evidence will also show that back on February 3rd of 2003, before they even had a cause of death, let alone a manner of death, they had murder on their mind, murder on their mind, the police. According to Mr. Jackson, DeSouza, a substitute driver, with a language problem, who was full of snacks and cookies and water and sound asleep, sitting in a closed car with the heat on and the radio on and the fountain going, could hear what Mr. Jackson claimed he heard, and that awakening from a deep sleep, which Mr. Jackson apparently did not mention the evidence will show, he was able to be startled enough and to hear those five fatal words “I think I killed somebody”, “I think I killed somebody”, “I think somebody is killed”, or maybe he didn’t hear anything. Because according to Mr. Jackson the evidence will show that DeSouza asked Mr. Spector “What happened sir?” and he received a shrug. But when I say to you, ladies and gentlemen, murder was on their mind, this is what I mean. This is a quote from Detective Fournier, I hope I’m pronouncing it right, and Tomlin, but I think it’s Detective Fournier, F-O-U-R-N-I-E-R, to DeSouza, in an interview, in Alhambra, on the third of February, right after this incident:Quote: “This is going to be a high profile case, no doubt about it, he’s a man with a lot of money, he’s wealthy, and it’s going to be considered high profile. It’s going to be in the news, it’s going to be a big thing.” And DeSouza says “What do I have to do?” And the detective says “Tell the truth”. And DeSouza says “I want somebody to direct me.” And the detective indicates “What you saw, you saw, what you heard, you heard, and that isn’t going to change tomorrow, next week, next year, or down the road.”What I’m getting to, ladies and gentlemen, is that by the time Alhambra responded to the home and by the time they spoke to DeSouza, they had delineated and described this case as a murder. It had no alternative in their mind. It had no alternative in their mind. If the evidence shows you that the decedent who is five eleven, was five eleven, 161 pounds and almost 6 feet in heels, and who was familiar with guns and firearms and the evidence shows you that – and we prove that to you, and the evidence indicates to you that this was a self inflicted gunshot wound, that at the time of the discharge of the weapon, of the gun, it was in her mouth, by her own hand, not by Mr. Spector’s, and if science proves anything, and we prove to you, that Mr. Spector was at least 2 1/2 to 4 feet away, at the time of the gun discharge, and if you find from the evidence that…Dixon: Objection – ArgumentFidler: It’s not argument…the evidence will show, that at the time of the discharge, from what we’ve seen and what we’ve heard, the decedent fired the gun herself, and I’m not suggesting to you and I’m not saying the evidence will indicate to you that this was a suicide. But a self inflicted gunshot wound, ladies and gentlemen, can be an accidental suicide. And if the evidence, and I submit, the evidence will show you that’s the case. And the way we started today, early this morning, was that Mr. Jackson, who was taking Mr. Spector to task for being successful, said he ran with a haughty crowd. Haughty. H-A-U-G-H-T-Y. That means arrogant. Supercilious. He doesn’t run with – the evidence will show that he didn’t run with any haughty crowd. The evidence will show that Philip was born in New York, as I was, a city boy. Lower middle class background and that the evidence will also show, unlike Mr. Jackson mentioned, that at the age of 9 years old he lost his father to a sudden, shocking death.Dixon: Objection, relevancyFidler: At this point I don’t know whether this will be relevant. But I’m going to allow this during opening statement. The offer is made that this is what the evidence will show. There may be a theory of admissibility. I’ll allow it…and that he moved here with mother, Bertha, at 9 years of age. So, I don’t want any of you to feel that some how, some way anything was given to Philip. Quite the opposite is the case. The evidence will show that he had a talent and he worked very hard at his talent. To make an impact in this world, in the world of music and in the world of entertainment and in the world of art. So when Mr. Jackson talks about these women, he mentions some of them. And that you are going to hear from some of these women who some how, some way, had a romantic interest in him. The evidence will show you what the reason, what the draw, what the attraction was, for them to be interested in Phillip. Why were they interested in him? The evidence will show to you that in his way, he was a true – and is a true – romantic of a bygone era. He didn’t chase any of these women. They came to him, they wanted to spend time with him.. These were relationships that occurred between him and these women. They have nothing to do with the death of the decedent. Judge Fidler will tell you what, if anything, you can use with regard to the testimony of the other women. With regard to a narrow legal issue in this case. But be assured, rest assured, that these incidents to which Mr. Jackson referred, go back as far as 30 years ago, at least one of them does, and the rest 20, 25,.18 12, and 10 years ago. Not one of these women, not one, stopped seeing Philip, not one of these women prosecuted him. Phillip was never charged once for assaulting or hurting another human being, and he’s in his 6th decade. Not one of these women came forward to them until after this incident. In this day and age, the evidence will show, with the excessive information that goes around the world, as you see from our friends here in the audience, after February 3 of 03, they decided, and the prosecutors decided, to come together. And they came forward at that time, or they reached out to them at that time. But if you listen to what Mr. Jackson the prosecutor said here, they had murder on their mind on February 3 of 03. Their case was DeSouza right then and there. They didn’t have any need at that time, the evidence will show, for a cause of death. They didn’t have any need, the evidence will show, at that time for a manner of death. The evidence will show that when the coroner, who they will call in this case, had some misgivings and some doubts about how the decedent died, and wanted some further information about the decedent, the prosecutors office, at that time, said no. And from February 3 of 03, to September of 03, there was subtle and direct pressure put on Dr. Pena and some of the others in the coroners office, to declare this death, as gory as it is, as horrific as it is, as egregious as it is, to declare it a homicide. Because as you heard from the prosecutors, there were no witnesses to this. What you’ve heard from the prosecutors here today, is that this is some continuation of a pattern. The evidence will show otherwise. That this was some evidence of intent on the part of Phillip, the evidence will show otherwise. That this was a motive on the part of Philip. The evidence will show otherwise. That there was some malice on the part of Phillip, the evidence will show otherwise.The evidence will show that the decedent approached Phillip. When she found out who he was, she came over to him, she showed an interest in him. I mean, sit back, take in so much, Mr. Jackson made such an efficacious and forceful argument, painted a man he doesn’t know as almost a stark raving maniac. And the opposite is the case. These other women have nothing to do with the death of the decedent. These other women had relationships with Phillip, the decedent and Philip were strangers according to the evidence in this case. And, according to the evidence in this case, the decedent, at her own volition, there was no pressure, there was no pressure applied, she decided to come home with him. She found out who he was. You’ll hear from the evidence in this case, that the decedent, and she should rest in peace, had some difficulties with her life. I told you in the beginning I will not besmirch the reputation of a decedent. I won’t do it. But if it’s relevant as to manner of death, I will go into it, because it’s relevant to clearing Philip of these false charges. And you’ll understand and appreciate that she was 41 years old, she shouldn’t have gone like that.How do I speak to you jurors, after you see photographs like that, you probably want to strangle me, I don’t mean that literally, but you’re probably so against us, you think that there’s something to it, because of 5 words allegedly said to one taking a siesta. DeSouza, he was asleep, he claimed, at the time he heard the noise. That’s what I learned was the term for a nap, but 5 words to one person, that’s what they said. They’ve taken that and they’ve added, and what’s called, the evidence you’ll see, is like an interstitial filler, like those foam peanuts you see in a box when you get a fancy present from a store, maybe a clock from Cartier, if you’re fortunate, or a clock from anywhere that works, and they surround the item with the foam peanuts so it doesn’t break. But here the evidence will show when you open the box, it’s just the peanuts, there is no clock in there. These women are being permitted to testify under the aegis of Judge Fidler. They’re permitted to do it. I submit to you that the evidence will show they are being called to assassinate Phillip’s character. To make him look bad. To make him look like something he’s not. This is a man whose music changed the world.Jackson: Objection your Honor.Fidler: The objection is sustained, that’s going into argument.This is a man that Hal Blaine, who is on the prosecutors witness list, said in the 37 years I worked with him I never once saw him with a gun. I never saw him in the studio doing anything off color. Ever. I heard the rumors he said. The problem is, out here, the evidence will show, with the insatiable, insatiable appetite for well known people, the insatiable news about well known people, rumors begin, innuendos start and stories are started. Fiction becomes fact. Untruth becomes truth and that’s what you’ll see. And you’ll see that even our great writer, from the evidence, Tom Wolfe, indicated that back then, when Philip hit his high note, through the 60’s and 70’s and the late 50’s, he closed down his non music life, he became a very private