Declaration of Kelley Lynch - Re. Leonard Cohen Case No. BC 338322

DECLARATION OF KELLEY LYNCH

Kelley Lynch declares:

1.      I am a resident of Los Angeles, California and the age of 18, and have personal knowledge of

the facts set forth hereinbelow and can competently testify thereto if called as a witness.

2.      Plaintiffs have argued that I am addressing the merits of the underlying case.  While the issues

in the underlying case are not specifically at issue in my motion (and/or prior motion), Plaintiffs have addressed and argued the merits (intrinsic evidence) in the declarations they provided in support of their Opposition to the Motion to Vacate.  Therefore, I am compelled to respond.

3.      My Motion for Terminating Sanctions does include newly discovered evidence.  I diligently

pursued this evidence for approximately 2 years.  That evidence relates to Leonard Cohen’s testimony, during my 2012 trial, that I never “stole” from him.  This testimony is further supported by Cohen’s statements provided to MacLean’s magazine, and involving an interview he personally participated in, where he states that “I am not accusing her of theft.”  This article/interview was published on August 22, 2015 and was clearly coordinated with the filing of the Complaint in the instant matter and to confront the allegations raised, against Cohen and Kory, in Neal Greenberg’s June 2005 lawsuit.

4.      The second piece of newly discovered evidence I submitted to the Court relates to the

foreign Colorado restraining order.  There was in fact no evidentiary hearing.  That is not an issue in this case and is offered merely for purposes of explanation.  Michelle Rice and Robert Kory submitted declarations to this Court in support of Cohen’s Opposition to my Motion to Vacate.  The evidence attached to those declarations included their “domestic violence related” orders.  These orders were provided to Kory and Rice following my sentencing with respect to the “domestic violence” order.  The prosecutor was quite clear during the March 23, 2012 hearing that the restraining order I violated was the order connected to Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BQ022717.  That case is a “domestic violence” matter that I intend to move to vacate in the next week or two.   The Colorado order was not a “domestic violence” order and I have now spoken with the Judicial Council, and received information from others, that absolutely concludes that a foreign order civil harassment (non-domestic violence order) – fraudulent or otherwise – may not be registered in the State of California using DV-600.  This issue is highly material and relevant to this case due to the fact that the use of fraudulent narratives in order to obtain restraining orders has been one of the tactics Leonard Cohen, and his representatives, have employed against me.  I have no interest whatsoever in Leonard Cohen.  I do wonder if he is utterly narcissistic to draw that conclusion or will indeed say anything he feels will serve his selfish goals.  For the past 10 years, I have requested IRS required tax and corporate information from Leonard Cohen and his representatives.  IRS, FTB, and State of Kentucky have repeatedly advised me to contact Leonard Cohen and, at times, the corporate entities themselves.  The judgment is absolutely silent as to IRS required tax and corporate information and does not state – anywhere – that it is retroactive.  I have addressed this with some degree of specificity previously.  In addition to this outrageous situation, I have been relentlessly targeted, slandered, threatened, intimidated, stalked, and harassed by a group of individuals who appear to be functioning as Leonard Cohen’s operatives.  Their campaign of harassment and terrorism is highly coordinated and involved targeting and shutting down my blogs and email accounts.  For over six straight years, my sons have been relentlessly targeted.  That includes my younger son who was targeted as a minor.  Both of my sons have been continuously targeted and victimized over this case.  The campaign of harassment extended to my sister, Paulette Brandt, other friends, colleagues, and nearly every witness who provided me with a declaration in this case.  In fact, Stephen Gianelli harassed, stalked, insulted, threatened, intimidated, insulted, and/or slandered Paulette Brandt (who is most definitely in “their” sights), Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, and Daniel J. Meade.  The only person who truly benefits from this conduct is Leonard Cohen.  I am the individual being relentlessly harassed.  The tactics used against me have included psychological warfare, slandering and intimidating my family members, intentionally provoking me, forcing me to respond to highly inflammatory and outrageous false allegations made to my family and friends, and generally unconscionable conduct on the part of a group of people who resemble low-life hoodlums and common criminals.

5.      Plaintiffs Opposition addresses the fact that I have a legal background.  While I was in

college, and thereafter, I did work as a legal secretary, assistant, and paralegal.  I was also continuously supervised in my work and have made that a practice throughout my career.  I was also a notary public and understand the importance of signatures on documents and the difference between executing a document and conforming one.  My background primarily involves the music industry field of law which has a strong emphasis on contracts and intellectual property.  I have absolutely been involved in contract and deal negotiations.  I always worked with a team of professionals and never once wrote a legal document or provided legal advice.  And, while I have worked for litigators, my primary exposure to that field involved federal cases that dealt with federal copyright and trademark infringements.  Jules Zalon, an attorney I worked for in my early 20s, provided me with a letter to the Court.  I have emailed this letter to opposing counsel and it is attached as an exhibit to this Motion.  Throughout the years, to a greater or lesser degree, I have been involved in the actual researching of legal matters and have worked under the supervision of attorneys on a variety of legal documents.  While I was Leonard Cohen’s personal manager, he had teams of professional representatives advising him.  These individuals worked directly for Leonard Cohen.  They did not work for me.  In particular, Richard Westin and Neal Greenberg were hired by Leonard Cohen.  They were wrapped in attorney/client privilege with Leonard Cohen.  I was excluded from that privilege and, at one point, this issue arose with respect to a legal matter Hochman, Rettig was handling for Leonard Cohen with respect to the $1 million prepayment he personally received in connection with the 2001 Traditional Holdings deal.  I was becoming concerned that something was wrong with the private annuity obligation, sent Hochman Rettig certain corporate documents and the Annuity Agreement, and asked Steve Blanq if they would review it for any problems that were not brought to my attention.  Steve Blanq called me back and advised me that he had spoken with Richard Westin who informed him, in no uncertain terms, that I did not have attorney/client privilege and they should not speak to me about the matters I had inquired about.  This conversation alarmed me and, at that time, I wrote a confidential letter to Mr. Holtz of the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office in Los Angeles, California.  I specifically addressed this letter and the issue that arose with respect to attorney/client privilege.  I had no such privilege with Richard Westin or any Cohen representative.  I was an independent contractor and was, in any event, not the client.  You do not simply assign someone attorney/client privilege – particularly in hindsight when it’s convenient and there is evidence you would like to conceal.  I provided Mr. Holtz with nearly ever exhibit I submitted to this Court with my Motion for Terminating Sanctions.  I also prepared the declaration submitted with that Motion specifically for the Internal Revenue Service.  Since initially reporting the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS Agent Bill Betzer, I began providing the IRS with a tremendous amount of evidence.  Much of that evidence has now been destroyed due to the loss of my home.  There is also the matter of Leonard Cohen unlawfully seizing my business files from my office; abandoning his old business files at my home; and obtaining an order that permitted LASD to seize corporate records, corporate tax documents, and property that belonged to me personally, Machat & Machat, Phil Spector, and others.  The related case is now at issue because I am being threatened with contempt of corrupt.  I find this situation incredulous and beyond outrageous.  I also view the attempts to conceal and seal evidence as a blatant attempt to obstruct justice.  Yesterday afternoon, I found a package left outside of this apartment.  Contained therein, and intentionally submitted at the 11^th hour, was Plaintiffs’ Objection to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice.  Essentially that document takes the position that judicial notice was not properly requested with respect to all exhibits apart from a handful of exhibits that Plaintiffs attached to their original Opposition to my Motion to Vacate but failed to request judicial notice for.  I utterly oppose this Objection; feel these side issues related to sealing evidence and raising attorney client privilege are of the utmost importance; do not have sufficient time to provide a proper response; and believe the Court should take these matters under separate consideration in a hearing devoted to going through each piece of evidence specifically with both Plaintiffs and myself.  I would like to point out that many documents the Court has now sealed are publicly available on state websites (corporate records); through Pacer (including those exhibits attached to Neal Greenberg’s 2005 lawsuit which I purchased); through the Southern District of New York (all documents related to the CAK litigation) which are not under seal; and elsewhere.  Articles, such as the MacLean’s August 22, 2005 “Devastated” piece on Leonard Cohen, specifically involved interviews with him.  Therefore, those interviews should not be taken as hearsay particularly as Leonard Cohen laid out the foundations of his case for journalist Brian Johnson and MacLean’s.  I have no suggestions for how the Court could conceivably handle a hearing with respect to the evidence, exhibits, Plaintiffs’ attempts to seal and conceal evidence, or matters related to arguments involving attorney/client privilege.  There is currently a hearing scheduled in this case for June 23, 2015.  That hearing has been scheduled since March 2015.  I do not believe this matter should wait until the possible Sanctions hearing in September 2015 and take great offense at Plaintiffs’ outrageous attempt to terminate my fee waiver and prohibit me from filing additional documents in any case before LA Superior Court without having the Supervising Judge of the Court signing off on those matters.  The sense of entitlement on the part of Plaintiffs and their legal representatives is mind-boggling.  Leonard Cohen is a Canadian citizen living in the United States as a guest of the United States.  His personal conduct with respect to this matter, and other related litigation, is utterly reprehensible. 

6.       There were indeed procedural issues addressed at the January 17, 2014 hearing on the

Motion to Vacate.  Unfortunately, most of those issues were not created or caused by me personally.  As I explained to this Court, my former appellate attorney was kind enough to file the Motion to Vacate.  I did provide him with the Motion, declarations, exhibits, answer to complaint, fee waiver form, and proof of service.  For some reason, the answer to complaint was not submitted to the court and I found this out when Jeffrey Korn brought it to my attention.  I explained that I would file it at once and he had no objections to that.  Francis Suarez also evidently transformed my declaration and case history into one document.  I had authorized him to sign on my behalf and provided him with the authority to do so in writing.  He then created an Exhibit A and changed Rutger Penick’s declaration in Exhibit B.  I am not certain I actually understand what the issue is since both the Court and Plaintiffs were in receipt of my rather standard answer to complaint in more than enough time to review same prior to the actual hearing.  In any event, these problems did not have their genesis with me.  There were other witnesses, including my mother and witnesses who have now provided this Court with declarations, willing to testify telephonically due to the fact that they were unavailable, traveling out of state, reside out of state, or reside in a foreign country.  I phoned CourtCall who confirmed that Judge Robert Hess does indeed accept CourtCall.  I then phoned Department 24 and asked a series of questions.  One had to do with whether or not the motion hearing was off-calendar.  It was confirmed that it was not.  I then asked the gentleman who answered the phone if, now that I had filed my motion and the documents were served, I had to file anything else in order to have witnesses testify at the hearing.  I was advised, and Paulette Brandt was present for this call, that all I  had to do was show up with the witnesses and they would be permitted to testify at the January 17, 2014 hearing.  That is the reason both Paulette Brandt and Palden Ronge were present for the hearing as I informed the Court.  I also mentioned witness testimony to Jeffrey Korn.  This would explain why I was served an Objection document, that I brought to the attention of the Court, by Jeffrey Korn objecting to potential witness testimony.  Based on these discussions, I was under the impression that the Court would accept testimony from these witnesses.  The issues these witnesses were willing to testify are the issues addressed in their declarations.  Paulette Brandt did not materially change her declaration.  She did keep “in touch” with me but, as my phones were shut off, it would be impossible to keep in touch with me telephonically.  Therefore, my friends (such as Paulette Brandt, Palden Ronge, and others), would stop by – unannounced – throughout the summer and fall of 2005 – and were in a position to testify as to what I looked like at the time and whether or not I evaded anyone who simply came to my door.  As there were floor to ceiling glass panels on either side of the door, I can assure this Court that if the process server actually came to my house at all, he would have been able to accurately describe me.  Instead, he obviously relied on a description that he was given that did not resemble me.  I would also like to point out that my driveway was just beyond a curve on Mandeville Canyon Road and many people missed the house which required crossing a bridge.  My mailbox did not have the address or number on it.  When you crossed the bridge, there were two houses.  One was mine and the other belonged to my neighbors.  I do not leave lights on when I leave a room and have been trained to shut them off since I was born.  In fact, the Court should feel free to call Phil Shull, the owner of Deneuve Construction, as this became a minor mystery when I worked for them while temporarily residing in Boulder, Colorado.  They could not figure out who was turning out the lights and, as it turned out, Mr. Shull did not want the lights turned off at all and spoke to me about that issue.  The entire back of my house was covered in floor to ceiling plate glass windows.  I never had lights on during the day and there would be no reason to have lights on in an entrance hall in the morning.  Every room in the house, for the most part, was covered in floor to ceiling plate glass windows and sliding doors.  I personally do not believe a process serve came to my house.  And, I can assure this Court that I did receive Neal Greenberg’s amended complaint.  It was thrown outside the door of my house on the ground.  However, I did not object to service.  I acknowledged receiving the Amended Complaint and eventually advised Judge Babcock personally that I refused to participate in that litigation due to my concerns that the case was nothing other than an attempt to obstruct justice and cover up criminal tax fraud.  In any event, with respect to CourtCall, when I phoned Department 24 about this matter, also in Paulette Brandt’s presence, I was told that Judge Robert Hess never accepts CourtCall.  This essentially addresses the procedural issues raised at the January 17, 2014 hearing. 

