MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
LEGAL ARGUMENT
RES JUDICATA AND WAIVER ARE INAPPLICABLE
Plaintiffs
argue that Kelley Lynch’s Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside the fraudulent
registration of the Colorado restraining order as a domestic violence order in
California is barred due to the doctrines of collateral estoppels and waiver. Plaintiffs falsely allege that Lynch’s
arguments were 1) rejected by the trial court; 2) not preserved for appeal by
Lynch’s public defenders at the trial court level and were therefore waived; or
3) were made in her criminal appeal and denied by the appellate court. These arguments are blatantly false and
deceptive.
The issues with respect to domestic
violence and/or a “dating” or “engagement” relationship were not heard by any
trial or appellate court. At the March
23, 2012 bail hearing, Leonard Cohen was specifically asked:
Public Defender: Is it –
you told us that she used to be employed by you as a business manager, correct?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: Was that the extent
of your relationship?
A: Yes, Sir.
During Lynch’s trial, her public defenders
again questioned Cohen about the nature of their relationship. His testimony confirmed the fact that he had
evidently lied under oath. In fact,
Cohen testified honestly at the March 23, 2012 bail hearing and, possibly due
to the fact that Lynch allegedly violated a California domestic violence order,
had to come up with an excuse for that testimony. This is the extent of the issues presented at
trial and the court made no determination and/or finding with respect to either
domestic violence or a “dating” and/or “engagement” relationship. Exhibit A:
Leonard Cohen Trial Testimony (RT 273-277; 321; 322-323), attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Public Defender:
Okay. Now, you also mentioned
earlier that there was a brief intimate
relationship between you and Ms. Lynch, correct? Cohen:
That’s correct. PD: You
wouldn’t say that that was probably the best idea, to have a romantic
relationship with your business partner, correct? Streeter:
Objection; relevance. Court: Overruled.
Cohen: I don’t think it goes to the description of romantic. PD: But it was a sexual relationship,
correct? Cohen: It was an intimate
relationship, yes. PD: Was it a
sexual relationship? Cohen: It
involved a sexual -- yes. PD: Now, it was - It was actually
spanning years, correct? Cohen:
I’m sorry? PD: It actually
spanned years, correct? Cohen: I
don’t know how long it spanned, Sir. PD:
Okay. But you would agree with me
that it was on and off for a period of time?
Cohen: Yes, Sir. PD: Now why did that – that part of
the relationship, what you called the intimate part of the relationship, why
did that end or when did it end?
Court: Those are two different
questions. PD: I’ll go with the latter. PD:
When did it end? Cohen: I
don’t remember exactly when it ended. Like many relationships, it -- it
just dissolved. PD: But it’s fair
to say that it ended before your business relationship ended, correct? Cohen:
That’s correct. PD: Okay.
And do you know why it ended?
Cohen: I would say that part of
the relationship exhausted itself and dissolved naturally. RT 276 PD: Okay. Do you remember testifying on March 23rd at
another hearing? Cohen: March
23rd, yes. PD: Of this year.
You were in this courthouse testifying, correct? Cohen: That is correct. PD: Now, you were asked if this was --
if your relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship.
Do you remember that? Cohen:
I did. PD: And you actually
said that it was, yes, purely a business relationship. Cohen: I
have said repeatedly that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady
denies it. So I did not want to insist.
PD: I’m not asking you about what Ms. Lynch said. I’m asking
about what you said. You said that yes, that it was purely a business relationship,
correct? Cohen: May I
explain. PD: I’m just asking for
if that’s what you said on March 23rd.
Cohen: Yes. PD: In
fact, you were asked a follow up question that -- asking you if that was the
extent of it, and again you said yes, that was the extent of it, correct? Cohen: Correct. RT 273-277
Prosecutor: Finally, there was a question about a
previous testimony you’ve given, the description of your relationship with Ms.
Lynch. Why at that hearing did you say
that you only had a business relationship with Ms. Lynch? And now just once or twice. Why did you say that? Cohen : Because, as it turns out, the
friendship that Ms. Lynch displayed was false and deceptive, so it was not
really a friendship … The intimate relationship we had, she denies. So I’m not going to insist. So, therefore, it was not – from that point
of view, there was not an intimate relationship and there was not a friendship;
it was all business. It was all business
from the point of view of Ms. Lynch.
Streeter: And in your mind –
PD: Objection; speculation as to what
Ms. Lynch thought. Streeter: In your mind, if a woman says that you don’t
have an intimate relationship with her but you do, why does that matter? Cohen:
I’m sorry, Ma’am? Streeter: Why does it matter if – if you’ve had an
intimate relationship like Ms. Lynch, she said you don’t – didn’t have one, why
does it matter? Why does that impact
that answer to the question, that particular question a couple of weeks
ago? PD:
Objection; vague. Court: Sustained.
I think we’ve adequately covered this subject. RT 321
Public
Defender: When you testified on March 23rd, you said that -- you didn’t
give the same answer that you gave now, correct, regarding your relationship
with Ms. Lynch? Cohen: That’s correct. PD: Okay.
But you -- when you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you
raised your right hand, correct? Cohen: Correct. PD:
You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth? Cohen: Correct.