person, and so, when you become a private person, then Mr. Jackson can show on the screen, that he owned a home in Pasadena. The home in Pasadena didn’t have a back door, but they say it anyway. Then he can say that he lived in Hollywood. The evidence will show that Phillip never lived in Hollywood. Then he can show a photograph of the Pyrenees Castle. Built in 1919. It was called the Pyrenees castle when it was built, which is a landmark in Alhambra, and make it seem like it’s some den of iniquity, and it’s some private possession and somehow was given to Phillip. Because he came here from the Bronx with his mother at 9 years old. Nothing was given to him. He didn’t mistreat these women.This is an example, the evidence will show, that something terrible happened in his home, he was arrested for it – not charged until 10 1/2 moths later. Not indicted until 17 months later. But he was charged with it because the police had murder on their mind. And that’s how they went to the house. The evidence will show that when they approached Phillip’s home they waited outside for 30 or 40 minutes. You listen to Mr. Jackson the prosecutor you’d think they were storming the Bastille. And they knew from DeSouza, if he was honest, that there was nobody in the house. The decedent died a shocking, horrific death, most shocking kind of thing, and the evidence will show that you can’t point a finger and have somebody pay for that because it happened in his home. The evidence will show that the prosecutor has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are not empty words. That’s the highest form of proof we have in this whole country. Shadow of a doubt is nice, Mr. Jackson said, there is no shadow of a doubt.Jackson: Objection – this is argumentFidler: The objection is sustained. You may proceed into opening statement..Beyond a reasonable doubt, Judge Fidler will tell you. That’s the standard in this country. When they approached the castle, and they saw Phillip, they claim, according to the opening statement by the prosecutor. They saw him on the second floor. The evidence will show he wasn’t doing anything improper. This was a shocking event. This was an event that shocks you to the core. So, not everybody, the evidence will show, knows what to do. Not everyone, the evidence will show, knows what to say. Not everyone, the evidence will show, has worked for the EMS or the 911 folks. Not everybody has done that. And the evidence will show that in a shocking event people do things that sometimes are not explainable. And the evidence will show they’re not consciousness of guilt. But they’re consciousness of terrorized innocence. Consciousness of terrorized innocenceJackson: ObjectionFidler: The objection is sustained. Please return to your opening statement and do not argue the case.So, ladies and gentlemen, when they approached the castle and Mr. Jackson says the policemen gave Philip directives and orders. They told him to put his hands up. He did put his hands up. He invited them in. He said “Come in – you’ve got to see this. There’s a dead woman in my home.” Whether he had 14 phones or 1400 phones. The evidence will show how does that change anything? Whether he ran upstairs or walked upstairs or ran outside or didn’t go outside – the important thing is at the time of the discharge of the gun – at the time the gun was fired – Phillip was not holding that gun – we’ll prove that to you – she was.Evidence will show that – this is so hard after seeing the photographs – the evidence will show that playing with guns in a provocative or salacious manner – can result in death. Instantaneous death as Mr. Jackson said. A most horrific death. Completely avoidable. Completely unnecessary. A complete waste. But not because Philip is a man of note. Not because he’s successful. Not because he had arguments with women 30, 20, 18 and 15 years ago. The evidence will show he never hurt anybody. He’s never been charged with hurting anybody. He never put a gun in a woman’s mouth – he would never do something like that.Jackson: Objection – this is argumentFidler: That has become argument – the objection is sustained.Evidence will show you that. None of the so called 1101 B or “incident with gun” women to which Mr. Jackson referred will give that kind of testimony. The evidence will also show why they’re coming. Why they’re coming. The evidence will show that if we were in another site, another place, another city, another state, without the great cache of Hollywood, without the great cache of the entertainment capitol of the world and if Philip didn’t have a name of major note because of what he’s accomplished in his life, they wouldn’t be here. They wouldn’t be here. The evidence will show some of them peddled their stories to magazines. Supermarket tabloids. He mentioned Miss Jennings. She’s a freelance photographer. He called her a professional photographer. I like that. I like that. But she’s not Philip. And neither are the other women. These were women who were drawn to him. To him. And came back to him after these alleged incidents. To be with him. Some of them even called him after the February 3rd incident. Some of them even communicated with his daughter well after the February 3rd incident. So how is it the evidence will show that they decide to come forward now? What’s their motivation?Jackson: Objection – This is argumentFidler: That part, the last quoted words is argument. The objection is sustained.The evidence will show, and I know you will look to see where their heart is. The evidence will show that at times people act a certain way for their own benefit, the evidence will show. You might even see some tears in the courtroom. The evidence will show that some people, when they see another is vulnerable, when they see another is vulnerable, falsely charged with the most seriousJackson: Objection. ArgumentFidler: The latter portion is argument, the objection is sustained.Charged with the most serious crime you could be, former girlfriends, boyfriends, employees, paramours, so called friends, can really give it to you.Jackson: Your honor once again, this is argumentFidler: Sustained.Just so it’s clear. When you hear from the prosecutor, you get the impression that it is Phillip who pulled and wanted to go with these women. This was a mutual relationship. The evidence will show that he took these women to the finest places. Now he’s being punished for it. Took them to the Rock and Roll induction ceremony dinners. The evidence will show he himself was inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame some 20 years agoJackson: Objection – relevance.Fidler: That may or may not come in. I’m going to overrule the objection at this point.By his dear friend Tina Turner, who presented him. The evidence will show this is a man who spanned the years from Lenny Bruce through John Lennon. For those who don’t know, Lenny Bruce was a political satirist in New York and all over, who spoke out, in fact, he preceded the great Richard Pryor and many others. He used to speak out in a strong way, and he was prosecuted and persecutedJackson: Objection – this is irrelevantFidler: The objection is sustained.So If you want to know who Lenny Bruce isJackson: Objectionthat’s who he is…Fidler: The objection is sustained – the jury is admonished to disregard . Any thing where I sustain an objection you are admonished to disregard it.And Philip spans all the way from that through the John Lennon era. And you’ll hear evidence that he worked with John Lennon. That was his dear friend who was murdered in New York. That he worked with George Harrison. That was his dear friend who died. That he worked with the Rolling Stones. That he worked with all these girl groups. That he extended himself to others. He made livings for others through his talent. He was not a taker the way he’s been described by the Prosecutor. But he was a success and a talent who gave to others. That’s what he was. Whether he became a private person, a private person, because he closed off his personal life, his non music life, as the great Tom Wolfe said, that’s a separate part. But that doesn’t mean, and you should never accept the thought which was put to you this morning, that somehow there’s evil there. Evil in the castle. Dubbed the castle.You’ve heard not one iota of evidence in this case. Including my statement this afternoon, and including the statement by Mr. Jackson. And if you were going into the room to deliver a verdict now, you know what the verdict would be. So there’s no more problem with having to worry about you prejudging the evidence, because after today and tomorrow, you will be judging the evidence. But I submit to you, please bear in mind what I say. That a theory that the prosecutor has weaved in this case is just that – it’s a theory. The ex girlfriends who are coming forth have nothing to do with the decedent who he had just met. Nothing whatsoever. Some people have arguments and say things and do things, the evidence will show, are not meant for a public forum. It’s interesting to hear today about one of them. Miss Melvin – and the prosecutor indicated that she worked for someone of note. And the evidence is going to show that Phillip was friendly with Miss Rivers. That was his friend. Somebody he knew. That’s why he went to her parties.The evidence is also going to show that part of the cache and the appeal to be around Phillip Spector was because of the success he had in life. And that does not mean, as I said to you in voir dire, that he’s looking for anything from you other than justice. This tough courtroom, where it takes you so long to get up, so long to get down, wait in line for lunch. Our offices are not here. This tough, tough building is a temple of justice. That’s really what it is. As difficult as it seems to be. This is a temple of justice, and as a temple of justice, you need to understand….Jackson: I’m sorry to interrupt. This sounds like it’s getting into argument.Fidler: It’s getting close but it hasn’t quite got there.. I think it’s a precursor, so I’m going to overrule the objection.This temple of justice is here for you to do justice. To analyze the evidence. To evaluate the evidence. To look at it with a careful eye. A judicious eye. To understand and appreciate. To understand and appreciate why the prosecutor, the evidence