MOTION TO SET
ASIDE/VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT
Served
electronically
Kelley
Lynch
1754
N. Van Ness Avenue
Telephone: 323.331.4250
In
Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LEONARD
COHEN, an individual, Case
No. BC338322
Related
Case No. BC 341120
Plaintiff NOTICE OF
MOTION;
MOTION TO
SET ASIDE RENEWAL
OF
JUDGMENT
DECLARATIONS OF KELLEY
LYNCH,
JOHN
RUTGER PENICK, ETC.
KELLEY
LYNCH, an individual Hearing
Date: October 6, 2015
Time: 8.30 AM
Defendant Civil Petition
filed: May 25, 2011
TO THE
COURT, PLAINTIFFS, AND PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on
October 6, 2015 at 8.30 AM, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard,
in Department 24 of this Court, Defendant Kelley Lynch will, and hereby does,
move for an order setting aside and vacating the renewal of judgment entered on
July 13, 2015, against her.
The Motion will be made, in
accordance with CCP Section 683.170, on the grounds that she is entitled to
relief as the original (May 15, 2006) and renewal judgment (July 13, 2015) are
void and were taken against the defendant through the extrinsic fraud of the
defendant, which prevented her from presenting her case to the court, thereby
denying her of a fair adversary hearing and that she has a meritorious defense
to the action.
The Motion is based on the this Notice of
Motion, Memorandum of Points & Authorities served and filed herewith,
accompanying declarations and exhibits attached thereto, the Court records and
file in this matter, and upon such evidence as may be presented at the hearing
of the motion.
Dated: 27 July 2015 Respectfully
submitted,
_____________________________________
Kelley
Lynch, in Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
On December 5, 2005 and May 15, 2006,
default judgments were entered against Defendant in this action brought by
Plaintiffs, Leonard Cohen and LC Investments, LLC. Plaintiffs failed to serve Lynch the summons
and complaint. She has attempted to
address this matter for over 10 years.
Exhibit A: Declaration of Kelley
Lynch, Exhibit B: Declaration of John
Rutger Penick, Exhibit C: Declaration of
Paulette Brandt, all attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The May 15, 2006 default judgment
wrongfully imposed a constructive trust on Lynch based upon fraudulent
allegations, misrepresentations, concealment of evidence, and perjured
statements in the declarations used to support the May 15, 2006 default
judgment. Lynch’s property, including
monies due her, intellectual property she owns, and her ownership interest in
numerous corporate entities, was fraudulently transferred to Leonard
Cohen. The individual who took
unconscionable advantage of any fiduciary relationship between Lynch and Cohen
was Leonard Cohen.
On August 9, 2013, Lynch filed a motion
to vacate. In that motion, Lynch argued
that the judgment was void; dismissal mandatory; and the Court had no
jurisdiction because she was not served the summons and complaint. The motion was denied with prejudice on a
variety of grounds. The Court found the
pleadings procedurally deficient and concluded the motion was not served on
Plaintiffs; Lynch’s declaration was not signed; she did not act diligently
after discovering the Complaint in April 2010; and Lynch did not carry the
burden of persuasion that the proof of service was false. The Court also addressed the fact that
Lynch’s son, John Rutger Penick, submitted a declaration a meaningless
declaration. The Court concluded that
Lynch failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud.
See Motion to Vacate, declarations and Case History attached thereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
In response to Lynch’s motion to vacate,
Plaintiffs submitted pleadings, declarations, and exhibits to the Court. See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Lynch’s Motion
to Vacate and declarations/exhibits attached thereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
On March 17, 2015, Lynch filed a motion for
terminating sanctions addressing egregious fraud upon the court, litigation
misconduct, and the use of perjured statements to obtain the denial of the
January 17, 2014 order. Given the fact
that Plaintiffs’ response declarations attempted to reargue the underlying
merits of the case, Lynch was forced to confront and refute those false
accusations. See Motion for Terminating
Sanctions, declarations, and evidence attached thereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
(fraud upon the court) argued that the fraud was intentional; included officers
of the court; the fraud was directed at the court itself; and in fact deceived
the court. Plaintiffs continue to
display a reckless disregard for the truth.
In their reply documents, Plaintiffs continued to deceive this Court
about effecting service upon Lynch, reintroduced their case, attempted to argue
the merits of the underlying case, and Lynch requested terminating sanctions as
a remedy for the all-pervasive and egregious litigation misconduct that
included harassment of her, her family members, friends, and witnesses who
submitted declarations to this court.
See Motion for Terminating Sanctions, declarations and exhibits attached
thereto and incorporated herein by reference.
In Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42
Cal.3d 911, 915, 231 Cal.Rptr. 738, 717 p.2d 1019, the Court implicitly
acknowledged that “a court has inherent power to dismiss an action for misconduct
that violates established procedures or a court order.” The court in Televideo Systems, Inc. vs.
Heidenthal (9th Cir. 1987)
826 F.2d 915, 917) held that an “elaborate scheme involving perjury clearly
qualifies as a willful deceit of the court” and noted that “it infected all of
the pretrial procedures and interfered egregiously with the court’s
administration of justice.” Plaintiffs,
together with their legal representatives, have engaged in an elaborate scheme
that involves perjury and is clearly meant to deceive the Court. Lynch sought terminating sanctions with
respect to the January 17, 2014 order.
Plaintiffs have now requested sanctions against Lynch with respect to
her fraud upon the court motion and request for terminating sanctions. See Motion for Sanctions, declarations
and exhibits attached thereto, and incorporated herein by reference
On May 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Ex
Parte Application Sealing corporate and other evidence Lynch submitted to this
Court. Lynch is concurrently filing a
Notice of Appeal with respect to that matter.
At the June 23, 2015 hearing on the
Motion for Terminating Sanctions, the Court concluded that there was no basis
to act; the motion was not a proper motion for reconsideration (although it was
a fraud upon the court motion); and informed Lynch that she should have acted
sooner. The Court did not address the
fraud and perjury that formed the basis for Lynch’s motion which was most
certainly not a motion for reconsideration.
At the hearing, Lynch raised issues related to due process and the
failure of Plaintiffs to serve her the summons and complaint. The Court denied Lynch’s motion noting that
she claimed not to have been served but failed to demonstrate that there was
extrinsic fraud. Lynch is concurrently
filing a Notice of Appeal with respect to that order and maintains she was not
served, the court failed to obtain jurisdiction over her, and extrinsic fraud
was demonstrated in the documents and declarations submitted to this
Court. See original declarations of Joan
Lynch, John Rutger Penick, Paulette Brandt, Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, and
Daniel Meade submitted to this Court with Lynch’s Motion for Terminating
Sanctions, and her
Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, all
exhibits and declarations attached thereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Exhibit C: Schedule of Exhibits & Declarations
attached to Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Reply to Plaintiffs’
Opposition, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Due
to the fact that Plaintiffs falsely alleged that Lynch forged or fabricated
declarations attached to her Motion for Terminating Sanctions, Lynch is now
submitted the original limited powers of attorney provided to her by John
Rutger Penick, Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, and Daniel J. Made. Exhibit D:
Limited Powers of Attorney, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
On
July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs’ filed an Application for Renewal of Judgment and
Memorandum of Costs. On July 14, 2015,
the notice of renewal of the judgment was served on defendant. See Application for Renewal of Judgment and
Memorandum of Costs incorporated herein by reference.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Lynch’s
motion to vacate the renewal of the judgment is brought pursuant to CCP Section
683.170. Lynch was never served with the
summons and complaint and the December 5, 2005 default judgment, May 15, 2006
judgment (and imposition of constructive trust), together with the July 13,
2015 renewal of that judgment are void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court’s denial of Lynch’s Motion to
Vacate and Motion for Terminating Sanctions (fraud upon the court re. the
January 17, 2014 denial) are void for lack of jurisdiction as well.
Kelley Lynch contends that lack of personal
jurisdiction would be a defense in an independent action on the judgment, and
therefore, under Section 683.170, subdivision (a), she may assert that defense
in support of this motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. Lack of personal jurisdiction, rendering the
judgment void, is a defense in an independent action on the judgment. Therefore, lack of personal jurisdiction may
be raised in a motion to vacate. In an
independent action on a judgment, the debtor may challenge the judgment” in
accordance with the rules and principles governing collateral attack,” (Kirkpatrick
v. Harvey (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 170, 172 124 P.2d 367; See also Cradduck
v. Financial Indem. Co. (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 850, 855, 52 Cal.Rptr. 90),
including “lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction.” Armstrong v. Armstrong (1976) 15 Cal.3d
942, 950, 126 Cal.Rptr. 805, 544 P.2d 941.
Such a collateral attack challenges the jurisdiction of the court to
enter the original judgment. In making a
statutory motion, under Section 683.170, subdivision (a), to vacate a renewal
of judgment, the debtor may contend that the court lacked personal jurisdiction
at the time of the initial judgment. See
Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th
195, 201-202, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 [failure to have ever served process on a
defendant is a defense to an action on the judgment and therefore can be raised
on a Section 683.170 motion.]
“Jurisdiction
over the parties is necessary for the validity of any judgment in
personam. California Code Civil
Procedure Section 1917; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 U.S. 714 722; Allen
v. Superior Court (1953) 41 Cal.2d 306, 309; Restatement, Judgments Sections 6,
14, and Intro. Note p. 79.) Such
jurisdiction depends upon three factors:
(1) Jurisdiction of the state, based upon there being sufficient minimum
contacts existing between this state and the parties or their property or other
interests (See Section 410.10); (2) Notice and opportunity for a hearing
(Sections 412.10-412.30, 473.4; (3) Compliance with statutory jurisdictional
requirements for service of process (See Sections 413.10-417.30). See Goldman
v. Simpson, Case No. B200082 (2d Dist. Feb. 20, 2008). Lynch was not provided notice and an
opportunity to be heard.
The United States Supreme Court
has concluded: “An elementary and
fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be
accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to
apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the
opportunity to present their objections.”
Failure to give notice violates “the most rudimentary demands of due
process of law.” Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86-87, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d
75.
VACATE THE RENEWAL OF THE JUDGMENT
At least two default judgments in this case have been
obtained without service upon Defendant Kelley Lynch. The initial default entered on December 5,
2005 and default entered on May 15, 2006.
There was, and continues to be, no service of summons & complaint
upon or authorized appearance by the defendant and these judgments are
therefore void. The Court has denied Lynch’s Motion to Vacate
(filed August 9, 2013) and her Motion for Terminating Sanctions that addressed
egregious fraud upon the court and requested terminating sanctions (filed March
17, 2015).
Renewal of a judgment is a ministerial
act performed by a court clerk upon receipt of an application for renewal. See Code Civ. Proc., § 683.120, subd. (b),
683.150, subd. (a); Beneficial
Financial, Inc. v. Durkee (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 912, 915, 254 Cal.Rptr. 351. Section 683.150, subdivision (a) states: “Upon the filing of the application, the
court clerk shall enter the renewal of the judgment in the court records.” Section 683.170 allows a judgment debtor to
move to vacate the renewed judgment.
A judgment may be collaterally attacked when it is void upon
the face of the record or it has been entered without jurisdiction. In an independent action on a judgment, the
debtor may challenge the judgment in accordance with the rules and principles
governing collateral attack, Kirkpatrick
v. Harvey and Cradduck v. Financial
Indem. Co., including “lack of personal or subject matter
jurisdiction.” A collateral attack
challenges the jurisdiction of the court to enter the original judgment. Therefore, in making a statutory motion under
Section 683.170, subdivision (a), to vacate a renewal of judgment, the debtor
may contend the court lacked personal jurisdiction at the time of the initial
judgment. See Fidelity Creditor
Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 201-202, 106
Cal.Rptr.2d 854 (failure to have ever served process on a defendant is a
defense to an action on the judgment and therefore can be raised on a Section
683.170 motion). “Renewal does not
create a new judgment or modify the present judgment. Renewal merely extends the enforceability of
the judgment.” Jonathan
Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones,
94 P.3d 1055, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 849, 33 Cal. 4th 917. “The
renewal judgment ‘has no independent existence’ from the original
judgment.” Id. at p. 1490, 42
Cal.Rptr.3d 350.
A
money judgment is enforceable for 10 years from the date of its entry. (§§
683.020, 683.030; Green v. Zissis (1992) 5
Cal.App.4th 1219, 1222, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 406.) There are two alternative methods to extend
the life of a money judgment. A judgment
creditor may bring an independent action on a judgment even after the 10 year
enforceability period has expired if the 10-year statute of limitations in
section 337.5 has not yet run. (§ 683.050; Green
v. Zissis, supra, 5 Cal.
App.4th at p. 1222, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 406; Pratali v. Gates (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 632,
636-639, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 733; Cal.
Law Revision Com. com., 17 West's Ann. Code Civ. Proc. (1987 ed.) foll. §
683.020, p. 72.). Alternatively, a
judgment creditor may renew a judgment for an additional 10 years. (§ 683.110
et seq.) Plaintiffs elected to renew the
judgment.
The
statutory renewal procedure enacted in 1982 (Stats.1982, ch. 1364, § 2, pp.
5073 et seq.) was not intended to replace the then existing method to extend
the life of a judgment—an independent action on the judgment. The statutory renewal procedure was intended
to save time and money while remaining fair to the judgment debtor by affording
him or her the opportunity to assert any defense that could have been asserted
in an independent action. Tom
Thumb Glove Co. v. Han, 78 Cal. App. 3d 1, 144 Cal.
Rptr. 30; Silbrico Corp. v. Raanan (1985) 170
Cal.App.3d 202, 206, fn. 3, 216 Cal.Rptr. 201. Accordingly, the Legislature directed that a
trial court may vacate renewal of a judgment “on any ground that would be a
defense to an action on the judgment ...” (§ 683.170, subd. (a); In re Marriage of Thompson (1996) 41
Cal.App.4th 1049, 1058, 48
Cal.Rptr.2d 882.
A
complete failure to have ever served process on a defendant is a defense to an
action on the judgment and therefore can be raised on a section 683.170
motion. Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne.
The
United States Supreme Court has held that the failure to serve the summons and
complaint is a defense to an action on a judgment. Hill
v. City Cab etc. Co. (1889)
79 Cal. 188, 190-191, 21 P. 728. Under Hill, the failure to have served process is
a defense to a separate action on a judgment. (§ 683.170, subd. (a).) The failure to serve a summons and complaint
is a defense to an independent action on a judgment. Likewise, the failure to
serve a summons and complaint is a basis for a motion to vacate the renewal of
a judgment. CCP Section 683.170 provides: (a)
The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground
that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that
the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is
incorrect.”
FAILURE TO SERVE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT
“An
elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which
is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306,
314; In Re Marriage of Lippel (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1160, 1166 [“It is a
fundamental concept of due process that a judgment against a defendant cannot
be entered unless he was given proper notice and an opportunity to defend”];
U.S. Constitution art. XIV, § 1. Thus, a
“plaintiff may not take a default against a defendant without giving the
defendant actual notice as required by statute.” Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53
Cal.3d 428, 430.
When a
plaintiff or the court fails to comply with the applicable statutes regarding
service a judgment is void, not merely voidable. County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010)
186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1226 [“judgment is
void for lack of jurisdiction of the person where there is no proper service of
process on or appearance by a party to the proceedings.”] When a court lacks “fundamental jurisdiction”
over the parties or subject matter, any ensuing judgment is void and vulnerable
to collateral or direct attack at any time.
Id. at p. 1225; Rochin
v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co.
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239. A judgment
that is acquired in violation of due process rights is void and must be set
aside regardless of the merits of the underlying case. Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86–87. Prejudice is not a factor in setting aside a
void judgment or order. Sindler v.
Brennan (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1354.
The
default judgment obtained by Plaintiffs in this case is not merely voidable, it
is void for lack of jurisdiction because there was no fulfillment of the
constitutional due process requirement that a defendant be served with a
summons and complaint. “Where it is
shown that there has been a complete failure of service of process upon a
defendant, he generally has no duty to take affirmative action to preserve his
right to challenge the judgment or order even if he later obtains actual
knowledge of it because ‘what is initially void is ever void and life may not
be breathed into it by lapse of time.’ Consequently
under such circumstances, ‘neither laches nor the ordinary statutes of
limitation may be invoked as a defense’ against an action or proceeding to
vacate such a judgment or order.” “Because
[respondent] was never served with the complaint and summons,
. . . the trial court never obtained personal jurisdiction over
him, and the resulting default judgment was, and is, therefore void, not merely
voidable, as violating fundamental due process.” County
of San Diego v. Gorham.
“‘Extrinsic fraud occurs when a party is
deprived of the opportunity to present his claim or defense to the court; where
he was kept ignorant or, other than from his own negligence, fraudulently
prevented from fully participating in the proceeding. Examples of extrinsic fraud are: . . .
failure to give notice of the action to the other party, and convincing the
other party not to obtain counsel because the matter will not proceed (and then
it does proceed). The essence of extrinsic
fraud is one party’s preventing the other from having his day in court.’ Extrinsic fraud only arises when one party
has in some way fraudulently been prevented from presenting his or her claim or
defense.”
Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294,
1300.
A filed proof of service creates only a
rebuttable presumption that service was proper.
Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441; M. Lowenstein & Sons,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 762, 770; Evid. Code, §
647.
To set aside a judgment based on
extrinsic fraud or extrinsic mistake, the moving party must satisfy three
elements: “First, the defaulted party must demonstrate
that it has a meritorious case.
Secondly, the party seeking to set aside the default must articulate a
satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action. Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate
diligence in seeking to set aside the default once it had been discovered.” Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d
1143, 1147-1148; see also Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 295, 314. Lynch satisfied
all three elements.
Lynch provided evidence of a meritorious case by filing with
her motion to set aside the renewal of the judgment a proposed verified answer
denying the material allegations of the first amended complaint. It has long
been established that merely attaching a verification to a proposed answer is
sufficient to demonstrate meritoriousness.
Gudarov v. Hadjieff (1952) 38 Cal.2d 412 [240 P.2d 621]; Beard v.
Beard (1940) 16 Cal.2d 645 [107 P.2d 385].
Exhibit E: Proposed Answer to Complaint, attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
In addition to demonstrating that a case has merit and that
the defaulted party has an adequate excuse for filing to defend, the party
seeking relief from a default must produce evidence that he acted diligently to
set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court has indicated that original
negligence in allowing the default to be taken will be excused if the aggrieved
party makes a strong showing of diligence in seeking relief soon after discovering
entry of the judgment. Hallett v.
Slaughter (1943) 22 Cal.2d 552 [140 P.2d 3].
Leonard Cohen’s Complaint, willful failure to serve Lynch the
summons & complaint, and the decision to ignore her continual attempts to
address the failure to serve Lynch were part of a carefully crafted and
executed scheme to defraud not only Lynch but the Internal Revenue Service,
Franchise Tax Board, other tax authorities, and willfully run statutes of
limitations and prevent Lynch from having a meaningful opportunity to be heard
on the merits of the case. Leonard Cohen
also willfully bankrupted Lynch. This
prevented Lynch from defending herself properly, obtaining proper legal representation,
forcing her to represent herself, and moving more diligently then she did with
respect to the Motion to Vacate. He has
gone to inconceivable lengths to target Lynch and the custody matter related to
her younger son most definitely appears to have been coordinated with the May
25, 2005 SWAT and King Drew incidents.
Fraudulent restraining orders have been used as tactics to discredit
Lynch.
In Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), the Circuit Court did not
hold that Hartford’s fraud fell short of that which prompts equitable
intervention, but thought Hazel had not exercised proper diligence in
uncovering the fraud and that this should stand in the way of obtaining
relief. The U.S. Supreme Court opinion
addressed this issue: “We cannot easily
understand how, under the admitted fact, Hazel should have been expected to do
more than it did to uncover the fraud.
But even if Hazel did not exercise the highest degree of diligence
Hartford’s fraud cannot be condoned for that reason alone. This matter does not concern only private
parties. There are issues of great
moment to the public in a patent suit. The
Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Investment Company, 320 U.S. 661, 64
S.Ct. 268; Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 62 S.Ct.
402. Furthermore, tampering with the
administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far
more than an injury to a single litigant.
It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard
the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated
consistently with the good order of society.
Surely it cannot be that the preservation of the integrity of the
judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies
of public justice be not to impotent that they must always be mute and helpless
victims of deception and fraud. Hazel
Atlas should be read as an expansion of the limits set by United
States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93 (1878) in attacking
judgments generally. See also Josephine C. Toscano a.k.a. Josephine C. Zelasko v. Commissioner, 441 F. 2d 930 (1971).
VOID JUDGMENT
A
judgment void on its face because rendered when the court lacked personal or subject
matter jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief which the
court had no power to grant, is subject to collateral attack at any time. County of Ventura v. Tillett (1982)
133 Cal.App.3d 105, 110, 183 Cal.Rptr. 741; see also Security Pacific Nat.
Bank v. Lyon (1980) 165 Cal.Rptr. 95, 105 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8, 13. An attack on a void judgment may also be
direct, since a court has inherent power, apart from statute, to correct its
records by vacating a judgment which is void on its face, for such a judgment
is a nullity and may be ignored. Olivera
v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570, 122 P. 2d 564.
Consistent with these general
principles, “a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction of the person where
there is no proper service of process on or appearance by a party to the
proceedings.” David B. v. Superior Court (1994) 21
Cal.App.4th 1010,
1016 [26
Cal.Rptr.2d 586]. Knowledge by a defendant of an action will
not satisfy the requirement of adequate service of a summons and complaint. Waller
v. Weston (1899) 125
Cal. 201 [57 P. 892]; Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123
Cal.App.4th 1145,
1152-1153 [20
Cal.Rptr.3d 603].)
Because the “total absence of notice in any form cannot comport with the
requirements of due process,” In re B. G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 689 [114 Cal.Rptr. 444, 523 P.2d 244], it
has been said that a judgment of a court lacking such personal jurisdiction is
a violation of due process (Burnham
v. Superior Court of Cal., Marin County (1990) 495 U.S. 604, 609
[109 L.Ed.2d 631, 110 S.Ct. 2105]), and that “a default judgment entered
against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed
by statute [to establish personal jurisdiction] is void.” See Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.; County of San Diego v. Gorham.