7.      Prior to filing my Motion to Vacate, I spent a great deal of time assembling the exhibits

which were rather voluminous.  Paulette Brandt assisted me and printed out many documents.  We then took those documents to Kinkos in Hollywood.  The machines repeatedly broke down, the attendants had to assist me on approximately 10 separate occasions.  I was given credits totaling nearly $50.  My documents were caught in the machine, pulled from the machine, ripped out of the machine, and evidently lost.  While I was at Kinko’s, with Paulette Brandt, I initially copied the declarations.  These were then conformed and Paulette Brandt signed two declarations that she was submitting to the Court.  She signed all copes of those two declarations.  When we arrived at LA Superior Court, I went through the documents one final time and discovered one of Paulette Brandt’s declarations was missing.  Due to that, I went upstairs to Family Court where Paulette Brandt was waiting in line to file a document, and she decided it would be best to hand write the relevant information on the one declaration we did have copied.  Because she was standing in line with files, I wrote the paragraph on the document itself and she personally initialed that paragraph.  A copy of both documents that were originally to be submitted to this Court with the Motion for Terminating Sanctions is attached to Paulette Brandt’s new declaration being submitted with this Reply.

8.      With respect to my mother’s declaration, some of this was already addressed in her

declaration.  For approximately a month or more, my mother (Joan Lynch) and I reviewed documents submitted to this Court, in related matters, with respect to my younger son’s custody matter, the probation matter with respect to the 2012 trial, and other matters.  My mother and I discussed these documents at length and I took shorthand notes of her comments and responses.  After we finished reviewing the documents, I then drafted a declaration and mailed it to her.  My mother received that document and approved it.  Paulette Brandt read the declaration to my mother, in its entirety, to ensure that there was no confusion.  While my mother has had memory problems for a number of years, she also had good days where her memory was perfect and bad days where she couldn’t recall certain information.  My mother agreed to sign her declaration and mail it to me.  In the meantime, due to the Christmas mail, she authorized Paulette Brandt to sign her declaration on her behalf.  Paulette Brandt was authorized to conform my mother’s signature and I intended to attach the original signature page to the document should her signed declaration page not arrive in time for the hearing.  On December 26, 2013, my mother had a serious stroke.  She was hospitalized for a considerable period of time.  Following her stroke she had little if any memory.  There are times when I am unsure if she actually knows who I am.  There are other times when it seems as though she recalls details but then asks me questions, repeatedly throughout the conversation, having to do with what the weather is like; who I live with; where I live; and so forth.  I am uncertain if she even knows who Leonard Cohen is any longer.  My father has informed me that my mother does not recall her childhood; immediately forgets what was discussed with her; has been under the care of medical practitioners for her memory problems for approximately 3 years; but, since her stroke, her memory has grown increasingly worse on a daily basis.  Therefore, my mother’s declaration is precisely what she intended it to be:  a declaration with her signature conformed by Paulette Brandt who was authorized to sign on my mother’s behalf.  Paulette Brandt and I have now been accused, on Stephen Gianelli’s latest blog devoted to slandering me, of potential criminal prosecutions with respect to these declarations.  I would have to conclude that Leonard Cohen, and his legal representatives, are desperate individuals who come up with one false allegation after another.  I would like to remind this Court that Daniel Bergman destroyed my sons’ lives.  The custody matter was clearly coordinated with the SWAT incident.  I was taken from Brentwood to King Drew in South Central.  The entire King Drew file was falsified.  Apart from my former address in Brentwood, and Steve Lindsey’s cell phone, the file does not relate to me.  And yet, this incident was used to file a custody matter that destroyed my sons’ lives.  Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory assisted Steve Lindsey with that custody matter and I can assure this court that not one of these individuals cares at all about my sons or their welfare.  Ray Charles Lindsey is now over 18 and this Court has no jurisdiction over him.  The damage is done and the statute of limitations have run so Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Steve Lindsey, Daniel Bergman, and others, should rest comfortably knowing that their conduct led to the outright destruction of the lives of two young men.  My older son, Rutger Penick, has survived this ordeal and was indeed a witness to much of what happened.  I assume he will now be targeted given the fact that Leonard Cohen personally lied about me in relation to Rutger’s horrendous Whole Foods incident.  My younger son advised Stephen Gianelli, Cohen fan Walsh (who did indeed copy Michelle Rice on numerous criminally harassing emails), and Ray Lawrence that their emails slandering me were making him physically ill.  I tend to doubt Robert Kory filed a declaration in this case addressing that alarming situation.  After all, Stephen Gianelli and Michelle Rice spoke in May 2009 and, since that time, he and his cyber-terrorists have relentlessly targeted me, my sons, sister, elderly parents, and many others. 

Declaration of Michelle Rice

In support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate

Case No. BC338322

Dated January 4, 2014

9.      Michelle Rice’s declaration confirms that, from January 2005 to December 2010, she was an

associate of the Law Offices of Robert Kory.  Since January 2011, she has been partner in the firm of Kory & Rice, LLP.  Rice serves as Leonard Cohen’s general litigation counsel and oversees his intellectual property matters.  Michelle Rice, having spent several months researching and reviewing relevant background documents, drafted the civil complaint in this case.  The research and writing occurred over the period of January 2005 through June 2005.

10.  In July 2005, Cohen engaged Gibson Dunn & Crutcher as litigation counsel.  Cohen’s civil

complaint against Kelley Lynch and Richard Westin was filed by Scott Edelman on August 15, 2005.  During the course of litigation and continuously ever since Kory & Rice represented Cohen as his general counsel.

11.  Rice fails to mention a suit brought by Leonard Cohen against Neal Greenberg in the Central

District Court of California [Case No. 2:05-cv-06047].  This case, which may involve matters related to Lynch, was initiated on August 18, 2005 when Leonard Cohen personally (and not the corporate entities) filed a Petition against Greenberg and Associates Securities, Inc., Neal R. Greenberg, Greenberg and Associates, Inc., and Tactical Allocation Services, LLC for an order compelling arbitration.  It is of interest to note that these parties were not parties to Case No. BC338322.  A Notice of Dismissal was filed on January 10, 2006 by Leonard Cohen as to Greenberg and Associates Securities, Inc., Neal R. Greenberg and Associates, Inc. and Tactical Allocation Services, LLC.

12.  Michelle Rice’s declaration, which is presumably arguing against my Motion to Vacate,

immediately reintroduces the merits of the underlying case and falsely states, under oath, that:  “After her termination as Mr. Cohen’s manager in October 2004, Ms. Lynch refused to return Mr. Cohen’s business records and other personal property.  The declaration refers to Cohen’s Ex Parte Application for a Writ of Possession to recover his business records and personal property in Los Angeles Superior Court on October 11, 2005 [Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC341120].”  I have addressed this matter previously but it is important to review the extent of the perjured statements and fraudulent misrepresentations made in these declarations.  Rice then begins her argument that, having met me once, months after the date the proof of service was filed, she believes I was actually served.  I have not, for the Court’s information, provided the Court with a declaration from Chad Knaak due to the ongoing harassment of members of my family and friends.  I do not believe it is acceptable to expose anyone to needless criminal harassment, stalking, slander, intimidation tactics, and threats.  Rice confirms that she saw  process server hand me documents on October 18, 2005.  I have no idea what this has to do with the willful failure to serve me the summons and complaint.  “On October 18^th and 24^th, 2005, two deputy sheriffs from the Santa Monica Sheriff’s Department executed the Order on the Writ of Possession at Ms. Lynch’s residence at 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road in Los Angeles.  I was present both days as Mr. Cohen’s legal representative.  On October 18^th, I saw a process server personally serve Ms. Lynch with Mr. Cohen’s application for a Restraining Order.”

13.  Rice, who has made partner targeting me and now serves as Cohen’s paid witness, now

distinctly recalls my appearance at this time:  “I distinctly recall in October 2005, Ms. Lynch had a short, blonde hairstyle, with obvious dark brown roots.”  These statements are merely meant to mislead the Court because Lynch did not resemble the individual in the proof of service filed on August 25, 2005 and was not served Cohen’s summons & complaint.” 

14.  Rice’s declaration also confirms that on April 28, 2008, she entered an appearance on behalf

of Leonard Cohen in the Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc. et al. v. Cohen, et al. [Civil Case No. 1:05-cv-01233-LTB-MJV.”  Rice explains that the litigation was ongoing for approximately three years; the original complaint was against Cohen and his attorney, Robert Kory, and was first filed in Colorado State Court in Boulder District Court on June 5, 2005 by “Mr. Cohen’s former investment adviser, Neal Greenberg” and his related companies.  The case was then removed to the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado on July 7, 2005.  Rice’s declaration goes onto explain that Greenberg joined Lynch as a defendant through an amended complaint filed on August 2, 2005.  The Amended Complaint asserted four claims against Leonard Cohen and added a new claim for interpleader which involved resolving “Mr. Cohen’s and Ms. Lynch’s competing ownership claims to the remaining Traditional Holdings funds still under Plaintiffs’ management.”  Through the interpleader claim, Greeberg disavowed any interest in the remaining invested funds and paid a sum of $154,180.78 into the Registry of the Court for the District Court’s determination as to whom the remaining funds should be distributed.  Rice simply concludes that I attempted to evade service of Greenberg’s Amended Complaint.  This is blatantly false; Rice (who did not know Lynch) has no evidence to support her fraudulent misrepresentations; and she appears willing to say and do anything for her client, Leonard Cohen.  The Greenberg plaintiffs filed a Submission of Return of Service that was filed through the CM/ECF system.  California process server, Cory Marsh, stated that he had served the Summons, Complaint and District Court Civil Cover Sheet on “Jane Doe, an individual matching Ms. Lynch’s description that had been provided to him, at Ms. Lynch’s residence at 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road, Los Angeles, California 90049 on August 10, 2005.”  The process server also noted that the individual served had “refused to identify herself.”  Rice attached the Return of Service (Greenberg) as Exhibit A.  This incident never occurred and Rice has no evidence proving otherwise.  She has merely attempted to mislead and deceive the Court.  The process server, in this particular situation, tossed the documents on the ground in front of Lynch’s home.  She found them on the ground outside her front door.  At no time did I attempt to evade service and, in fact, had already received Greenberg’s initial Complaint (from numerous parties) and provided a copy to my neighbor, an investor who advised me that he intended to move his investments away from Greenberg’s companies.  Greenberg and his lawyers were aware of the fact that service was never an issue with respect to the Amended Complaint.  At issue was the fact – initially – that I did not reside in Colorado (or have minimal ties to that jurisdiction) – and felt many of the allegations in the Complaint were self-serving and false.  I found others to accurately reflect the issues at hand.  I advised Judge Lewis Babcock on numerous occasions, and personally spoke to him on one, that I refused to participate in this lawsuit.  The reasons I gave for doing so was my unshakeable conviction that this lawsuit, which did nothing other than obscure issues between Lynch and Cohen, was nothing other than an attempt to obstruct justice and cover up criminal tax fraud.  Michelle Rice feels utterly comfortable conjuring up narratives and theories that serve her client (and ultimately herself).  There was and remains no issue related to service in the Greenberg matter.  Michelle Rice has simply created one where one does not exist. 