will show, is going back so many years. To bring up something that you may or may not think is relevant to this case.Jackson: Objection. This is Argument.Fidler: The objection is Sustained.And judge Fidler will tell you how to use it.Jackson: Objection. This is argument.Fidler: Sustained. Please, what the evidence will actually show as far as facts go.When I mention murder on their mind. You’ll see from the evidence that once the police department had a person of major note. And this has been going on for well over a hundred years. Well over a hundred years out here. Someone of major note had a death in his home. A drowning outside his home. The police had murder on their mind. And so because of that, they did everything they could to take care of Mr. DeSouza. Who called himself on the 911 tape – Souza. He was here illegally, I don’t fault him. There are 11 – 13 million people who want to come to the United States. He was here illegally. But he was working. I don’t fault him for that. I don’t fault him for that. I don’t fault him for that. You are going to see from the evidence that he had some animus and antipathy towards Phillip. You’ll hear from the evidence that he said to the police, in his own speaking terms and you’ll consider and appreciate that this happened over 4 years ago, and he’s been in this country under the aegis and protection of the District Attorney, with their help, and his English is better and is better and is better, and you’ll try and think how it was four years ago, when he first heard these things. And you’ll understand and appreciate what they did for him and why. And the jealousy and the animus will be indicated by him on the stand. You’ll hear evidence about that. “Other customers like to talk to me. Other customers speak to me. Mr. Spector didn’t speak to me. Other customers I went home at 2, 3 o’clock in the morning. Or 12 midnight. Mr. Spector kept me late. Kept me late.”I submit to you the evidence will show that the decedent, the decedent, not only went there voluntarily, and I don’t mean anything unkind about that, moved her car. I believe the evidence will also, and I submit to you, will show, that she had a design of her own. She had a plan of her own. I’m not speaking against her, because that’s not fair, but I’m here to save a life. She had a design and a plan of her own. The people who worked with her and the people who knew her will indicate some of the difficulties she was having, financially and otherwise. We all do, everybody does. Even Mr. Spector, it would be a shock to Mr. Jackson. Everybody has them. Everybody has them. Difficulties and problems. Problems and difficulties. So the evidence is going to demonstrate to you that she saw an opportunity. And she saw something in Mr. Spector, in Phillip, that would be beneficial to her. Beneficial to her. The evidence will show that sometimes an ornamental gun, an ornamental gun. An ornamental gun, I’ll say it again, an ornamental gun, can be used for all kinds of things even though it’s unsafe to do. It’s unsafe to do. Policemen themselves, the evidence will show, have been hurt with their own guns. But the evidence will show she was fully familiar and facile with guns and side arms. She knew how to use them. And she was a big, strong, strapping woman. I’m not casting aspersions, I wouldn’t do it. No matter what, I wouldn’t do it. I told you it’s not right. But you must consider the woman. You must consider the design. You must consider the plan. This staying for one drink – that’s all coming from DeSouza. “I think I killed somebody:”, that’s all DeSouza. Their whole case is DeSouza. And these other so called victims. One who’s a, Miss Pillegi, who’s a bank thief. You’ll find out she stole from a bank. And the others who pedaled their stories. They’re not bad people. Phillip didn’t know Pillegi Grosvenor was a thief, when she romanced him, when she spent time with him. A sometimes romance, a part time romance, a fling that goes on – on and off for years, then ends, and there’s animus and resentment. And then you have a problem, a terrible problem, because a woman killed herself in your home, so they come to your aid, and they give a story, a tall tale. That’s what this case is, you’ll see from the evidence, tall tales. “He pointed a gun at me – he pointed it at my face. He cursed at me and pointed a gun.” Well then why do you keep seeing him? There’s no shrugs in Southern California. Not everything is shrugged off. Why do you keep seeing him? Why do you keep taking his money? Why do you keep spending his money?Jackson: Objection – this is argumentFidler: This is dipping into argument, so the objection is sustained.So the evidence will show that they kept spending his money. They kept taking his money. Like Mr. Jackson said, Miss Jennings had a suite at the Carlyle hotel. A hotel he says he can’t go to. Well, I’ll take him there any time he wants. There’s nothing off color about the Carlyle Hotel. And the evidence will show they have a piano bar. And some of the most famous musicians, entertainers and people in Phillip’s life spend time at the Carlyle hotel. That’s not a bad thing, that’s a good thing. The fact that he’s talented and successful, they’re not bad things, they’re good things, the evidence will show.Jackson: Objection, relevancyFidler: The objection is sustained, and on that note we will break for the day.Day 2:I started yesterday with some thoughts, and what I thought the evidence would show you. I won’t be very long this morning, but I did want to revisit and also mention and revisit some other matters and also mention some new matters, and hopefully I did not mention them yesterday.Ladies and gentlemen, one of the concepts that I mentioned was that the detectives and the Alhambra police department, when they responded to Phillip’s home, had what I called murder on their mind, and as a result of, the evidence will show, the evidence will show, as a result of murder on their mind, they interviewed and acted in such a way that anything that was consistent, the evidence will show, with their preconceived notions and theories they didn’t rest, and anything that was not consistent or inconsistent with that murder on their mind, they ignored. You’ll hear from the evidence that the detectives worked very hard, and interviewed, by last count, you’ll hear from the evidence, well over 150 or 60 civilians, from the time of February 3 03, to the time charges were filed November 21 03 to the time that they presented this matter to a Grand Jury in September 04. And you’ll hear from the evidence that these devoted detectives who had murder on their mind, spoke to any and everybody who had any thought whatsoever with regard to Phillip. And they even went to the trouble of taping the interviews. And they even went to the trouble of taping the interviews of the policemen who responded to the castle, to his home. And the evidence will show that’s the case here. And the evidence will show that’s why they acted the way they did when they responded to the castle. The evidence will show as I said yesterday, I alluded to the fact, that when they came to the castle, they had spoken to DeSouza, and according to the evidence, they were informed by DeSouza that there was nobody home other than Phillip and the decedent. So after they went banging in and were invited in, the police department, I don’t personally and in no mean to fault them, but you’ll hear from the evidence that they stormed the castle, and you’ll see from the evidence that what they had to do, what they did do, when they brought Phillip out of his home, was unnecessary. 5, 6,7, policemen, to bring a man out of his home who’s 5″ 4′, 135 pounds, unarmed, and a decedent in his home, you’ll see from the evidence was unnecessary. The use of the stun gun, the dangerous tazer gun, was completely unnecessary, the tackling, completely unnecessary, the hogtieing, the handcuffing, completely unnecessary. But just keep that as a backdrop, so when you hear the phrase murder on their mind, you’ll understand what the evidence will mean in this case. I’m not upbraiding the policemen, but you’ll see that all they needed to do was, the evidence will show, “Phillip, we want you to come with us, would you come with us?” Instead of the tackling, the tazering, and the tying, and the sitting on him and all of that. Why that’s relevant, the evidence will show is, the mindset of the police, and I’m not, in any way, denigrating, or saying anything in derogation of the department. I’m not saying anything in derogation, and the evidence will back me up, that they were not being careful, of course they were being careful.You’ll also hear from the evidence that DeSouza, who claimed to run down to the end of the driveway so he could see the address of the home, you’ll understand and appreciate from the evidence that the home of Phillip in Alhambra, is a landmark, and you’ll understand and appreciate from the evidence, you’ll hear testimony that the police department in Alhambra know of it as the castle, so if they were called, and they were called, and the evidence will show they were called, all they needed to be told was “I’m here at the castle, please come”. This is to the Alhambra police department. You’ll also appreciate and understand the importance of the witness DeSouza. And you’ll see from the evidence what really happened with him. You’ll see from the evidence that during the interview I broached with you with Detectives Fortier and Tomlin, the very first formal interview following the earlier interview with Detective Pinetta, with the murder on their mind mindset, they were very careful to ask him, what it is he claimed he heard. And during the interview, you’ll hear from the evidence, the detectives saying “are you sure”? They were very careful. And this is on February 3 03. And his response was “Well, I’m not, I’m not, It’s my English, you know, It’s my English, you know.” Now that’s over 4 years ago. But the evidence will show that he was considered their fair haired boy, they treated him that way. So the evidence will show that they posited him, and he looked at them, the evidence will show, as handlers, of him, and he identified with them. I’m not saying the evidence will show that he is an evil doer, but the evidence will show that there was no confession made. Mr. Jackson’s