The
trial court’s order January 17, 2014 order denying defendant’s motion to vacate
the judgment, in that it gives effect to a void judgment, is itself void. County
of Ventura v. Tillett. Defendant’s
failure to appeal from it, thus essentially allowing it to become final, makes
no difference. A “final” but void order
can have no preclusive effect. “A void
judgment [or order] is, in legal effect, no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings
founded upon it are equally worthless.
It neither binds nor bars any one.”
Bennett v. Wilson (1898) 122 Cal. 509, 513-514, 55 P. 390.
LEONARD COHEN HAD NO STANDING
TO BRING THIS SUIT OR ENTER THE JUDGMENT
AGAINST LYNCH
The concept of the corporation
as a separate “person,” with a legal identity distinct from its
shareholders and the ability to sue and be sued in its own name, is the
cornerstone of the corporate form of business organization. The
essential corporate attribute of limited liability and the attendant
imposition of fiduciary duties of loyalty and care on those entrusted to manage
the corporation’s affairs, could not comfortably exist without corporate
separateness. Leonard Cohen, who has
argued that he is the alter ego of numerous corporate entities, brought
derivative claims. A corporate
shareholder has no individual cause of action for personal damages caused
solely by an alleged wrong done to the corporation and particularly so when
that individual is the primary cause of the injury to corporate property. Leonard Cohen has no separate and independent
right of action for alleged wrongs to the corporation and the value of his
stock was not depreciated due to the actions of Kelley Lynch. To recover for wrongs done to the corporation,
the shareholders must bring the suit derivatively in the name of the
corporation. “Generally, a stockholder may not maintain an
action in his own behalf for a wrong done by a third person to the corporation …
for such an action would … ignore the corporate entity.” Sutter v. General Petroleum Corp., 28
Cal.2d 525, 530 [170 P.2d 898, 167 A.L.R. 271].
It is a well-established general rule that a stockholder of a
corporation has no personal or individual right of action against third
persons, including the corporation's officers and directors, for a wrong or
injury to the corporation which results in the destruction or depreciation of
the value of his stock, since the wrong thus suffered by the stockholder is
merely incidental to the wrong suffered by the corporation and affects all
stockholders alike. Since the corporate
assets were not Leonard Cohen’s personal assets, his claim actually appears to
conclude that Lynch’s alleged conduct destroyed or depreciated the value of his
stock. “It is only where the injury
sustained to one's stock is peculiar to himself alone, and does not fall alike
upon other stockholders, that he can recover as an individual.” Shenberg v. DeGarmo, 61 Cal.App.2d
326, 332 [143 P.2d 74]); otherwise stated, “to obtain a personal right of
action there must be relations between him [the shareholder] and the
tort-feasor independent of those which the shareholder derives through his
interest in the corporate assets and business.”
Shenberg v. DeGarmo,
supra. Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.
and Traditional Holdings, which was never registered to do business in
California and had no contacts with this state, have been suspended and/or
administratively dissolved and the May 6, 2005 judgment and July 13, 2015
renewal of judgment should, at the very least, be modified to specifically
exclude them. Old Ideas, LLC was not
registered to do business in California until 2011 and should also be
specifically excluded from the May 6, 2005 judgment and July 13, 2015 renewal
of judgment. Furthermore, these entities
were not actually named as parties to this matter and the Court failed to
obtain jurisdiction over them.
CONCLUSION
Based
upon the foregoing facts and authorities, Defendant Kelley Lynch respectfully
requests that the Court grant her motion to set aside and vacate the renewal of
judgment.
Dated:
27 July 2015 Respectfully
submitted
_________________________________
Kelley
Lynch, In Propria Persona
MOTION EXHIBITS
Motion Exhibit A: Declaration of Kelley Lynch
DECLARATION OF KELLEY LYNCH
[Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Renewal of
Judgment]
I, KELLEY LYNCH, declare:
1. I
am a citizen of the United States who currently
resides in Los Angeles, California. I am
over the age of 18 years. I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained
in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify
competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2. As I have repeatedly stated, I was not
served the summons and complaint in this matter. The Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over
me and the judgment is therefore void.
3. I have a legal ownership interest in
Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. (15), Traditional Holdings, LLC (99.5%), and
Old Ideas, LLC (15%). I am owed
substantial compensation for services rendered as of October 21, 2004. I have been unable to obtain an actual
accounting that addresses corporate ownership interests, assets, and
liabilities. Leonard Cohen refuses to
address his nearly $6.7 million in loans/expenditures from Traditional
Holdings, LLC although he understood that he was obligated to repay those
loans/expenses within 3 years at 6% interest.
4. Many federal and state tax matters have
been implicated by entry of the May 15, 2006 Default Judgment.
5. I discovered the Complaint online in
April 2010. It was posted there by an
individual, Stephen Gianelli, who has relentlessly harassed, stalked,
threatened, intimidated, and slandered me.
He has also harassed, stalked, and targeted my sons, family, friends,
business associates, and witnesses who have submitted declarations to this
Court. Shortly thereafter, I traveled to
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where I stayed with a friend of mine until
approximately December 2010. In or
around December 2010, I relocated to Berkeley, California where I resided until
I was falsely arrested on March 1, 2012 over a tactical restraining order
Leonard Cohen obtained. Leonard Cohen
has used restraining orders to discredit me.
I was convicted of willfully and knowingly violating a permanent
restraining order that the Boulder Combined Court informed me, and others,
expired on February 15, 2009. I
willfully and knowingly violated nothing.
I was incarcerated from approximately March through mid-September
2012. At that time, I returned to the
Bay Area where I resided until I decided to return to Los Angeles,
California. I have resided here
continuously from June 2013 through today.
It is not reasonable to conclude that I should have moved more
diligently with respect to the Motion to Vacate I filed in August 2013. Leonard Cohen intentionally withheld
commissions due for services rendered, bankrupted me, and has relentlessly
targeted me since October 2004. It is
outrageous to assume that I should have hitchhiked to Los Angeles and slept on
Los Angeles Superior Court’s steps in order to file a Motion to Vacate any
sooner than I did. My reputation has
been destroyed, employers have been harassed by Cohen’s lawyers and others, and
I have been unable to find work. I had
no money to travel to Los Angeles and attend hearings. Therefore, I moved diligently when I filed
the Motion to Vacate on August 9, 2013.
6. Plaintiffs continue to fraudulently
argue that I was served the summons and complaint. There appears to be a complete lack of a
remedy for their litigation misconduct, fraud upon the court, and use of
perjured statements and testimony to obtain verdicts, judgments, and orders.
7. At no time did I have attorney/client
privilege with Leonard Cohen and his representatives. That would include, but is not limited to,
Richard Westin. In fact, I was
intentionally excluded from attorney/client privilege and this was confirmed
for Steve Blanq of Hochman, Rettig when he handled a matter with IRS that involved
Cohen’s decision to handle the $1 million prepayment against the Traditional
Holdings, LLC 2001 transaction as a loan on his federal tax returns. I was an independent contractor and that is
why I am still in need of IRS required 1099 for the year 2004, and other tax
and corporation information, from Leonard Cohen.
8. Plaintiffs were served the Motion to
Vacate. Paulette Brandt emailed the
motion to attorney of record, Scott Edelman when it was filed on August 9,
2013. Scott Edelman’s office responded
to Paulette Brandt and me confirming receipt of the motion and advising us to
contact Robert Kory. At no time did
Scott Edelman object to service by email.
Paulette Brandt then emailed a copy of the Motion to Vacate to Robert
Kory and Michelle Rice at Kory & Rice.
She followed this up with a phone message to Robert Kory wherein she
advised him to contact her if he had any problems being served by email. That seems like an extremely simple
request. The point is to effect service
upon Plaintiffs – not to play games with service of process. These games remain ongoing. Robert Kory, Kory Rice, is also listed on the
State of California’s website as the Registered Agent for Plaintiff LC
Investments, LLC.
9. Joan Lynch, John Rutger Penick,
Paulette Brandt, Clea Surkhang Westphal, Palden Ronge, and Daniel J. Meade have
submitted declarations to this Court addressing the fact that I did not
resemble the individual in the proof of service and have continuously
maintained that I was not served. This
has been well documented over the years.
Rutger and I did not have a female co-occupant in August 2005. Our co-occupant was a male by the name of
Chad Knaak, a childhood friend of Rutger’s.
I personally asked Chad to phone Scott Edelman’s office to inform him
that I was not served Cohen’s lawsuit (which I was aware of as the LA Times
contacted me and the news media picked up the story as well as the fact that
Edelman represented Cohen) and to advise him that I would hold him personally
accountable for emotional distress IF I was served the lawsuit. I also instructed Chad to inform Edelman’s
office that I viewed the lawsuit as an attempt to cover up tax fraud and
obstruct justice. Leonard Cohen needed
to argue fraud and/or rescission to unravel these transactions and explain away
his role in them. He has attempted to
blame his own wrongdoing on me and others.
10. The fraudulent expense ledger is not an
accounting. It willfully disregards the
corporate entities I have a legal ownership in.
It is evidence of financial and accounting fraud. The ledger fails to address corporate
distributions and advances against my ownership interest in intellectual
property. Advances are customary in the
music industry.
11. Leonard Cohen and his representatives
have also refused to provide me with any details regarding the fact that
Traditional Holdings, LLC shifted income to me that was not distributed.
12. This lawsuit is retaliation due to the
fact that I reported allegations that Cohen committed tax fraud (which my
lawyers and accountant confirmed was criminal in nature) to Internal Revenue
Service, and other tax authorities, on July 25, 2004, April 15, 2005, and
thereafter.
13. Leonard Cohen is not the rightful owner
of the property and assets owned by these entities and he is not entitled the
Default Judgment and/or Renewal of the Default Judgment. The evidence, some of which was incorporated
by reference into the Complaint, contradicts Leonard Cohen’s fabricated
narrative. There is no evidence, other
than the fabricated narrative, to support the May 15, 2006 Default Judgment or
July 13, 2015 Renewal of Judgment and Memorandum of Costs adding additional
financial interest.
I declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
This
declaration is executed on this 28th day of July 2015 in Los Angeles,
California.
____________________________________
Kelley Lynch
Motion Exhibit B: Declaration of John Rutger Penick
John Rutger Penick
c/o Kelley Lynch
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California 90028
Phone:
323.331.4250
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES
LEONARD COHEN,
Plaintiff
vs.
Case
No. BQ033717
KELLEY LYNCH, an
individual
Defendant
DECLARATION OF JOHN RUTGER PENICK
I, JOHN RUTGER PENICK, declare:
1. I
am a citizen of the United States who currently
resides in Los Angeles, California. I am the son of defendant, Kelley Ann Lynch. I am over the age of 18 years. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this
declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently
as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2. At some point in October 2004, my
mother and Leonard Cohen parted ways.
She had worked as his personal manager for approximately 17 years. It was my understanding that they parted ways
because my mother hired a new accountant, was referred to tax lawyers, and
issues arose with respect to my mother’s belief that Leonard Cohen had
committed tax fraud. My mother
eventually reported those allegations to the Internal Revenue Service and other
tax authorities. Since that time,
Leonard Cohen and others, including my stepfather Steve Lindsey, have engaged
in malicious and abusive tactics directed at my mother, me, and my younger
brother, Ray Charles Lindsey.
3. In the fall of 2004 and early 2005, I
understood that Leonard Cohen was attempting to force my mother into a deal or
settlement. I heard many conversations
about this. Steve Lindsey actually tried
to encourage me to convince my mother to enter into a deal with Leonard Cohen
that would be very attractive for her.
She refused to negotiate with Leonard Cohen, although he owed her a
tremendous amount of money, because she felt he was asking her to provide false
testimony against his representatives.
4. Steve Lindsey and my mother separated
in 1997. As of the fall of 2004, my
stepfather, Steve Lindsey, was in a new relationship and his girlfriend, Dinah
Englund, was pregnant with their daughter.
My mother had sole custody of my brother until May 2005. The three of us lived together from 1997
until May 2005 when a custody matter was initiated.
5. By the spring of 2005, Steve Lindsey,
who had an abusive personality and temperament, was becoming increasingly
aggressive and hostile towards my mother, brother, and me. At some point, he hired custody lawyer, Daniel
Bergman, and they pursued a completely concocted custody matter involving my
brother, Ray Charles Lindsey.
6. I was present for the hearings in that
case and know for a fact that the custody matter was based on lies. My mother was a wonderful parent, provided us
with a great environment, loved us, and was never even remotely abusive to
either of us. Steve Lindsey used
fraudulent restraining orders as a tactic against my mother.
7.
Both Steve Lindsey and Leonard Cohen owe my mother a tremendous amount
of money and I believe they coordinated the custody and litigation matters to
force her into deals with them. From
approximately May 2005, when the custody matter arose, until my brother was 18,
Steve Lindsey failed to have my brother phone my mother although I was present
when the Court ordered him to have Ray call her every other night. Steve Lindsey also prohibited my mother and
other members of our family from seeing Ray.
His lawyer, Daniel Bergman, refused to communicate with her although I
was present when he was ordered to do so by the court. It is my understanding that Daniel Bergman
now represents Leonard Cohen in a related case.
I would assume he represents Leonard Cohen in order to further distress
and harass my mother.
8. It is my understanding that Leonard
Cohen’s October 2005 restraining order against my mother involved his
declaration that addressed my brother’s custody matter and a May 25, 2005 SWAT
incident at our home. I would like to
address these matters with the Court based on what I personally witnessed.
9. On the morning of May 25, 2005, my
mother phoned and asked me to pick my brother up at the house. Ray did not feel well that day, stayed home
from school, and this caused Steve Lindsey to become angry which frequently
happened with him. My mother said Steve
Lindsey, Ray’s father, had repeatedly called that morning and was becoming
threatening and abusive. My mother
informed me that she did not want Steve Lindsey on our property and asked me to
meet Steve Lindsey at the bottom of the hill with Ray. Lindsey intended to drive Ray to school. I personally spoke to Steve Lindsey who
confirmed this arrangement. As I was a
block away, and Lindsey said he was in Beverly Hills, I immediately drove home,
picked Ray up, and drove down the hill.
I was accompanied by my friend, Evan Reiss.
10. When I arrived home, my mother and Ray
were waiting outside. Ray was on the
phone with his father. I got out of my
car, walked over to Ray, took the phone and informed Steve that I was leaving
the house with Ray immediately, and handed the phone to my mother. When I arrived at the bottom of Mandeville
Canyon, Cloris Leachman, rather than Steve Lindsey, was waiting to take custody
of Ray. She waved me over and I dropped
Ray off with her. I then saw Steve
Lindsey and approximately 7 or more LAPD squad cars racing up Mandeville Canyon
Road. I turned around, drove up the
hill, and saw Lindsey speaking to the police officers. I believe he was providing them with a
lay-out of the property. I explained to
LAPD that my mother was in the house alone; I had just been with her, and
confirmed that I had spoken with Lindsey moments earlier and we agreed that we
would meet at the bottom of Mandeville where he would pick Ray up. I also explained that I dropped my brother
off with Cloris Leachman who was Lindsey’s girlfriend’s mother. LAPD was uninterested in what I, and others,
had to say and appeared to be relying specifically on what Steve Lindsey told
them. Steve Lindsey had not been to our
house and was not in a position to tell LAPD anything. I heard Steve Lindsey confirm that he called
the police. I later heard that my Aunt
Karen, my mother’s sister, phoned LAPD but I have spoken with her directly and
she assured me that this was not the case.
At some point, as the situation unfolded, Steve Lindsey received a phone
call and left.
11. The SWAT incident continued to unfold and
would last for approximately three to four hours. LAPD, based on what they were advised by
Steve Lindsey, asked if my mother had access to a gun and/or weapon. I confirmed for LAPD that my mother did not
have a gun and/or weapon in her house. I
also confirmed that I, as I was over the age of 18 at the time, owned a rifle
that was legally registered. I explained
to LAPD that I lived in a separate guest house on the property; my mother did
not have keys to the guest house; the door was locked; and the gun was locked
in my closet and locked inside a case.
My mother did not have keys to the guest house, closet or the case.
12. LAPD questioned me about our dogs. I explained that we had two large
Akitas. Throughout the incident, LAPD
advised me that they intended to shoot my mother; would let me stay and watch
or take me somewhere; and planned to shoot our dogs. At the end of the SWAT incident, LAPD
personally informed me that our dog was the hostage and they were taking
precautions. I was also informed that
Inglewood PD was present.
13. At no point did LAPD ask my mother to
come out; approach our front door; attempt to phone her; or attempt to determine
what was actually going on. Nothing was
going on other than the fact that my mother kept my younger brother home sick
and Steve Lindsey became angry.
14. At one point, LAPD asked me to trick my
mother into coming out of the house. I
therefore asked my mother if she would like a cigarette. I believe LAPD felt that was her “hostage
demand” although she did not have a hostage; they understood I had taken my
brother down the street; and, she was in the house alone. My mother came out of the house, with our dog
Shadow on a leash, and asked LAPD “Who is my hostage? My dog?”
My mother was wearing nothing other than a bikini and it was very clear
that she did not have a gun or weapon and Shadow was on a leash.
15. After a considerable amount of time
passed, LAPD decided they would enter our house, neutralize my mother, and
asked me to lead the way. There were
officers on our hillside and crouched under the windows. I believe assault weapons and bean bag guns
were deployed. LAPD directed me to lead
them into the house. I followed their
instructions and we noticed that my mother was in the backyard. LAPD rushed through the house into our
backyard. At that time, my mother dove
into the pool. I witnessed this. When my mother surfaced, she asked an LAPD
officer not to “hurt” her and he replied that they were not there to hurt her
but were there to help her. Without
questioning my mother or explaining why, LAPD handcuffed my mother. As she was only wearing a bikini, I went
inside, noticed that my mother had locked Shadow in the bathroom, and grabbed a
brocade jacket for her. LAPD then led my
mother out front. Two officers pulled up
and my mother was placed into the back of the car.
16. A woman who identified herself as Erma
Oppenhein asked me if I was okay and wanted to know if my mother was on any
medications. I responded that I was okay
and informed her that my mother was on heart and asthma medication. These officers then drove off with my
mother.
17. Shortly after LAPD left, I received a phone
call from Steve Lindsey. He asked me if
I would go into Leonard Cohen/Robert Kory’s office and sign over/transfer our
house to Cohen and/or Kory. I recall
Lindsey asking me to have my mother formally committed and he mentioned their
wanting me to sign some paperwork to this effect. I was 18 years old at the time. I decided to phone my father, Douglas Penick,
who advised me to speak to a lawyer first.
I decided not to return Steve Lindsey’s call. Lindsey also informed me that, if I agreed to
sign over/transfer our house to Leonard Cohen and/or Robert Kory, Cohen would
provide him with money and they would assist me financially.
18. When my mother was taken from our house,
LAPD informed me that they intended to search the premises. They did not appear to be in possession of a
search warrant for either my mother’s house or my guest house. I stayed while they searched and found
nothing. They confirmed that there was
no hostage. LAPD also searched my guest
house and understood that my rifle was locked in the guest house; locked in my
closet; and locked in a case. LAPD
removed my rifle from our property. They
did not give their reasons for doing so.
I later received a call from LAPD advising me that I could pick the
rifle up from West LAPD. My mother and I
picked it up and LAPD had removed the lock from the case.
19. After the SWAT incident, my mother phoned
and informed me that LAPD had taken her to King Drew Hospital in South
Central. I was in shock that LAPD would
take my mother to South Central. UCLA
was approximately 10 minutes from our home.
She explained that Dr. D’Angelo, who worked at King Drew, advised her to
wait her turn and she would be promptly released. Dr. D’Angelo also confirmed for me that my
mother was being released. Evan Reiss
and I drove to King Drew to pick my mother up.
At the hospital, Dr. D’Angelo came outside to speak to me and confirmed
that he was releasing my mother and did not agree with LAPD’s assessment that
she was dangerous to herself and/or others.
He also confirmed that there was nothing in the file that would cause my
mother to lose custody of my brother. My
mother was concerned that the SWAT incident was being used to coordinate a
custody matter. We would later find out
that her concerns were valid. My mother
also informed me that LAPD questioned her about Phil Spector and possible gun
incidents on the way to King Drew. She
couldn’t figure out how LAPD understood she knew Phil Spector.
20. My mother, who was picking up her
property while I spoke with Dr. D’Angelo, then walked out of King Drew. Evan and I drove her home. Ray called while we were driving home but, at
that time, we didn’t realize Steve Lindsey had filed a custody matter with LA
Superior Court. The custody matter was
filed due to the SWAT and Killer King incidents. My mother explained that she was drugged
against her will at King Drew and discussed how dangerous the environment was.
21. At this time, due to the King Drew and
SWAT incidents, Steve Lindsey also obtained a restraining order against my
mother. My mother is the individual who
was abused by Steve Lindsey and simply did not want him on our property due to
his own aggressive behavior. I do know
for a fact that Ray felt tremendous pressure and fear when his father would
lose his temper. I believe the custody
matter, SWAT incident, and restraining orders were used tactically to discredit
my mother and prevail in numerous lawsuits that would be brought against her by
Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey.
22. Once we learned that a custody matter had
been filed, we also discovered that Betsy Superfon, a friend of Steve
Lindsey’s, and Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, submitted declarations in
that matter. Betsy Superfon would later
inform me personally that she didn’t know what she was signing when she signed
the declaration Lindsey provided her.
Betsy also told me she felt my mother, if anything, was too good to me
and my brother.
23. Robert Kory’s declaration involved
allegations that my mother misappropriated monies from Leonard Cohen and
addressed the time my mother and brother stopped into his office. My mother attempted to speak to him about
legal and business matters between her and Leonard Cohen.
During
my mother’s 2012 trial, my brother’s custody matter was raised as an issue. Robert Kory testified that my mother
“interrogated” my brother at his office.
I have spoken to my mother and brother about this matter, including
immediately after it occurred, and both confirmed that my mother simply asked
Ray some questions related to information he had heard about Leonard Cohen’s
tax fraud, missing state tax returns, her share of intellectual property and
commissions due her, and their threats to put in her in jail. Those threats were repeated to me and my
brother in the spring of 2005 by Steve Lindsey who said he would assist Leonard
Cohen. I also personally heard
information about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud, missing state returns, my mother’s
share of intellectual property and commissions due her, and her requests for
tax information.
24. On April 15, 2005, my mother reported
Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Betzer, Internal Revenue Service. She had previously reported it to other tax
authorities.