15.  According to Rice’s declaration, on April 30, 2008, she electronically filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment – via the CM/ECF system – with the District of Colorado.  According to Rice, Cohen sought summary judgment as to the four surviving claims asserted against him individually and as to the interpleader claim.  It is highly relevant to note that Traditional Holdings, LLC was the account holder and Cohen took the position that he was the alter ego of this entity and its accounts with the Greenberg companies.  Traditional Holdings, LLC was not a party to this matter.  The Motion apparently contained 16 exhibits and three supporting declarations with their associated exhibits.  Cohen evidently argued that the May 15, 2006 judgment of the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC338322) declared that “Lynch is not the rightful owner of any assets in Traditional Holdings, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., or any other entity related to Cohen” and that therefore the remaining Traditional Holdings funds should be released to Mr. Cohen.  Lynch has a rightful and legal ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Old Ideas, LLC so this statement is a fraudulent misrepresentation and, as it relates to Rice’s declaration, perjury.  Plaintiffs, via their declarations, are arguing the merits of the underlying case in response to Lynch’s Motion to Vacate.

Rice confirms that Exhibit A-16 attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment was an exemplified copy of the May 15, 2006 judgment of the Los Angeles Superior Court in Civil Case BC338322 entered against me by default.  Rice attached as Exhibit B true and correct copies of the electronic receipts from the District of Colorado’s CM/ECF system of the electronic filing of the Motion and supporting exhibits and declarations.  She attached, as Exhibit C, a true and correct copy of Motion Exhibit A-16, the exemplified copy of the May 15, 2006 judgment.  Therefore, Plaintiffs introduced the language of the default judgment itself into their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate.  According to LA Superior Court’s website, Plaintiffs filed the following documents on May 9, 2006:  Request to Enter Default Judgment (following the status conference of February 27, 2006); Request to Enter Judgment (not entered as requested); Request for Dismissal (Does 1-50); Declaration of Leonard Norman Cohen; Declaration of Scott A. Edelman; Points & Authorities (re. Default Judgment); Declaration of Kevin L. Prins (which includes the fraudulent financial ledger); and Plaintiff’s Case Summary.  Therefore, when Michelle Rice submitted the actual Default Judgment to the Court, in response to my Motion to Vacate, she essentially submitted the supporting and miscellaneous documents that were filed in support of the request for default judgment which was granted on May 15, 2006 as well as Cohen’s Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting declarations and exhibits filed in the Greenberg Colorado matter.  I am unaware of any law, particularly when issues related to “misappropriation” have been raised and argued, that requires her to remain silent in the face of false allegations, perjured statements, fraudulent misconduct, and litigation tactics and abuse.  The allegations, raised in the Greenberg Colorado matter, were introduced into Case No. BC338322 via declarations.

16.  Michelle Rice asserts that, on the afternoon of April 30, 2008, she sent an email to me c/o

the email address:  odzerchenma@gmail.com.  I no longer have access to that account, and haven’t in years, as my email accounts and blogs were ultimately targeted by Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Blaine (Phil Spector’s former assistant who misappropriated nearly $1 million from him and engaged in a vile and vindictive campaign to demonize him in defense), Susanne Walsh (Leonard Cohen’s fan), and others.  Rice’s declaration states that one of the attachments was Motion Exhibit A-16.  However, she and I had no agreement to serve documents electronically and, based on the conduct of Plaintiffs and their lawyers, I refuse to agree to electronic service without a Court order in place directing the parties to serve one another in this manner.  Rice has provided no authentication whatsoever with respect to the email address itself.  I, who has dealt with tremendous harassment over the years related to this case – including being bombarded by psychotic and deranged emails on a daily basis for nearly six straight years, have no independent recollection whatsoever of this email exchange.  I no longer have access to my prior email account and am unable to independently verify the authenticity of that evidence.

17.  According to Rice, on May 1, 2008, I responded to her April 30, 2008 email and

informed her that my mailing address was no longer 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road (Exhibit D).  Rice then asked me to provide her with a current mailing address.  By this time, Plaintiffs were well aware of my whereabouts.  Leonard Cohen, who evidently has endless funds to target me relentlessly with legal teams, was monitoring my whereabouts, confirmed this during his 2012 trial testimony, and even hired private investigators.  It has also come to my attention that Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, and others have contacted numerous law enforcement agencies with respect to Lynch.  Those agencies include, but are not limited to, LAPD, Santa Monica PD, and Boulder PD.  Rice failed to highlight the fact that I allegedly wrote that she was well aware that my address was no longer 2648 Mandeville Canyon as she wrote Phil Shull’s attorney, Craig Blockwick in Boulder, Colorado.  I worked directly for Phil Shull, owner of Deneuve Construction, at the time and was subjected to relentless harassment involving matters related to Leonard Cohen.  Michelle Rice failed to highlight my statements that “There is evidence that your client (and Robert Kory) attempted to silence me, terrorize me, crush me, and destroy me.  Some of that evidence is with the FBI in Denver – perhaps they are amused by these antics and perhaps they want to develop a close friendship with Robert Kory.  That is the FBI in Denver’s business.  Not mine.  There is evidence with Greenberg/Posel/Scheid/Chipman/et al. that Leonard Norman Cohen and Robert Kory have engaged in witness and evidence tampering.  According to the Duty Agent I spoke with at the FBI in Denver, that is criminal activity.  Perhaps you should drop the ludicrous insanity having to do with slander and focus on the issues that are actually criminal.  Then, perhaps you can figure out what tax return was filed by Traditional Holdings, LLC for the year 2001.  I know that Robert Kory and Dimascio & Berardo did not want to provoke any type of unwarranted attention on the part of the IRS.  Thank you again for confirming that the books and records of Traditional Holdings, LLC actually contain the truth of the matter.  I did point out to Judge Babcock (via voicemail) that I felt, after reading your complaint, that he needed to go to law school.  Very kind of you to let him know what “besmirched” meant.  Please confirm receipt of my mailing address in California and do copy in the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.  All complaints you have about the civil and/or criminal tax fraud should be addressed to them directly.  That, I would imagine, is their forte and area of expertise.  Kelley Lynch”  I provided Rice with a California address and explained that I resided in Colorado and she and Plaintiffs well understood.  See Rice’s Exhibits E and F.  

18.  Rice evidently instructed someone in her firm to mail a copy of the exemplified May 15, 2006

judgment to both the Colorado and California mailing addresses.  The mail to Phil Spector’s former post office box was evidently returned.  I did not receive any such documents by mail in Colorado; was not part of the Colorado case (in terms of not personally appearing); and had brought my reasons for taking that position to the attention of Judge Babcock.  There was no confusion with respect to issues related to service.  There were obviously issues related to jurisdiction.  I had numerous addresses in Colorado and Cohen, Kory & Rice were well aware that I worked for Deneuve Construction and understood how to contact me.  In fact, Robert Kory personally phoned Deneuve Construction, asked for Phil Shull, and, when I asked him what he wanted, hung up on me.  I believe Daniel Bergman, after I attempted to contact him (and he was ordered to communicate with me) for my younger son’s social security number (because I was filling out forms related to life insurance and beneficiaries), wrote a letter personally to Phil Shull.  Phil Shull and I reviewed that “nuisance” letter. 

19.  Rice goes onto confirm that on May 1, 2008, I included a note in one of my emails to her that

read as follows:  “NOTE to the IRS:  That Kelley Lynch was never served [Cohen’s summons & complaint] and, I might point out – again, that I was told in no uncertain terms (by numerous individuals) that if Cohen attempted to say he was the rightful owner of Traditional Holdings it proved further fraud.”  The reason I wrote this is due to the fact that I was not served Leonard Cohen’s summons and complaint and have raised this fact as an issue for 10 straight years now.  (See Exhibit G attached to Rice’s declaration).  Rice also confirms that I wrote that “No judgment was obtained, the fraudulent, bogus, insane lawsuit was never served on me, and I will address this in my own lawsuit.”   (See Exhibit G attached to Rice’s declaration).  I have continuously advised Plaintiffs, their lawyers, and others that I was not served Cohen’s summons and complaint; the Court obtained no jurisdiction over me; and the judgment was void.

20.  Rice’s declaration inaccurately states that Judge Babcock’s order was dated September 2, 2008

when, in fact, it was dated September 5, 2008.  She should be well aware of the fact that the hearing in the Boulder, Colorado restraining order matter was held on September 2, 2008 and seems to have been coordinated for a number of reasons.  In rendering his judgment, Judge Babcock referred to the May 15, 2006 judgment in Case No. BC338322 that falsely declares that “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.” 

21.  Michelle Rice’s declaration does note that I never made an appearance in the District of

Colorado litigation.  Rice added Phil Spector’s California address and my email to certificates of service she attached to documents filed with the District Court.  For reasons I cannot imagine this conduct, on the part of Rice, led to a change of address re. my mailing address with respect to the District of Colorado (although I most certainly did not authorize this change) to Phil Spector’s address in Pasadena, California.  Rice’s conduct also led to the Court’s decision to change my email address to odzerchenma@gmail.com without my authorization.  This email account was targeted and shut down.  (See Rice’s declaration Exhibit I).

22.  Rice then raises the California Restraining order Cohen obtained in November 2005 after he

and his lawyers steadfastly refused to communicate with Lynch about failure to serve her the summons and complaint and with respect to the litigation proceedings and discovery maters.  The merits of the restraining order matter (Case No. BS099650), a civil harassment order, are not being argued in this matter but Rice decided to introduce them.  Cohen and his legal representatives have abused the restraining order process and used these orders as tactics.  In paragraph 23, Rice confirms that she understood, at the time, that I resided in Boulder, Colorado.  While Rice’s declaration states that Cohen applied for a new civil harassment order in Boulder, Colorado in August 2008, she clearly states that Cohen sought this order (Case No. 2008C 000776) because the California order, that Lynch really has no details about, was set to expire in November 2008.  Leonard Cohen personally testified during my 2012 trial that his reasons for obtaining this order were his concerns, farcical or otherwise, that I might attend his concert scheduled for June 2009 in the Denver, Colorado area.  By that time, I had long since left Boulder, Colorado.   He also testified that his concerns, when he made his extraordinary flight into Boulder, Colorado in the midst of a European tour, related to Lynch’s online posts and communications with journalists.  I have no personal interest whatsoever in Leonard Cohen and wouldn’t attend his concert if my life depended no it.  I do have an interest in confronting the legal issues, slander, harassment, and other matters that have now arisen due to Leonard Cohen’s conduct and this lawsuit in particular. 

23.  Rice confirms that, in August 2008, she attended a court hearing in Boulder County Court

with respect to Cohen’s application for a temporary restraining order.  This ex parte hearing was held on August 19, 2008, one day after Kory & Rice, on behalf of Leonard Cohen, threatened legal action against journalist Ann Diamond over her article “Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch.”  The Boulder Combined Court, after I noted the hearing was “insane” and requested that the order be made permanent, entered a permanent order.  No witnesses presented testimony, apart from me, and no evidence was presented to the Court during that hearing.  (Rice attached the Boulder, Colorado order as “Exhibit J.) 

24.  Although Rice wrote me on February 14, 2011 stating that the Colorado order was registered

in California, that issue was addressed during my 2012 trial and it turned out that Michelle Rice wrote and lied to me about a material issue in this matter.  The Boulder, Colorado order was fraudulently and unlawfully registered with LA Superior Court (Case No. BQ 033717; Permanent Colorado Order attached to Rice’s declaration as Exhibit K) as a domestic violence order using form DV-600.  Copies of Michelle Rice’s February 14, 2011 emails to me are attached hereto.  In her emails, Michelle Rice advised me as follows:  “As you are well aware, since you chose not to exercise your legal rights at the time of the lawsuit and failed to respond at all to the complaint, much less engage in an orderly discovery process to obtain the information you now seek, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a default judgment against you in May 2006.”  I most certainly did not fail to respond to the complaint in this matter.  Leonard Cohen, and his legal representatives, willfully failed to serve me the summons and complaint.  Include in this email thread was the transcript of Steven Machat and my conversation which he confirmed was accurate apart from the information about Robert Kory being possibly present when he met with Leonard Cohen, about his film “Bird On A Wire,” who may have secretly recorded their meeting.  The IRS also does not require individuals to use LA Superior Court’s discovery process to obtain IRS required tax and corporate information.