comment and verbiage there was a confession made is not evidence. There was no confession made to him. He’s not Father Confessor. He was a substitute driver who was asleep at the time that the shot rang out. Mr. Jackson didn’t even mention the fountain being on. You’ll hear that there was all kinds of background noise during that period of time. There’s no question a shot rang out. But there was no confession, I submit to you, and the evidence will not show you a confession, it will show you that if a statement was made after a shot, the evidence will show, you’ll consider it in the context in which it was made, and you’ll consider it, if you will, with most respectfully, what they did as a result of the statement, what the detectives did, how they performed their function with murder on their mind.One of the things I wanted to mention yesterday was the theory that the prosecution put forth in their opening statement. The decedent, and they’ve left you with the impression there was some kind of struggle or difficulty, the evidence, they said, would show. The decedent was 5 foot 11 and over 6 feet tall in high heels. In heels. And Phillip is 5 foot 4 and 135 pounds. As judges of the facts and the facts in this case, you’ll hear evidence of the differential in size. You’ll use it for what you feel it’s warranted for. You’ll also hear evidence of the decedent and whether she was drinking, whether she was taking pain killers or other pills and you’ll decide from the evidence what effect, if any, that had on her as a labile individual who’s affected by alcohol and pills. You’ll decide from the evidence what, if any, effect it had on her judgment. You’ll decide from the evidence what, if any, effect it may have had on her being somewhat reckless. You’ll see. You’ll judge it. You’ll have an open mind. You’ll see what, if any, effect any of this had on what happened at 5 am on February 3rd 03. The evidence will lead you to what happened. You’ll even keep in mind from the evidence where the bottle of tequila came from. Maybe a query in this case. The evidence will demonstrate that.The last, the other item, I shouldn’t say last, the other item I wanted to mention was the Carlyle hotel incident. You’ll hear from the evidence in this case, that one of the incident with gun women occurred, according to Mr. Jackson, which is not evidence, occurred at the Carlyle hotel, and he put up a police call, somebody responded, or at least a call was made and there was a response to the Carlyle hotel. You’ll see from the evidence in New York, unlike California, that if you have a gun in a hotel without a permit. They don’t look to a woman, to ask you to come to them, meaning, if you have a gun, you’re going to be arrested, when they respond to a hotel in New York City. You are not permitted to carry a gun unless you have a carry permit, you’ll hear evidence to that effect. So the woman Stephanie Jennings has no say, you’ll hear from the evidence, in whether or not Mr. Spector had a gun or was charged with carrying a gun. He didn’t and he wasn’t. He didn’t and he wasn’t. You’ll hear from her that she was given taxi fare, or train fare, back to Philadelphia after a ruckus that occurred, because the people at the hotel, and I’m not being in any way pejorative here, thought she was a prostitute. Because of all the ruckus. Of course she is not, but that’s what they thought. And that’s what will be put forth to you as evidence in this case. That’s why she left the hotel, that’s why she was given train fare from the hotel. And, of course, you’ll also hear that the suite and the rooms were all paid for by Phillip, you’ll also hear evidence in this case with regards to Stephanie Jennings, like the other three women they mentioned, that they continued to see Phillip. After this incident they accompanied Phillip to affairs and other things, and they stayed at the Carlyle, she did, for a week, and Phillip wasn’t even there.So I was trying to say yesterday, and I reiterate today, that bear in mind when you hear the evidence in this case from these women, as judges of the facts, I implore you to keep in mind motive, incentive, bias and purpose. With Stephanie Jennings you’ll hear, that, evidence, that, after February 3 of 03, in this world of immediate access, she took out photographs she had that she collected of Philip, and she spoke to a reporter from the National Enquirer. And you’ll hear evidence of what kind of newspaper that is. And you’ll hear from the evidence that she sold her story. She sold her tall tale and what they really wanted was a photograph of her and Phillip and she gave it to them. So please keep all of that in mind when you consider hearing from her or from any other incident with gun women who are not witnesses in this case. Also bear in mind DeSouza is not a witness to what happened at 0500 inside Philip’s home. He’s not a witness to it. Bear in mind that DeSouza will indicate to you, the evidence will show, that he served in the Brazilian army for 8 or 9 years. Nothing wrong with that, you have to have respect for that. But as soon as he saw a woman in distress, according to what Mr. Jackson said, he ran away. Fully familiar with guns, fully familiar with the military lifestyle. He ran away. You’ll hear from the evidence he himself said Phillip was not a violent person. But he did have an argument with him a week or two before. But consider that in judging credibility, perceptibility, availability and truth telling. Please keep that in mind as well.One of the other incident with gun women that Mr. Jackson mentioned was a Dorothy Melvin. Bear in mind that the evidence will show that she told authorities, and don’t forget all of these people came in after February 3 of 03, all of these people got together with the detectives after February 3 of 03. To talk about incidents that went back to 1987, talk about incidents that went back to1991, to talk about incidents that occurred in 1993, to talk about incidents that occurred in 1994. This is all after 2003, and as I said yesterday, none of them prosecuted Phillip, none of them sued him civilly, and all of them saw him afterwards and none of them ever sought any medical attention. Dorothy Melvin herself, you’ll hear evidence in this case, claimed, claimed, when she wanted to get her pocketbook, because of the precious passport belonging to Joan Rivers her boss, and her, that she was hit twice in the head with a handgun. Not what Mr. Jackson said in his opening statement, which is not evidence, that she was slapped by Phillip, by Phillip’s hand. She said she was slapped twice in the head with a handgun.. And so we’d expect, that the evidence will show, that detectives, that policemen from Pasadena, that she called, would have seen some difficulty with her head. You’ll hear evidence that, and you’ll use your common sense, that if you’re hit twice in the head with a handgun, there’s bruising, bleeding and injury. And you’ll hear from the evidence in this case that there was no bruising, bleeding or injury. And there was no acceptance of any medical aid or needed. In this case. In this incident, I should say, in this incident that is used in this case, the evidence will show. The evidence will further show that as far as this incident. The policemen who responded didn’t arrest Phillip, they themselves gave the pocketbook to Miss Melvin. They saw a shotgun, they left it in the house, and they have no recollection, at least as far as we know, the evidence will show, about her indicating she was hit in the head. Twice with a gun. No injury, no medical attention, no police recollection. Because it’s not so.Keep in mind as tryers of the facts, that a case can be rehearsed, scripted, choreographed and put together. I’m not talking about anything unethical or illegal. It can be scripted, rehearsed, choreographed and put together. So it looks like, the evidence will show, that there’s some relationship between relationships that Phillip had in his life that ended on a sour note, and the death of the decedent. If the decedent, the evidence will show, did not fool with the gun and cause her own death, you wouldn’t know anything about Miss Melvin, Miss Jennings, Miss Ogden, or any of the others. And the last as well, you wouldn’t know anything about them. They didn’t say anything about it. Other than the evidence that you’ll hear.Keep in mind as tryers of the facts, this is not a spectacle or an event. Even though it’s so well covered. It’s well covered, the evidence will show, because of the achievements by Phillip.Keep in mind, as well, the evidence will show, that according to Mr. Jackson, there was some kind of attempt by Phillip to clean things up and move things. Bear in mind the shock effect when you saw those photographs, bear in mind the shock effect and what it may have. Bear in mind when Mr. Jackson said Phillip was upstairs and took off his white jacket, bear in mind the evidence will show, and you will see, he wasn’t hiding anything, he wasn’t hiding his white jacket, as a matter of fact when they took him after they knocked him down and tazered him and handcuffed him and sat on him and everything else, they took him down to Alhambra, and he, Phillip, asked, “May I have my white jacket? There are phone numbers in there, I want to to call people if you are going to charge me.” So he wasn’t looking to hide the white jacket, he was the person who asked for the white jacket.Bear in mind the evidence will show, even though it’s presented in a scripted, choreographed, practiced fashion, that these incidents with women he knew and had relationships with, was not a pattern, they were isolated, the evidence will show, isolated spats, over the course of years. Over the course of 20 years. So, when you cherry pick, when you have murder on your mind, and you just pull out anything negative – you have something negative to say about Phillip, you’ll hear, the evidence in this case, come on with us. They so much even went to the hospital where his son was sick, he lost his son, terrible tragedy. He lost his son, his son was almost the same age he was when he lost his father…Jackson: Objection, your honor. This is argument.Fidler: The objection is sustained. Please refrain from arguing the case.Consider the evidence that they, the detectives, the police, who had murder on their