25. Steve Lindsey and Daniel Bergman refused
to allow me to see Ray. The entire
custody matter was based on lies and I believe it was meant to crush and
destroy my mother. It was also used to
pressure me and Ray.
26. Leonard Cohen would also use restraining
orders to discredit my mother. My mother
has never threatened Leonard Cohen.
Leonard Cohen and his lawyers have refused to communicate with my mother
for approximately 10 street years and I believe it’s to say that the situation
is thoroughly frustrating. I have been
copied on her emails since the spring of 2005 and at no time did I read
anything that was threatening or harassing towards Leonard Cohen or anyone
else. My mother is the individual who
has been relentlessly slandered, harassed, threatened, and intimidated.
27. In the Spring of 2005, my mother was
advised by His Holiness Kusum Lingpa to document everything we were going
through in emails with witnesses copied in.
I was frequently copied on those emails.
The primary reason for my mother’s emails was to document everything she
had gone through since she reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen
committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service. The emails, as my mother has explained many
times, are documenting everything for the Internal Revenue Service due to the
retaliation over tax matters. The custody
matter was clearly coordinated by Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey, and their
lawyers. It was my understanding that my
mother lost the custody matter because, due to her financial circumstances, she
was unable to afford a custody lawyer; the tactics used against her have been
malicious; and the results of these actions led to a default that caused the
Court to give Steve Lindsey custody of my brother.
28. Leonard Cohen filed a retaliatory with a
lawsuit (LA Superior Court Case No. BC338322).
I have submitted declarations to Los Angeles Superior Court confirming
that my mother was not served Cohen’s lawsuit; we did not have a co-occupant or
know anyone who resembled the individual the process server said he served; my
mother did not resemble the individual; no one attempted to evade service; and
my mother has relentlessly address this matter for years. I have also submitted declarations addressing
the fact that I was present when my mother asked Chad Knaak, a friend of mine
who lived with us at the time, to call Cohen’s lawyer and advise him that she
was not served the lawsuit and if he attempted to serve her she would hold him
personally accountable for emotional distress.
She also asked Chad Knaak to advise Leonard Cohen’s lawyer that she
viewed this lawsuit as Cohen’s attempt to cover up tax fraud.
29. At the time Lindsey filed the custody
matter, he owed my mother a tremendous amount of money and that seemed to be
part of his motive. I also understood
that he had been meeting with Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory about my
mother. Steve Lindsey refused to pay my
mother what he owed her for Ray’s upbringing and support. He also refused to repay her for monies she
expended on behalf of his daughter, Jennifer Lindsey, who lived with us before
my mother and Lindsey broke up in 1997.
Leonard Cohen also owed my mother money and, after they parted ways,
stopped paying her. My mother had also
loaned Steve Lindsey money. He simply
refused to address these matters and permitted my mother to end up
homeless.
30. I have addressed the fact that my mother
was not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit.
I have witnessed my mother’s attempts to address this with Leonard Cohen
and/or his lawyers. She was always told
that they would not speak to her and hung up on her. They refused to respond to her emails
addressing this, requests for tax information, and other business and legal
matters.
31. As of the summer of 2005, my mother’s
phone was shut down at some point and many people (including Paulette Brandt,
Palden Ronge, Yongzin Rinpoche, Choegon Rinpoche, and Lama Lhanang) kept in
touch with us by stopping by the house.
Various people brought food, supplies for our animals, and others
items. As I was forced to take a job at
Whole Foods, I also purchased items for my mother. My mother had no money by this time. Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey refused to
pay her what they owed her. It was my
understanding that Leonard Cohen would pay my mother what he owed her if she
testified against his representatives.
It was also my understanding that Sergeant Joe, who monitored my
mother’s July 2005 visit at Roxbury Park with my brother (although she was the
abused party), advised her to go into Daniel Bergman’s office and make a deal
that would make her happy. She refused
to negotiate under these terms and conditions.
I drove my mother to meet with my brother and Sergeant Joe.
32. In mid-October 2005, Leonard Cohen’s
lawyer showed up at our house with the Sheriff’s Department. LASD searched our house and took many
items. I was present and they said they
were permitted to seize anything with Leonard Cohen’s name on it. My mother was upset because they took her
business and personal files and items.
The Sheriff’s Department returned and seized items that were in our
garage since we moved to 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road. My mother had stored these items as a favor
for Leonard Cohen for years.
33. For years, my mother stored boxes of old
business documents of Leonard Cohen’s in our garage. He had renovated his garage and my mother
agreed to store these items for him. I
have spent a considerable amount of time with Leonard Cohen and my mother – at
her office, his home, and at our home. I
also know his son and daughter, Adam and Lorca Cohen. My mother worked as both Adam and Leonard
Cohen’s personal managers.
34. On December 28, 2005, my mother and I
were evicted from our home. She ended up
homeless in Santa Monica. I went to live
with family friends. For a period of
approximately one year my mother was essentially homeless. I personally believe Leonard Cohen and Steve
Lindsey, together with their lawyers, intentionally bankrupted my mother so she
would be unable to defend herself.
35. By January 2007, my mother was living
with an elderly woman in Santa Ana, California.
On February 3, 2007, I was in a serious industrial accident at Whole
Foods. I was not trained or qualified to
work on the meat grinder which we later found out had not been functioning
properly for some time. The safety guard
was removed without my knowledge. This
led to the loss of my fingers and part of my hand. I understand that Leonard Cohen testified, at
my mother’s 2012 trial, that she blamed him for this accident. That is a blatant lie. My mother understood that Whole Foods caused
this accident. In fact, my mother
repeatedly contacted the District Attorney’s office about this matter and asked
them to investigate potential criminal negligence. I was copied on some of the
emails my mother sent the District Attorney’s office and their failure to investigate
upset my mother tremendously.
36. My mother was aware that Leonard Cohen
and Steve Lindsey owed her a tremendous amount of money and, if they paid her
what they owed her, I would have been in college. I felt the same way. I am aware that corporate records exist
proving that my mother has an ownership interest in numerous corporate entities
and Cohen related intellectual property.
I am also aware Leonard Cohen offered my mother numerous settlements. I personally heard that my mother was offered
many types of settlement offers, including
50% community property, by Cohen and/or Kory. I am also aware that Leonard Cohen refused to
pay my mother for commissions due her.
37. In the spring of 2007, my mother came to
stay with me for a spell. Yongzin
Rinpoche and his wife, Clea Surkhang Westphal, then invited my mother to visit
with them at their home outside of Boulder, Colorado. My mother relocated to Colorado in the spring
of 2007. Eventually my mother took a
long term temporary position with Deneuve Construction in Boulder, Colorado
which she seemed to enjoy.
38. I did hear, from time to time, that
Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey, together with their lawyers, continued to
harass my mother in Colorado. I was also
copied in on emails throughout this period of time. Those emails asked Leonard Cohen, or his
lawyers, to provide my mother with IRS documentation; a corporate accounting;
monies due my mother; and she also attempted to address the fact that she was
not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit. I
actually met with my mother’s attorney, David Moorhead, in Boulder, Colorado
and confirmed a great deal of this information for him.
39. I understand that at some point in 2008,
Leonard Cohen flew into Boulder, Colorado to obtain yet another restraining
order against my mother. Leonard Cohen,
and his lawyers, have gone to extraordinary lengths to target and discredit my
mother. It is my understanding that the
Boulder Court informed my mother that the Colorado order expired in February
2009. I know for a fact that she
believed the original Boulder, Colorado order expired. She believed this before she was arrested in
March 2012. Apparently Leonard Cohen
registered the foreign Colorado order, my mother was unaware of that fact, and
this created a new domestic violence order although my mother was never in a
dating relationship with Leonard Cohen.
40. At some point in 2008, while my mother
was still staying with Yongzin Rinpoche and his family, I received a phone call
from an insurance company lawyer. The
individual advised me that they represented the insurance company for Thomas
Bradshaw. On June 13, 2005, Thomas
Bradshaw rear-ended my mother, knocked her unconscious, broke her nose, caused
head trauma, and injured our shitzu, Charlie, who eventually died. This lawyer informed me that Thomas Bradshaw
lied to the police about that accident and they wanted my mother to testify for
them and against him. I called my
mother, passed along the message, and provided her with the lawyer’s name and
number.
41. Immediately following the June 13, 2005
accident, LAPD again came to our house.
Due to the SWAT incident, my friend and I informed LAPD that my mother
did not want them to enter our house.
They disregarded our statements, pushed past us, walked back to my
mother’s room, demanded that she hang up the phone, and took her out of the
house in handcuffs although she was sitting in her room, quietly speaking to
her friend on the phone, and was injured and bleeding. My mother had gone out to buy dog food when
she was rear ended on Mandeville by Thomas Bradshaw. At first, when I saw my mother, I thought
Steve Lindsey hit her. She was
completely discombobulated and unclear about what had happened. I believe she thought I was in the car
accident. I saw the accident site. This time LAPD took my mother to UCLA. She was there for approximately 24 hours; I
thought she was in the Emergency Room the entire time; and, she was released and
came home. UCLA confirmed that my mother
had head trauma due to this accident. My
mother explained that LAPD visited her in the UCLA Emergency Room and confirmed
that they understood she had been rear-ended.
42. After LAPD left our house this time, I
noticed that someone had tried to break into the house, while my mother and I
had been out that evening, and the bathroom window and mirror were both
broken. I decided not to contact LAPD
about earlier break-in due to their conduct with my mother.
43. In or around June 2009, I discovered
Blogonaut’s Law Blog, owned by Stephen Gianelli, which appeared to be dedicated
to slandering and discrediting my mother.
Stephen Gianelli, an absolute strange, has now spent over six years
harassing and stalking me, my brother, mother, other family members and
friends. His obsession with us relates
to Leonard Cohen, IRS matters, and the Phil Spector case. My mother is a close personal friend of Phil
Spector’s. I have known Mr. Spector
since I was quite young and last saw him after the incident in his home. He picked my mother up and took her out to
dinner. Stephen Gianelli, and others,
have also harassed my mother over the SWAT and King Drew incidents, Ray’s
custody matter, and the incident at Phil Spector’s house. I have been copied on these harassing
emails. It is my understanding that Phil
Spector personally informed my mother that the incident at his house was a
suicide.
44. Stephen Gianelli seems intent on
slandering and discrediting my mother; isolating her from friends and family;
scaring people and turning them against her; and harming my mother. He also appears to intimidate, threaten,
stalk, and harass witnesses or people who are supportive of my mother.
45. In June 2013, I received a disturbing
email from Stephen Gianelli me that my mother had returned to Los Angeles
(which I, of course, knew) and explaining that he had communicated with the
City Attorney of Los Angeles who planned to arrest my mother again. By that time, I understood my mother had
spoken to the FBI about the situation with Gianelli and LAPD had evidently informed
my mother to maintain all emails from Gianelli and Walsh. I decided to reply to see what Gianelli had
on his mind and attempted to be cordial in my response. His email alarmed me and caused me to become
concerned about my mother’s welfare.
Gianelli continued to slandered my mother to me and my brother
horrendously and continued to falsely accuse of her of many things.
46. From approximately November 2012 for
nearly two years, Stephen Gianelli (and Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh)
wrote the City Attorney’s office falsely accusing my mother of many things,
slandering her horrendously, and harassing all of us. Stephen Gianelli and Leonard Cohen’s fan,
Susanne Walsh, were essentially using the City Attorney’s office to harass my
mother. I was copied on those
emails. My brother and other members of
our family and friends were also copied on these emails. My mother continuously advised the City
Attorney that she did not want to be copied on emails to them. She was concerned about me and my brother and
attempted to address the slanderous allegations made to numerous government
officials. The City Attorney never
bothered to respond and we continued to be harassed. At that time, Ray and I were residents of Los
Angeles. Not too long ago, Stephen Gianelli
and Susanne Walsh resumed writing the City Attorney and continued to copy
me. My mother also attempted to refute
false allegations and information being presented by these strangers to the Los
Angeles City Attorney, District Attorney, and other government officials.
47. In July 2013, my brother wrote Stephen
Gianelli and Susanne Walsh to advise them that their emails were making him
physically ill. My brother has been
harassed by these individuals, and others, since he was a minor. Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, has
been copied on some of the harassing emails sent by Gianelli and Walsh. Following my brother’s email to Gianelli,
Walsh, and others, I also wrote Stephen Gianelli to advise him to stop targeting
my mother because she was poor and unable to defend herself.
48. It is my understanding that Leonard Cohen
has somehow obtained a domestic violence order against my mother and testified
during her 2012 trial that they were “lovers.”
I spent a tremendous amount of time with my mother – including at her
offices – and also worked for Amazing Card Company when it was located one
block from Leonard Cohen’s house and in Santa Monica, California. I would also visit Leonard Cohen’s apartment
with my mother. At no time did I hear or
witness anything that would lead me to believe that my mother and Cohen were or
had been in any type of dating or engagement relationship. I always personally felt that Leonard Cohen
and Steve Lindsey were obsessed with my mother and behaved like jealous men
towards her.
49. My mother and I have always been
extremely close and she tells me everything.
I know how she felt about Leonard Cohen and she hated to stop by his
house alone and frequently complained that he sexually harassed her, exposed
himself to her, and once looked at people defecating on one another online in
front of her. She mentioned that last
detail to me because she was concerned that Ray might see these types of things
online.
50. At some point, Steve Lindsey told me
personally that Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, came into his office
and advised him that my mother had sex with Oliver Stone who is a friend of
ours. I have known Oliver Stone since I
was quite young. He was a friend of His
Holiness Kusum Lingpa; helped with His Holiness’ Buddhist center; and spent
time at our home. I have also spent
considerable time at events with my mother and Mr. Stone. One time we attended a private audience with
the Dalai Lama together. Oliver Stone’s
wife and baby were with us for that audience and at other times. At no time did I ever witness anything other
than a friendship between Mr. Stone and my mother. Steve Lindsey was furious about this
accusation and I believe it was used to stir up a custody matter. Steve Lindsey also asked me if my mother’s
friend, Richard Rutowski, was my mother’s boyfriend. Apparently, Leonard Cohen and his lawyer also
told Lindsey that my mother and Richard Rutowski were having an affair when
they were together. Richard Rutowski,
who was a friend of Oliver Stone’s, was our family friend, also helped with the
Buddhist center, and was not my mother’s boyfriend.
52. I believe our lives were destroyed
because Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey owe my mother money and my mother
reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed tax fraud to Internal
Revenue Service.
53. I would like to confirm that for
approximately 10 years now, my mother has attempted to ask Leonard Cohen for
IRS documents she requires. He has
apparently refused to provide her with this information. This situation has been addressed in
countless emails I have been copied on over the years. My mother has also attempted to refute the
slanderous emails sent to me, my brother, her friends, and many others. She has constantly advised me that Stephen
Gianelli is not an attorney of record in any Leonard Cohen matter but he writes
as though he is defending Leonard Cohen legally. I have received countless legal opinions from
him regarding Leonard Cohen matters.
54. I would like to advise this Court that my
mother is a wonderful human being; does not have mental health issues; has
never had substance abuse problems; and is the individual who needs
protection.
55. I offered to testify during my mother’s
2012 trial; was available to testify in the related case she is presently
involved with regarding Leonard Cohen; and have provided my mother with
declarations. I personally believe this is why I have been relentlessly
targeted, stalked, and harassed.
56. I think it is important for this Court to
understand that my mother, brother, I, and many others, have been relentlessly
harassed by many parties for years now.
We have specifically been harassed over Leonard Cohen and these legal
issues. I am not a party to any lawsuit
related to Leonard Cohen and there is no reason for people to harass me over
Leonard Cohen legal issues, IRS matters, or the default judgment he
obtained. At times, Leonard Cohen’s
lawyers have been copied on harassing emails sent to me personally.
57. At no time did my mother intend to harass
or annoy Leonard Cohen. She has
relentlessly advised the parties harassing us to cease and desist. I have advised them to cease and desist. My brother asked them to stop sending these
emails. My aunt’s attorney advised
Stephen Gianelli to cease and desist. It
is my personal belief that Stephen Gianelli, and others, have intentionally
attempted to provoke my mother by harassing me and my brother.
58. I
also recall Stephen Gianelli writing Daniel Bergman, now Leonard Cohen’s
lawyer, at one point, and advising him that he would be willing to provide a
declaration in Ray’s custody matter although this man does not know any of us
and has no valid or legal reason whatsoever for contacting us. My brother was a minor when Stephen Gianelli,
Susanne Walsh, and others began harassing him.
My mother was concerned that some of these adult strangers could
potentially be sexual predators and brought this to the attention of the
District Attorney, City Attorney, LAPD, and others. I was copied on many of those emails.
59. Leonard
Cohen, Steve Lindsey, and others, have used devious tactics with my mother and
have continuously benefitted from their deceitful and abusive conduct.
I declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
This
declaration is executed on this 21st day of July 2015 in Los Angeles,
California.
____________________________________
JOHN RUTGER PENICK
Motion Exhibit C: Declaration of Paulette Brandt
DECLARATION
OF PAULETTE BRANDT
I, PAULETTE BRANDT, declare:
1. I am a citizen of the United States who currently
resides in Los Angeles, California. I am
over
the age of 18 years. I have personal
knowledge of the facts contained in this
declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently
as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2. I
have submitted declarations to this Court previously with respect to the
failure of Leonard
Cohen
to serve Kelley Lynch the summons and complaint. Please see the declarations I have submitted
to this Court in connection with the Motion to Vacate and Motion for
Terminating Sanctions. I visited Kelley
throughout the summer and fall of 2005.
I would bring food for the animals, hair dye, and other items. By that time, Leonard Cohen had completely
bankrupted Kelley, destroyed both of her business, and destroyed her
reputation. He appears to have been
involved in a coordinated custody matter related to her younger son. On August 24, 2005, when the process server
said he served Kelley, I was visiting her.
The only individuals in the home that day were Kelley, her son Rutger,
and their co-occupant, Chad Knaak.
Kelley and I were the only females present. I dyed Kelley’s hair a very dark shade of
brown, nearly black, that morning.
Throughout the month of August, I visited Kelley early Wednesday mornings
and believe I arrived at her home sometime before 8 AM. At no time did anyone come to the door. We were in the house. Kelley had a door bell so it would not make
sense for the process server to knock when the door bell was highly visible. Kelley’s home was covered in floor to ceiling
glass. She does not leave lights on when
she leaves a room. I have lived with her
and have never seen her leave a light on so it does not make sense that a
process server would see a light in the hallway at 9 AM in the morning. Chad’s bedroom was directly off the front
hallway. At some point, I distinctly
recall going outside to Rutger’s guesthouse with Kelley. Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit had been filed nearly
two weeks earlier and Kelley had not been served. We discussed the fact that she should call
the lawyer representing Cohen. His name
appeared in news accounts. Kelley asked
Chad, because her own phone was disconnected, to phone Leonard Cohen’s lawyer
and advise him that she wasn’t served and would hold him personally accountable
for emotional distress if he attempted to serve her. Rutger, Kelley, and Chad were standing
directly inside the guest house and I was standing at the door but did not
actually enter the room. I was able to
hear Chad’s call and Kelley’s comments that she believed Cohen’s lawsuit was an
attempt to cover up tax fraud and obstruct justice. By this time, Kelley was well aware that
Leonard Cohen had filed a lawsuit against her.
She was contacted by the LA Times and I personally printed out and
brought articles to her. I have not
changed my version of events. I have
provided additional details. That would
include with respect to how I kept “in touch” with Kelley when her phone was
disconnected. I would drop by to see
her. She always answered the door and
was not evading or avoiding anyone.
3. Kelley
has actually been attempting to deal with this situation for 10 straight
years. She has
been
stymied every step of the way. Leonard
Cohen’s lawyers refused to speak with her and would hang up on her. I was present on more than one occasion and
witnessed their unprofessional conduct.
I have been an administrative assistant for years. I have also worked for numerous celebrities
including Phil Spector. If someone
phoned and advised me that they had not been served, I would have immediately
served them again. Any reasonable or
professional person would.
4. I am the
individual who emailed Leonard Cohen’s attorney of record, Scott Edelman, the
Motion to
Vacate. I received an email confirmation
in response. Scott Edelman’s office
advised me to contact Robert Kory. I
therefore also emailed the Motion to Vacate on Robert Kory. I followed up by phoning Robert Kory and left
a message. My message advised Robert
Kory that I had emailed him a copy of Kelley’s Motion to Vacate and asked him
to contact me should he have any problems with email service. I heard absolutely nothing back. Scott Edelman did not object to my serving
him the Motion to Vacate by email.
5. I was with
Kelley when she emailed Francisco Suarez, her appellate attorney, the Motion to
Vacate and
exhibits. Kelley used my computer to
prepare the documents and I was with her when she transmitted the final
documents to Francisco. These documents
were on my computer and I know for a fact that the proposed answer for complaint
was on my computer at that time. Kelley
sent Francisco a copy of the Motion to Vacate, her declaration, case history,
Rutger’s declaration, and the proposed answer to the complaint. Evidently, Francisco Suarez turned Kelley’s
declaration and case history into Exhibit A and Rutger’s declaration into
Exhibit B. He signed both on her
behalf. He inadvertently failed to file
the proposed answer to the complaint with the motion.
6. I was also with
Kelley when she phoned Department 24.
She had a question about
something
possibly being moved off-calendar.
Kelley was on the speaker phone and I could hear both sides of the
discussion. She asked if she had to file
any additional documents with respect to her motion to vacate and informed the
gentleman that she had witnesses who would like to testify. The gentleman advised Kelley to just show up
with her witnesses and nothing else would have to be filed. That is the reason Palden Ronge and I
attended the hearing with Kelley. We
both planned to testify. Kelley also
asked the gentleman in Department 24 if Judge Hess accepted CourtCall. She was advised that he did not. Kelley and I were both surprised because
CourtCall had just confirmed that Judge Hess did use their services and I had
previously scheduled CourtCall testimony, in an unrelated matter where Judge
Hess was the presiding judge. This
prevented Kelley from being provided the opportunity to present witness
testimony with respect to individuals who were out of state, out of the
country, or otherwise unavailable. I
know that Joan Lynch, Kelley’s mother, definitely wanted to testify
telephonically. She and her husband,
Jack Lynch, live in Texas.