25.  Micelle Rice’s declaration notes that I was arrested in Berkeley, California on March 1, 2012

(Criminal Case No. 2CA 04539).  I was arrested for violating the domestic violence order in case no. BS099650.  This is the restraining order case number the prosecutor provided the Court during the March 23, 2012 hearing.  The charges remain somewhat vague and I have asked DOJ to investigate that matter together with the abuse of domestic violence orders, my conviction and sentencing for violating a domestic violence order, probation requirements and fines/fees assessed related to domestic violence.  There was and remains no domestic violence and the newly created California order is evidence of further fraud. 

26.  Robert Kory and Michelle Rice now serve as Leonard Cohen’s personal and business

managers, legal representatives, litigation counsel, and paid witnesses.  I intend to file a motion to vacate the fraudulent registration of the Colorado order as a domestic violence order and will ask the Court to remove the information transmitted to the CLETS database.  That will include the domestic violence related orders the Court provided Kory and Rice.  (Rice’s declaration Exhibit I – Kory & Rice domestic violence related protective orders.)  These orders were presented to this Court in an attempt to willfully evade service of the Motion to Vacate Service.  Robert Kory, Kory & Rice, is also the Registered Agent of Plaintiff corporation, LC Investments, LLC.  I was indeed sentenced to eighteen months in jail and have put the City and County of Los Angeles on notice that I intend to file federal RICO cases against them with respect to these and other matters.  Michelle Rice has merely described the tactics used against me through numerous litigation matters.  That would include, but is not limited, all restraining orders, the instant matter, my 2012 trial, and the federal tax matters that will be litigated with respect to Leonard Cohen’s use of the summons & complaint to obtain fraudulent tax refunds and defend himself against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with Agent Luis Tejeda, Internal Revenue Service. 

27.  The May 15, 2006 Default Judgment permits Leonard Cohen to collect an alleged debt.  The

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is a federal law prohibiting debt collectors from engaging in abusive or deceptive bill collection practices. Those living in California are also protected by the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CFDCPA), which covers more types of collectors and offers additional protections.  The default judgment in this matter unlawfully assigned me “debt” that accumulates financial interest that continues to accumulate at a rate of 10% per annum.  I have been criminally harassed, threatened, intimidated, stalked, and slandered over this “debt.” 

Declaration of Robert Kory

In support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate

Case No. BC338322

Dated January 4, 2014

28.  Robert Kory’s declaration confirms that, from January 1993 to December 2010, he has

practiced law in California.  Since January 2011, Robert Kory has been a partner in the firm of Kory & Rice, LLP.  From January 1993 to December 2010, Robert Kory practiced law in California under the name of the Law Offices of Robert Kory.  Since November 2004, Robert Kory has represented Leonard Cohen in corporate and tax matters including with the federal, state, and international law authorities.  He currently serves as Cohen’s general corporate counsel and oversees all general business affairs as well as matters related to taxes.

29.  Robert Kory’s declaration confirms that he began representing Leonard Cohen in his

“dispute with his former personal manager, Kelley Lynch, regarding her misappropriation of funds from his various personal and retirement accounts.”  While this sentence is entirely self-serving and needlessly gratuitous, it has opened the doors in the present matter to the merits of those statements which were part of the Complaint that led to the Default Judgment in Case No. BC338322.  At no time did I misappropriate anything from Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen, his legal representatives, and others, have continually taken the position that Leonard Cohen is a highly entitled alter ego of numerous corporate fictions.  Leonard Cohen is not the entities known as Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., LC Investments, LLC, Traditional Holdings, LLC, or Old Ideas, LLC.  Corporate assets are not Leonard Cohen’s personal assets regardless of his personal views on that matter.  Kory’s declaration goes onto state that he also represented Cohen “in a related dispute with his former lawyer, Richard Westin, Esq. and his former adviser, Neal Greenberg, regarding their roles in enabling Ms. Lynch in her wrongdoing.”  I engaged in no wrongdoing and therefore it would have been humanly impossible for Westin, Greenberg, or anyone else for that matter, to assist me with this fictional wrongdoing.  Robert Kory also falsely states that “Mr. Westin and Mr. Greenberg created an estate plan for Mr. Cohen that gave Ms. Lynch unfettered control over Mr. Cohen’s accounts.” 

30.  This statement alone raises many corporate and tax issues.  However, I did not have

“unfettered control” over Leonard Cohen’s “accounts.”  I was asked to assist Leonard Cohen and that is the precise reason he asked me to execute a power of attorney because he planned to travel.  It was never my understanding that any of these entities were created as an estate plan for Leonard Cohen.  Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., formerly LC Productions, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.  It was formed in or around 1989.  In 1993, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. was registered to do business in California.  It was initially used for “The Future Tour.”  LC Investments, LLC, also a Delaware entity, was formed in the fall of 2000 and registered to do business in California in November 2000.  Old Ideas, LLC, a Delaware entity, was formed in June 2004.  It registered to do business in California in April 2011. 

31.  Robert Kory apparently helped Leonard Cohen devise a plan that involved an attempt to

unravel these entities and provide Internal Revenue Service (and other tax authorities) with an excuse for Cohen’s role.  Part of that plan seems to involve an attempt to explain away Leonard Cohen’s personal transaction fees, and other expenditures, as corporate expenses.  These items, apart from Richard Westin’s relatively minor legal fees related to the formation of Traditional Holdings, LLC are not corporate expenses.  Kory states that:  During the course of my representation, I learned that Mr. Cohen had been advised first to sell his song copyrights and later to sell his royalty interest in record albums as part of his estate plan. He sold his song copyrights in 1996 and contributed the bulk of the sale proceeds to a family trust. He sold his record album royalties in 200l, and the bulk of the sale proceeds were placed in a company called Traditional Holdings, LLC that was established to provide long term annuity income to Mr. Cohen during his life with the corpus, if any remaining on his death, going to his two children. He contributed his writer's royalties to LC Investments, LLC in 2000 with a view toward the eventual sale of LC Investments, Inc. in2005, a sale which was cancelled upon independent review of Mr. Cohen's entire estate plan.” 

32.  Leonard Cohen was not advised to sell “his song copyrights” and it is important to keep in

mind that the intellectual property was irrevocably assigned to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., by Leonard Cohen personally in or around 1999.  Leonard Cohen insisted on selling intellectual property assets; explored potential bond securitization deals; and is the individual who demanded complex stock sales and insisted upon avoiding ordinary income tax payments.  In fact, Greg McBowman and I met with Cohen early on and informed him that neither of us believed he should sell the intellectual property assets outright.  Leonard Cohen’s declaration in the CAK bond deal litigation confirms that he was extremely involved in these deals; all decisions regarding them; and kept well informed of the deals as they unfolded.  Robert Kory did not represent Leonard Cohen throughout any time that I knew him over a 20 year period.  I never once heard Leonard Cohen mention Robert Kory.  Once he began representing Cohen, I learned that he was the ex-husband of Cohen’s girlfriend, Anjani Thomas.  Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory seem to have conjured up a scheme, that involves a fabricated narrative, that not only excuses Cohen’s conduct; attempts to breach contracts; willfully disregards corporate books and records; permitted Leonard Cohen to wrongfully convert Lynch’s property to himself; was used to file Cohen’s 2005 tax returns and amend his 2003 and 2004 returns; obtain fraudulent refunds from IRS and FTB (using the Complaint narrative); and ultimately was used to defend Leonard Cohen with the IRS with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud. 

33.  Robert Kory continues with his fraudulent misrepresentations and false statements made

under oath.  “During the course of my representation, I learned that Mr. Cohen had been advised first to

sell his song copyrights and later to sell his royalty interest in record albums as part of his estate plan. He sold his song copyrights in 1996 and contributed the bulk of the sale proceeds to a family trust. He sold his record album royalties in 200l, and the bulk of the sale proceeds were placed in a company called Traditional Holdings, LLC that was established to provide long term annuity income to Mr. Cohen during his life with the corpus, if any remaining on his death, going to his two children. He contributed his writer's royalties to LC Investments, LLC in 2000 with a view toward the eventual sale of LC Investments, Inc. in2005, a sale which was cancelled upon independent review of Mr. Cohen's entire estate plan.”  Leonard Cohen did not sell “his copyrights” in 1996 or 2001.  In 1996, Stranger Music, Inc. and the d/b/a Bad Monk Publishing sold stock to Sony/ATV.  In 2001, Traditional Holdings, LLC sold stock to Sony Music.  The assets Traditional Holdings, LLC allegedly owned and sold to Sony were never transferred to this entity and continue to be owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. is not part of any estate planning on Leonard Cohen’s part.  The only entity conceivably related to potential estate planning is LC Investments, LLC.  And, while I have no ownership interest in this entity, K-1 partnership documents were transmitted to State of Kentucky and Internal Revenue Service for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005.  Those K-1s, which I have relentlessly asked Cohen to rescind (as instructed to do by IRS, FTB, and State of Kentucky), indicate that I have a 99.5% ownership interest in this entity.  They show $0 income for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005.  That totally undermines the expense ledger, that in no way resembles an accounting – let alone a corporate accounting – and proves that this document is nothing other than evidence of financial and accounting fraud.  LC Investments, LLC was created specifically for the purpose of accommodating a bond securitization deal with CAK.  Leonard Cohen personally confirmed this in the declaration he provided the Court when CAK sued him for breach of contract.  Leonard Cohen has a long and disturbing history of breaching contracts and falsely accusing his representatives of ripping him off.  In any event, LC Investments, LLC was not used to pursue the bond securitization.  CAK had demanded a bankruptcy proof entity and that was one of the sole reasons for the creation of this entity.  Nothing was ever assigned to this entity.  However, due to the fact that SOCAN refused to pay the writer’s share of royalties, then owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. to a company not wholly owned by the writer, Leonard Cohen, it was agreed by Cohen and Lynch that LC Investments, LLC could collect that royalty income and then distribute it in accordance with the ownership interests in the assets. 

34.  Leonard Cohen did enter into an Annuity Agreement.  That agreement addresses the fact that

Cohen is permitted to take loans from Traditional Holdings, LLC which had to be repaid within 3 years with interest.  The agreed upon interest was 6%.  This issue was endlessly discussed with Cohen and his representatives, addressed in Greenberg’s “IRS Warning” letters of January and June 2004, had to be documented, and Cohen personally understood that his loans/expenditures had to be repaid.  Cohen has steadfastly refused to discuss the fact that he borrowed or caused to be expended assets belonging to Traditional Holdings, LLC totaling approximately $6.7 million.  The Annuity Agreement, and other documents, confirm that Traditional Holdings, LLC bypasses Cohen’s estate and his adult children were not beneficiaries.  That was Cohen’s sole decision.  The annuity obligation was to begin in or around January 2011 years after the Complaint in this matter was filed so there was and remains no breach of fiduciary duty on my part.  The annuity obligation itself was extinguished from the 2003 federal tax return and moved to the capital account.  In 2001, Cohen and his representatives failed to report the income from the Sony sale on the tax returns and in 2002, Cohen and his representatives extinguished my promissory note.  These matters were handled by Cohen’s personal tax and corporate lawyer and I was unaware of them until they were brought to my attention, in the fall of 2004, by my new accountant and the lawyers he referred me to. 