mind and had a mindset. Went everywhere and anywhere, to speak to anyone – crackpot or not, about Phillip. And you’ll hear evidence of that. Anybody that saw him in a hotel, anybody that saw him in a restaurant, “tell us – what was he doing, who was he with?” This event, this tragic event, that caused the death of the decedent, was not the fault of Phillip, but it became a cause,Jackson: Objection. This is argument.Fidler: I’m going to overrule that. You may proceed.Form the evidence, it became a cause celebre for the authorities. Because of who he was, that’s what this is all about. All of these nice people here, from all over the world. You’ll see that from the evidence. You’ll see the kind of duplication, and quadruplication, that the detectives did in this case. Interviewed people on the telephone, taped their interviews, saw them in person, taped their interviews. They mentioned Kathy Sullivan,. Mr. Jackson did yesterday in his opening, which is not evidence. They interviewed her, they taped her. The evidence will show that they were together, they were friends, they had a platonic relationship, there was no dismissal of her at the House of Blues. She was tired, she went home. The evidence will show you she was tired, she went home, and the prosecutor in his opening statement made it seem like she was dismissed. Phillip was angry she wouldn’t have a drink. Evidence will also show drinks were ordered, diet cokes were ordered, and we don’t know how much liquor was consumed. And it’s not a crime to have a drink late at night. It’s not a crime to order food late at night. It’s not a crime, you’ll see from the evidence, to go out with your high school friend at 8:00 on a Sunday night. It’s not a crime, you’ll see from the evidence, to take out a friend who works at the Grill. Those things are not crimes. The man has closed off his personal life, his non music life. You’ll see from the evidence there are times, there are times, when the limelight burns. There are times when the limelight is lonely. It’s lonely. You’ve done so much it’s lonely.Jackson: Objection, your honor, this is argument.Fidler: The objection is sustained. Again, you are delving into argument.You’ll see from the evidence, the evidence will show, that when you reach a certain pinnacle,Jackson: Objection, this is still argumentFidler: The objection is sustained. Just saying the evidence will show when it’s still argument is still objectionable. The objection is sustained.I’ll move forwardFidler: OK, thank you.Certainly the evidence will show that it’s not a crime to enjoy company of another.Jackson: Objection your honor, this is still argument.Fidler: Again, It is.Ladies and gentlemen the evidence will show, and as I indicated to you in my voir dire and earlier in my opening statement, our evidence will show, through an example of a Dr. Lee and other criminalists, forensic pathologists, blood spatter experts, ballistics experts, and all the rest. Phillip’s home was not a crime scene. From the evidence you will see, no matter how many police labels they put up, no matter how many tags and identification cards they put up to make it seem like a crime scene. You’ll hear from our experts it was a death scene, not a crime scene. You’ll also hear that in the home where Phillip lived, there was a starter pistol, a starter pistol, which resembled the gun that took the life of the decedent. That was a gun found on the same lower floor where the decedent was. You’ll see from the evidence the resemblance between the starter pistol and the gun that took her life. Whatever weight you want to give that, you give that. Those were the only two guns found on the lower level where the decedent was. The gun that that she used to kill herself, and the starter pistol, encased in a holster, like the one Mr. Jackson showed you on the overhead Elmo here. St. Elmo, Elmo, I guess it’s called.So keep in mind, keep in mind, alcohol, pain killers, a starter pistol that doesn’t hurt, a deadly gun that can kill, almost look exactly alike. Keep in mind the evidence will show, a big strong woman, a take charge woman, an assertive woman, it’s not beyond the pale, in fact it’s consistent with the evidence, that she felt comfortable there in Phillip’s home, and whatever she was doing, whatever she was consuming, however she felt, she took her life, unfortunately. Much too young.Bear in mind, the evidence will show, I believe the evidence will show, Phillip harbored no malice to the decedent, he had just met her. Bear in mind the evidence will show, there was no dispute, as a matter of fact they were in the back of the car going to the castle, she was riding with Phillip on her own volition. She watching a old movie with James Cagney, which was ironic almost. “Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye” that was the movie she was watching.. “Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye”. How prophetic.Keep in mind the evidence will show again, unlike the women coming in here with tears and tall tales and stories. Phillip never knew this woman, he had no intent to hurt this woman.Jackson: Objection that’s argumentFidler: No, I’m going to allow that with that proviso. That’s fine.The evidence will show he had no motive to hurt this woman. He harbored no malice towards this woman. Most importantly, the evidence is going to show conclusively that the gun was held by the decedent when it fired. The evidence is going to show that the decedent, according to the evidence, was seated, the gun was in her mouth, put there by her. No broken teeth in, everything was out. Everything was out. There was no evidence that a gun was forced in her mouth, there were no broken teeth in – not so, that’s not consistent with the evidence, there was no, the evidence will show, nobody forced a gun in her mouth. Fooling with guns. The evidence will show this was not a pistol, Mr. Jackson. The evidence will show there’s a major difference between a pistol and a revolver. Pistol is a semi automatic, a revolver is not. The evidence will show that to shoot a revolver you press the hammer back and you can pull the trigger and you don’t need as much pressure as you do if the hammer is pulled back. I’m not a ballistics expert, but that’s what the evidence will show.The evidence will show she had a broken nail, the decedent. Consistent with self inflicted gunshot wounds. What’s consistent with self inflicted gunshot wounds is reasonable doubt. So there is no evidence of any intent to put someone in danger. There’s no evidence of any intent to hurt, harm a woman. Five words according to prosecutors. “I think I killed somebody”, “I think somebody is killed” or nothing. Or nothing. You’ll see from the evidence, you’ll decide, what it means, if anything. If it was heard, by whom, what state he was in.Phillip says through me everyday in addition to the presumption of innocenceJackson: Objection. This is argument.Fidler: I don’t know, I have to hear the whole statement. It’s premature.Phillip says through me everyday in addition to the presumption of innocence in which he is swathed, in which he is bandaged, I’m not guilty.Jackson: Objection.Fidler: The objection is sustained.I did not fire that gun.Jackson: Objection.Fidler: The objection is sustained. The jury is admonished as it has been before to disregard anything I sustain an objection to.The evidence will show you, Phillip did not shoot the decedent. The scientific evidence is a witness in the home. There were no witnesses to the shooting. Decedent is gone, DeSouza saw nothing in the home at the time. But science, forensics is a witness. To reenact the event. We are going to call witnesses. Miss Kenney Baden is going to go into that in a few moments. But just so you’re receptive to it, Science, we embrace it, it’s our friend. So you’ll see that the evidence will show, Phillip did not shoot this woman, he did not force a gun in this woman’s mouth. And he didn’t do it. That’s what the evidence will show. And they can’t change that. By bringing in tall tales from other girls with whom he had relationships. So when you hear all the evidence, and we come before you again, I’m confident you’ll find that Phillip is not guilty of this most serious charge. And I don’t expect from the evidence that you’ll appreciate and agree with every aspect of a person’s life. Every single day of a person’s life who’s in his sixth decade. But it’s the evidence of this case that we’re focusing on. It’s the evidence here, the lack of evidence, Judge Fidler will give you a charge on, the lack of evidence can also be considered by you, when the prosecution tries to convince you of something beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t , the evidence will show, that it just doesn’t fit, there’s nothing, the evidence will show, there’s nothing similar to this incident with a stranger and to these spats with other women. There’s nothing similar about it. This was a sua generous, unique, incident the evidence will show. The evidence will show this was an accident, not at the hand of Phillip. The evidence will show that he is not responsible for the death of the decedent. And I want to thank you for agreeing to sit on this case. And I want to thank each and every one of you for the attention you have paid to me. And I want to thank each and every one of you for the way you listened to the things I had to say, and the way you are open to the evidence. I also want to thank Judge Fidler and I want to thank his staff, for making me feel at home in a strange and new and different place. Thank you very much.Spector Refresher - Opening Statements and Admissions13 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Revisiting Opening Statements – Bruce Cutler”
1.Kellygreen said
The evidence will show, the evidence will show Cutler is a fucking pig, a fucking pig!
The man really loves to repeat himself.So much of Cutler’s OS makes me angry–but I find it truly disgusting that he never refers to Lana Clarkson by name, he always refers to her as the decedent–he is a fucking pig, a fucking pig.2.Are We All Clear Now? Case No. BQ033717 (Fraud Domestic Violence Order Matter) & Case No. BC338322 (Hearing Before Judge Hess June 23, 2015)
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Yea, sure you're filing a motion to "vacate" this order...when? 2021? Ha!