7. Kelley has
diligently attempted to address the legal issues in this and other related
matters. I
spoke with
Kelley when she initially discovered the Complaint online at some point in the
spring of 2010. She was completely
shocked by the allegations and narrative and attempted to contact the Court,
and others, to determine what evidence had been submitted with the
Complaint. Shortly after discovering the
Complaint, Kelley was invited to visit a friend of hers in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida. After visiting for a few
months, and helping her friend sort out the administrative aspects of his
antique business, Kelley decided to relocate to Berkeley, California. Kelley remained in Berkeley, California until
March 1, 2012 when she was arrested for violating a restraining order. Kelley was repeatedly advised by the Boulder
Combined Court that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.
8. I personally
spoke with the Boulder Combined Court on numerous occasions and was also
advised that the
permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.
I was also advised that Kelley’s motion to dismiss was entered on
January 12, 2009. I asked the Boulder
Combined Court when the temporary order expired and was advised that it was
vacated in September 2008. Kelley was
convicted of violating a restraining order, served time in jail, was
incarcerated for approximately 6 months, and after her release in September
2012 returned to the Bay Area. Kelley
stayed in the Bay Area until June 4, 2013 when I invited her to stay with me in
Hollywood, California. She accepted the
invitation and has been in the Los Angeles area for a little over two years.
9. Leonard Cohen
withheld commissions due Kelley; intentionally bankrupted her; and
converted her
property to himself via default judgment.
This forced Kelley into an extremely compromised financial
predicament. She did not have the money
to return to Los Angeles, attend a hearing on a motion, and I had a roommate
and was not in a position to offer her a place to stay. I also did not have the money to lend
her. From the moment Kelley returned to
Los Angeles, she diligently worked on the Motion to Vacate. The motion was filed in August 2013,
approximately two months following Kelley’s return to the Los Angeles
area. As Kelley did not have access to
any of her paperwork, evidence, or other documents when she first came to
visit, this caused a further delay in filing the motion. I drove to the Bay Area with a friend and
picked Kelley’s documents up. She was
then able to finish the Motion and submitted it to the Court.
10. I do not know
anyone who works as consistently and diligently as Kelley. The legal issues
are evidently
quite complex and require a tremendous amount of research. Kelley has also been diligently looking for
work but, due to the fact that Cohen intentionally destroyed her reputation and
she continues to be publicly slandered, it has been nearly impossible for her. She also has a criminal record due to the
violation of the restraining order we were both told expired in 2009.
11. Kelley and I
continue to be harassed and stalked by Bay Area lawyer, Stephen Gianelli, and
the only thing
we can conclude is that he is a proxy, arguing Leonard Cohen’s legal matters,
and on someone’s payroll. This man has
relentlessly harassed and stalked me for over two years now. I have no idea who he is or why he feels
entitled to engage in this type of conduct.
Stephen Gianelli
has now assisted
my former roommate, Karina Von Watteville, in defrauding me of $6,700 in rental
arrears. After receiving my rent demand
letter in June 2014, Karina Von Watteville decided to contact Leonard Cohen’s
lawyer, Robert Kory. I found that to be
bizarre as she personally informed me that she had no idea who Leonard Cohen
was. I suppose after seeing Kelley’s
gold records, which were in my living room, Von Watteville figured it out. Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory actually were
issues in my Small Claims case. Von
Watteville advised me and the mediator that her evidence related to Leonard
Cohen and Robert Kory. One of the
mediators actually asked her if she would like to discuss the rental arrears
she owes me. I was initially awarded
$6,700 but somehow Von Watteville ended up represented by Stephen Gianelli who
evidently prepared Von Watteville’s documents arguing that the statute of
limitations had run when it had not. I
cannot even imagine why Leonard Cohen and/or Robert Kory would involve
themselves with my former roommate or the Small Claims case unless it has to do
with the declarations I previously submitted to LA Superior Court and attempts
to gather information about me and
Kelley.
12. Kelley has been
severely prejudiced due to the fact that she has been forced to represent
herself. Leonard Cohen now has at least two law firms
opposing her so clearly there is nothing “frivolous” about the motions Kelley
has filed in this case. It seems to me
personally that there should be a legal remedy for fraud and perjury.
13. I would also
like to address the fact that I have been involved in numerous unrelated cases
before LA
Superior Court and Bankruptcy Court. I
am aware that there is a general problem with service of process. The same seems to be true with respect to
perjury. I would assume that part of
that problem is the fact that no one seems to be held accountable and people
who are willing to lie tend to prevail.
I declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
This
declaration is executed on this 28th day of July 2015 in Los Angeles,
California.
____________________________________
Paulette Brandt
Motion
Exhibit D: Schedule of Exhibits &
Declarations attached to Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Reply to
Plaintiffs’ Opposition
MOTION
FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(FRAUD
UPON THE COURT)
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
1: Defendant Kelley Lynch’s Proposed
Answer to Complaint
Exhibit
2: Natural Wealth Lawsuit – Kelley
Lynch’s Summary of Factual Allegations
& Statements. Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc., et al. v.
Leonard Cohen, et al.
Case
No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB
Exhibit
3: Kelley Lynch’s Summary of
Fraudulent Misrepresentations in Plaintiff’s
Complaint. Case No. BC
338322.
Exhibit
4: Declaration of Kelley Lynch
Exhibit
5: Declaration of Joan Marie Lynch
Exhibit
6: Declaration of John Rutger Penick
Exhibit
7: Declaration of Paulette Brandt
Exhibit
8: Declaration of Clea Surkhang
Exhibit
9: Declaration of Palden Ronge
Exhibit
10: Declaration of Daniel J. Meade
Exhibit
11: Clarification of Ambiguities in Default
Judgment filed May 15, 2006
DECLARATION
OF KELLEY LYNCH
EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Robert
Hilburn Article; photo of Cohen working at Mt. Baldy.
Exhibit B:
Boulder Combined Court email and attached evidence; Kory & Rice domestic
violence related orders.
Exhibit C: Emails
with court reporters re. March 23, 2012 hearing transcript.
Exhibit C-1:
MacLean’s article. August 22, 2005.
[Leonard Cohen moves
offensively in the press and advises MacLean's, as he filed the lawsuit against
Lynch, that he was not accusing her of "theft."]
Exhibit D: Phil
Spector Motion in Limine (Excerpted pages – Leonard Cohen gun incident); Mick
Brown emails. (Motion - page 14 - "Brandishing" on Leonard Cohen.
Exhibit E: Trial
Transcript (RT 308-309).
Exhibit F:
Transcript March 23, Hearing.
Exhibit G: Marty
Machat letter dated November 25, 1990; Stranger Music, Inc. –
Spreadsheet.
Exhibit H:
Berger, Berger & Beal letter to Marty Machat dated January 5, 1972.
Exhibit I: Email
to Steven Machat dated March 2, 2015 confirming book excerpts.
Exhibit J:
Transcript of Steven Machat & Kelley Lynch conversation.
Exhibit K: Elmer
Fox, Westheimer & Co. Tax Planning Memo for Leonard Cohen dated August 22,
1977.
Exhibit L: IRS
Notice dated September 12, 1988. [Confusion re. alternate SSN & IRS
account]
Exhibit M: Van
Penick’s letter to Kelley Lynch dated October 26, 1988.
Exhibit N: LC
letter to Dominque Issermann dated December 7, 1989 (off-shore account).
Exhibit O: Jonas
Herbsman letter to Herschel Weinberg dated January 8, 1990.
Exhibit P: SOCAN
Agreement (with Leonard Cohen).
Exhibit Q:
Leonard Cohen Productions, Inc. Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of
Formation (changed name to BMT) dated March 11, 1993; Articles of Incorporation
of Leonard Cohen Productions, Ltd., Nevada; Statement and Designation by
foreign corporation.
Exhibit R: Kelley
Lynch fax to Richard Feldstein dated December 7, 1993.
Exhibit S: Ed
Dean letter to LC and KL dated November 15, 1996.
Exhibit S-1:
Richard Westin letter to Kelley Lynch dated February 5, 1998 (Blue Mist).
Exhibit T: Neal
Greenberg’s fax to Cohen’s transaction attorney, Jonas Herbsman February 10,
1998.
Exhibit U:
Richard Westin letter to Kelley Lynch dated June 1, 1998; Minutes of a Special
Meeting of the Board of Directors of Blue Mist Corporation; Trial Transcript
(page 279-293).
Exhibit V:
Cohen’s Opposition to CAK’s Motion for an Order of Attachment dated August 30,
2000.
Exhibit W: Leonard
Cohen’s Declaration dated August 30, 2000[CAK litigation, Case No. 00 Civ. 1068
(DAB), United States District Court, Southern District of New York].
Exhibit X: Ken
Cleveland fax to Kelley Lynch dated June 24, 1999; Leonard Cohen POA to IRS;
Leonard Cohen letter to Mt. Baldy Zen Center dated November 1, 1996.
Exhibit Y: Ken
Cleveland fax to Kelley Lynch dated July 22, 1999.
Exhibit Z: Reeve
Chudd letter to Kelley Lynch dated September 8, 1999.
Exhibit AA: LC
Investments, LLC Certificate of Formation dated October 19, 1999; Operating
Agreement dated August 21, 2000.
Exhibit BB:
Leonard Cohen’s email (baldymonk@aol.com) dated May 19, 2000 to
Kelley Lynch (tsimar@aol.com).
Exhibit CC:
Richard Westin Memorandum dated May 23, 2000.
Exhibit DD: BMT
letter to IRS re. 341(f) election.
Exhibits EE: BMT 1999
and 2000 federal tax return.
Exhibit FF: Cohen
signed Assignment (signature page only) dated September 15, 2000.
Exhibit GG:
Richard Westin’s September 16, 2000 letter to Kelley Lynch.
Exhibit HH: LASD
Inventory dated October 18 & 24, 2005.
Exhibit II: May
21, 1994 letter to Kelley Lynch from Tom Robbins.
Exhibit JJ: Don
Friedman’s letter to Stuart Bondell, Sony, dated September 19, 2000.
Exhibits KK:
Westin fax to KL and Greg McBowman dated September 20, 2000.
Exhibit KK-1: Fax
from Richard Westin to Cohen and me dated October 10, 2000.
Exhibit LL:
Richard Westin Proposal to Leonard Cohen dated November 19, 2000.
Exhibit MM:
Richard Westin Proposal to Kelley Lynch and Leonard Cohen dated December 4,
2000.
Exhibit NN:
Leonard Cohen letter to Westin dated December 7, 2000 (wrapping Greenberg in
A/C privilege).
Exhibit OO:
Annuity Agreement dated December 7, 2000.
Exhibit PP:
Kelley Lynch/TH Promissory Note; Corporate Minutes dated December 21, 2000.
Exhibit QQ:
Traditional Holdings Formation documents; Lynch & Cohen Powers of Attorney
to Westin re. TH; State of Kentucky Email; TH – 2001, 2002, 2003 Annual
Reports; Application for Employer ID – prepared by Westin who signed Kelley
Lynch’s name.
Exhibit RR:
Traditional Holdings Stock Certificates No. 1, 2, 3; Stock Ledger.
Exhibit SS: CAK
Settlement Agreement dated December 7, 2000.
Exhibit TT: KL
Indemnity Agreement dated January 8, 2001.
Exhibit UU: IRS
Notice: August 13, 2001 - $1 million prepayment TH deal.
Exhibit VV:
Grubman, Indursky & Schindler letter dated April 18, 2001 to Cohen and TH.
Exhibit WW: Trial
Transcript (pages 285-288)
Exhibit XX: Lynch
& Westin emails (cc: Cohen) dated February 11, 2002.
Exhibit YY:
Richard Westin letter dated March 6, 2002.
Exhibit AAA:
David Woltz, IRS Office of Chief Counsel, letter to Richard Westin dated
October 8, 2002.
Exhibit BBB:
State of Kentucky Schedule K-1 for Lynch & Cohen – 2003.
Exhibit CCC: Neal
Greenberg IRS Danger Warning letters dated January 16, 2004 and June 25,
2014.
Exhibit DDD:
Westin emails re. Old Ideas, LLC; Dear Heather liner notes – publishing Old
Ideas, LLC.
Exhibit FFF: KL
email to Leonard Cohen with forwards of emails to Stuart Bondell (Sony
International), Ian MacKay (Sony Canada), and Denise Donlon (Sony Canada) dated
July 22, 2004.
Exhibit GGG:
Kelley Lynch (tsimar) email to Leonard Cohen (baldymonk) dated September 16,
2004 [Commission – 1099 information].
Exhibit HHH:
Diane Baxa, City National Bank, email to Kelley Lynch dated March 29, 2013.
Exhibit III:
Trial Transcript (pages 301-303; 319; 290-293)
Exhibit JJJ:
Richard Westin email to Kelley Lynch dated September 24, 2004.
Exhibit KKK:
Westin emails to Lynch dated September 20, 2004 (LCI “Office”)
Exhibit LLL:
Westin letters to State of Kentucky; Lynch and Cohen) dated October 6,
2004.
Exhibit:
LLL-1: 2001, 2001, and 2003 Traditional Holdings, LLC tax returns.
Exhibit MMM:
DiMascio letter to Robert Kory dated November 13, 2004 (CNB account freeze).
Exhibit NNN: USPS
Mail Fraud Notice & Confirmation No.OR18421598.
Exhibit OOO:
Kelley Lynch email to DiMascio & Berardo dated January 5, 2005 (accounting
fraud re. expense ledger).
Exhibit PPP:
DiMascio &Berardo letter to Kelley Lynch dated February 7, 2005.
Exhibit QQQ:
Trial Transcripts (pages 351-358) – Cohen & Rice testimony.
Exhibit RRR: Kory
letter to DiMascio dated February 11, 2005 (Traditional Holdings, LLC
“problematic” loans to Leonard Cohen).
Exhibit SSS:
Steve Lindsey email to Kelley Lynch dated May 2, 2005.
Exhibit TTT: Ann
Diamond (draft article for Rolling Stone).
Exhibit UUU: King
Drew May 225, 2005 fraudulent report.
Exhibit VVV:
Trial Transcript (pages 293-297)
Exhibit WWW: KL
email to Cohen & Kory dated July 30, 2005 & August 3, 2005 (advising
them that I have reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax
fraud).
Exhibit XXX:
Kelley Lynch State Bar Complaints re. Cooley & Lindsey’s custody lawyers
dated February 17, 2007.
Exhibit YYY:
State Bar Letter re. Cooley dated February 28, 2007.
Exhibit ZZZ:
Judge Lewis Babock’s Order dated September 5, 2005; Trial Transcript (pages 355
…)
Exhibit AAAA: IRS
Binder Index (April 9, 2012 Trial Evidence).
Exhibit BBBB:
LAPD Report (emails are generally requests for “tax” information.)
Exhibit CCCC : Trial
Transcript (RT 40).
Exhibit DDDD:
Trial Transcript (RT 56-57).
Exhibit EEEE:
Bail Hearing Transcript (RT 6 – DA Investigator).
Exhibit FFFF: (April
18, 2011 email testimony - RT 160-161; 266)
Exhibit GGGG:
Trial Transcript (Spector & Cooley: RT 40, 60-61, 56-57, 157-159,
305, 265-266); Mick Brown emails.
Exhibit
GGGG-1: (SSN & Driver’s License: RT 301-303, 319)
Exhibit HHHH:
Schedules of Perjury – Declarations Leonard Cohen, Michelle Rice, Robert Kory,
and
Kevin Prins;
Misrepresentatives in Declaration of Scott Edelman.
Exhibit IIII:
Cohen Affidavit - Natural Wealth (Complaint attached as Exhibit “A” to Tactical
Allocation’s Ex Parte Application in Intervention for Order Protecting &
Preserving Evidence Related Case No. BC341220).
Kelley Lynch Reply to Cohen’s Opposition to Motion for
Terminating Sanctions Exhibits:
Reply
Motion Exhibit A: Declaration of Kelley
Lynch
Reply
Motion Exhibit B: Declaration of
Paulette Brandt
Reply
Motion Exhibit C: Addressing
Egregious Misconduct The Perjuring Plaintiff by Jonathan M. Stern.
Reply
Motion Exhibit D: Declaration of John
Rutger Penick
Reply
Motion Exhibit E: Declaration of Clea
Westphal Surkhang
Reply
Motion Exhibit F: Declaration of
Paulette Brandt
Reply
Motion Exhibit G: Declaration of Palden
Ronge
Reply
Motion Exhibit H: Declaration of Daniel
J. Meade
Reply
Motion Exhibit I: Declaration of Jules Zalon, Esquire
Reply
Motion Exhibit J: Declaration of Anne
Julia MacLean
Reply Motion Motion Exhibit E: Limited Powers of Attorney (John Rutger
Penick, Clea Surkhang, Daniel J. Meade, and Palden Ronge)
Reply Motion Exhibit F: Proposed Answer to Complaint
Kelley Lynch
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California 90028
Phone:
323.331.4250
In Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LEONARD
NORMAN COHEN, an individual, Case No.
BC338322
LEONARD
COHEN INVESTMENTS, LLC, a
Delaware
Limited Liability Company,
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
KELLEY
LYNCH
Plaintiffs
Department
Judge
Robert Hess
vs.
KELLEY ANN
LYNCH, an individual, Complaint Filed August 15, 2005
Defendant
DEFENDANT,
KELLEY ANN LYNCH, answers Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), this answering
Defendant denies the allegations of the Complaint, and each and every part
thereof, and further denies that Plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain
injuries, damages, or loss in any amount, or at all, by reason of any act or
omission, fault, negligence, or conduct on the part of or attributable to this
answering defendant.
FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state facts
sufficient to sustain a claim for relief or a cause of action against this
answering Defendant.
FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, with actual or constructive
knowledge of the facts alleged in the Complaint, were under a duty to mitigate
damages, if any, and Plaintiffs failed to fulfill such duty; as a consequence
thereof, this answering Defendant is exonerated from liability to Plaintiffs,
and all damages alleged are the sole and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ failure
to mitigate their damages.
FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plaintiffs’ Comparative Fault)
The
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein in
that conduct of Plaintiffs and/or their agents was the sole proximate cause of
the act or acts, or event or events, alleged in the Complaint, and damages, if
any, must be reduced in proportion to Plaintiffs’ own conduct.
FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault of Others)
The
answering Defendant alleges that the conduct of other persons not sued and
served herein, proximately contributed to the act or acts, or event or events,
which are the subject of the complaint on file herein, and that if any judgment
is rendered in favor of Plaintiffs herein, the conduct of said other parties be
determined and allocated in proportion, and that any judgment entered against this
answering Defendant be reduced in the amounts thereof.
FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Intervening and Superseding Causes)
This
answering Defendant alleges the injuries and damages of which Plaintiffs
complain were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of other parties,
persons and/or entities in that said acts or omissions were intervening and
superseding causes of injuries and damages, if any, of which Plaintiffs
complain, thus barring Plaintiffs from any recovering against this answering
Defendant.
FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proposition 51 - Civil Code
Section 1431.2)
This
answering Defendant denies that she was responsible for the damages as alleged
by Plaintiffs in the complaint. However, if liability is found, this
answering Defendant may be held liable only in the amount of non-economic
damages allocated to her in direct proportion to her percentage of fault,
pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431.2.
FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ratification)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein in
that Plaintiffs, being fully informed of the act or acts, event or events, of
which Plaintiffs now complain, ratified and affirmed all conduct with respect
to the act or acts, event or events, and therefore Plaintiffs have waived any
and all causes of action against this answering Defendant and are barred from
asserting the same.
FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Voluntary Consent)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery in the
present action in that Plaintiffs willingly and voluntarily consented,
expressly or impliedly, after full and complete disclosure by this answering
Defendant of all relevant and material facts, to any and all such act or acts,
event or events, as may be shown on the part of this answering Defendant, of
which Plaintiffs now complain. Plaintiffs have, therefore, waived any and
all causes of action against this answering Defendant and are barred from
asserting same.
FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
This answering Defendant alleges that the acts of
Plaintiffs and/or their agents are acts which estop Plaintiffs from asserting
any cause of action against this answering Defendant.
FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ entire action is barred pursuant
to the doctrine of unclean hands.
FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
This
answering Defendant alleges that the acts and statements of Plaintiffs, and/or
their agents, constitute a waiver of Plaintiffs’ claims against this answering
Defendant.
FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein
because Plaintiffs knowingly assumed all risks incident to the conduct alleged
in the complaint.
FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive Damages Unconstitutional)
This
answering Defendant alleges that punitive damages, as sought against her in
this action, are unconstitutional under the United States and California
Constitutions.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Kelley Lynch prays as follows:
1. That Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed
with prejudice, and that Plaintiffs take nothing thereby;
2. That
judgment be entered in favor of this answering Defendant;
3. That this answering Defendant be awarded
costs of suit incurred herein;
4. For a full accounting (that includes
corporate ownership interests, asset valuations, equity liabilities - including
Plaintiffs’ loans from various entities) of all monies, commissions, and assets
owed Defendant; and,
5. For such other and further relief as
this court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated: 28 July
2015
_____________________________________
Kelley
Lynch, In Propria Persona
Kelley
Lynch
1754
N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood,
California 90028
Telephone: 323.331.4250
In
Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LEONARD
COHEN, an individual, Case
No. BC338322
Related
Case No. BC 341120
Plaintiff [PROPOSED]
ORDER
SETTING ASIDE &
VACATING
RENEWAL
OF
JUDGMENT
KELLEY
LYNCH, an individual Hearing
Date: October 6, 2015
Time: 8.30 AM
Defendant Civil Petition
filed: May 25, 2011
ORDER OF COURT
The motion of the
Defendant for an orderMOTION TO SET
ASIDE/VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT
Served
electronically
Kelley
Lynch
1754
N. Van Ness Avenue
Telephone: 323.331.4250
In
Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LEONARD
COHEN, an individual, Case
No. BC338322
Related
Case No. BC 341120
Plaintiff NOTICE OF
MOTION;
MOTION TO
SET ASIDE RENEWAL
OF
JUDGMENT
DECLARATIONS OF KELLEY
LYNCH,
JOHN
RUTGER PENICK, ETC.
KELLEY
LYNCH, an individual Hearing
Date: October 6, 2015
Time: 8.30 AM
Defendant Civil Petition
filed: May 25, 2011
TO THE
COURT, PLAINTIFFS, AND PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on
October 6, 2015 at 8.30 AM, or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard,
in Department 24 of this Court, Defendant Kelley Lynch will, and hereby does,
move for an order setting aside and vacating the renewal of judgment entered on
July 13, 2015, against her.