35.  As my lawyers correctly summarized:  Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. (and Old Ideas,

LLC) owns the assets; Leonard Cohen personally and LC Investments, LLC (and possibly other entities now) collects royalties on assets it does not own; and, Traditional Holdings, LLC sold something it doesn’t own.  Robert Kory’s declaration goes onto state that “The business  purpose as to all these transactions was to capitalize a future royalty stream and remove the risk related to the health of the music industry and a potential decline in Mr. Cohen's popularity through a current sale of a future royalty stream based on a then current valuation of that royalty stream, and to create instead a substantial pool of capital that could fund Mr. Cohen's retirement without regard to the health of the music industry or Mr. Cohen's popularity. This estate planning strategy emerged in the 1990s to meet the needs of aging stars in the music business. Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Westin developed an innovative application of a well accepted estate planning tool, the private annuity, in the record album royalty sale transaction.”  It was my understanding that Leonard Cohen realized there were many lucrative publishing deals taking place.  As PolyGram Music was extremely involved in some of these deals, Cohen and I decided that I should travel to New York and meet with Eric Kronfeld.  In 1991, Eric Kronfeld, a show business attorney for two and a half decades, was appointed president and CEO of Polygram Holdings, Inc.  In 1994, I met with Mr. Kronfeld to discuss Cohen’s interest in an intellectual property deal.  Mr. Kronfeld was aware of Leonard Cohen’s work as he, Marty Machat, and Allen Klein (ABKCO) Records had been business partners years earlier. 

36.  On review of these transactions, Kory “questioned their propriety for two principal

reasons. First, the transactions seemed to involve excessive fees. In the sale of the record album

royalties, Traditional Holdings, LLC sold the record album royalties for $8 million, but paid over

$3.3 million” and “netted only $4.7 million in capital to fund Mr. Cohen's retirement owned by Traditional Holdings, LLC.  Second, the transactions created a pool of funds managed exclusively by Greenberg as an investment manager, but under the control of Lynch, with few if any checks and balances.”  It is entirely irrelevant want Kory questioned in hindsight or felt hypothetically he personally could have accomplished on behalf of Cohen.  Leonard Cohen’s personal expenses, referred to as “transaction” fees were indeed in excess of $3.3 million.  Using Robert Kory’s math that left only $1.4 million left.  Kory fails to explain that Leonard Cohen personally received the $1 million prepayment on the Traditional Holdings, LLC deal and failed to transfer that amount to the entity.  Leonard Cohen’s personal record account recoupments were deducted from the gross sales price.  Those recoupment amounts, never properly addressed, totaled in excess of $500,000.  Therefore, using the most rudimentary math and figures, Cohen personally received the sole benefit of $4.9 million before addressing other amounts he personally borrowed or caused to be expended.  The Annuity Agreement clearly states, and Cohen personally executed this simple 2 page agreement, that if Cohen’s loans/advances were not repaid (with interest), any potential annuity obligation payments could be withheld until they were.  In the alternative, Cohen’s personal tax and corporate lawyer extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2003 federal tax return.  Neal Greenberg did indeed manage and control the investments.  He worked as Leonard Cohen’s personal investment and financial adviser since Cohen hired him in 1996.  Greenberg personally brought Richard Westin onboard to assist Cohen.  I had control over nothing and that term seems to be used liberally by Cohen, and his legal representatives, and no doubt relates to potential IRS implications with respect to these deals and federal tax matters. 

37.  Robert Kory’s declaration continues on with his narrative:  “Mr. Cohen engaged me in

November 2004 in part because he suspected that Traditional Holdings, LLC, which he believed (based on monthly emails from Greenberg) had over $5 million in stocks and bonds under Greenberg's management, might in fact have substantially less in real assets because Ms. Lynch had directed Greenberg to sell the stocks and bonds held by Traditional Holdings, LLC so that she could borrow funds from Traditional Holdings, LLC without Mr. Cohen's knowledge or consent. Early review of Mr. Cohen's accounts also indicated that Ms. Lynch might have misappropriated funds from other of Mr. Cohen's accounts over which she then had control. Claims against Ms. Lynch and Mr. Westin ultimately led to the preparation by my then associate (and now partner) Michelle Rice, Esq. of Mr. Cohen's and LC Investments, LLC civil complaint against Kelley Lynch and Richard Westin (eventually filed by Scott Edelman of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP on August 15, 2005) (the "Complaint") in the instant case seeking monetary damages as well as an injunction and constructive trust over those entities established for Mr. Cohen's benefit but effectively controlled by Ms. Lynch.”

38.  In the summer of 2005, Leonard Cohen provided journalist Brian Johnson with an exclusive

interview that appeared in the August 22, 2005 edition.  The interview and article appeared to be coordinated with the filing of the Complaint in this matter.  The article “Devastated” told the tale that Canadian music icon Leonard Cohen was broke and the lawsuits are flying. As Katherine Macklem reported “lt's a sordid tale involving allegations of extortion, SWAT teams, forcible confinement, tax troubles and betrayal.”  I personally find that conclusion rather over-simplified and absurd.  Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory’s response to Neal Greenberg’s accusations that they engaged in a conspiracy and extortion was to go on the defensive and accuse a number of parties, including me, of mismanagement of Cohen’s financial affairs.  The MacLean’s article confirms that Leonard Cohen was “tipped off by an insider that a lot of money was missing from his accounts.”  It is of interest to consider the fact that this unnamed “insider” viewed corporate accounts as Leonard Cohen’s personal accounts.  In the interview portion of the article, Brian Johnson explains:  “That night he told me what he'd hinted at months earlier in an email - that he'd been stripped of most of his assets, and was mired in a legal battle with his money managers, who would accuse him of extortion. He said it would get nasty and personal, and that his name would be dragged through the mud. Now, after reading the pre-emptive lawsuit filed against him, a 34-page screed that reads like a salacious tabloid, I know what he meant.”  The Complaint in the instant matter was Leonard Cohen’s response to Neal Greenberg’s lawsuit, a fabricated narrative for the news media, and an attempt to confront potential problems with tax authorities.  Various versions of this fabricated narrative have been regurgitated in the news media and by Cohen’s fans and their respective fan websites.  Many news accounts seem to be under the impression that Leonard Cohen was on Mt. Baldy, in the fall of 2004, when he learned that his so-called assets had been dissipated.  Leonard Cohen permanently left Mt. Baldy in late 1998.  I have explained the monthly emails Greenberg sent versus the formal financial statements Greenberg provided to Leonard Cohen on a monthly basis.  The loans were handled as assets and it is my understanding that loans are indeed corporate assets.  On the other hand, it is entirely possible that Leonard Cohen views his loans/expenditures as “disguised salary” or possibly gifts to him from the corporate entities. 

39.  At no time did I ever direct Greenberg to sell stocks and bonds held by Traditional Holdings,

LLC or any account related to me and/or Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen appears to be attempting to allude to the fact that I took loans on his behalf.  There was no such understanding and Leonard Cohen’s loans, deposited into his personal bank account, were and remain his loans.  Leonard Cohen’s personal bank statement was sent to his home.  He received his mail there and religiously reviewed and questioned those statements, his income, and his expenses.  He was particularly fastidious with respect to his gifts to family members and friends.  Again, I misappropriated nothing and appear to have been accused of “embezzling” commissions that were approved.  I find that allegation incredulous.  Everything that was done, including with respect to loans, corporate distributions, and so forth was reviewed and approved by Leonard Cohen personally.  Every letter, fax, and email was reviewed with Leonard Cohen.  He personally reviewed all bank account and investment statements.  I did not have control over any account.  I was a signer on certain accounts because Leonard Cohen did spend time on Mt. Baldy and traveled.  It is important to note that Leonard Cohen personally received his personal bank statements and never discovered an “irregularity” until he heard I was reporting his tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.  Leonard Cohen, as my lawyers noted in the fall of 2004, needed to argue fraud and/or rescission to unravel these transactions and explain them away to the tax authorities.  Robert Kory evidently worked with Michelle Rice to prepare the civil complaint in this matter.  It is astounding to me that Leonard Cohen would not only claim that corporate assets were his personal assets but then benefit from his own wrongdoing by obtaining substantial tax refunds (using the Complaint narrative) and wrongfully converting my property to himself.  The taxpayers, who Cohen self-consciously and transparently thanked following my so-called trial in 2012, are also bearing responsibility for Leonard Cohen and his representatives reckless and unconscionable conduct.  These entities were not established for Cohen’s benefit or controlled by me.  Cohen and his legal representatives are merely laying out a defense for Internal Revenue Service.  Leonard Cohen understood and testified during my 2012 trial that his lawyer handled and/or oversaw the corporate books and accountings.  Therefore, I effectively controlled nothing whatsoever.  I also did not prepare corporate records or any legal or loan documents.  I was very clear about these issues in my February 2002 email to Cohen and Westin.  Westin responded and confirmed that he agreed with my positions.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who controlled his representatives, these entities, and used the corporate assets as though they were his personal piggy banks.

40.  Robert Kory’s declaration also confirms that he “engaged on Mr. Cohen’s behalf, the

accounting firm, Moss Adams, and specifically the head of the forensic accounting practice at that firm, Kevin Prins, to review all of Mr. Cohen’s accounts that were under Ms. Lynch’s control from 1998 to 2004.  I advised Mr. Prins that Ms. Lynch as Mr. Cohen’s manager was entitled to 15% of annual gross revenues to Mr. Cohen from publishing/writer royalties, record album royalties, and personal appearances.”  Given this statement and understand, it is therefore astounding that Kevin Prins’ declaration would take the position that I was not entitled to any royalty income deposited into Cohen’s personal account as the record royalties, and other royalty income, was deposited into that account.  This statement alone proves that there is further fraud in connection with the expense ledger and serious problems with Kevin Prins’ declaration.  Nevertheless, Robert Kory was not a party to my agreements with Leonard Cohen and I was entitled to 15% of all gross income, dating back to April 1988, from all sources.  That was our agreement and understanding.  I have gone into further details about our understandings in other documents filed in this case.  Exhibit A (Kory Declaration) Kevin Prins declaration/ledger.

41.  Kevin Prins personally flew to San Francisco to meet with my then accountant, Dale Burgess,

and discussed the fact that he was not in possession of necessary corporate records and/or back-up information required to prepare proper accountings.  He also confirmed that he would have to review corporate tax returns.  There is no indication whatsoever that Kevin Prins gave consideration to any of these items when preparing this rather disturbing ledger. 

42.  In 2005, Robert Kory evidently “engaged on Mr, Cohen's behalf, the tax accounting firm,

Michael Mesnick & company ("Mesnick"), to review the tax consequences of Ms. Lynch's

misappropriation of funds from Mr. Cohen's various legal entities.”  There were no misappropriations from Cohen’s so-called legal entities.  As of February 7, 2005, my lawyers advised me that Robert Kory was unclear as to how the corporations and tax matters should be handled.  I was informed that all parties were concerned about any communications with Internal Revenue Service – even so much as the request for a tax return copy could invite unwarranted inquiries.  My lawyers advised me that Mike Mesnick previously worked for Internal Revenue Service and was brought onboard to help Cohen and his representatives determine how best to handle the issues that had arisen. 

43.  Kory confirms that Mike Mesnick worked under his personal supervision and was subject to

Kory’s review.  Mensnick has evidently prepared Cohen’s tax returns and those of his affiliated entities for the calendar year 2005 and every year thereafter.  Robert Kory is also apparently the party who concluded that “Mr. Cohen could deduct a certain portion of the funds misappropriated by Ms. Lynch from 1998 to 2004 as a ‘theft loss’ on Mr. Cohen’s 2005 federal and state income tax returns.”  The situation is mind-boggling.  Cohen reported problems with Ms. Lynch nowhere in October 2004.  On October 27, 2004, my lawyers (whose calls Cohen and Westin were evading) faxed a letter to Richard Westin confirming our understanding that he was flying into meet with Cohen the last weekend of October 2004.  DiMascio &Berardo asked Westin to agree to a meeting and asked for an explanation of these entities, my role in them, and any potential liability Cohen and his representatives may have exposed me to.  It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a forensic accountant and lawyer were unable, over a period of 9 to 10 months to review bank statements and determine whether or not there was indeed any loss and the extent of that loss.  Kory is merely attempting to explain away matters including the fact that this Complaint was filed in retaliation over the fact that I reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and Cohen and Kory were forced to confront the extremely disturbing and public allegations raised by Greenberg in his June 2005 lawsuit.  There was and remains no “theft loss.”  I have challenged the substantial refunds Leonard Cohen has received from Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board as fraudulent with both tax agencies.  I personally cannot imagine willfully disregarding corporate books, records, agreements, non-revocable assignments, stock certificates, and other relevant materials – including federal and state tax returns – and agreeing that anyone should claim the “theft loss” Leonard Cohen fraudulently claimed as a deduction in 2005.