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>,OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, 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>, "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>, "USLawEnforcement@google.com" <USLawEnforcement@google.com>, Feedback <feedback@calbar.ca.gov>, mike .feuer@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>
Cc: Jeffrey Korn <jeffkornlaw@live.com>Hi IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, FTB, CIA, NSA, FSB, City Attorney, and others,We're all on the same page now, right? We know what a cease and desist letter is, correct? Rice is the attorney of record in the fraud domestic violence matter Gianelli is criminally harassing me over. Korn is the attorney of record in the matter before Judge Hess. There is a hearing on June 23, 2015. Robert Kory advised Von Watteville to sue me. I've provided evidence to City Attorney, LAPD's TMU, etc. proving she is a liar and I am being targeted by someone I think is extremely suspect and questionable.Are we all clear?KelleyOn Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote: Jeffrey Korn,I hope I was clear enough with your co-counsel. She - not Gianelli - is the attorney of record in this case. You are the attorney of record in Case No. BC338322. Gianelli appears to be an informal member of Leonard Cohen's defense team. No one will ever convince me otherwise.What is the issue, Jeffrey? There is a hearing on June 23, 2015 before Judge Hess. You can respond legally. You have an address for service. As a courtesy, I advised you that I will be filing a motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence order. You raised the domestic violence related orders with Judge Hess. I am responding to the slander and fraud.Do you understand what cease and desist means? It's an elementary legal concept. The situation is out of control.Kelley LynchOn Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote: Michelle Rice,You are listed, on LA Superior Court's website, as the attorney of record in Case No. BQ033717. You raised this case as an issue with Judge Hess. You failed to advise Judge Hess that you personally registered the foreign Colorado order (that the Court repeatedly advised me expired on February 15, 2009) as a domestic violence order. One cannot use form DV-600 to register a non-domestic violence order. The Boulder Combined Court pointed out that this is not a domestic violence order and, when Cohen flew into Boulder in the midst of his European tour, he failed to check that box. Cohen has gone to extraordinary lengths to silence me. Some the tactics, as I advised Judge Hess, were raised in Neal Greenberg's lawsuit filed June 2005. That would, but is not limited to, the plan to use fraudulent restraining orders to discredit me. I addressed Cohen's fraud and perjury in the declaration I discovered AFTER the September 2, 2008 hearing with the Court. I also would like to point out that Judge Babcock's order was NOT entered in the Colorado matter (that he understands both Cohen and I were involved with although I refused to enter an appearance re. the "interpleaded" funds). I've included Judge Hess' September 5, 2008 order. You testified that there were no outstanding litigation matters involving me and Cohen. That's a lie. You wrote a cease and desist letter, re. my requests for tax information, on February 14, 2011. You lied - I do NOT have to use LA Superior Court's discovery process to request IRS required form 1099 and corporate tax information. I have spoken many times to IRS, FTB, and State of Kentucky about this matter. They have also advised me to contact Leonard Cohen directly to ask him to rescind the illegal K-1s LC Investments, LLC transmitted to State of Kentucky and IRS indicating that I am partner on that entity, with a 99.5% ownership interest, who received $0 income for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. The entirely perjured and fraudulent Complaint was used to defend your client with Agent Luis Tejeda, IRS head of fraud (Western Division of the U.S.). Your client illegally obtained refunds from IRS and FTB, using some version of the fraud expense ledger, and they have been challenged as fraud.Here's the only document I see from the IRS or Treasury to date. It is Agent Kelly SOpko's March 6, 2007 letter advising me to contact Agent Tejeda re. Leonard Cohen's tax fraud allegations and the evidence. A great deal of that evidence was provided to IRS in 2005. I have letters from Kory confirming that I went to the tax authorities. Those emails from Kory are from May 2005. Leonard Cohen retaliated. All of this information is now in the "IRS binder" that is in Streeter's possession. I have asked IRS and others to investigate. My appellate attorney was convinced my alleged trial was an IRS matter that demands an IRS investigation. LAPD's report states that the emails are generally requests for tax information. Feel free to call LAPD's TMU liars. That's your job, right?I continue to be criminally harassed by Gianelli. I have included an email here re. this fraud domestic violence order. You and Kory received domestic violence related orders. They are evidence of fraud. I intend to file a motion to vacate that order. I have spoken with many parties about this matter and will let the Court know who those parties were.You are co-counsel in Case No. BC338322. You are partners with Robert Kory and made partner targeting me. Karina Von Watteville contacted Robert Kory in response to Paulette Brandt's rent demand letter. He advised her to use me over my cease and desist letters with IRS, FBI, and DOJ copied in. I am now copying ICE on all emails. That's for a good reason. I'll give you a glimpse of why ICE is copied in. It was filed with Judge Hess. It's a 1977 tax memorandum to Leonard Cohen advising him not to pay taxes on worldwide income in the U.S. and funnel income off-shore. He was admonished not to have a green card. He obtained one in 1970. Korn has now provided me with an Objections document (not filed and discussed with Judge Hess). The Objections document refers to the information about Cohen's green card as hearsay. I will therefore, after filing my RICO suit against Cohen, subpoena the head Trial Counsel for ICE to testify about this matter.I intend to provide Judge Hess with a copy of this email. Gianelli is targeting, harassing, and attempting to intimidate my witnesses. Those witnesses provided Judge Hess with declarations. Gianelli has now harassed Clea Surkhang, Dan Meade, Paulette Brandt, and Palden Ronge. Gianelli wrote that my mother was senile when she wrote her declaration. Leonard Cohen hasn't seen my mother in 10 years and has no idea about her. He lied and said she and my father hid his assets off-shore. I think he was talking about himself. See the evidence I provided Judge Hess.Stephen Gianelli works in tandem with Susanne Walsh, Cohen's fan. You were frequently copied on emails harassing me, my sons, and others. Both of them have criminally harassed Paulette Brandt. Von Watteville took Kory's advice and she and Gianelli are threatening to sue me. Gianelli is attempting to help her defraud Paulette Brandt. Do you see any problems there? Well, another attorney advised me to contact law enforcement, which I have, and file State Bar Complaints.Gianelli has been clear: he heard from Kory/Rice in May 2009. He has relentlessly targeted me and others. Here's my son Ray's declaration addressing the criminal harassment and the content of the emails - including the disturbing slander. I am advising you that this conduct should cease and desist. That is an elementary legal concept. Robert Kory was recently copied in an email blackmailing over my riverdeepbook.blogspot.com.Gianelli was clear - if I didn't take it down he would begin a blog dedicated to slandering me. I will now sue Leonard Cohen over the false allegations and slander. I was not served Cohen's Complaint in Case No. BC 338322. Is there something I am missing, Michelle? Let me know. Gianelli is now lying to IRS, FBI, DOJ, ICE, City Attorney, District Attorney, and others. I will submit Linda Carol's declaration to Judge Hess. The mediator advised me (Small Claims) to bring Von Watteville's conduct (screaming about Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory) to the attention of the Court. I didn't extort anything from Cohen. He failed to serve me; obtained a fraud default judgment; stole my share of intellectual property; perjured himself; submitted fraud to the court (that is being addressed with Judge Hess); and is now attempting to extort $13.8 million from me. He has not provided me with IRS required tax and corporate information. The IRS thinks he owes it to me. You think the restraining order prevents you from transmitting that information? You're wrong. See the U.S. Supremacy Clause. The judgment, fraudulent as it might be, is not retroactive. This is going to become a huge issue in my federal RICO suit. I view your February 14, 2011 fraudulent email (with IRS, FBI, Treasury, Dennis Riordan, and Ron Burkle copied in) as an overt act.These matters should be resolved in Court. My witnesses refuse to cave into terrorist tactics. I've been clear with LAPD's TMU about this fact; Investigator William Frayeh (DA's office), IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, FTB, and others about that fact.The answer to Gianelli's insane question. I didn't know this was registered. I didn't know it was domestic violence until over a year after my alleged trial that is replete with lies, perjury, fraud, concealment, and is nothing other than an attempt to obstruct justice. That's my personal opinion.Kelley LynchLeonard Cohen Tax Planning Memo to Bill Dubey/Elmer, Fox, Westheimer & Co., CPAs from Ken Fratco dated August 22, 1977Basis for TaxationLeonard Cohen has ties with several jurisdictions which could serve as a basis for taxing income earned by him. These jurisdictions are Canada, Greece, and the United States. I would like to set-out the basis for taxation in each of these countries. Canada taxes the world-wide income of its residents. Canada defines residents as those individuals physically residing in Canada. Greece also taxes the world-wide income of its residents; however, the Greek law defines residents as those individuals who have an actual dwelling place in Greece and who are domiciled in Greece. The U.S., on the other hand, taxes both citizens and residents on their world-wide income. The U.S. definition of residents is much broader and more encompassing than that of Canada or Greece. Any individual who resides in the U.S, for other than on a temporary basis or any individual who considers himself a domiciliary of the U.S., whether or not physically present in the U.S., is considered to be a resident of the U.S. All