The Motion will be made, in
accordance with CCP Section 683.170, on the grounds that she is entitled to
relief as the original (May 15, 2006) and renewal judgment (July 13, 2015) are
void and were taken against the defendant through the extrinsic fraud of the
defendant, which prevented her from presenting her case to the court, thereby
denying her of a fair adversary hearing and that she has a meritorious defense
to the action.
The Motion is based on the this Notice of
Motion, Memorandum of Points & Authorities served and filed herewith,
accompanying declarations and exhibits attached thereto, the Court records and
file in this matter, and upon such evidence as may be presented at the hearing
of the motion.
Dated: 27 July 2015 Respectfully
submitted,
_____________________________________
Kelley
Lynch, in Propria Persona
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
On December 5, 2005 and May 15, 2006,
default judgments were entered against Defendant in this action brought by
Plaintiffs, Leonard Cohen and LC Investments, LLC. Plaintiffs failed to serve Lynch the summons
and complaint. She has attempted to
address this matter for over 10 years.
Exhibit A: Declaration of Kelley
Lynch, Exhibit B: Declaration of John
Rutger Penick, Exhibit C: Declaration of
Paulette Brandt, all attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The May 15, 2006 default judgment
wrongfully imposed a constructive trust on Lynch based upon fraudulent
allegations, misrepresentations, concealment of evidence, and perjured
statements in the declarations used to support the May 15, 2006 default
judgment. Lynch’s property, including
monies due her, intellectual property she owns, and her ownership interest in
numerous corporate entities, was fraudulently transferred to Leonard
Cohen. The individual who took
unconscionable advantage of any fiduciary relationship between Lynch and Cohen
was Leonard Cohen.
On August 9, 2013, Lynch filed a motion
to vacate. In that motion, Lynch argued
that the judgment was void; dismissal mandatory; and the Court had no
jurisdiction because she was not served the summons and complaint. The motion was denied with prejudice on a
variety of grounds. The Court found the
pleadings procedurally deficient and concluded the motion was not served on
Plaintiffs; Lynch’s declaration was not signed; she did not act diligently
after discovering the Complaint in April 2010; and Lynch did not carry the
burden of persuasion that the proof of service was false. The Court also addressed the fact that
Lynch’s son, John Rutger Penick, submitted a declaration a meaningless
declaration. The Court concluded that
Lynch failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud.
See Motion to Vacate, declarations and Case History attached thereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
In response to Lynch’s motion to vacate,
Plaintiffs submitted pleadings, declarations, and exhibits to the Court. See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Lynch’s Motion
to Vacate and declarations/exhibits attached thereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
On March 17, 2015, Lynch filed a motion for
terminating sanctions addressing egregious fraud upon the court, litigation
misconduct, and the use of perjured statements to obtain the denial of the
January 17, 2014 order. Given the fact
that Plaintiffs’ response declarations attempted to reargue the underlying
merits of the case, Lynch was forced to confront and refute those false
accusations. See Motion for Terminating
Sanctions, declarations, and evidence attached thereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
(fraud upon the court) argued that the fraud was intentional; included officers
of the court; the fraud was directed at the court itself; and in fact deceived
the court. Plaintiffs continue to
display a reckless disregard for the truth.
In their reply documents, Plaintiffs continued to deceive this Court
about effecting service upon Lynch, reintroduced their case, attempted to argue
the merits of the underlying case, and Lynch requested terminating sanctions as
a remedy for the all-pervasive and egregious litigation misconduct that
included harassment of her, her family members, friends, and witnesses who
submitted declarations to this court.
See Motion for Terminating Sanctions, declarations and exhibits attached
thereto and incorporated herein by reference.
In Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42
Cal.3d 911, 915, 231 Cal.Rptr. 738, 717 p.2d 1019, the Court implicitly
acknowledged that “a court has inherent power to dismiss an action for misconduct
that violates established procedures or a court order.” The court in Televideo Systems, Inc. vs.
Heidenthal (9th Cir. 1987)
826 F.2d 915, 917) held that an “elaborate scheme involving perjury clearly
qualifies as a willful deceit of the court” and noted that “it infected all of
the pretrial procedures and interfered egregiously with the court’s
administration of justice.” Plaintiffs,
together with their legal representatives, have engaged in an elaborate scheme
that involves perjury and is clearly meant to deceive the Court. Lynch sought terminating sanctions with
respect to the January 17, 2014 order.
Plaintiffs have now requested sanctions against Lynch with respect to
her fraud upon the court motion and request for terminating sanctions. See Motion for Sanctions, declarations
and exhibits attached thereto, and incorporated herein by reference
On May 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Ex
Parte Application Sealing corporate and other evidence Lynch submitted to this
Court. Lynch is concurrently filing a
Notice of Appeal with respect to that matter.
At the June 23, 2015 hearing on the
Motion for Terminating Sanctions, the Court concluded that there was no basis
to act; the motion was not a proper motion for reconsideration (although it was
a fraud upon the court motion); and informed Lynch that she should have acted
sooner. The Court did not address the
fraud and perjury that formed the basis for Lynch’s motion which was most
certainly not a motion for reconsideration.
At the hearing, Lynch raised issues related to due process and the
failure of Plaintiffs to serve her the summons and complaint. The Court denied Lynch’s motion noting that
she claimed not to have been served but failed to demonstrate that there was
extrinsic fraud. Lynch is concurrently
filing a Notice of Appeal with respect to that order and maintains she was not
served, the court failed to obtain jurisdiction over her, and extrinsic fraud
was demonstrated in the documents and declarations submitted to this
Court. See original declarations of Joan
Lynch, John Rutger Penick, Paulette Brandt, Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, and
Daniel Meade submitted to this Court with Lynch’s Motion for Terminating
Sanctions, and her
Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, all
exhibits and declarations attached thereto and incorporated herein by
reference. Exhibit C: Schedule of Exhibits & Declarations
attached to Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Reply to Plaintiffs’
Opposition, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Due
to the fact that Plaintiffs falsely alleged that Lynch forged or fabricated
declarations attached to her Motion for Terminating Sanctions, Lynch is now
submitted the original limited powers of attorney provided to her by John
Rutger Penick, Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, and Daniel J. Made. Exhibit D:
Limited Powers of Attorney, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
On
July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs’ filed an Application for Renewal of Judgment and
Memorandum of Costs. On July 14, 2015,
the notice of renewal of the judgment was served on defendant. See Application for Renewal of Judgment and
Memorandum of Costs incorporated herein by reference.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Lynch’s
motion to vacate the renewal of the judgment is brought pursuant to CCP Section
683.170. Lynch was never served with the
summons and complaint and the December 5, 2005 default judgment, May 15, 2006
judgment (and imposition of constructive trust), together with the July 13,
2015 renewal of that judgment are void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court’s denial of Lynch’s Motion to
Vacate and Motion for Terminating Sanctions (fraud upon the court re. the
January 17, 2014 denial) are void for lack of jurisdiction as well.
Kelley Lynch contends that lack of personal
jurisdiction would be a defense in an independent action on the judgment, and
therefore, under Section 683.170, subdivision (a), she may assert that defense
in support of this motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. Lack of personal jurisdiction, rendering the
judgment void, is a defense in an independent action on the judgment. Therefore, lack of personal jurisdiction may
be raised in a motion to vacate. In an
independent action on a judgment, the debtor may challenge the judgment” in
accordance with the rules and principles governing collateral attack,” (Kirkpatrick
v. Harvey (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 170, 172 124 P.2d 367; See also Cradduck
v. Financial Indem. Co. (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 850, 855, 52 Cal.Rptr. 90),
including “lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction.” Armstrong v. Armstrong (1976) 15 Cal.3d
942, 950, 126 Cal.Rptr. 805, 544 P.2d 941.
Such a collateral attack challenges the jurisdiction of the court to
enter the original judgment. In making a
statutory motion, under Section 683.170, subdivision (a), to vacate a renewal
of judgment, the debtor may contend that the court lacked personal jurisdiction
at the time of the initial judgment. See
Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th
195, 201-202, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 [failure to have ever served process on a
defendant is a defense to an action on the judgment and therefore can be raised
on a Section 683.170 motion.]
“Jurisdiction
over the parties is necessary for the validity of any judgment in
personam. California Code Civil
Procedure Section 1917; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 U.S. 714 722; Allen
v. Superior Court (1953) 41 Cal.2d 306, 309; Restatement, Judgments Sections 6,
14, and Intro. Note p. 79.) Such
jurisdiction depends upon three factors:
(1) Jurisdiction of the state, based upon there being sufficient minimum
contacts existing between this state and the parties or their property or other
interests (See Section 410.10); (2) Notice and opportunity for a hearing
(Sections 412.10-412.30, 473.4; (3) Compliance with statutory jurisdictional
requirements for service of process (See Sections 413.10-417.30). See Goldman
v. Simpson, Case No. B200082 (2d Dist. Feb. 20, 2008). Lynch was not provided notice and an
opportunity to be heard.
The United States Supreme Court
has concluded: “An elementary and
fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be
accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to
apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the
opportunity to present their objections.”
Failure to give notice violates “the most rudimentary demands of due
process of law.” Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86-87, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d
75.
VACATE THE RENEWAL OF THE JUDGMENT
At least two default judgments in this case have been
obtained without service upon Defendant Kelley Lynch. The initial default entered on December 5,
2005 and default entered on May 15, 2006.
There was, and continues to be, no service of summons & complaint
upon or authorized appearance by the defendant and these judgments are
therefore void. The Court has denied Lynch’s Motion to Vacate
(filed August 9, 2013) and her Motion for Terminating Sanctions that addressed
egregious fraud upon the court and requested terminating sanctions (filed March
17, 2015).
Renewal of a judgment is a ministerial
act performed by a court clerk upon receipt of an application for renewal. See Code Civ. Proc., § 683.120, subd. (b),
683.150, subd. (a); Beneficial
Financial, Inc. v. Durkee (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 912, 915, 254 Cal.Rptr. 351. Section 683.150, subdivision (a) states: “Upon the filing of the application, the
court clerk shall enter the renewal of the judgment in the court records.” Section 683.170 allows a judgment debtor to
move to vacate the renewed judgment.
A judgment may be collaterally attacked when it is void upon
the face of the record or it has been entered without jurisdiction. In an independent action on a judgment, the
debtor may challenge the judgment in accordance with the rules and principles
governing collateral attack, Kirkpatrick
v. Harvey and Cradduck v. Financial
Indem. Co., including “lack of personal or subject matter
jurisdiction.” A collateral attack
challenges the jurisdiction of the court to enter the original judgment. Therefore, in making a statutory motion under
Section 683.170, subdivision (a), to vacate a renewal of judgment, the debtor
may contend the court lacked personal jurisdiction at the time of the initial
judgment. See Fidelity Creditor
Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 201-202, 106
Cal.Rptr.2d 854 (failure to have ever served process on a defendant is a
defense to an action on the judgment and therefore can be raised on a Section
683.170 motion). “Renewal does not
create a new judgment or modify the present judgment. Renewal merely extends the enforceability of
the judgment.” Jonathan
Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones,
94 P.3d 1055, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 849, 33 Cal. 4th 917. “The
renewal judgment ‘has no independent existence’ from the original
judgment.” Id. at p. 1490, 42
Cal.Rptr.3d 350.
A
money judgment is enforceable for 10 years from the date of its entry. (§§
683.020, 683.030; Green v. Zissis (1992) 5
Cal.App.4th 1219, 1222, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 406.) There are two alternative methods to extend
the life of a money judgment. A judgment
creditor may bring an independent action on a judgment even after the 10 year
enforceability period has expired if the 10-year statute of limitations in
section 337.5 has not yet run. (§ 683.050; Green
v. Zissis, supra, 5 Cal.
App.4th at p. 1222, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 406; Pratali v. Gates (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 632,
636-639, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 733; Cal.
Law Revision Com. com., 17 West's Ann. Code Civ. Proc. (1987 ed.) foll. §
683.020, p. 72.). Alternatively, a
judgment creditor may renew a judgment for an additional 10 years. (§ 683.110
et seq.) Plaintiffs elected to renew the
judgment.
The
statutory renewal procedure enacted in 1982 (Stats.1982, ch. 1364, § 2, pp.
5073 et seq.) was not intended to replace the then existing method to extend
the life of a judgment—an independent action on the judgment. The statutory renewal procedure was intended
to save time and money while remaining fair to the judgment debtor by affording
him or her the opportunity to assert any defense that could have been asserted
in an independent action. Tom
Thumb Glove Co. v. Han, 78 Cal. App. 3d 1, 144 Cal.
Rptr. 30; Silbrico Corp. v. Raanan (1985) 170
Cal.App.3d 202, 206, fn. 3, 216 Cal.Rptr. 201. Accordingly, the Legislature directed that a
trial court may vacate renewal of a judgment “on any ground that would be a
defense to an action on the judgment ...” (§ 683.170, subd. (a); In re Marriage of Thompson (1996) 41
Cal.App.4th 1049, 1058, 48
Cal.Rptr.2d 882.
A
complete failure to have ever served process on a defendant is a defense to an
action on the judgment and therefore can be raised on a section 683.170
motion. Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne.
The
United States Supreme Court has held that the failure to serve the summons and
complaint is a defense to an action on a judgment. Hill
v. City Cab etc. Co. (1889)
79 Cal. 188, 190-191, 21 P. 728. Under Hill, the failure to have served process is
a defense to a separate action on a judgment. (§ 683.170, subd. (a).) The failure to serve a summons and complaint
is a defense to an independent action on a judgment. Likewise, the failure to
serve a summons and complaint is a basis for a motion to vacate the renewal of
a judgment. CCP Section 683.170 provides: (a)
The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground
that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that
the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is
incorrect.”
FAILURE TO SERVE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT
“An
elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which
is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306,
314; In Re Marriage of Lippel (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1160, 1166 [“It is a
fundamental concept of due process that a judgment against a defendant cannot
be entered unless he was given proper notice and an opportunity to defend”];
U.S. Constitution art. XIV, § 1. Thus, a
“plaintiff may not take a default against a defendant without giving the
defendant actual notice as required by statute.” Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc. (1991) 53
Cal.3d 428, 430.
When a
plaintiff or the court fails to comply with the applicable statutes regarding
service a judgment is void, not merely voidable. County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010)
186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1226 [“judgment is
void for lack of jurisdiction of the person where there is no proper service of
process on or appearance by a party to the proceedings.”] When a court lacks “fundamental jurisdiction”
over the parties or subject matter, any ensuing judgment is void and vulnerable
to collateral or direct attack at any time.
Id. at p. 1225; Rochin
v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co.
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239. A judgment
that is acquired in violation of due process rights is void and must be set
aside regardless of the merits of the underlying case. Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86–87. Prejudice is not a factor in setting aside a
void judgment or order. Sindler v.
Brennan (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1354.
The
default judgment obtained by Plaintiffs in this case is not merely voidable, it
is void for lack of jurisdiction because there was no fulfillment of the
constitutional due process requirement that a defendant be served with a
summons and complaint. “Where it is
shown that there has been a complete failure of service of process upon a
defendant, he generally has no duty to take affirmative action to preserve his
right to challenge the judgment or order even if he later obtains actual
knowledge of it because ‘what is initially void is ever void and life may not
be breathed into it by lapse of time.’ Consequently
under such circumstances, ‘neither laches nor the ordinary statutes of
limitation may be invoked as a defense’ against an action or proceeding to
vacate such a judgment or order.” “Because
[respondent] was never served with the complaint and summons,
. . . the trial court never obtained personal jurisdiction over
him, and the resulting default judgment was, and is, therefore void, not merely
voidable, as violating fundamental due process.” County
of San Diego v. Gorham.
“‘Extrinsic fraud occurs when a party is
deprived of the opportunity to present his claim or defense to the court; where
he was kept ignorant or, other than from his own negligence, fraudulently
prevented from fully participating in the proceeding. Examples of extrinsic fraud are: . . .
failure to give notice of the action to the other party, and convincing the
other party not to obtain counsel because the matter will not proceed (and then
it does proceed). The essence of extrinsic
fraud is one party’s preventing the other from having his day in court.’ Extrinsic fraud only arises when one party
has in some way fraudulently been prevented from presenting his or her claim or
defense.”
Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294,
1300.
A filed proof of service creates only a
rebuttable presumption that service was proper.
Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1441; M. Lowenstein & Sons,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 762, 770; Evid. Code, §
647.
To set aside a judgment based on
extrinsic fraud or extrinsic mistake, the moving party must satisfy three
elements: “First, the defaulted party must demonstrate
that it has a meritorious case.
Secondly, the party seeking to set aside the default must articulate a
satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action. Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate
diligence in seeking to set aside the default once it had been discovered.” Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d
1143, 1147-1148; see also Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 295, 314. Lynch satisfied
all three elements.
Lynch provided evidence of a meritorious case by filing with
her motion to set aside the renewal of the judgment a proposed verified answer
denying the material allegations of the first amended complaint. It has long
been established that merely attaching a verification to a proposed answer is
sufficient to demonstrate meritoriousness.
Gudarov v. Hadjieff (1952) 38 Cal.2d 412 [240 P.2d 621]; Beard v.
Beard (1940) 16 Cal.2d 645 [107 P.2d 385].
Exhibit E: Proposed Answer to Complaint, attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
In addition to demonstrating that a case has merit and that
the defaulted party has an adequate excuse for filing to defend, the party
seeking relief from a default must produce evidence that he acted diligently to
set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court has indicated that original
negligence in allowing the default to be taken will be excused if the aggrieved
party makes a strong showing of diligence in seeking relief soon after discovering
entry of the judgment. Hallett v.
Slaughter (1943) 22 Cal.2d 552 [140 P.2d 3].
Leonard Cohen’s Complaint, willful failure to serve Lynch the
summons & complaint, and the decision to ignore her continual attempts to
address the failure to serve Lynch were part of a carefully crafted and
executed scheme to defraud not only Lynch but the Internal Revenue Service,
Franchise Tax Board, other tax authorities, and willfully run statutes of
limitations and prevent Lynch from having a meaningful opportunity to be heard
on the merits of the case. Leonard Cohen
also willfully bankrupted Lynch. This
prevented Lynch from defending herself properly, obtaining proper legal representation,
forcing her to represent herself, and moving more diligently then she did with
respect to the Motion to Vacate. He has
gone to inconceivable lengths to target Lynch and the custody matter related to
her younger son most definitely appears to have been coordinated with the May
25, 2005 SWAT and King Drew incidents.
Fraudulent restraining orders have been used as tactics to discredit
Lynch.
In Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), the Circuit Court did not
hold that Hartford’s fraud fell short of that which prompts equitable
intervention, but thought Hazel had not exercised proper diligence in
uncovering the fraud and that this should stand in the way of obtaining
relief. The U.S. Supreme Court opinion
addressed this issue: “We cannot easily
understand how, under the admitted fact, Hazel should have been expected to do
more than it did to uncover the fraud.
But even if Hazel did not exercise the highest degree of diligence
Hartford’s fraud cannot be condoned for that reason alone. This matter does not concern only private
parties. There are issues of great
moment to the public in a patent suit. The
Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Investment Company, 320 U.S. 661, 64
S.Ct. 268; Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 62 S.Ct.
402. Furthermore, tampering with the
administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far
more than an injury to a single litigant.
It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard
the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated
consistently with the good order of society.
Surely it cannot be that the preservation of the integrity of the
judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies
of public justice be not to impotent that they must always be mute and helpless
victims of deception and fraud. Hazel
Atlas should be read as an expansion of the limits set by United
States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93 (1878) in attacking
judgments generally. See also Josephine C. Toscano a.k.a. Josephine C. Zelasko v. Commissioner, 441 F. 2d 930 (1971).
VOID JUDGMENT
A
judgment void on its face because rendered when the court lacked personal or subject
matter jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief which the
court had no power to grant, is subject to collateral attack at any time. County of Ventura v. Tillett (1982)
133 Cal.App.3d 105, 110, 183 Cal.Rptr. 741; see also Security Pacific Nat.
Bank v. Lyon (1980) 165 Cal.Rptr. 95, 105 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8, 13. An attack on a void judgment may also be
direct, since a court has inherent power, apart from statute, to correct its
records by vacating a judgment which is void on its face, for such a judgment
is a nullity and may be ignored. Olivera
v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570, 122 P. 2d 564.
Consistent with these general
principles, “a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction of the person where
there is no proper service of process on or appearance by a party to the
proceedings.” David B. v. Superior Court (1994) 21
Cal.App.4th 1010,
1016 [26
Cal.Rptr.2d 586]. Knowledge by a defendant of an action will
not satisfy the requirement of adequate service of a summons and complaint. Waller
v. Weston (1899) 125
Cal. 201 [57 P. 892]; Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (2004) 123
Cal.App.4th 1145,
1152-1153 [20
Cal.Rptr.3d 603].)
Because the “total absence of notice in any form cannot comport with the
requirements of due process,” In re B. G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 689 [114 Cal.Rptr. 444, 523 P.2d 244], it
has been said that a judgment of a court lacking such personal jurisdiction is
a violation of due process (Burnham
v. Superior Court of Cal., Marin County (1990) 495 U.S. 604, 609
[109 L.Ed.2d 631, 110 S.Ct. 2105]), and that “a default judgment entered
against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed
by statute [to establish personal jurisdiction] is void.” See Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.; County of San Diego v. Gorham.
The
trial court’s order January 17, 2014 order denying defendant’s motion to vacate
the judgment, in that it gives effect to a void judgment, is itself void. County
of Ventura v. Tillett. Defendant’s
failure to appeal from it, thus essentially allowing it to become final, makes
no difference. A “final” but void order
can have no preclusive effect. “A void
judgment [or order] is, in legal effect, no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings
founded upon it are equally worthless.
It neither binds nor bars any one.”
Bennett v. Wilson (1898) 122 Cal. 509, 513-514, 55 P. 390.