44.  According to Kory, “Mr. Mesnick included a seven figure theft loss on Mr. Cohen's 2005

federal and state income tax returns. He also amended Mr. Cohen's 2003 and 2004 federal and state income tax returns to ‘carry back’ the loss on the 2005 income tax returns arising from the theft loss.”  If this is accurate, that would mean that Leonard Cohen’s 2003, 2004, and 2005 personal tax returns contain evidence of fraud.  Kory goes onto explain that “Mr. Mesnick included a copy of the Complaint with Mr. Cohen's federal and state income tax returns for 2005 in order to substantiate the size of the theft loss and explain the carry back of the loss to prior years with the amendment of those prior year income tax returns.”  I have filed a Petition with Tax Court challenging the Internal Revenue Service over these tax refunds and Cohen’s use of the Complaint – at least six months prior to the May 2006 default (which is evidently when his refunds were addressed by Internal Revenue Service) – to obtain the refunds.  The declaration I submitted to the Court with my Motion for Terminating Sanctions was initially prepared for Internal Revenue Service, was submitted to Internal Revenue Service prior to my filing it with LA Superior Court, and submitted to Tax Court.  The Tax Court matter remains unresolved at this time.  I also submitted all evidence attached to my Motion for Terminating Sanctions, and declarations submitted therewith, to Internal Revenue Service prior to filing that evidence with LA Superior Court.  The evidence was also submitted to the Tax Court.  At this time, Leonard Cohen has asked this Court to seal that evidence and I continue to view all attempts to seal this evidence, or in any way conceal this evidence, as an attempt to obstruct justice.  Since reporting the allegations to Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005 (and other tax authorities before and after that date), I immediately began submitting evidence to IRS Commissioner’s Staff.  Leonard Cohen and his representatives were well aware of that fact.  I have also brought details of the IRS and federal tax matters to the attention of many courts and law enforcement agencies.  That would include, but is not limited to, LA Superior Court and LAPD’s TMU.  Other details were provided to the City Attorney and District Attorney of Los Angeles. 

45.  Paragraph 14 of Kory’s declaration then goes onto mischaracterize, or blatantly lie, about my

meeting with Agent Kelly Sopko and her partner.  Both individuals were agents working for the U.S. Treasury.  At some point at the end of February 2007, I received a call from Agent Sopko.  She explained that she was in Washington, DC, was flying to Los Angeles, and would like to arrange a meeting with me.  We set a time for the meeting which was held at my residence in Santa Ana, California at some time around the first week of March 2007.  I did not report the allegations that Leonard Cohen had committed criminal tax fraud to Agent Sopko or her partner, Brandon.  I had, as both of these individuals understood, reported these allegations to Internal Revenue Service approximately two years earlier.  At this meeting, these agents confirmed that this matter was extremely complex.  They asked me to provide them with a two-page summary of events.  They also confirmed that members of the IRS Commissioner’s Staff were reading my emails; various parties were handling or addressing various aspects of them; and explained that they received the materials I submitted by U.S. mail as well.  We did discuss the evidence I provided to Internal Revenue Service and additional evidence I was in possession of at the time.  I was advised to provide that evidence to Internal Revenue Service and later instructed to present that evidence to Agent Luis Tejeda who Robert Kory continuously refers to as the “head of the fraud group at the Internal Revenue Service for the Western United States.”  These agents and I discussed a wide variety of issues and never once did they advise me that they felt I had misappropriated Leonard Cohen’s “assets” or affirmed the default judgment in this case.  Testimony regarding these issues was elicited during my 2012 trial.  I subsequently spoke with Agent Sopko and she also sent me an email.  The email advised me to report the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to Agent Tejeda and provide him with the relevant information, with as much specificity as possible, and submit the evidence to him.  Following receipt of Agent Sopko’s email, I did indeed contact Agent Tejeda and discussed this matter with him personally.  I probably should not have, and in hindsight it was terribly naïve, but I did publicly publish Agent Sopko’s email and Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory contacted Agent Tejeda and prepared to defend Leonard Cohen, as has been planned since approximately late 2004, by using a fabricated narrative and fraudulent financial data.  Robert Kory Declaration – Exhibit B – my email cc’ing him with Agent Sopko’s email to me.  In fact, according to Kory’s declaration and evidence submitted to this Court, only one day following Agent Sopko’s email to me Kory called Agent Tejeda and wrote a letter to him dated March 9, 2007.  (Kory’s 3/9 letter to Agent Tejeda – Exhibit C).  Kory then met with Agent Tejeda at his office on April 19, 2007 and attempted to blame what appears to be Cohen’s egregious tax fraud on me.  He explained Cohen’s pre-2005 estate planning structure although Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Old Ideas, LLC, which own the assets, were not part of Cohen’s estate planning structure.  The annuity obligation had already been extinguished from the tax returns by 2003 and I did not handle IRS, tax, corporate, accounting, or legal matters.  Corporate assets are not Leonard Cohen’s “funds” and I misappropriated nothing.  It does not appear that Kory discussed, or divulged that information in his declaration, Leonard Cohen’s approximately $6.7 million in loans/expenditures from Traditional Holdings, LLC to Agent Tejeda.  I did not administer Traditional Holdings, LLC and have no idea what that means.  Traditional Holdings, LLC was not established as a retirement vehicle for Cohen.  It did have an annuity obligation to Cohen but that was extinguished from the tax returns in 2003, without my knowledge, and one would assume that Agent Tejeda was aware of that fact.  The fabricated narrative contained in the Complaint was created and used to defend Leonard Cohen with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud. 

46.  Kory boldly asserts that I “failed to persuade Internal Revenue Service that Mr. Cohen was

engaged in tax fraud.”  There is no evidence to support this assertion and Kory has submitted no evidence to this Court from Agent Tejeda or Internal Revenue Service itself.  A 1099 issued by Traditional Holdings, LLC would most certainly not support an allegation that I failed to persuade the Internal Revenue Service of anything.  Furthermore, it sounds ridiculous that I would have to “persuade” IRS that anyone committed anything.  They are the tax authorities for the United States and one can safely assume that they – not I – understand criminal and corporate tax fraud.  (Kory declaration – Exhibit D – TH 1099).  I personally believe that the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud, brought to my attention by lawyers and accountants, have a very real basis in fact and law.  They are most definitely not plain and simple, defamatory falsehoods, and that notion is absurd in the extreme.

47.  I have addressed the fraudulent misrepresentations and perjured statements made by Leonard

Cohen’s lawyers, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice, solely due to the fact that Plaintiffs’ Opposition document attempts to argue that I have not demonstrated fraud upon the court or any misconduct on the part of Plaintiffs or his attorneys.  I believe I have.  That misconduct includes egregious fraud and deceit directed at the Court itself.

48.  Plaintiffs’ Opposition to my Motion for Terminating Sanctions states unequivocally that

“Extrinsic fraud is distinguishable from intrinsic fraud, ‘which goes to the merits of the prior proceeding and is not a valid ground for setting aside a judgment when the party has been given notice of the actions and has had an opportunity to present his case and to protect himself from any mistake or fraud of his adversary but has unreasonably neglected to do so.’”  This is an extremely relevant and material point given the fact that Plaintiffs are the individuals who raised the merits in the declarations, and other documents, addressed above and submitted to this Court in response to my Motion to Vacate.  Therefore, I am obligated to confront these fraudulent misrepresentations, false accusations, and perjured statements.  I have previously addressed similar conduct on the part of Leonard Cohen and others in response to their introduction of matters related to the merits of the underlying case.  I would like to remind this Court that, six months prior to obtaining the May 15, 2006 Default Judgment, Leonard Cohen used this fabricated narrative to file his 2005 tax returns, amend his 2003 and 2004 tax returns, obtain fraudulent federal and state tax returns, and ultimately used the Complaint (and the expense ledger) to defend himself against allegations related to criminal tax fraud with the IRS fraud unit in Los Angeles, California.  I was not served the summons and complaint.  That is a simple fact.  Based on the money Leonard Cohen has spent targeting me, one can safely assume that if he wanted to ensure that I was properly served, he could have sent another process server to serve the summons and complaint again.  I have personally been involved in a situation where that is precisely what the law firm did under very similar circumstances.  The reason this did not happen is because, when Cohen and his representatives, realized I was not served, they decided to willfully disregard my attempts to address this situation, hung up on me, refused to speak to me, and generally behaved in the most unprofessional and unconscionable manner imaginable.  I would also like to point out that Daniel Bergman refused to communicate with me from the time my son was 12 until he turned 18.  He was in willful violation of a court order, ordering him to communicate with me, for that entire period of time.  His client, Steve Lindsey, was in willful violation of a court order for this same period of time.  He was ordered to have my younger son call me every other night.  I suppose he simply couldn’t be bothered to abide by Judge Craig Karlan’s order and chose, in the alternative, to destroy his son’s life – and, I might note, permit him to be targeted by adult strangers who could, for all I know, be sexual predators.  They are most certainly common criminals.

49.  If I inadvertently included one unpublished case in my Motion for Terminating Sanctions,

please forgive me and cross the case out.  I do not have the money to hire teams of lawyers to show up in court and do my bidding.  Leonard Cohen, after all, intentionally bankrupted me and that is another reason why I was prevented from responding and providing a defense.  I assume that too was intentional.  Therefore, this fact should be viewed as evidence of “extrinsic fraud.”  I remain unclear how a Court could convert my property to Leonard Cohen’s or take the position that he does not owe me money for services rendered.  In any event, Cohen’s decision to bankrupt me, destroy my reputation, target my children and family members, and relentlessly slander me in the news media, is actually evidence of extrinsic fraud because it does show how the alleged misconduct by Cohen and his attorneys prevented me from presenting my claim or defense in the original action.  I will say that I have been threatened each and every time I publicly state that I intend to file a motion or document in any Leonard Cohen related matter.  I have recently, with Paulette Brandt, been advised to commit suicide – by proxy lawyer and criminal stalker Stephen Gianelli. 

50.  I have challenged the imposition of the constructive trust.  There was no fiduciary obligation

breached on my part with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC.  Leonard Cohen’s loans/expenditures exceeding the annuity obligation by approximately $2 million.  His tax lawyer, for his benefit, extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2001 federal tax returns.  And, the annuity obligation would not have arisen until January 2011.  I did not have a fiduciary obligation with respect to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  I was compensated with stock and an ownership interest in the company, and intellectual property assigned, for my services in connection with Cohen’s music publishing and with respect to other services I provided.  I had no relationship whatsoever to Plaintiff entity LC Investments, LLC and could not have had a fiduciary obligation with that entity.  I had no fiduciary obligation with Old Ideas, LLC.  I was compensated with stock and an ownership interest in the company based on Leonard Cohen and my compensation agreements.  I did not have attorney/client privilege with Richard Westin or any representative of Leonard Cohen.  These individuals represented Leonard Cohen; worked for Leonard Cohen; and had no reason whatsoever to assist me to the detriment of their client who hired and paid them.  My share of these entities was not held in trust for Leonard Cohen’s benefit.  I do feel that it’s overwhelmingly obvious that Leonard Cohen is not a religious sage.  For the entire 20 years I knew him, I never heard that he attended Temple and may have witnessed him at a Seder that was prepared because journalist Leon Wieseltier was visiting.  During my 2012 trial, Leonard Cohen (who has used the excuse that he was in a Buddhist retreat on Mt. Baldy and took formal monk’s vows), testified that he is Jewish and sat Sedar every Friday night for the most part.  I found that revelation astounding. 