three countries tax income from a source within their respective jurisdiction paid to non-residents; there are, however several exceptions established by treaty.Because of the facts of Leonard Cohen’s case, a closer examination of what is considered U.S. source income and how it is taxed is necessary. Any compensation paid by a U.S. corporation is considered to be U.S. source income. If that compensation is paid in connection with the performance of personal services in the U.S. by a non-resident alien then such income is considered to be effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business and is taxed at the graduated income tax rates which apply to citizens and residents (IRC Sec. 871 (b)(1)).If the non-resident alien does not perform personal services within the U.S. then such compensation paid will be taxable at a flat 30% rate (Reg. 1.864-3 and IRC Sect. 871(a)(1)).RecommendationsLeonard Cohen, while remaining a Canadian citizen, should continue to reside outside of Canada. He should, however, from time to time, accomplish acts which establish Canada as his domicile - the place he truly considers his home. Such actions, of course, must not include actually staying in Canada for other than temporary, short-term trips. Because Canada only taxes individuals who are residents, continued citizenship and domicile will not subject him to Canadian taxes and will aid him in preventing taxation by the U.S. or Greece on world-wide income.Because the U.S. taxes non-resident aliens on U.S. source income and because compensation paid from a U.S. corporation is considered U.S. source income, only royalties and performance income from services performed in the U.S. should be funneled into the U.S. corporations. Royalties and performance income from sources outside the U.S. will not be taxed by the U.S. as long as Leonard Cohen remains a non-resident alien and as long as such income is not funneled through the U.S. corporation.Leonard Cohen’s stays in the U.S. should be continued under a non-resident visa (H-1 qualifies as such) and should be temporary in nature. Temporary residents, even of long duration, merely for the purpose of transacting business or engaging in employment is not sufficient to establish residency. Hutchins v. Commissioner, 8 TCM December 18, 178. It should be noted, however, that residing in the U.S. for one year sets up a presumption of residency. Even though such presumption may be rebutted by proper evidence Leonard Cohen’s stays should be monitored and should not extend to a year. Income from royalties and performance income outside the U.S. should be funneled through a corporation incorporated in a “tax haven” country. This will prevent taxation by the U.S. and will most likely limit withholding by other countries where royalties and performance income are earned.As far as Greece is concerned, so long as Leonard Cohen’s domicile can be established for being elsewhere, there is no basis for taxing any income other than from Greek sources. The fact that Leonard Cohen maintains a house in Greece and will, from time to time, stay in Greece will not in and of themselves cause taxation. His trip to and ties to Greece should be reviewed periodically to prevent any presumption of domicile.Good afternoon Ms. Lynch,Per our meeting last week, I have found a solid IRS contact that will be better able to assist you. His name is Luis Tejeda, and he is the head of a fraud group at IRS. I spoke with him today and advised him that I would be passing on his contact information to you.Office phone and address redacted.He emphasized that you will need to put something in writing - a summary of all important details, with as much specificity as you have. (For example if you have copies of any paperwork involved, or social security numbers of people involved …) Once you pass the information on to him, he will review it and proceed accordingly. As standard practice, you will not get confirmation that your information was received. However, you may contact Tejeda to follow-up.I hope that this information is helpful to you. If there is anything else I can assist you with, please be sure to let me know.Kelly A. SopkoSpecial AgentTreasury IG for Tax Administration (TIGTA)Special Inquiries & Intelligence DivisionCOHEN LEONARD NORMAN - PetitionerLYNCH KELLEY ANN - RespondentRICE MICHELLE L. - Attorney for PetitionerNatural Wealth Real Estate, Inc. v. Cohen
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
September 5, 2008
NATURAL WEALTH REAL ESTATE, INC., A/K/A GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., D/B/A AGILE ADVISORS, INC. A COLORADO CORPORATION; TACTICAL ALLOCATION SERVICES, LLC, D/B/A AGILE ALLOCATION SERVICES, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AGILE GROUP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES SECURITIES, INC., D/B/A AGILE GROUP, A COLORADO CORPORATION; AND NEAL R. GREENBERG, A COLORADO RESIDENT, PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS,
v.
LEONARD COHEN, A CANADIAN CITIZEN RESIDING IN CALIFORNIA; KELLEY LYNCH, A UNITED STATES CITIZEN RESIDING IN CALIFORNIA; AND JOHN DOE, NUMBERS 1-25, DEFENDANTS, AND, LEONARD COHEN, A CANADIAN CITIZEN RESIDING IN CALIFORNIA, COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF,
v.
TIMOTHY BARNETT, A COLORADO CITIZEN, COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT.The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis T. Babcock, JudgeORDERThis matter is before me on Defendant, Leonard Cohen's, Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader [Docket # 185], Plaintiffs' response [Docket # 196], and Cohen's reply [Docket # 210]. Oral arguments would not materially assist the determination of this motion.The allegations in this case are adequately noted in prior orders of this Court, and I need not repeat them here. After several years of litigation, each claim and counterclaim in this case-with the exception of Plaintiffs' interpleader claim now at issue-has been dismissed. Plaintiffs' interpleader claim concerns approximately $154,000 in funds ("the funds") belonging to Traditional Holdings LLC, an investment entity created by Cohen and Defendant Lynch for purposes of managing Cohen's assets. Plaintiffs disavowed any interest in the funds, but requested interpleader for purposes of settling the conflicting positions of Cohen and Lynch regarding ownership of the funds. Plaintiffs paid the funds into the Registry of the Court pending resolution of this issue.On May 12, 2006, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, ruled on the issue of ownership of the funds, and entered default judgment in favor of Cohen and against Lynch in the amount of $7.3 million in damages and interest. See Judgment, Cohen v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 338322 (May 12, 2006) [Docket # 186-16]. In rendering judgment, the California court declared Lynch was "not the owner of any assets in Traditional Holdings, LLC" and any interest Lynch had in "any other entity related to Cohen . . . she [held] as trustee for Cohen's equitable title." The California court enjoined Lynch from interfering with Cohen's right to receive any such funds or property or in any other way exercising control over any funds or property related to Cohen. The California court ruling was not appealed and is now final.The final judgment of the California court settles the dispute between Lynch and Cohen over ownership of the interpleaded funds. As Plaintiffs are no longer exposed to multiple liability, Plaintiffs' interpleader claim is now moot. See FED. R. CIV. P. 22(a)(1). When the dispute underlying an interpleader claim is mooted, the interpleader claim should be dismissed. See Oldcastle Materials, Inc. v. Rohlin, 343 F. Supp. 2d 762, 787 (N.D. Iowa 2004); Burningtree v. Holland,760 F. Supp. 118, 119 (E.D. Mich. 1991).Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:1. Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader is DISMISSED;2. Defendant Cohen's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader [Docket # 185] is DENIED AS MOOT;3. The interpleaded funds currently in the Registry of the Court-including any accrued interest, less the Court Registry handling fee-shall be disbursed to Defendant Cohen within ten days of the date of this Order;4. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs related to this motion.Lewis T. Babcock, Judge20080905---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Subject: Yea, sure you're filing a motion to "vacate" this order...when? 2021? Ha!
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com CASE SUMMARY
Status: PendingFuture Hearings
àNoneBTW, why again did you not file a timely appeal from this order? (If you weren’t served with it, you had 6-months from its date of entry to do so.)Can you spell W-A-I-V-E-R?Posted by Odzer Chenma at 8:06 PM---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:15 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated , May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com Ms. Lynch,I am well aware that “there is a hearing before Judge Hess on June 23, 2015” on your second “motion to vacate” the $7.9M judgment in BC338322. How could I not be? You have referenced that hearing in hundreds of emails to me. (And I cannot wait for you to lose that motion, which is ridiculous, so I can say “I told you so”.)You have also been emailing me for a year claiming that you are going to be filing a motion to “vacate the fraud domestic violence order” in BQO33717, a reference to the California registration of the September 2, 2008 Colorado protection order pursuant to Family Code § 6404 (a) [“Any foreign protection order shall, upon request of the person in possession of the order, be registered with a court of this state in order to be entered in the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System…”.], “by the end of the week” or “shortly”.The “end of the seek” and “shortly” have come and gone – still no filing.Why is this any of my business, since I am not “attorney of record” in in BQO33717?Because you have not confined your endless bluster and ridiculous nonsense about the alleged illegality of registration order in that action to the “attorney of record”, and when you lie and spout nonsense in this manner to me – when both of us know better – I am going to call you on it.Once again, you have talked up a filing that you claimed was imminent and failed to follow through, just like your “federal RICO” lawsuit that never was and never will be.Very truly yours,Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, Greece____________________________________________________________ ______________________________ _______________________ From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Yea, sure you're filing a motion to "vacate" this order...when? 2021? Ha!