LEONARD COHEN HAD NO STANDING
TO BRING THIS SUIT OR ENTER THE JUDGMENT
AGAINST LYNCH
The concept of the corporation
as a separate “person,” with a legal identity distinct from its
shareholders and the ability to sue and be sued in its own name, is the
cornerstone of the corporate form of business organization. The
essential corporate attribute of limited liability and the attendant
imposition of fiduciary duties of loyalty and care on those entrusted to manage
the corporation’s affairs, could not comfortably exist without corporate
separateness. Leonard Cohen, who has
argued that he is the alter ego of numerous corporate entities, brought
derivative claims. A corporate
shareholder has no individual cause of action for personal damages caused
solely by an alleged wrong done to the corporation and particularly so when
that individual is the primary cause of the injury to corporate property. Leonard Cohen has no separate and independent
right of action for alleged wrongs to the corporation and the value of his
stock was not depreciated due to the actions of Kelley Lynch. To recover for wrongs done to the corporation,
the shareholders must bring the suit derivatively in the name of the
corporation. “Generally, a stockholder may not maintain an
action in his own behalf for a wrong done by a third person to the corporation …
for such an action would … ignore the corporate entity.” Sutter v. General Petroleum Corp., 28
Cal.2d 525, 530 [170 P.2d 898, 167 A.L.R. 271].
It is a well-established general rule that a stockholder of a
corporation has no personal or individual right of action against third
persons, including the corporation's officers and directors, for a wrong or
injury to the corporation which results in the destruction or depreciation of
the value of his stock, since the wrong thus suffered by the stockholder is
merely incidental to the wrong suffered by the corporation and affects all
stockholders alike. Since the corporate
assets were not Leonard Cohen’s personal assets, his claim actually appears to
conclude that Lynch’s alleged conduct destroyed or depreciated the value of his
stock. “It is only where the injury
sustained to one's stock is peculiar to himself alone, and does not fall alike
upon other stockholders, that he can recover as an individual.” Shenberg v. DeGarmo, 61 Cal.App.2d
326, 332 [143 P.2d 74]); otherwise stated, “to obtain a personal right of
action there must be relations between him [the shareholder] and the
tort-feasor independent of those which the shareholder derives through his
interest in the corporate assets and business.”
Shenberg v. DeGarmo,
supra. Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.
and Traditional Holdings, which was never registered to do business in
California and had no contacts with this state, have been suspended and/or
administratively dissolved and the May 6, 2005 judgment and July 13, 2015
renewal of judgment should, at the very least, be modified to specifically
exclude them. Old Ideas, LLC was not
registered to do business in California until 2011 and should also be
specifically excluded from the May 6, 2005 judgment and July 13, 2015 renewal
of judgment. Furthermore, these entities
were not actually named as parties to this matter and the Court failed to
obtain jurisdiction over them.
CONCLUSION
Based
upon the foregoing facts and authorities, Defendant Kelley Lynch respectfully
requests that the Court grant her motion to set aside and vacate the renewal of
judgment.
Dated:
27 July 2015 Respectfully
submitted
_________________________________
Kelley
Lynch, In Propria Persona
MOTION EXHIBITS
Motion Exhibit A: Declaration of Kelley Lynch
DECLARATION OF KELLEY LYNCH
[Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Renewal of
Judgment]
I, KELLEY LYNCH, declare:
1. I
am a citizen of the United States who currently
resides in Los Angeles, California. I am
over the age of 18 years. I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained
in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify
competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2. As I have repeatedly stated, I was not
served the summons and complaint in this matter. The Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over
me and the judgment is therefore void.
3. I have a legal ownership interest in
Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. (15), Traditional Holdings, LLC (99.5%), and
Old Ideas, LLC (15%). I am owed
substantial compensation for services rendered as of October 21, 2004. I have been unable to obtain an actual
accounting that addresses corporate ownership interests, assets, and
liabilities. Leonard Cohen refuses to
address his nearly $6.7 million in loans/expenditures from Traditional
Holdings, LLC although he understood that he was obligated to repay those
loans/expenses within 3 years at 6% interest.
4. Many federal and state tax matters have
been implicated by entry of the May 15, 2006 Default Judgment.
5. I discovered the Complaint online in
April 2010. It was posted there by an
individual, Stephen Gianelli, who has relentlessly harassed, stalked,
threatened, intimidated, and slandered me.
He has also harassed, stalked, and targeted my sons, family, friends,
business associates, and witnesses who have submitted declarations to this
Court. Shortly thereafter, I traveled to
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where I stayed with a friend of mine until
approximately December 2010. In or
around December 2010, I relocated to Berkeley, California where I resided until
I was falsely arrested on March 1, 2012 over a tactical restraining order
Leonard Cohen obtained. Leonard Cohen
has used restraining orders to discredit me.
I was convicted of willfully and knowingly violating a permanent
restraining order that the Boulder Combined Court informed me, and others,
expired on February 15, 2009. I
willfully and knowingly violated nothing.
I was incarcerated from approximately March through mid-September
2012. At that time, I returned to the
Bay Area where I resided until I decided to return to Los Angeles,
California. I have resided here
continuously from June 2013 through today.
It is not reasonable to conclude that I should have moved more
diligently with respect to the Motion to Vacate I filed in August 2013. Leonard Cohen intentionally withheld
commissions due for services rendered, bankrupted me, and has relentlessly
targeted me since October 2004. It is
outrageous to assume that I should have hitchhiked to Los Angeles and slept on
Los Angeles Superior Court’s steps in order to file a Motion to Vacate any
sooner than I did. My reputation has
been destroyed, employers have been harassed by Cohen’s lawyers and others, and
I have been unable to find work. I had
no money to travel to Los Angeles and attend hearings. Therefore, I moved diligently when I filed
the Motion to Vacate on August 9, 2013.
6. Plaintiffs continue to fraudulently
argue that I was served the summons and complaint. There appears to be a complete lack of a
remedy for their litigation misconduct, fraud upon the court, and use of
perjured statements and testimony to obtain verdicts, judgments, and orders.
7. At no time did I have attorney/client
privilege with Leonard Cohen and his representatives. That would include, but is not limited to,
Richard Westin. In fact, I was
intentionally excluded from attorney/client privilege and this was confirmed
for Steve Blanq of Hochman, Rettig when he handled a matter with IRS that involved
Cohen’s decision to handle the $1 million prepayment against the Traditional
Holdings, LLC 2001 transaction as a loan on his federal tax returns. I was an independent contractor and that is
why I am still in need of IRS required 1099 for the year 2004, and other tax
and corporation information, from Leonard Cohen.
8. Plaintiffs were served the Motion to
Vacate. Paulette Brandt emailed the
motion to attorney of record, Scott Edelman when it was filed on August 9,
2013. Scott Edelman’s office responded
to Paulette Brandt and me confirming receipt of the motion and advising us to
contact Robert Kory. At no time did
Scott Edelman object to service by email.
Paulette Brandt then emailed a copy of the Motion to Vacate to Robert
Kory and Michelle Rice at Kory & Rice.
She followed this up with a phone message to Robert Kory wherein she
advised him to contact her if he had any problems being served by email. That seems like an extremely simple
request. The point is to effect service
upon Plaintiffs – not to play games with service of process. These games remain ongoing. Robert Kory, Kory Rice, is also listed on the
State of California’s website as the Registered Agent for Plaintiff LC
Investments, LLC.
9. Joan Lynch, John Rutger Penick,
Paulette Brandt, Clea Surkhang Westphal, Palden Ronge, and Daniel J. Meade have
submitted declarations to this Court addressing the fact that I did not
resemble the individual in the proof of service and have continuously
maintained that I was not served. This
has been well documented over the years.
Rutger and I did not have a female co-occupant in August 2005. Our co-occupant was a male by the name of
Chad Knaak, a childhood friend of Rutger’s.
I personally asked Chad to phone Scott Edelman’s office to inform him
that I was not served Cohen’s lawsuit (which I was aware of as the LA Times
contacted me and the news media picked up the story as well as the fact that
Edelman represented Cohen) and to advise him that I would hold him personally
accountable for emotional distress IF I was served the lawsuit. I also instructed Chad to inform Edelman’s
office that I viewed the lawsuit as an attempt to cover up tax fraud and
obstruct justice. Leonard Cohen needed
to argue fraud and/or rescission to unravel these transactions and explain away
his role in them. He has attempted to
blame his own wrongdoing on me and others.
10. The fraudulent expense ledger is not an
accounting. It willfully disregards the
corporate entities I have a legal ownership in.
It is evidence of financial and accounting fraud. The ledger fails to address corporate
distributions and advances against my ownership interest in intellectual
property. Advances are customary in the
music industry.
11. Leonard Cohen and his representatives
have also refused to provide me with any details regarding the fact that
Traditional Holdings, LLC shifted income to me that was not distributed.
12. This lawsuit is retaliation due to the
fact that I reported allegations that Cohen committed tax fraud (which my
lawyers and accountant confirmed was criminal in nature) to Internal Revenue
Service, and other tax authorities, on July 25, 2004, April 15, 2005, and
thereafter.
13. Leonard Cohen is not the rightful owner
of the property and assets owned by these entities and he is not entitled the
Default Judgment and/or Renewal of the Default Judgment. The evidence, some of which was incorporated
by reference into the Complaint, contradicts Leonard Cohen’s fabricated
narrative. There is no evidence, other
than the fabricated narrative, to support the May 15, 2006 Default Judgment or
July 13, 2015 Renewal of Judgment and Memorandum of Costs adding additional
financial interest.
I declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
This
declaration is executed on this 28th day of July 2015 in Los Angeles,
California.
____________________________________
Kelley Lynch
Motion Exhibit B: Declaration of John Rutger Penick
John Rutger Penick
c/o Kelley Lynch
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California 90028
Phone:
323.331.4250
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES
LEONARD COHEN,
Plaintiff
vs.
Case
No. BQ033717
KELLEY LYNCH, an
individual
Defendant
DECLARATION OF JOHN RUTGER PENICK
I, JOHN RUTGER PENICK, declare:
1. I
am a citizen of the United States who currently
resides in Los Angeles, California. I am the son of defendant, Kelley Ann Lynch. I am over the age of 18 years. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this
declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently
as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2. At some point in October 2004, my
mother and Leonard Cohen parted ways.
She had worked as his personal manager for approximately 17 years. It was my understanding that they parted ways
because my mother hired a new accountant, was referred to tax lawyers, and
issues arose with respect to my mother’s belief that Leonard Cohen had
committed tax fraud. My mother
eventually reported those allegations to the Internal Revenue Service and other
tax authorities. Since that time,
Leonard Cohen and others, including my stepfather Steve Lindsey, have engaged
in malicious and abusive tactics directed at my mother, me, and my younger
brother, Ray Charles Lindsey.
3. In the fall of 2004 and early 2005, I
understood that Leonard Cohen was attempting to force my mother into a deal or
settlement. I heard many conversations
about this. Steve Lindsey actually tried
to encourage me to convince my mother to enter into a deal with Leonard Cohen
that would be very attractive for her.
She refused to negotiate with Leonard Cohen, although he owed her a
tremendous amount of money, because she felt he was asking her to provide false
testimony against his representatives.
4. Steve Lindsey and my mother separated
in 1997. As of the fall of 2004, my
stepfather, Steve Lindsey, was in a new relationship and his girlfriend, Dinah
Englund, was pregnant with their daughter.
My mother had sole custody of my brother until May 2005. The three of us lived together from 1997
until May 2005 when a custody matter was initiated.
5. By the spring of 2005, Steve Lindsey,
who had an abusive personality and temperament, was becoming increasingly
aggressive and hostile towards my mother, brother, and me. At some point, he hired custody lawyer, Daniel
Bergman, and they pursued a completely concocted custody matter involving my
brother, Ray Charles Lindsey.
6. I was present for the hearings in that
case and know for a fact that the custody matter was based on lies. My mother was a wonderful parent, provided us
with a great environment, loved us, and was never even remotely abusive to
either of us. Steve Lindsey used
fraudulent restraining orders as a tactic against my mother.
7.
Both Steve Lindsey and Leonard Cohen owe my mother a tremendous amount
of money and I believe they coordinated the custody and litigation matters to
force her into deals with them. From
approximately May 2005, when the custody matter arose, until my brother was 18,
Steve Lindsey failed to have my brother phone my mother although I was present
when the Court ordered him to have Ray call her every other night. Steve Lindsey also prohibited my mother and
other members of our family from seeing Ray.
His lawyer, Daniel Bergman, refused to communicate with her although I
was present when he was ordered to do so by the court. It is my understanding that Daniel Bergman
now represents Leonard Cohen in a related case.
I would assume he represents Leonard Cohen in order to further distress
and harass my mother.
8. It is my understanding that Leonard
Cohen’s October 2005 restraining order against my mother involved his
declaration that addressed my brother’s custody matter and a May 25, 2005 SWAT
incident at our home. I would like to
address these matters with the Court based on what I personally witnessed.
9. On the morning of May 25, 2005, my
mother phoned and asked me to pick my brother up at the house. Ray did not feel well that day, stayed home
from school, and this caused Steve Lindsey to become angry which frequently
happened with him. My mother said Steve
Lindsey, Ray’s father, had repeatedly called that morning and was becoming
threatening and abusive. My mother
informed me that she did not want Steve Lindsey on our property and asked me to
meet Steve Lindsey at the bottom of the hill with Ray. Lindsey intended to drive Ray to school. I personally spoke to Steve Lindsey who
confirmed this arrangement. As I was a
block away, and Lindsey said he was in Beverly Hills, I immediately drove home,
picked Ray up, and drove down the hill.
I was accompanied by my friend, Evan Reiss.
10. When I arrived home, my mother and Ray
were waiting outside. Ray was on the
phone with his father. I got out of my
car, walked over to Ray, took the phone and informed Steve that I was leaving
the house with Ray immediately, and handed the phone to my mother. When I arrived at the bottom of Mandeville
Canyon, Cloris Leachman, rather than Steve Lindsey, was waiting to take custody
of Ray. She waved me over and I dropped
Ray off with her. I then saw Steve
Lindsey and approximately 7 or more LAPD squad cars racing up Mandeville Canyon
Road. I turned around, drove up the
hill, and saw Lindsey speaking to the police officers. I believe he was providing them with a
lay-out of the property. I explained to
LAPD that my mother was in the house alone; I had just been with her, and
confirmed that I had spoken with Lindsey moments earlier and we agreed that we
would meet at the bottom of Mandeville where he would pick Ray up. I also explained that I dropped my brother
off with Cloris Leachman who was Lindsey’s girlfriend’s mother. LAPD was uninterested in what I, and others,
had to say and appeared to be relying specifically on what Steve Lindsey told
them. Steve Lindsey had not been to our
house and was not in a position to tell LAPD anything. I heard Steve Lindsey confirm that he called
the police. I later heard that my Aunt
Karen, my mother’s sister, phoned LAPD but I have spoken with her directly and
she assured me that this was not the case.
At some point, as the situation unfolded, Steve Lindsey received a phone
call and left.
11. The SWAT incident continued to unfold and
would last for approximately three to four hours. LAPD, based on what they were advised by
Steve Lindsey, asked if my mother had access to a gun and/or weapon. I confirmed for LAPD that my mother did not
have a gun and/or weapon in her house. I
also confirmed that I, as I was over the age of 18 at the time, owned a rifle
that was legally registered. I explained
to LAPD that I lived in a separate guest house on the property; my mother did
not have keys to the guest house; the door was locked; and the gun was locked
in my closet and locked inside a case.
My mother did not have keys to the guest house, closet or the case.
12. LAPD questioned me about our dogs. I explained that we had two large
Akitas. Throughout the incident, LAPD
advised me that they intended to shoot my mother; would let me stay and watch
or take me somewhere; and planned to shoot our dogs. At the end of the SWAT incident, LAPD
personally informed me that our dog was the hostage and they were taking
precautions. I was also informed that
Inglewood PD was present.
13. At no point did LAPD ask my mother to
come out; approach our front door; attempt to phone her; or attempt to determine
what was actually going on. Nothing was
going on other than the fact that my mother kept my younger brother home sick
and Steve Lindsey became angry.
14. At one point, LAPD asked me to trick my
mother into coming out of the house. I
therefore asked my mother if she would like a cigarette. I believe LAPD felt that was her “hostage
demand” although she did not have a hostage; they understood I had taken my
brother down the street; and, she was in the house alone. My mother came out of the house, with our dog
Shadow on a leash, and asked LAPD “Who is my hostage? My dog?”
My mother was wearing nothing other than a bikini and it was very clear
that she did not have a gun or weapon and Shadow was on a leash.
15. After a considerable amount of time
passed, LAPD decided they would enter our house, neutralize my mother, and
asked me to lead the way. There were
officers on our hillside and crouched under the windows. I believe assault weapons and bean bag guns
were deployed. LAPD directed me to lead
them into the house. I followed their
instructions and we noticed that my mother was in the backyard. LAPD rushed through the house into our
backyard. At that time, my mother dove
into the pool. I witnessed this. When my mother surfaced, she asked an LAPD
officer not to “hurt” her and he replied that they were not there to hurt her
but were there to help her. Without
questioning my mother or explaining why, LAPD handcuffed my mother. As she was only wearing a bikini, I went
inside, noticed that my mother had locked Shadow in the bathroom, and grabbed a
brocade jacket for her. LAPD then led my
mother out front. Two officers pulled up
and my mother was placed into the back of the car.
16. A woman who identified herself as Erma
Oppenhein asked me if I was okay and wanted to know if my mother was on any
medications. I responded that I was okay
and informed her that my mother was on heart and asthma medication. These officers then drove off with my
mother.
17. Shortly after LAPD left, I received a phone
call from Steve Lindsey. He asked me if
I would go into Leonard Cohen/Robert Kory’s office and sign over/transfer our
house to Cohen and/or Kory. I recall
Lindsey asking me to have my mother formally committed and he mentioned their
wanting me to sign some paperwork to this effect. I was 18 years old at the time. I decided to phone my father, Douglas Penick,
who advised me to speak to a lawyer first.
I decided not to return Steve Lindsey’s call. Lindsey also informed me that, if I agreed to
sign over/transfer our house to Leonard Cohen and/or Robert Kory, Cohen would
provide him with money and they would assist me financially.
18. When my mother was taken from our house,
LAPD informed me that they intended to search the premises. They did not appear to be in possession of a
search warrant for either my mother’s house or my guest house. I stayed while they searched and found
nothing. They confirmed that there was
no hostage. LAPD also searched my guest
house and understood that my rifle was locked in the guest house; locked in my
closet; and locked in a case. LAPD
removed my rifle from our property. They
did not give their reasons for doing so.
I later received a call from LAPD advising me that I could pick the
rifle up from West LAPD. My mother and I
picked it up and LAPD had removed the lock from the case.
19. After the SWAT incident, my mother phoned
and informed me that LAPD had taken her to King Drew Hospital in South
Central. I was in shock that LAPD would
take my mother to South Central. UCLA
was approximately 10 minutes from our home.
She explained that Dr. D’Angelo, who worked at King Drew, advised her to
wait her turn and she would be promptly released. Dr. D’Angelo also confirmed for me that my
mother was being released. Evan Reiss
and I drove to King Drew to pick my mother up.
At the hospital, Dr. D’Angelo came outside to speak to me and confirmed
that he was releasing my mother and did not agree with LAPD’s assessment that
she was dangerous to herself and/or others.
He also confirmed that there was nothing in the file that would cause my
mother to lose custody of my brother. My
mother was concerned that the SWAT incident was being used to coordinate a
custody matter. We would later find out
that her concerns were valid. My mother
also informed me that LAPD questioned her about Phil Spector and possible gun
incidents on the way to King Drew. She
couldn’t figure out how LAPD understood she knew Phil Spector.
20. My mother, who was picking up her
property while I spoke with Dr. D’Angelo, then walked out of King Drew. Evan and I drove her home. Ray called while we were driving home but, at
that time, we didn’t realize Steve Lindsey had filed a custody matter with LA
Superior Court. The custody matter was
filed due to the SWAT and Killer King incidents. My mother explained that she was drugged
against her will at King Drew and discussed how dangerous the environment was.
21. At this time, due to the King Drew and
SWAT incidents, Steve Lindsey also obtained a restraining order against my
mother. My mother is the individual who
was abused by Steve Lindsey and simply did not want him on our property due to
his own aggressive behavior. I do know
for a fact that Ray felt tremendous pressure and fear when his father would
lose his temper. I believe the custody
matter, SWAT incident, and restraining orders were used tactically to discredit
my mother and prevail in numerous lawsuits that would be brought against her by
Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey.
22. Once we learned that a custody matter had
been filed, we also discovered that Betsy Superfon, a friend of Steve
Lindsey’s, and Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, submitted declarations in
that matter. Betsy Superfon would later
inform me personally that she didn’t know what she was signing when she signed
the declaration Lindsey provided her.
Betsy also told me she felt my mother, if anything, was too good to me
and my brother.
23. Robert Kory’s declaration involved
allegations that my mother misappropriated monies from Leonard Cohen and
addressed the time my mother and brother stopped into his office. My mother attempted to speak to him about
legal and business matters between her and Leonard Cohen.
During
my mother’s 2012 trial, my brother’s custody matter was raised as an issue. Robert Kory testified that my mother
“interrogated” my brother at his office.
I have spoken to my mother and brother about this matter, including
immediately after it occurred, and both confirmed that my mother simply asked
Ray some questions related to information he had heard about Leonard Cohen’s
tax fraud, missing state tax returns, her share of intellectual property and
commissions due her, and their threats to put in her in jail. Those threats were repeated to me and my
brother in the spring of 2005 by Steve Lindsey who said he would assist Leonard
Cohen. I also personally heard
information about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud, missing state returns, my mother’s
share of intellectual property and commissions due her, and her requests for
tax information.
24. On April 15, 2005, my mother reported
Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to Agent Betzer, Internal Revenue Service. She had previously reported it to other tax
authorities.
25. Steve Lindsey and Daniel Bergman refused
to allow me to see Ray. The entire
custody matter was based on lies and I believe it was meant to crush and
destroy my mother. It was also used to
pressure me and Ray.
26. Leonard Cohen would also use restraining
orders to discredit my mother. My mother
has never threatened Leonard Cohen.
Leonard Cohen and his lawyers have refused to communicate with my mother
for approximately 10 street years and I believe it’s to say that the situation
is thoroughly frustrating. I have been
copied on her emails since the spring of 2005 and at no time did I read
anything that was threatening or harassing towards Leonard Cohen or anyone
else. My mother is the individual who
has been relentlessly slandered, harassed, threatened, and intimidated.