51.  I attach hereto as Exhibit A a copy of a Memorandum Robert Kory provided my lawyers on

January 14, 2005.  Former DA Ira Reiner, who was representing Cohen with respect to the potential mediation matters, was copied on this memorandum.  I did not, and would not, agree to maintain any confidentiality with respect to any document provided to my lawyers from Robert Kory or anyone else.  I refused to enter into settlement discussions and/or mediate.  The document is quite revealing.  I am not clear why I didn’t receive the similarly requested information from Leonard Cohen.  Exhibit A:  Robert Kory Memorandum dated January 14, 2005.

52.  I attach hereto as Exhibit B a sample of the harassing, slandering emails I’ve received since

the Ex Parte hearing in this matter.  I did receive a letter from Stephen Gianelli, with Kory and Bergman copied in, advising me that he will stop harassing me until this case is over.  He has now devoted a blog to slandering me: http://kelleylynchsociopath.blogspot.gr/2015/03/kelley-lynch-former-manager-who.html.  Prior to creating this blog, Gianelli advised me to either shut down my blog, make it private, or he would create a blog of his own.  When he announced the opening of his blog to me, and others, he “inadvertently” copied Robert Kory on his email.  The comments on the blog are growing increasingly aggressive, hostile, threatening, and slanderous.  Paulette Brandt, and others, are now in the sights of the cyber-terrorists.  “Blogonaut,” posting in the comment section is California State Bar Member Stephen Gianelli. 

SECOND UPDATE 4/15/2015 – By email of today, Kelley Lynch fills in more details. According to Ms. Lynch, the housemate that she replaced at Paulette Brandt’s a small 2-bedroom apartment – and who roomed with Ms. Brandt for 14-months  -  was a  “grifter”  and former “stripper” who “shared a room here with a dominatrix” and two incontinent cats that “peeed on the floor” and who unwittingly imported cockroaches into the apartment during frequent forays into the bottom of the corner dumpster. Lovely circles Ms. Brandt socializes in!

If Ms. Lynch’s email of today is true, it would certainly explain why Ms. Brandt would willingly welcome into her home an adjudicated embezzler and convicted criminal harasser who served half of the last three years in the Los Angeles County Jail, and who has a history of homelessness, involuntary psychiatric holds, a slew of civil harassment orders against her, and even now continues to copy her mass emails to the IRS, the DOJ, the Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB), and many others, and whose own family describes as “sick and she needs help” – a/k/a Kelley Lynch.  

5/31/2015 UPDATE:

Leonard Cohen has filed written opposition to Lynch’s pending motion that Lynch has posted here:http://www.scribd.com/doc/267109127/Leonard-Cohen-Opposition-re-Kelley-Lynch-s-Motion-Terminating-Sanctions-filed-conformed-5-26-15#scribd

On Friday, May 29, 2015 Cohen’s emergency application for an order sealing the privileged and confidential attorney-client correspondence between Cohen and his lawyers that Lynch obtained as Cohen’s manager that Lynch maliciously filed as exhibits to her pending motion was GRANTED over Lynch’s opposition, per Lynch’s blog post of 5/30/2015 AND PER THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT WEBSITE (enter case# BC338322):

05/29/2015 at 08:30 am in Department 24, Robert L. Hess, Presiding Exparte proceeding (TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TOSEAL PORTIONS OF THE COURTSRECORD)  Granted

Lynch failed to turn over the correspondence and other files she wrongfully retained after Cohen fired her in 2004, in violation of a 2005 injunction obtained by Cohen. Potential penalties for criminal contempt (Penal Code § 166) is up to ONE YEAR  in jail for each violation of the order, should Lynch be found to have willfully violated it.

More to come when the court rules on the pending motion.    

6/1/2015 UPDATE:

Cohen’s opposition to Lynch’s SECOND motion to vacate (posted on-line by Lynch) and Cohen’s related request for non-monetary “sanctions” (also posted by Lynch) raise another serious issue: The allegation that the signatures one or more of Lynch’s declarations filed with the court in support of the motion are not genuine – that is actually subscribed by the witness identified as making the “declaration”. If true this could be considered a violation of Penal Code § 134(preparing fabricated evidence for submission to a court) – which is a felony offense. IF TRUE needs to be underscored here, since Lynch has not yet filed her reply brief answering these allegations.

Stay tuned for comprehensive coverage and commentary following the hearing on Lynch’s second motion to vacate on 6/23.

6-10-2015 UPDATE:

In a blog post dated 6-9-2015, Kelley Lynch quotes the 6/1/2015 UPDATE posted immediately above, and responds with a full denial that the Penick OR the Ronge OR the Meade declarations submitted by Lynch in support of her SECOND motion to vacate (filed in March of 2015) were signed by anyone else but Penick and Ronge:

“Desperate tactics.  They're NOT going to prove I fabricated anything.  Those declarations were prepared and sent to me.  This didn't happen. ...The signatures are genuine.”

Of course, a blog post is not a court-filed reply to Cohen's accusation of "fabrication" - let alone a denial under oath - so it remains to be seen what, if anything, Lynch will file by way of reply papers early next week. Nor is this brief denial very specific on the subject of precisely who prepared the Penick, Ronge and Meade declarations if not Kelley Lynch, how Lynch accounts for the apparent fact that the signature on the Penick declaration does not match Penick's signature on his declaration in support of the FIRST motion to vacate, or why the Penick, Ronge and Meade signatures appear to closely resemble the signature on Kelley Lynch's own declaration (supporting the inference that the person who signed Lynch's declaration,  signed all four declarations).

 Perhaps, as Kelley Lynch already stated in a blog post dated  May 27, 2015 (SCROLL DOWN TO QUOTED LANGUAGE) regarding Lynch's own declaration, she will now claim that PAULETTE BRANDT subscribed Penick's and/or Ronge's and Meade's declaration -  ["What signatures on what declarations are fraudulent?Paulette Brandt signed mine...".] 

(Clearly, Lynch seems unclear on the legal rules requiring a witness to subscribe a declaration with his own hand in order for the court to rely on a declaration as having any evidentiary value, and consequently how MISLEADING it is when persons OTHER than the declarant subscribe  court filed declarations. And we also wonder whether Brandt will admit to the felony violation of Penal Code section 134 that Lynch's quoted  blog post suggests that Brandt committed,   by preparing  false and misleading declaration(s) by subscribing the name(s) of the declarant(s) thereto, intending to mislead the court into believing that these are bona fide declarations?Nor does any of this have anything to do with whether the declarant/witness "gave his or her permission" for someone else to sign their name - since a declaration that is not signed with the hand of the declarant is useless as evidence and is in that respect misleading.)   But we will await what Lynch (and/or Brandt) says about all of this, if anything, in Lynch's court filed reply papers, if any,  and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, what Judge Hess says about all of this on 6/23 and 8/3.) 

6-11-2015 UPDATE:

We were just copied by Kelley Lynch with this email she sent to her housemate Linda Carol, that gives us a further glimpse not only into the Brandt-Lynch household, but into Lynch's paranoid thought processes (not to mention  Lynch's charming habit of emailing her roommates, cc to the IRS, FBI, and mass distribution list of strangers, including the this author):

àOn Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Linda,
 

You just walked by and told me you "don't know" what I am talking about.  What I am talking about is your overhearing me (you were standing in the hallway when Paulette was in the living room) saying I was going to the store.  You then waited outside the front door and, when I opened the door, appeared to be eaves dropping.  Then, I walked to 7/11 and you were there.  After you paid for your items, you waited outside and walked in and out of the store twice.  You then waited for me to leave.  Your behavior is alarming and irrational.  That's why I mentioned it to you.  This extends to both me and Paulette.  

 As for your declaration - I will now file a document with Judge Hess (in a case that doesn't relate to you and you do not know Leonard Cohen) addressing the fact that you wrote me (and I have that email to provide him) that I filed the KVW declaration on May 29.  I will ask him if he knows what you are talking about.  I filed a Reply to an Ex Parte hearing and attended that hearing.  I think the judge will understand that your declaration (for Paulette's Small Claims matter - as dictated and told by you - and you confirmed for LAPD's TMU that KVW told you she was a prostitute ...) was not filed in Leonard Cohen's case.  

 If Leonard Cohen interests you, please feel free to contact him directly.  I'm not interested in liars, thieves, or con artists.  I don't care how much money he has.  I turned down 50% community property because he wanted me to lie about his representatives.  

 As for forged documents, you are the only person that raised that.  Cohen himself has not although he has questioned declarations that I have all the signature pages for so Cohen is lying further.  You then told me in front of Paulette that you didn't know if you saw forged documents but saw his NAME.

 Paulette and I have both heard you mention your therapist.  Something's wrong and it is not me or Paulette. You have now falsely accused us of many things and your conduct is becoming alarming.  The other night, just before you woke me to say the house was on fire (which I found mean and weird), someone pounded on the door.  That's why Paulette was in the kitchen.  She knows nothing was on the stove so that means you made it up.  Why?  What is the point? 

I know you smoke medical marijuana, and have disability, but nothing explains this conduct.  Please try to contain yourself and act like a mature adult.  

Kelley

 
Stay tuned folks for comprehensive coverage AFTER the pending law and motion proceedings have been fully resolved at the trial court level by Judge Hess (including Cohen's 9/3/2015 sanctions motion that will be filed should Lynch fail to withdraw her SECOND motion to vacate that is now scheduled to be heard on 6/23/2015).

Up to now we have simply been reporting what has been filed and then posted by Lynch on the internet.

We will have a great deal of analysis and comment to share with you AFTER Judge Hess rules on all of this on 6/23 and 9/3 (if the sanctions motion goes forward).

12 comments:

1.                   

kellygreenMarch 25, 2015 at 11:32 PM

Welcome back, friend! 

I find it hard to believe while she was robbing Cohen blind, her family did the bookkeeping for Cohen's entities; yet, neither her mother, father, sister, nor Steve Lindsey had any idea everything they had, and the high life they were living, was paid for by Cohen? Unbelievable. Of course she couldn't go to rehab during that period. Had she gone to rehab, the gig would've been up.

Reply

2.                   

BlogonautMarch 25, 2015 at 11:38 PM

How can you go to rehab if you ABSOLUTELY have no alcohol issues? Ha!

Reply

3.                   

AnonymousMay 13, 2015 at 4:36 PM

Wow. Just WOW.

Reply

AnonymousMay 13, 2015 at 4:52 PM

The more I ponder on this, the more I believe she really needs to be sequestered away from society because any of these people could possibly be endangered and when the close family turns their backs that is a BIG sign something needs to be done. She should be manditorily put into a mental facility to be evaluated ASAP before somebody gets hurt or worse! It is VERY scary knowing this woman lives so close to me. At least I know to stay away from that address, so thank you for posting it!

Reply

4.                   

AnonymousJune 10, 2015 at 9:43 AM

How could these people possibly believe that they could get away with simply signing people's names to declarations then filing them with the court and trying to pass these sham declarations off as "evidence"? 

Apparently, Lynch got away with forging Leonard Cohen's signature for years, so what's a few declarations, right? 

WRONG.

Hopefully, given Lynch's prior record of criminal convictions in California and Colorado (as well as all of the crimes she got away with - including death threats and embezzlement) Los Angeles prosecutors will take a hard look at Lynch's and Brandt's conduct in view of Penal Code sections 132 and 134.

We simply can't have litigants running around filing fraudulent declarations with the court. The legal system has enough problems as it is....

Reply

Replies

1.                   

BlogonautJune 10, 2015 at 9:46 AM

We could not agree more, Anon.

