- AnonymousJune 15, 2015 at 1:50 PMHow 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
-
AnonymousJune 16, 2015 at 7:14 AMKelley 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.Reply
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. -
MongochilliJune 16, 2015 at 7:01 PMLynch just posted on her blog claiming that she has answered the charge that her supporting declarations were fabricated by forwarding letters from the witnesses to the judge asserting that the declarations are authentic.Reply
Ha!
A letter from a witness has even less value as evidence than a forged declaration! (Not to mention that it is an "ex parte" communication that it would be improper for the judge to even read, let alone consider!)
Amazing. -
MongochilliJune 17, 2015 at 2:08 AMAmazingly - Lynch now admits that all of the signatures on the supporting declarations provided by third parties were made with Lynch's hand, and NOT signed by the witnesses. Lynch claims that the witnesses "provided Lynch with limited power of attorneys" authorizing her to sign their names.Reply
Lynch fails to explain why if these witnesses were willing to go through the trouble of signing and returning a "power of attorney" they would not have simply signed their declarations themselves.
Nor does Lynch address the point: That by signing witness declarations herself she essentially submitted evidence of zero evidentiary value to the court by deceitfully passing the declarations off as genuine. Indeed, Lynch only admitted to the deception when Leonard Cohen's lawyers blew the whistle on her fabricated evidence in the opposition.
Lynch has committed felony violations of Penal Code section 132 and 134 - preparing and submitting false evidence to a court. -
AnonymousJune 17, 2015 at 3:23 AMThe Court should order Lynch to produce the alleged "powers off attorney" - because they never existed, and Lynch has now added the offense. Of perjury to her crimes.Reply
What a lying sack of shit. -
AnonymousJune 17, 2015 at 6:09 AMA power of attorney must be written in California or it does not exist.
NOTE: Regardless of the lies about this issue, Kelley Lynch is in possession of valid limited Powers of Attorney from each and every witness who also wrote letters directly to Judge Hess (served on opposing counsel as well). Leonard Cohen will have to move onto his next false accusation, fabricated narrative, and pathetic attempt to conceal the facts and evidence. The limited powers of attorney do indeed exist and that is precisely why each witness confirmed that fact for Judge Hess and provided copies of the declarations signed personally by each of them. That does not address the extensive perjury and fraudulent misrepresentations in Leonard Cohen's legal documents and declarations.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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).