27. In the Spring of 2005, my mother was
advised by His Holiness Kusum Lingpa to document everything we were going
through in emails with witnesses copied in.
I was frequently copied on those emails.
The primary reason for my mother’s emails was to document everything she
had gone through since she reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen
committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service. The emails, as my mother has explained many
times, are documenting everything for the Internal Revenue Service due to the
retaliation over tax matters. The custody
matter was clearly coordinated by Leonard Cohen, Steve Lindsey, and their
lawyers. It was my understanding that my
mother lost the custody matter because, due to her financial circumstances, she
was unable to afford a custody lawyer; the tactics used against her have been
malicious; and the results of these actions led to a default that caused the
Court to give Steve Lindsey custody of my brother.
28. Leonard Cohen filed a retaliatory with a
lawsuit (LA Superior Court Case No. BC338322).
I have submitted declarations to Los Angeles Superior Court confirming
that my mother was not served Cohen’s lawsuit; we did not have a co-occupant or
know anyone who resembled the individual the process server said he served; my
mother did not resemble the individual; no one attempted to evade service; and
my mother has relentlessly address this matter for years. I have also submitted declarations addressing
the fact that I was present when my mother asked Chad Knaak, a friend of mine
who lived with us at the time, to call Cohen’s lawyer and advise him that she
was not served the lawsuit and if he attempted to serve her she would hold him
personally accountable for emotional distress.
She also asked Chad Knaak to advise Leonard Cohen’s lawyer that she
viewed this lawsuit as Cohen’s attempt to cover up tax fraud.
29. At the time Lindsey filed the custody
matter, he owed my mother a tremendous amount of money and that seemed to be
part of his motive. I also understood
that he had been meeting with Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory about my
mother. Steve Lindsey refused to pay my
mother what he owed her for Ray’s upbringing and support. He also refused to repay her for monies she
expended on behalf of his daughter, Jennifer Lindsey, who lived with us before
my mother and Lindsey broke up in 1997.
Leonard Cohen also owed my mother money and, after they parted ways,
stopped paying her. My mother had also
loaned Steve Lindsey money. He simply
refused to address these matters and permitted my mother to end up
homeless.
30. I have addressed the fact that my mother
was not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit.
I have witnessed my mother’s attempts to address this with Leonard Cohen
and/or his lawyers. She was always told
that they would not speak to her and hung up on her. They refused to respond to her emails
addressing this, requests for tax information, and other business and legal
matters.
31. As of the summer of 2005, my mother’s
phone was shut down at some point and many people (including Paulette Brandt,
Palden Ronge, Yongzin Rinpoche, Choegon Rinpoche, and Lama Lhanang) kept in
touch with us by stopping by the house.
Various people brought food, supplies for our animals, and others
items. As I was forced to take a job at
Whole Foods, I also purchased items for my mother. My mother had no money by this time. Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey refused to
pay her what they owed her. It was my
understanding that Leonard Cohen would pay my mother what he owed her if she
testified against his representatives.
It was also my understanding that Sergeant Joe, who monitored my
mother’s July 2005 visit at Roxbury Park with my brother (although she was the
abused party), advised her to go into Daniel Bergman’s office and make a deal
that would make her happy. She refused
to negotiate under these terms and conditions.
I drove my mother to meet with my brother and Sergeant Joe.
32. In mid-October 2005, Leonard Cohen’s
lawyer showed up at our house with the Sheriff’s Department. LASD searched our house and took many
items. I was present and they said they
were permitted to seize anything with Leonard Cohen’s name on it. My mother was upset because they took her
business and personal files and items.
The Sheriff’s Department returned and seized items that were in our
garage since we moved to 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road. My mother had stored these items as a favor
for Leonard Cohen for years.
33. For years, my mother stored boxes of old
business documents of Leonard Cohen’s in our garage. He had renovated his garage and my mother
agreed to store these items for him. I
have spent a considerable amount of time with Leonard Cohen and my mother – at
her office, his home, and at our home. I
also know his son and daughter, Adam and Lorca Cohen. My mother worked as both Adam and Leonard
Cohen’s personal managers.
34. On December 28, 2005, my mother and I
were evicted from our home. She ended up
homeless in Santa Monica. I went to live
with family friends. For a period of
approximately one year my mother was essentially homeless. I personally believe Leonard Cohen and Steve
Lindsey, together with their lawyers, intentionally bankrupted my mother so she
would be unable to defend herself.
35. By January 2007, my mother was living
with an elderly woman in Santa Ana, California.
On February 3, 2007, I was in a serious industrial accident at Whole
Foods. I was not trained or qualified to
work on the meat grinder which we later found out had not been functioning
properly for some time. The safety guard
was removed without my knowledge. This
led to the loss of my fingers and part of my hand. I understand that Leonard Cohen testified, at
my mother’s 2012 trial, that she blamed him for this accident. That is a blatant lie. My mother understood that Whole Foods caused
this accident. In fact, my mother
repeatedly contacted the District Attorney’s office about this matter and asked
them to investigate potential criminal negligence. I was copied on some of the
emails my mother sent the District Attorney’s office and their failure to investigate
upset my mother tremendously.
36. My mother was aware that Leonard Cohen
and Steve Lindsey owed her a tremendous amount of money and, if they paid her
what they owed her, I would have been in college. I felt the same way. I am aware that corporate records exist
proving that my mother has an ownership interest in numerous corporate entities
and Cohen related intellectual property.
I am also aware Leonard Cohen offered my mother numerous settlements. I personally heard that my mother was offered
many types of settlement offers, including
50% community property, by Cohen and/or Kory. I am also aware that Leonard Cohen refused to
pay my mother for commissions due her.
37. In the spring of 2007, my mother came to
stay with me for a spell. Yongzin
Rinpoche and his wife, Clea Surkhang Westphal, then invited my mother to visit
with them at their home outside of Boulder, Colorado. My mother relocated to Colorado in the spring
of 2007. Eventually my mother took a
long term temporary position with Deneuve Construction in Boulder, Colorado
which she seemed to enjoy.
38. I did hear, from time to time, that
Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey, together with their lawyers, continued to
harass my mother in Colorado. I was also
copied in on emails throughout this period of time. Those emails asked Leonard Cohen, or his
lawyers, to provide my mother with IRS documentation; a corporate accounting;
monies due my mother; and she also attempted to address the fact that she was
not served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit. I
actually met with my mother’s attorney, David Moorhead, in Boulder, Colorado
and confirmed a great deal of this information for him.
39. I understand that at some point in 2008,
Leonard Cohen flew into Boulder, Colorado to obtain yet another restraining
order against my mother. Leonard Cohen,
and his lawyers, have gone to extraordinary lengths to target and discredit my
mother. It is my understanding that the
Boulder Court informed my mother that the Colorado order expired in February
2009. I know for a fact that she
believed the original Boulder, Colorado order expired. She believed this before she was arrested in
March 2012. Apparently Leonard Cohen
registered the foreign Colorado order, my mother was unaware of that fact, and
this created a new domestic violence order although my mother was never in a
dating relationship with Leonard Cohen.
40. At some point in 2008, while my mother
was still staying with Yongzin Rinpoche and his family, I received a phone call
from an insurance company lawyer. The
individual advised me that they represented the insurance company for Thomas
Bradshaw. On June 13, 2005, Thomas
Bradshaw rear-ended my mother, knocked her unconscious, broke her nose, caused
head trauma, and injured our shitzu, Charlie, who eventually died. This lawyer informed me that Thomas Bradshaw
lied to the police about that accident and they wanted my mother to testify for
them and against him. I called my
mother, passed along the message, and provided her with the lawyer’s name and
number.
41. Immediately following the June 13, 2005
accident, LAPD again came to our house.
Due to the SWAT incident, my friend and I informed LAPD that my mother
did not want them to enter our house.
They disregarded our statements, pushed past us, walked back to my
mother’s room, demanded that she hang up the phone, and took her out of the
house in handcuffs although she was sitting in her room, quietly speaking to
her friend on the phone, and was injured and bleeding. My mother had gone out to buy dog food when
she was rear ended on Mandeville by Thomas Bradshaw. At first, when I saw my mother, I thought
Steve Lindsey hit her. She was
completely discombobulated and unclear about what had happened. I believe she thought I was in the car
accident. I saw the accident site. This time LAPD took my mother to UCLA. She was there for approximately 24 hours; I
thought she was in the Emergency Room the entire time; and, she was released and
came home. UCLA confirmed that my mother
had head trauma due to this accident. My
mother explained that LAPD visited her in the UCLA Emergency Room and confirmed
that they understood she had been rear-ended.
42. After LAPD left our house this time, I
noticed that someone had tried to break into the house, while my mother and I
had been out that evening, and the bathroom window and mirror were both
broken. I decided not to contact LAPD
about earlier break-in due to their conduct with my mother.
43. In or around June 2009, I discovered
Blogonaut’s Law Blog, owned by Stephen Gianelli, which appeared to be dedicated
to slandering and discrediting my mother.
Stephen Gianelli, an absolute strange, has now spent over six years
harassing and stalking me, my brother, mother, other family members and
friends. His obsession with us relates
to Leonard Cohen, IRS matters, and the Phil Spector case. My mother is a close personal friend of Phil
Spector’s. I have known Mr. Spector
since I was quite young and last saw him after the incident in his home. He picked my mother up and took her out to
dinner. Stephen Gianelli, and others,
have also harassed my mother over the SWAT and King Drew incidents, Ray’s
custody matter, and the incident at Phil Spector’s house. I have been copied on these harassing
emails. It is my understanding that Phil
Spector personally informed my mother that the incident at his house was a
suicide.
44. Stephen Gianelli seems intent on
slandering and discrediting my mother; isolating her from friends and family;
scaring people and turning them against her; and harming my mother. He also appears to intimidate, threaten,
stalk, and harass witnesses or people who are supportive of my mother.
45. In June 2013, I received a disturbing
email from Stephen Gianelli me that my mother had returned to Los Angeles
(which I, of course, knew) and explaining that he had communicated with the
City Attorney of Los Angeles who planned to arrest my mother again. By that time, I understood my mother had
spoken to the FBI about the situation with Gianelli and LAPD had evidently informed
my mother to maintain all emails from Gianelli and Walsh. I decided to reply to see what Gianelli had
on his mind and attempted to be cordial in my response. His email alarmed me and caused me to become
concerned about my mother’s welfare.
Gianelli continued to slandered my mother to me and my brother
horrendously and continued to falsely accuse of her of many things.
46. From approximately November 2012 for
nearly two years, Stephen Gianelli (and Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh)
wrote the City Attorney’s office falsely accusing my mother of many things,
slandering her horrendously, and harassing all of us. Stephen Gianelli and Leonard Cohen’s fan,
Susanne Walsh, were essentially using the City Attorney’s office to harass my
mother. I was copied on those
emails. My brother and other members of
our family and friends were also copied on these emails. My mother continuously advised the City
Attorney that she did not want to be copied on emails to them. She was concerned about me and my brother and
attempted to address the slanderous allegations made to numerous government
officials. The City Attorney never
bothered to respond and we continued to be harassed. At that time, Ray and I were residents of Los
Angeles. Not too long ago, Stephen Gianelli
and Susanne Walsh resumed writing the City Attorney and continued to copy
me. My mother also attempted to refute
false allegations and information being presented by these strangers to the Los
Angeles City Attorney, District Attorney, and other government officials.
47. In July 2013, my brother wrote Stephen
Gianelli and Susanne Walsh to advise them that their emails were making him
physically ill. My brother has been
harassed by these individuals, and others, since he was a minor. Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, has
been copied on some of the harassing emails sent by Gianelli and Walsh. Following my brother’s email to Gianelli,
Walsh, and others, I also wrote Stephen Gianelli to advise him to stop targeting
my mother because she was poor and unable to defend herself.
48. It is my understanding that Leonard Cohen
has somehow obtained a domestic violence order against my mother and testified
during her 2012 trial that they were “lovers.”
I spent a tremendous amount of time with my mother – including at her
offices – and also worked for Amazing Card Company when it was located one
block from Leonard Cohen’s house and in Santa Monica, California. I would also visit Leonard Cohen’s apartment
with my mother. At no time did I hear or
witness anything that would lead me to believe that my mother and Cohen were or
had been in any type of dating or engagement relationship. I always personally felt that Leonard Cohen
and Steve Lindsey were obsessed with my mother and behaved like jealous men
towards her.
49. My mother and I have always been
extremely close and she tells me everything.
I know how she felt about Leonard Cohen and she hated to stop by his
house alone and frequently complained that he sexually harassed her, exposed
himself to her, and once looked at people defecating on one another online in
front of her. She mentioned that last
detail to me because she was concerned that Ray might see these types of things
online.
50. At some point, Steve Lindsey told me
personally that Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, came into his office
and advised him that my mother had sex with Oliver Stone who is a friend of
ours. I have known Oliver Stone since I
was quite young. He was a friend of His
Holiness Kusum Lingpa; helped with His Holiness’ Buddhist center; and spent
time at our home. I have also spent
considerable time at events with my mother and Mr. Stone. One time we attended a private audience with
the Dalai Lama together. Oliver Stone’s
wife and baby were with us for that audience and at other times. At no time did I ever witness anything other
than a friendship between Mr. Stone and my mother. Steve Lindsey was furious about this
accusation and I believe it was used to stir up a custody matter. Steve Lindsey also asked me if my mother’s
friend, Richard Rutowski, was my mother’s boyfriend. Apparently, Leonard Cohen and his lawyer also
told Lindsey that my mother and Richard Rutowski were having an affair when
they were together. Richard Rutowski,
who was a friend of Oliver Stone’s, was our family friend, also helped with the
Buddhist center, and was not my mother’s boyfriend.
52. I believe our lives were destroyed
because Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey owe my mother money and my mother
reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed tax fraud to Internal
Revenue Service.
53. I would like to confirm that for
approximately 10 years now, my mother has attempted to ask Leonard Cohen for
IRS documents she requires. He has
apparently refused to provide her with this information. This situation has been addressed in
countless emails I have been copied on over the years. My mother has also attempted to refute the
slanderous emails sent to me, my brother, her friends, and many others. She has constantly advised me that Stephen
Gianelli is not an attorney of record in any Leonard Cohen matter but he writes
as though he is defending Leonard Cohen legally. I have received countless legal opinions from
him regarding Leonard Cohen matters.
54. I would like to advise this Court that my
mother is a wonderful human being; does not have mental health issues; has
never had substance abuse problems; and is the individual who needs
protection.
55. I offered to testify during my mother’s
2012 trial; was available to testify in the related case she is presently
involved with regarding Leonard Cohen; and have provided my mother with
declarations. I personally believe this is why I have been relentlessly
targeted, stalked, and harassed.
56. I think it is important for this Court to
understand that my mother, brother, I, and many others, have been relentlessly
harassed by many parties for years now.
We have specifically been harassed over Leonard Cohen and these legal
issues. I am not a party to any lawsuit
related to Leonard Cohen and there is no reason for people to harass me over
Leonard Cohen legal issues, IRS matters, or the default judgment he
obtained. At times, Leonard Cohen’s
lawyers have been copied on harassing emails sent to me personally.
57. At no time did my mother intend to harass
or annoy Leonard Cohen. She has
relentlessly advised the parties harassing us to cease and desist. I have advised them to cease and desist. My brother asked them to stop sending these
emails. My aunt’s attorney advised
Stephen Gianelli to cease and desist. It
is my personal belief that Stephen Gianelli, and others, have intentionally
attempted to provoke my mother by harassing me and my brother.
58. I
also recall Stephen Gianelli writing Daniel Bergman, now Leonard Cohen’s
lawyer, at one point, and advising him that he would be willing to provide a
declaration in Ray’s custody matter although this man does not know any of us
and has no valid or legal reason whatsoever for contacting us. My brother was a minor when Stephen Gianelli,
Susanne Walsh, and others began harassing him.
My mother was concerned that some of these adult strangers could
potentially be sexual predators and brought this to the attention of the
District Attorney, City Attorney, LAPD, and others. I was copied on many of those emails.
59. Leonard
Cohen, Steve Lindsey, and others, have used devious tactics with my mother and
have continuously benefitted from their deceitful and abusive conduct.
I declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
This
declaration is executed on this 21st day of July 2015 in Los Angeles,
California.
____________________________________
JOHN RUTGER PENICK
Motion Exhibit C: Declaration of Paulette Brandt
DECLARATION
OF PAULETTE BRANDT
I, PAULETTE BRANDT, declare:
1. I am a citizen of the United States who currently
resides in Los Angeles, California. I am
over
the age of 18 years. I have personal
knowledge of the facts contained in this
declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently
as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2. I
have submitted declarations to this Court previously with respect to the
failure of Leonard
Cohen
to serve Kelley Lynch the summons and complaint. Please see the declarations I have submitted
to this Court in connection with the Motion to Vacate and Motion for
Terminating Sanctions. I visited Kelley
throughout the summer and fall of 2005.
I would bring food for the animals, hair dye, and other items. By that time, Leonard Cohen had completely
bankrupted Kelley, destroyed both of her business, and destroyed her
reputation. He appears to have been
involved in a coordinated custody matter related to her younger son. On August 24, 2005, when the process server
said he served Kelley, I was visiting her.
The only individuals in the home that day were Kelley, her son Rutger,
and their co-occupant, Chad Knaak.
Kelley and I were the only females present. I dyed Kelley’s hair a very dark shade of
brown, nearly black, that morning.
Throughout the month of August, I visited Kelley early Wednesday mornings
and believe I arrived at her home sometime before 8 AM. At no time did anyone come to the door. We were in the house. Kelley had a door bell so it would not make
sense for the process server to knock when the door bell was highly visible. Kelley’s home was covered in floor to ceiling
glass. She does not leave lights on when
she leaves a room. I have lived with her
and have never seen her leave a light on so it does not make sense that a
process server would see a light in the hallway at 9 AM in the morning. Chad’s bedroom was directly off the front
hallway. At some point, I distinctly
recall going outside to Rutger’s guesthouse with Kelley. Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit had been filed nearly
two weeks earlier and Kelley had not been served. We discussed the fact that she should call
the lawyer representing Cohen. His name
appeared in news accounts. Kelley asked
Chad, because her own phone was disconnected, to phone Leonard Cohen’s lawyer
and advise him that she wasn’t served and would hold him personally accountable
for emotional distress if he attempted to serve her. Rutger, Kelley, and Chad were standing
directly inside the guest house and I was standing at the door but did not
actually enter the room. I was able to
hear Chad’s call and Kelley’s comments that she believed Cohen’s lawsuit was an
attempt to cover up tax fraud and obstruct justice. By this time, Kelley was well aware that
Leonard Cohen had filed a lawsuit against her.
She was contacted by the LA Times and I personally printed out and
brought articles to her. I have not
changed my version of events. I have
provided additional details. That would
include with respect to how I kept “in touch” with Kelley when her phone was
disconnected. I would drop by to see
her. She always answered the door and
was not evading or avoiding anyone.
3. Kelley
has actually been attempting to deal with this situation for 10 straight
years. She has
been
stymied every step of the way. Leonard
Cohen’s lawyers refused to speak with her and would hang up on her. I was present on more than one occasion and
witnessed their unprofessional conduct.
I have been an administrative assistant for years. I have also worked for numerous celebrities
including Phil Spector. If someone
phoned and advised me that they had not been served, I would have immediately
served them again. Any reasonable or
professional person would.
4. I am the
individual who emailed Leonard Cohen’s attorney of record, Scott Edelman, the
Motion to
Vacate. I received an email confirmation
in response. Scott Edelman’s office
advised me to contact Robert Kory. I
therefore also emailed the Motion to Vacate on Robert Kory. I followed up by phoning Robert Kory and left
a message. My message advised Robert
Kory that I had emailed him a copy of Kelley’s Motion to Vacate and asked him
to contact me should he have any problems with email service. I heard absolutely nothing back. Scott Edelman did not object to my serving
him the Motion to Vacate by email.
5. I was with
Kelley when she emailed Francisco Suarez, her appellate attorney, the Motion to
Vacate and
exhibits. Kelley used my computer to
prepare the documents and I was with her when she transmitted the final
documents to Francisco. These documents
were on my computer and I know for a fact that the proposed answer for complaint
was on my computer at that time. Kelley
sent Francisco a copy of the Motion to Vacate, her declaration, case history,
Rutger’s declaration, and the proposed answer to the complaint. Evidently, Francisco Suarez turned Kelley’s
declaration and case history into Exhibit A and Rutger’s declaration into
Exhibit B. He signed both on her
behalf. He inadvertently failed to file
the proposed answer to the complaint with the motion.
6. I was also with
Kelley when she phoned Department 24.
She had a question about
something
possibly being moved off-calendar.
Kelley was on the speaker phone and I could hear both sides of the
discussion. She asked if she had to file
any additional documents with respect to her motion to vacate and informed the
gentleman that she had witnesses who would like to testify. The gentleman advised Kelley to just show up
with her witnesses and nothing else would have to be filed. That is the reason Palden Ronge and I
attended the hearing with Kelley. We
both planned to testify. Kelley also
asked the gentleman in Department 24 if Judge Hess accepted CourtCall. She was advised that he did not. Kelley and I were both surprised because
CourtCall had just confirmed that Judge Hess did use their services and I had
previously scheduled CourtCall testimony, in an unrelated matter where Judge
Hess was the presiding judge. This
prevented Kelley from being provided the opportunity to present witness
testimony with respect to individuals who were out of state, out of the
country, or otherwise unavailable. I
know that Joan Lynch, Kelley’s mother, definitely wanted to testify
telephonically. She and her husband,
Jack Lynch, live in Texas.
7. Kelley has
diligently attempted to address the legal issues in this and other related
matters. I
spoke with
Kelley when she initially discovered the Complaint online at some point in the
spring of 2010. She was completely
shocked by the allegations and narrative and attempted to contact the Court,
and others, to determine what evidence had been submitted with the
Complaint. Shortly after discovering the
Complaint, Kelley was invited to visit a friend of hers in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida. After visiting for a few
months, and helping her friend sort out the administrative aspects of his
antique business, Kelley decided to relocate to Berkeley, California. Kelley remained in Berkeley, California until
March 1, 2012 when she was arrested for violating a restraining order. Kelley was repeatedly advised by the Boulder
Combined Court that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.