Reply

AnonymousJune 12, 2015 at 10:15 AM

Kelley Lynch's obsessive hatred with Leonard Cohen has overridden all prudent judgment (assuming an embezzler of $5M could be said to have had "prudent judgment" at all). But what is Paulette Brandt's story? Lynch promised to cut her in on the "millions" she thinks she will one day receive from Cohen, okay, fine. There is a sucker born every minute I guess. But why would she risk a perjury prosecution for changing her testimony from "was in touch with Kelley Lynch in the summer and fall of 2005" (as stated in her 2013 declaration supporting Lynch's motion to vacate) to testify under oath that she was PRESENT, AT LYNCH'S HOME - not only during the month of August '05, but on the very morning that the process server claims to have served a member of the household, and no one knocked on the door (as now testified to in Brandt's 2015 declaration? Like that wouldn't have been important to mention in the first declaration attacking the validity of service or it slipped Brandt's mind until 2015?

And assisting Lynch in signing other people's names to declarations?

Setting aside the fact that Lynch has zero chance of setting Cohen’s 10-year old judgment aside at this point - let alone successfully suing Cohen on 10+ year old stale claims after that, all the money in the world can only buy you so many candy bars in the prison commissary. 

What a bunch of idiots. 

Reply

5.                   

MongochilliJune 13, 2015 at 1:02 AM

Lynch just posted on her blog the claim that "Gianelli is fishing for information about my Reply." Ha!

According to the legal brief filed by Cohen's attorneys and published by Lynch on-line, the problems with Lynch's pending motion to vacate are insurmountable. 

The motion is the second motion asking that the 2006 judgment be set aside. Successive motions asking for the same relief are prohibited under California procedure absent new evidence that could not have been presented in support of the earlier motion or a change in the law. All of the alleged grounds for the new motion relate to events taking place more than two years ago, in some cases over 8 or more years ago. For that reason alone the motion is dead on arrival. But there is more.

The signatures on four of the declarations filed in support of the motion appear to be signed by Kelley Lynch and not the witness giving the declaration, rendering those declarations useless as evidence.

Lynch has admitted in a letter to the IRS, posted on her blog on May 27, that the Kelley Lynch supporting declaration was signed by Paulette Brandt, not Kelley Lynch - rendering that declaration worthless as evidence.

That leaves the Paulette Brandt declaration. But Brandt changed her testimony from her declaration given to support the first motion to vacate filed in 2013 from "I was in touch with Kelley Lynch" during the summer and fall of 2005 (when the suit was served) to (in her 2015 declaration) I was present at Kelley Lynch's house at 9:00 am the morning that Cohen's process server claims to have served a female occupant, and no one came to the door at all. And Paulette now claims for the first time that Kelley Lynch did not have blond hair with dark roots (as the process server described the female served) because Brandt (she now claims) PERSONALLY died Kelley Lynch's hair a dark brown. None of this was in Brandt's 2013 declaration on the subject of service of the suit and Lynch's hair color!

Additionally, Lynch seeks to vacate the judgment based on alleged perjury in the declarations supporting the amount of damages in the request to enter default filed in 2006. But California law does not allow judgments to be set aside for alleged "perjury" after the time to appeal has expired! And this rule is set forth in the very appellate decisions that Lynch herself cites in her motion!

For all of these reasons (and more) NOTHING Lynch could possibly say in her reply could cure these fatal defects in her motion.

Ergo, no one cares what Lynch is planning in her reply, let alone enough to "fish for information" on that subject. Not to mention Lynch is required to serve Cohen with her reply on the 16th of May anyway.

Kelley Lynch has to be one of the dumbest criminals who ever walked the face of the earth!

Reply

6.                   

AnonymousJune 13, 2015 at 4:05 PM

Linda Carol's Google+ page is extremely unusual.

Reply

Replies

1.                   

BlogonautJune 14, 2015 at 12:52 AM 

She has posted a series of "selfie" video clips depicting herself in what appears to be a state of intoxication while performing a kind of Marilyn Monroe shtick the combination of which - particularly given her age and weight class - appears to our eye at least to be less than flattering. On another site she has posted a series of "bubble bath" video clips of herself. The whole thing is rather odd, but frankly, one would expect someone as bizarre as Kelley Lynch to have equally bizarre roommates.

Reply

7.                   

AnonymousJune 15, 2015 at 1:50 PM

How can it be that the court has not yet shut this woman down? Surely at this point all concerned realize that she doesn't have a legal basis for her claims?

Reply

8.                   

AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 7:14 AM

Kelley Lynch was outside California for most of 2006 - 2011, and thereby avoided criminal prosecution until January of 2012. Lynch did not attempt to appear in Leonard Cohen's lawsuit against her until almost nine years after it was filed when she filed her first motion to vacate the $7M default judgment in 2013. She did not due this until she did six months in jail in 2012 and her appeal from her eight count criminal harassment conviction was denied. 

After she did an additional few months in jail in 2014, Lynch AGAIN filed a second motion to vacate the judgment (again claiming she was never served) in March of 2015. That motion will be heard on June 23 of this year. Cohen's motion asking the court to shut down any further filings by Lynch, and to return the documents she retained from the time she was Cohen's manager will be heard on September 3. 

There is no question that Lynch's repeat of her motion to vacate will be denied and that the "sanctions" motion shutting her down will be granted. 

Whether she behaves herself in the future is doubtful, since getting even with Cohen is all she lives for.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true Dated:  16 June 2015

                                                                        ______________________________________

                                                                        Kelley Lynch, In Propria Persona

EXHIBIT A

ROBERT KORY MEMORANDUM
DATED JANUARY 14, 2005

EXHIBIT B

EXAMPLES OF RECENT HARASSING EMAILS

From: Marianne I. <Marianne1957@gmx.com>
Date: Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:58 AM
Subject: Rotten tatics?
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

My, my, what an angry little blog you have.

Tell me, Kelley Lynch, why you talk so tough on your blog - "warning" Judge Hess about this or that, threatening to bring the court's attention to this or that person and their emails - but when you are notified of a hearing you stay home!

One would think, my dear, that with all of your talk, talk, talk you would jump at the chance to appear at ever court appearance you could, to bring all of the "criminal harassment" you emagine suffering to the judge's attention. But instead you stay home.

"I was never served" and "I never agreed to email service" seems to be your mantra, doesent it dear?

You stole Leoanrd's money and now you are afraid to face the court.

I don't blame you dear. I would be hiding my face from the world too if I was in your shoes....

From: Marianne I. <Marianne1957@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:14 AM
Subject: Who is interested in the Declaration of Paulette Brandt?
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

I think you are confused, dear.

According to his emails posted on your blog, the retired lawyer you seem to be so obcessed with lives on CRETE (an island in the Medeterrian Sea), whereas Athens, Greece is a city of 5M people located on the Attica Pensula (a distinace of 178 miles). 

Total Visits:

3

Location:

Athens, Attiki, Greece

IP Address:

Forthnet Sa (77.49.79.178) [Label IP Address]

Search Referral:

www.google.gr/#1

Notice how "Marianne" wrote: "obcessed" -- the exact same misspelling Gianelli used on his recent blog targeting you:   

http://kelleylynchsociopath.blogspot.gr/2015/03/kelley-lynch-former-manager-who.html

From: Marianne I. <Marianne1957@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:13 PM
Subject: Your internet blog
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Do you actualy read the links transcripts you post, dear?

I don't think they mean what you think they mean!

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.fr/2015/06/leonard-cohen-testifies-that-kelley.html

Leonard Cohen: 6

Kelley Lynch:     0

But who is keeping score, dear, right?

From: <Mongochilli@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:51 AM
Subject: Your halariously clueless blog posts
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com


Lynch,

You just don't get it - or maybe you do and just don't care.

First and foremost, the entry of Leonard Cohen's default judgment had the legal effect of confessing all allegations in the Complaint. Unless and until the judgment is set aside (which, nine years down the road ain't gonna happen) all facts alleged in the Complaint are deemed to be true. All rights on your part to contest the merits, argue alternative theories of what happened, introduce new evidence, make related counter-claims, or to claim "perjury" in any court have been forfeited.

Additionally, even if you were allowed to contest the merits in court, the Kory Memorandum is a confidential settlement communication and is inadmissible for any purpose - because it was prepared for mediation. It may not even be mentioned, let alone stand as proof of anything in any court of law.

Any successive attempt to ask for the same order (in your case the 2013 request for an order vacating the default, and then your 2015 request to vacate) is deemed to be a "motion for reconsideration" - even if you name it something else or support the motion with different grounds. And as a motion for reconsideration your motion fails - because you failed to file the required supporting affidavit with your moving papers, let alone tick all of the required boxes in that affidavit. On that basis alone Judge Hess doesn't even have jurisdiction to entertain your motion, let alone grant it.

Your blog posted statements that you don't really care whether you win this round in court, that Judge Hess "can have my fee waiver", and vowing that Leonard Cohen. Will not "get away with" throwing your ass out on the street without so much as a dime to your name, all further confirm your bad faith motive in filing the motion in the first place.

You are wrong about something else: The sanctions motion does not merely seek forfeiture of your fee waiver; it seeks a lot more, including an order for the return of all documents that you retained after Cohen fired you, including attorney-client correspondence and corporate documents. Then, if you fail to comply, you will be facing contempt charges AGAIN.

As for your broken record that "perjury" was committed when the 2006 default judgment was obtained, as made explicit by YOU OWN CITED AUTHORITY and the cases cited in the opposition that you helpfully posted on Scribed.com, after the time to appeal a judgment has expired, the judgment MAY NOT be set aside based on alleged "perjury" going to the merits of the judgment. Like the Kory Memorandum it's just not relevant of admissible. You can't even talk about it court. Your allegations of perjury are of no legal consequence - even if true (which they aren't).

Regarding your threat "move on to federal court", under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, federal statute, and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case law, the federal district court must give "full faith and credit" to the 2006 judgment and must treat it with the same rules applicable in California state court, INCLUDING the FACT that all allegations in the Complaint are deemed to be TRUE, and that all findings made in the judgment itself - including that Cohen owes you NOTHING - are binding on you in any federal court suit.

Not only that, but your 2012 criminal conviction is an ABSOLUTE BAR to any contention by you in a federal court complaint that you were wrongfully arrested, wrongfully convicted, or were innocent of either criminally harassing Leonard Cohen or of violating the 2008 Colorado protection order.

But there's more.

All of your theories of recovery against Cohen, either for breach of contract, "theft" of your intellectual property rights, false arrest, fraudulent tax returns or refunds, or under the RICO statute are TIME BARRED.

It's not just any one of the foregoing that would bounce you out of federal court in a heart beat, it is the TOTALITY of these factors that make it IMPOSSIBLE to sue Cohen or his advisors on ANY THEORY at this point.

You have no legal grounds to stand on. Only some buzzwords you found on-line that you don't understand and do not give you cover for what we all know you are really doing, have been doing since 2005 - seeking revenge against Leonard Cohen through a decade of criminal harassment.

You thought you were Cohen's muse. That Cohen wuved keewee. That just because he banged you a couple of times in the 1980's Cohen would let you rob him blind and not throw you out on your ass. You were wrong on all counts.

YOU are the CRIMINAL who stole here, not the victim.

And the bottom line is you cannot wait ten years after the end of a business relationship and then getting sued to overturn a default judgment OR to pursue legal claims. From a legal standpoint, it's OVER, criminal - except for additional criminal charges if you keep breaking the law or violating the orders of the court.

--Mongochilli

From: <Mongochilli@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:23 AM
Subject: Take whose word for what?
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com


Lynch,

If you really wanted to know the truth you could start by simply reading your own cited precedent, holding - among other things - that a judgment may not be overturned after the time for appeal has run  for alleged perjury that goes to the merits of the complaint.

You could then read Cohen's cited caselaw holding that a motion that requests the same order as a prior motion that was presented and denied is a "motion for reconsideration" even if the two motions bear different titles and even if the same order (in this case vacating the judgment) is request on different grounds.

Adding those two bedrock legal principles together leads to one conclusion: Your motion isn't even in the ballpark.

As for the good faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, it's written in plain English.

Your capacity for self-delusion knows no bounds.

--Mongochilli

From: <1di7f2+axibneo3bycs4@guerrillamail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:41 PM
Subject: Hi Kelley - remember me?
To: "kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com" <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>


Now that your zillion page screed is sealed, what's the point of your little charade?

Get a job, criminal!

--Mongochili