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>,OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, 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>, "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>, "USLawEnforcement@google.com" <USLawEnforcement@google.com>, Feedback <feedback@calbar.ca.gov>, mike .feuer@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>
Cc: Jeffrey Korn <jeffkornlaw@live.com>Hi IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, FTB, CIA, NSA, FSB, City Attorney, and others,We're all on the same page now, right? We know what a cease and desist letter is, correct? Rice is the attorney of record in the fraud domestic violence matter Gianelli is criminally harassing me over. Korn is the attorney of record in the matter before Judge Hess. There is a hearing on June 23, 2015. Robert Kory advised Von Watteville to sue me. I've provided evidence to City Attorney, LAPD's TMU, etc. proving she is a liar and I am being targeted by someone I think is extremely suspect and questionable.Are we all clear?KelleyFrom: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated , May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PM
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>, PAULETTEBRANDT8@gmail.com, lindacarol184@gmail.com
Cc: Karina Von Watteville <karina.inger.v@gmail.com>Ms. Brandt, Ms. Lynch, and Ms., Carol:The libel per se of Katerina Von Watteville is by no means confined to whatever you have filed in the small claims action or in case number BC338322, and includes, without limitation, the flier you distributed in the neighborhood containing a unique photograph of Ms. Von Watteville that only Ms. Brandt had stating that she is a “con” and a “thief”, as well as Ms. Carol’s and Ms. Brandts’s verbal and written statements to Ms. Lynch that Ms. Von Watteville committed “fraud”, infested various places with bedbugs and cockroaches, lives in filth, habitually fails to pay her bills and is a “prostitute” and Ms. Lynch’s foreseeable republication of those libelous per se statements in mass emails – including to federal and state law enforcement agencies and as well as to individuals and press organizations and reporters and on Ms. Lynch’s public blog – which is indexed on Google.Moreover, filing a libelous declaration with the court AFTER the declaration has been distributed to a mass audience who have nothing to do with pending litigation does not immunize those responsible for its publication and republication from liability, and subsequently publishing a court filed declaration outside of the action in which it was filed is also actionable and not privileged.All of this is problematic for the three of you without even analyzing the text of what you claim to have now filed in two legal proceedings to ascertain whether those additional allegations, if they be libelous, are in furtherance of a legitimate litigation position and therefore subject to the litigation privilege contained in Civil Code section 47, let alone the additional liability the three of you brought on your shoulders with the illegal publication and transmission of a video clip of Ms. Von Watteville in a state of undress in violation of Penal Code section 647 (j) (4).I realize that you folks don’t own much, but Ms. Von Watteville’s anticipated civil judgment – if she can establish that even ONE of your disparaging statements was libelous – will be good for ten years and renewed for another ten, in anticipation of any and all future income or inheritance. And what even you own now, she will be within her rights to seize and sell.Very truly yours,Stephen R. GianelliAttorney for KARINA VON WATTEVILLEFrom: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 8:21 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Kelly.Sopko; OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; lrohter; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; stan.garnett; USLawEnforcement @google.com; Feedback; mike.feuer@lacity. org; mayor.garcetti
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated , May 14, 2015 at 8:00 PMStephen Gianelli,You continue to criminally harass me. You are copying Paulette Brandt and Linda Carol in and falsely accusing Linda Carol of libeling your client, Karina Von Watteville, over her declaration that will be submitted to Judge Hess and others. It is indeed relevant and material. That would include, but is not limited to, her call to Robert Kory following receipt of Paulette Brandt's rent demand letter. The Small Claims Court granted the judgment to Paulette Brandt initially. You are now arguing directly with the Small Claims Court. I am not a party to that matter and would assume the Court can determine that Von Watteville did not write her legal argument contained in the declaration signed under penalty of perjury. A lawyer did - you.My emails to you are cease and desist emails that address your slander, witness tampering, witness intimidation tactics, defense of Leonard Cohen. You are the individual criminally harassing me. You just grabbed a post from my public blog, riverdeepbook.blogspot.com, removed information from it, and emailed it to me in an attempt to defend Leonard Cohen and harass me. You are writing about Kevin Huvane and Bryan Lourd (CAA) who you do not know but have criminally harassed. I am convinced you wrote and sent the "bloody stump" email falsely accusing Oliver Stone of criminal conduct. You created the moniker 14th Sheepdog when you attempted to slander the 14th Sharmapa. The bloody stump email was sent by the 17th Shitzu. I have contacted LAPD's TMU about this incident and your threats that they will prosecute me for being victimized over a disturbing and vulgar email stating that i should be murdered, raped, and commit suicide. You do not know me, Paulette Brandt, or Linda Carol, but just wrote that Paulette Brandt and I should commit suicide. The stakes are obviously high and lows are inconceivably vile, deranged, and vulgar. You have harassed and threatened, insulted, or attempted to intimidate nearly every one of my witnesses who submitted a declaration to Judge Hess in Case No. BC338322. You are not an attorney of record in that matter but your conduct was brought to his attention. Is fraud upon the court ridiculous? Well, perhaps that's because courts do not take it seriously. You have been criminally harassing me, my sons, and many others for six straight years now. You publicly stated that you spoke with Kory/Rice in May 2009 and that's when you impersonated a journalist by the name of "Joff Belark" and wrote a false and slanderous article for me on your blog dedicated to Phil Spector since Doron Weinberg joined Phil Spector's legal team. Your best posting buddy hates your idol, Bruce Cutler, which is quite bizarre.The article on the Darwin Exception where your buddy, Kelly Green, was posting relates to Phil Spector. You argue Phil SPector prosecution theories online. See Truth Sentinel's interview site with me and Paulette Brandt where you have slandered and attacked me and falsely accused Ann Diamond of stalking Leonard Cohen. I worked with Cohen for approximately 20 years and Ann Diamond did not stalk him. You stated on this site that Mick Jagger/Rolling Stones obtained a restraining order against Ann Diamond. That is a bald faced lie. Dennis Riordan's brief clearly states that Clarkson's DNA was on the bullets. Bruce Cutler advised the jury that the gun was not Spector's. That's precisely what he told Mick Brown. See your comments below. You appear to be moonlighting for the Spector prosecution team. They evidently believe that Eminem wants to "dry hump" Pat Dixon. You are the individual who publicly stated that Pat Dixon was involved in the deranged Boulder PD roll by at Deneuve Construction. I have asked IRS, FBI, and DOJ to investigate that matter. I have spoken with FBI extensively about that matter. I suppose their agent was correct - LAPD wasn't behind it although Officer Storbeck told me he heard from LAPD. LAPD doesn't know me so their call to Boulder PD is potentially criminal. I've documented all of this for DOJ.I am not emailing you about Case No. BQ003717. You emailed me about that matter. You also attempt to infiltrate matters and elicit information. You're an amateur Agent Provocateur and liability from what I can tell. The domestic violence order is evidence of fraud. I will file a motion to vacate that. You are not the attorney of record in that matter. Michelle Rice is.So you have admitted that you are targeting me over my public statements and blogs and included evidence of that fact. You have now written that Linda Carol libeled Karina Von Watteville. I wouldn't take that to the bank. LAPD shouldn't either. We'll see what unfolds. You/she has an address for service should we follow through with Kory's advice to file a fraud lawsuit re. my handful of cease and desist letters with IRS, FBI, and DOJ copied in. I suppose ICE thinks this 1977 tax memorandum to Leonard Cohen is irrelevant.àMy RICO lawsuit is none of your business. I have, however, sent DOJ the first draft of the RICO suit against Leonard Cohen. I'm reviewing the Hobb's Act re. EXTORTION.You weren't copied on the email I posted to my blog that you included in this harassing email. You are obsessed with my blog, me, and my witnesses. Therefore, supplemental declarations will now be presented to Judge Hess.I have once again advised you to cease and desist, Gianelli. It's an elementary legal concept. I understand you believe you're immune and that's why you sent me the U.S. treaty with Greece on extradition. Perhaps you could be deported. You've made it clear in your not so veiled threats that you may have Mafia connections. Or, did your last email about the Mafia mention that you were bluffing?Kelley Lynch