8. I personally
spoke with the Boulder Combined Court on numerous occasions and was also
advised that the
permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.
I was also advised that Kelley’s motion to dismiss was entered on
January 12, 2009. I asked the Boulder
Combined Court when the temporary order expired and was advised that it was
vacated in September 2008. Kelley was
convicted of violating a restraining order, served time in jail, was
incarcerated for approximately 6 months, and after her release in September
2012 returned to the Bay Area. Kelley
stayed in the Bay Area until June 4, 2013 when I invited her to stay with me in
Hollywood, California. She accepted the
invitation and has been in the Los Angeles area for a little over two years.
9. Leonard Cohen
withheld commissions due Kelley; intentionally bankrupted her; and
converted her
property to himself via default judgment.
This forced Kelley into an extremely compromised financial
predicament. She did not have the money
to return to Los Angeles, attend a hearing on a motion, and I had a roommate
and was not in a position to offer her a place to stay. I also did not have the money to lend
her. From the moment Kelley returned to
Los Angeles, she diligently worked on the Motion to Vacate. The motion was filed in August 2013,
approximately two months following Kelley’s return to the Los Angeles
area. As Kelley did not have access to
any of her paperwork, evidence, or other documents when she first came to
visit, this caused a further delay in filing the motion. I drove to the Bay Area with a friend and
picked Kelley’s documents up. She was
then able to finish the Motion and submitted it to the Court.
10. I do not know
anyone who works as consistently and diligently as Kelley. The legal issues
are evidently
quite complex and require a tremendous amount of research. Kelley has also been diligently looking for
work but, due to the fact that Cohen intentionally destroyed her reputation and
she continues to be publicly slandered, it has been nearly impossible for her. She also has a criminal record due to the
violation of the restraining order we were both told expired in 2009.
11. Kelley and I
continue to be harassed and stalked by Bay Area lawyer, Stephen Gianelli, and
the only thing
we can conclude is that he is a proxy, arguing Leonard Cohen’s legal matters,
and on someone’s payroll. This man has
relentlessly harassed and stalked me for over two years now. I have no idea who he is or why he feels
entitled to engage in this type of conduct.
Stephen Gianelli
has now assisted
my former roommate, Karina Von Watteville, in defrauding me of $6,700 in rental
arrears. After receiving my rent demand
letter in June 2014, Karina Von Watteville decided to contact Leonard Cohen’s
lawyer, Robert Kory. I found that to be
bizarre as she personally informed me that she had no idea who Leonard Cohen
was. I suppose after seeing Kelley’s
gold records, which were in my living room, Von Watteville figured it out. Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory actually were
issues in my Small Claims case. Von
Watteville advised me and the mediator that her evidence related to Leonard
Cohen and Robert Kory. One of the
mediators actually asked her if she would like to discuss the rental arrears
she owes me. I was initially awarded
$6,700 but somehow Von Watteville ended up represented by Stephen Gianelli who
evidently prepared Von Watteville’s documents arguing that the statute of
limitations had run when it had not. I
cannot even imagine why Leonard Cohen and/or Robert Kory would involve
themselves with my former roommate or the Small Claims case unless it has to do
with the declarations I previously submitted to LA Superior Court and attempts
to gather information about me and
Kelley.
12. Kelley has been
severely prejudiced due to the fact that she has been forced to represent
herself. Leonard Cohen now has at least two law firms
opposing her so clearly there is nothing “frivolous” about the motions Kelley
has filed in this case. It seems to me
personally that there should be a legal remedy for fraud and perjury.
13. I would also
like to address the fact that I have been involved in numerous unrelated cases
before LA
Superior Court and Bankruptcy Court. I
am aware that there is a general problem with service of process. The same seems to be true with respect to
perjury. I would assume that part of
that problem is the fact that no one seems to be held accountable and people
who are willing to lie tend to prevail.
I declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
This
declaration is executed on this 28th day of July 2015 in Los Angeles,
California.
____________________________________
Paulette Brandt
Motion
Exhibit D: Schedule of Exhibits &
Declarations attached to Lynch’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Reply to
Plaintiffs’ Opposition
MOTION
FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(FRAUD
UPON THE COURT)
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
1: Defendant Kelley Lynch’s Proposed
Answer to Complaint
Exhibit
2: Natural Wealth Lawsuit – Kelley
Lynch’s Summary of Factual Allegations
& Statements. Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc., et al. v.
Leonard Cohen, et al.
Case
No. Case 1:05-cv-01233-LTB
Exhibit
3: Kelley Lynch’s Summary of
Fraudulent Misrepresentations in Plaintiff’s
Complaint. Case No. BC
338322.
Exhibit
4: Declaration of Kelley Lynch
Exhibit
5: Declaration of Joan Marie Lynch
Exhibit
6: Declaration of John Rutger Penick
Exhibit
7: Declaration of Paulette Brandt
Exhibit
8: Declaration of Clea Surkhang
Exhibit
9: Declaration of Palden Ronge
Exhibit
10: Declaration of Daniel J. Meade
Exhibit
11: Clarification of Ambiguities in Default
Judgment filed May 15, 2006
DECLARATION
OF KELLEY LYNCH
EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Robert
Hilburn Article; photo of Cohen working at Mt. Baldy.
Exhibit B:
Boulder Combined Court email and attached evidence; Kory & Rice domestic
violence related orders.
Exhibit C: Emails
with court reporters re. March 23, 2012 hearing transcript.
Exhibit C-1:
MacLean’s article. August 22, 2005.
[Leonard Cohen moves
offensively in the press and advises MacLean's, as he filed the lawsuit against
Lynch, that he was not accusing her of "theft."]
Exhibit D: Phil
Spector Motion in Limine (Excerpted pages – Leonard Cohen gun incident); Mick
Brown emails. (Motion - page 14 - "Brandishing" on Leonard Cohen.
Exhibit E: Trial
Transcript (RT 308-309).
Exhibit F:
Transcript March 23, Hearing.
Exhibit G: Marty
Machat letter dated November 25, 1990; Stranger Music, Inc. –
Spreadsheet.
Exhibit H:
Berger, Berger & Beal letter to Marty Machat dated January 5, 1972.
Exhibit I: Email
to Steven Machat dated March 2, 2015 confirming book excerpts.
Exhibit J:
Transcript of Steven Machat & Kelley Lynch conversation.
Exhibit K: Elmer
Fox, Westheimer & Co. Tax Planning Memo for Leonard Cohen dated August 22,
1977.
Exhibit L: IRS
Notice dated September 12, 1988. [Confusion re. alternate SSN & IRS
account]
Exhibit M: Van
Penick’s letter to Kelley Lynch dated October 26, 1988.
Exhibit N: LC
letter to Dominque Issermann dated December 7, 1989 (off-shore account).
Exhibit O: Jonas
Herbsman letter to Herschel Weinberg dated January 8, 1990.
Exhibit P: SOCAN
Agreement (with Leonard Cohen).
Exhibit Q:
Leonard Cohen Productions, Inc. Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of
Formation (changed name to BMT) dated March 11, 1993; Articles of Incorporation
of Leonard Cohen Productions, Ltd., Nevada; Statement and Designation by
foreign corporation.
Exhibit R: Kelley
Lynch fax to Richard Feldstein dated December 7, 1993.
Exhibit S: Ed
Dean letter to LC and KL dated November 15, 1996.
Exhibit S-1:
Richard Westin letter to Kelley Lynch dated February 5, 1998 (Blue Mist).
Exhibit T: Neal
Greenberg’s fax to Cohen’s transaction attorney, Jonas Herbsman February 10,
1998.
Exhibit U:
Richard Westin letter to Kelley Lynch dated June 1, 1998; Minutes of a Special
Meeting of the Board of Directors of Blue Mist Corporation; Trial Transcript
(page 279-293).
Exhibit V:
Cohen’s Opposition to CAK’s Motion for an Order of Attachment dated August 30,
2000.
Exhibit W: Leonard
Cohen’s Declaration dated August 30, 2000[CAK litigation, Case No. 00 Civ. 1068
(DAB), United States District Court, Southern District of New York].
Exhibit X: Ken
Cleveland fax to Kelley Lynch dated June 24, 1999; Leonard Cohen POA to IRS;
Leonard Cohen letter to Mt. Baldy Zen Center dated November 1, 1996.
Exhibit Y: Ken
Cleveland fax to Kelley Lynch dated July 22, 1999.
Exhibit Z: Reeve
Chudd letter to Kelley Lynch dated September 8, 1999.
Exhibit AA: LC
Investments, LLC Certificate of Formation dated October 19, 1999; Operating
Agreement dated August 21, 2000.
Exhibit BB:
Leonard Cohen’s email (baldymonk@aol.com) dated May 19, 2000 to
Kelley Lynch (tsimar@aol.com).
Exhibit CC:
Richard Westin Memorandum dated May 23, 2000.
Exhibit DD: BMT
letter to IRS re. 341(f) election.
Exhibits EE: BMT 1999
and 2000 federal tax return.
Exhibit FF: Cohen
signed Assignment (signature page only) dated September 15, 2000.
Exhibit GG:
Richard Westin’s September 16, 2000 letter to Kelley Lynch.
Exhibit HH: LASD
Inventory dated October 18 & 24, 2005.
Exhibit II: May
21, 1994 letter to Kelley Lynch from Tom Robbins.
Exhibit JJ: Don
Friedman’s letter to Stuart Bondell, Sony, dated September 19, 2000.
Exhibits KK:
Westin fax to KL and Greg McBowman dated September 20, 2000.
Exhibit KK-1: Fax
from Richard Westin to Cohen and me dated October 10, 2000.
Exhibit LL:
Richard Westin Proposal to Leonard Cohen dated November 19, 2000.
Exhibit MM:
Richard Westin Proposal to Kelley Lynch and Leonard Cohen dated December 4,
2000.
Exhibit NN:
Leonard Cohen letter to Westin dated December 7, 2000 (wrapping Greenberg in
A/C privilege).
Exhibit OO:
Annuity Agreement dated December 7, 2000.
Exhibit PP:
Kelley Lynch/TH Promissory Note; Corporate Minutes dated December 21, 2000.
Exhibit QQ:
Traditional Holdings Formation documents; Lynch & Cohen Powers of Attorney
to Westin re. TH; State of Kentucky Email; TH – 2001, 2002, 2003 Annual
Reports; Application for Employer ID – prepared by Westin who signed Kelley
Lynch’s name.
Exhibit RR:
Traditional Holdings Stock Certificates No. 1, 2, 3; Stock Ledger.
Exhibit SS: CAK
Settlement Agreement dated December 7, 2000.
Exhibit TT: KL
Indemnity Agreement dated January 8, 2001.
Exhibit UU: IRS
Notice: August 13, 2001 - $1 million prepayment TH deal.
Exhibit VV:
Grubman, Indursky & Schindler letter dated April 18, 2001 to Cohen and TH.
Exhibit WW: Trial
Transcript (pages 285-288)
Exhibit XX: Lynch
& Westin emails (cc: Cohen) dated February 11, 2002.
Exhibit YY:
Richard Westin letter dated March 6, 2002.
Exhibit AAA:
David Woltz, IRS Office of Chief Counsel, letter to Richard Westin dated
October 8, 2002.
Exhibit BBB:
State of Kentucky Schedule K-1 for Lynch & Cohen – 2003.
Exhibit CCC: Neal
Greenberg IRS Danger Warning letters dated January 16, 2004 and June 25,
2014.
Exhibit DDD:
Westin emails re. Old Ideas, LLC; Dear Heather liner notes – publishing Old
Ideas, LLC.
Exhibit FFF: KL
email to Leonard Cohen with forwards of emails to Stuart Bondell (Sony
International), Ian MacKay (Sony Canada), and Denise Donlon (Sony Canada) dated
July 22, 2004.
Exhibit GGG:
Kelley Lynch (tsimar) email to Leonard Cohen (baldymonk) dated September 16,
2004 [Commission – 1099 information].
Exhibit HHH:
Diane Baxa, City National Bank, email to Kelley Lynch dated March 29, 2013.
Exhibit III:
Trial Transcript (pages 301-303; 319; 290-293)
Exhibit JJJ:
Richard Westin email to Kelley Lynch dated September 24, 2004.
Exhibit KKK:
Westin emails to Lynch dated September 20, 2004 (LCI “Office”)
Exhibit LLL:
Westin letters to State of Kentucky; Lynch and Cohen) dated October 6,
2004.
Exhibit:
LLL-1: 2001, 2001, and 2003 Traditional Holdings, LLC tax returns.
Exhibit MMM:
DiMascio letter to Robert Kory dated November 13, 2004 (CNB account freeze).
Exhibit NNN: USPS
Mail Fraud Notice & Confirmation No.OR18421598.
Exhibit OOO:
Kelley Lynch email to DiMascio & Berardo dated January 5, 2005 (accounting
fraud re. expense ledger).
Exhibit PPP:
DiMascio &Berardo letter to Kelley Lynch dated February 7, 2005.
Exhibit QQQ:
Trial Transcripts (pages 351-358) – Cohen & Rice testimony.
Exhibit RRR: Kory
letter to DiMascio dated February 11, 2005 (Traditional Holdings, LLC
“problematic” loans to Leonard Cohen).
Exhibit SSS:
Steve Lindsey email to Kelley Lynch dated May 2, 2005.
Exhibit TTT: Ann
Diamond (draft article for Rolling Stone).
Exhibit UUU: King
Drew May 225, 2005 fraudulent report.
Exhibit VVV:
Trial Transcript (pages 293-297)
Exhibit WWW: KL
email to Cohen & Kory dated July 30, 2005 & August 3, 2005 (advising
them that I have reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax
fraud).
Exhibit XXX:
Kelley Lynch State Bar Complaints re. Cooley & Lindsey’s custody lawyers
dated February 17, 2007.
Exhibit YYY:
State Bar Letter re. Cooley dated February 28, 2007.
Exhibit ZZZ:
Judge Lewis Babock’s Order dated September 5, 2005; Trial Transcript (pages 355
…)
Exhibit AAAA: IRS
Binder Index (April 9, 2012 Trial Evidence).
Exhibit BBBB:
LAPD Report (emails are generally requests for “tax” information.)
Exhibit CCCC : Trial
Transcript (RT 40).
Exhibit DDDD:
Trial Transcript (RT 56-57).
Exhibit EEEE:
Bail Hearing Transcript (RT 6 – DA Investigator).
Exhibit FFFF: (April
18, 2011 email testimony - RT 160-161; 266)
Exhibit GGGG:
Trial Transcript (Spector & Cooley: RT 40, 60-61, 56-57, 157-159,
305, 265-266); Mick Brown emails.
Exhibit
GGGG-1: (SSN & Driver’s License: RT 301-303, 319)
Exhibit HHHH:
Schedules of Perjury – Declarations Leonard Cohen, Michelle Rice, Robert Kory,
and
Kevin Prins;
Misrepresentatives in Declaration of Scott Edelman.
Exhibit IIII:
Cohen Affidavit - Natural Wealth (Complaint attached as Exhibit “A” to Tactical
Allocation’s Ex Parte Application in Intervention for Order Protecting &
Preserving Evidence Related Case No. BC341220).
Kelley Lynch Reply to Cohen’s Opposition to Motion for
Terminating Sanctions Exhibits:
Reply
Motion Exhibit A: Declaration of Kelley
Lynch
Reply
Motion Exhibit B: Declaration of
Paulette Brandt
Reply
Motion Exhibit C: Addressing
Egregious Misconduct The Perjuring Plaintiff by Jonathan M. Stern.
Reply
Motion Exhibit D: Declaration of John
Rutger Penick
Reply
Motion Exhibit E: Declaration of Clea
Westphal Surkhang
Reply
Motion Exhibit F: Declaration of
Paulette Brandt
Reply
Motion Exhibit G: Declaration of Palden
Ronge
Reply
Motion Exhibit H: Declaration of Daniel
J. Meade
Reply
Motion Exhibit I: Declaration of Jules Zalon, Esquire
Reply
Motion Exhibit J: Declaration of Anne
Julia MacLean
Reply Motion Motion Exhibit E: Limited Powers of Attorney (John Rutger
Penick, Clea Surkhang, Daniel J. Meade, and Palden Ronge)
Reply Motion Exhibit F: Proposed Answer to Complaint
Kelley Lynch
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California 90028
Phone:
323.331.4250
In Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LEONARD
NORMAN COHEN, an individual, Case No.
BC338322
LEONARD
COHEN INVESTMENTS, LLC, a
Delaware
Limited Liability Company,
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
KELLEY
LYNCH
Plaintiffs
Department
Judge
Robert Hess
vs.
KELLEY ANN
LYNCH, an individual, Complaint Filed August 15, 2005
Defendant
DEFENDANT,
KELLEY ANN LYNCH, answers Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows:
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d), this answering
Defendant denies the allegations of the Complaint, and each and every part
thereof, and further denies that Plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain
injuries, damages, or loss in any amount, or at all, by reason of any act or
omission, fault, negligence, or conduct on the part of or attributable to this
answering defendant.
FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state facts
sufficient to sustain a claim for relief or a cause of action against this
answering Defendant.
FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs, with actual or constructive
knowledge of the facts alleged in the Complaint, were under a duty to mitigate
damages, if any, and Plaintiffs failed to fulfill such duty; as a consequence
thereof, this answering Defendant is exonerated from liability to Plaintiffs,
and all damages alleged are the sole and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ failure
to mitigate their damages.
FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plaintiffs’ Comparative Fault)
The
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein in
that conduct of Plaintiffs and/or their agents was the sole proximate cause of
the act or acts, or event or events, alleged in the Complaint, and damages, if
any, must be reduced in proportion to Plaintiffs’ own conduct.
FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Comparative Fault of Others)
The
answering Defendant alleges that the conduct of other persons not sued and
served herein, proximately contributed to the act or acts, or event or events,
which are the subject of the complaint on file herein, and that if any judgment
is rendered in favor of Plaintiffs herein, the conduct of said other parties be
determined and allocated in proportion, and that any judgment entered against this
answering Defendant be reduced in the amounts thereof.
FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Intervening and Superseding Causes)
This
answering Defendant alleges the injuries and damages of which Plaintiffs
complain were proximately caused by the acts or omissions of other parties,
persons and/or entities in that said acts or omissions were intervening and
superseding causes of injuries and damages, if any, of which Plaintiffs
complain, thus barring Plaintiffs from any recovering against this answering
Defendant.
FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proposition 51 - Civil Code
Section 1431.2)
This
answering Defendant denies that she was responsible for the damages as alleged
by Plaintiffs in the complaint. However, if liability is found, this
answering Defendant may be held liable only in the amount of non-economic
damages allocated to her in direct proportion to her percentage of fault,
pursuant to Civil Code Section 1431.2.
FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ratification)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein in
that Plaintiffs, being fully informed of the act or acts, event or events, of
which Plaintiffs now complain, ratified and affirmed all conduct with respect
to the act or acts, event or events, and therefore Plaintiffs have waived any
and all causes of action against this answering Defendant and are barred from
asserting the same.
FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Voluntary Consent)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from any recovery in the
present action in that Plaintiffs willingly and voluntarily consented,
expressly or impliedly, after full and complete disclosure by this answering
Defendant of all relevant and material facts, to any and all such act or acts,
event or events, as may be shown on the part of this answering Defendant, of
which Plaintiffs now complain. Plaintiffs have, therefore, waived any and
all causes of action against this answering Defendant and are barred from
asserting same.
FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
This answering Defendant alleges that the acts of
Plaintiffs and/or their agents are acts which estop Plaintiffs from asserting
any cause of action against this answering Defendant.
FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ entire action is barred pursuant
to the doctrine of unclean hands.
FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
This
answering Defendant alleges that the acts and statements of Plaintiffs, and/or
their agents, constitute a waiver of Plaintiffs’ claims against this answering
Defendant.
FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of Risk)
This
answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein
because Plaintiffs knowingly assumed all risks incident to the conduct alleged
in the complaint.
FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Punitive Damages Unconstitutional)
This
answering Defendant alleges that punitive damages, as sought against her in
this action, are unconstitutional under the United States and California
Constitutions.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Kelley Lynch prays as follows:
1. That Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed
with prejudice, and that Plaintiffs take nothing thereby;
2. That
judgment be entered in favor of this answering Defendant;
3. That this answering Defendant be awarded
costs of suit incurred herein;
4. For a full accounting (that includes
corporate ownership interests, asset valuations, equity liabilities - including
Plaintiffs’ loans from various entities) of all monies, commissions, and assets
owed Defendant; and,
5. For such other and further relief as
this court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated: 28 July
2015
_____________________________________
Kelley
Lynch, In Propria Persona
Kelley
Lynch
1754
N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood,
California 90028
Telephone: 323.331.4250
In
Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
LEONARD
COHEN, an individual, Case
No. BC338322
Related
Case No. BC 341120
Plaintiff [PROPOSED]
ORDER
SETTING ASIDE &
VACATING
RENEWAL
OF
JUDGMENT
KELLEY
LYNCH, an individual Hearing
Date: October 6, 2015
Time: 8.30 AM
Defendant Civil Petition
filed: May 25, 2011
ORDER OF COURT
The motion of the
Defendant for an order of setting aside and vacating the renewal of the
judgment heretofore entered was heard by the court on October 6, 2015. Defendant Kelley Lynch appeared in propria
persona; Plaintiff Leonard Cohen was represented by Kory & Rice and Bergman
Law Group.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the renewal of judgment heretofore entered in this action against the Defendant Kelley Lynch, having been entered on July 13, 2015, be hereby set aside and vacated.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the renewal of judgment heretofore entered in this action against the Defendant Kelley Lynch, having been entered on July 13, 2015, be hereby set aside and vacated.
Dated: 27
July 2015
_______________________
Judge of the Superior
Court
of setting aside and vacating the renewal of the
judgment heretofore entered was heard by the court on October 6, 2015. Defendant Kelley Lynch appeared in propria
persona; Plaintiff Leonard Cohen was represented by Kory & Rice and Bergman
Law Group.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the renewal of judgment heretofore entered in this action against the Defendant Kelley Lynch, having been entered on July 13, 2015, be hereby set aside and vacated.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the renewal of judgment heretofore entered in this action against the Defendant Kelley Lynch, having been entered on July 13, 2015, be hereby set aside and vacated.
Dated: 27
July 2015
_______________________
Judge of the Superior
Court