Kelly: And then the same oath that you just took right now,
correct? Before testifying, correct? Cohen: Correct.
PD: Okay. And you understand that you were under the penalty of
perjury on March 23rd? Streeter: Objection; argumentative.
Court: Sustained. Kelly: Nothing further. RT 321-322
As the domestic violence issue was not
discovered until the Spring of 2013, Lynch did not have an opportunity to
preserve it for appeal at the trial court level or address it in the appeal
itself. Lynch
was unaware that Leonard Cohen registered
the Boulder, Colorado order as a domestic violence order until LA Superior
Court brought it to her attention in the Spring of 2013. By that time, her appeal with respect to Case
No. 2CA04539 was nearly over. When Lynch
filed her Writ of Habeas Corpus she was unclear if, due to some type of
testimony at the Boulder, Colorado ex parte hearing (which Lynch has no
information about), the Boulder Combined Court issued a domestic violence
order. Therefore, the doctrines of res
judicata and waiver do not apply to the instant matter.
Additionally, after spending nearly two
years diligently attempting to obtain the transcript of the March 23, 2012 bail
hearing, Lynch finally located the Court Reporter in June 2014. On or about August 14, 2014, Lynch received
the transcript of the March 23, 2012 hearing wherein Cohen testified that he
and Lynch were in a purely business relationship. See Cohen’s Request for Judicial Notice in
Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside, Exhibit
6, Reporter’s Transcript of Hearing, March 23, 2012 (page 23 – prosecutor
confirmed Lynch was arrested and charged for violating the order in domestic
violence Case No. BQ37717; page 20 – Cohen confirmed the extent of his and
Lynch’s relationship as being a purely business relationship; page 20 – Cohen
confirmed that Lynch never “stole” from him and qualified that by testifying
“just my peace of mind”).
Lynch then began researching the
registration of foreign (out-of-state) restraining orders in California. Los Angeles Superior Court repeatedly
informed Lynch that one could not register an out-of-state non-domestic
violence order as a domestic violence order.
She contacted the California Department of Justice, Judicial Council,
and ultimately the California Supreme Court for assistance. Lynch also visited LA Superior Court and
spoke to individuals in the family law and restraining order divisions. All parties confirmed that a foreign
non-domestic violence civil harassment order could not be registered as a
domestic violence order.
On or about April 14, 2015, Lynch spoke
with Gabrielle Selden, an attorney with the Judicial Council. Ms. Selden confirmed that a foreign non-domestic
violence order could not be registered in California using DV-600.
ATTEMPT TO RELITIGATE MATTERS
INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO “STALKING”
Plaintiffs are now attempting to argue that
they were entitled to register the Colorado order in California as a domestic
violence order due to the allegations of stalking: “Cohen listed ‘stalking’ (18-9-111(4)) to (6)
and ‘physical assault, threat or other situation’ as the primary reasons for
seeking the order of protection against Lynch.”
Lynch was not charged or prosecuted for “stalking” Leonard Cohen. At the time Leonard Cohen flew into Boulder,
Colorado, he was in the midst of a European tour. Lynch posed no threat to Leonard Cohen and
that would include with respect to her requests for IRS required tax and
corporate information; attempts to address numerous litigation and relevant
business matters; or demands that the slander and defamation cease and
desist. During Lynch’s 2012 trial,
Leonard Cohen testified that one of the primary reasons for obtaining the
Colorado order was due to the fact that he fantasized about the possibility,
without any evidence to support the allegations, that Lynch might attend his
Denver, Colorado concert scheduled for nearly one year after the August 2008 ex
parte hearing. Michelle Rice has advised
this Court that Leonard Cohen obtained this order because the California order
was scheduled to expire. Leonard Cohen
also expressed concern about Lynch’s online posts and communications with third
parties. He specifically mentioned IRS,
FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and the news media. See
Exhibit B: Leonard Cohen Testimony (RT
319), attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Streeter: From what the People are understanding, you
did not live in Colorado; is that correct?
Cohen: Correct. Streeter:
Okay. So why did you go get a
permanent restraining order in Colorado?
Cohen: Because Ms. Lynch was
living in Colorado and it was for two reasons.
One, to stop the flow of emails and phone calls from Colorado; and, two,
I was giving a concert in Colorado. I
was going to be there for several days and we thought it was prudent to defend
ourselves against any intrusion. RT 319
At the Boulder, Colorado hearing, Lynch
answered a handful of questions that specifically related
to the definitions of “directly” and
“indirectly.” She then asked the Court
if the order would protect her; noted that the proceedings were insane based
upon the fact that Cohen and his representatives have destroyed her life; and
agreed to the entry of the permanent restraining order. The Court entered the
order without any findings whatsoever. That would include, but is not limited to,
any findings related to domestic violence or stalking. Following the September 2, 2008 hearing,
Lynch reviewed Cohen’s declaration submitted in support of the ex parte
verified motion and addressed the extensive use of fraud and perjury contained
therein in her Motion to Quash. The
Court denied that Motion and reminded Lynch that she agreed to the entry of the
permanent restraining order. At no time
did Lynch agree to the entry of any order based on the use of fraud and
perjury. From approximately January 2010
until April 2014, Boulder Combined Court continuously and repeatedly advised
Lynch and others that her Motion to Dismiss was entered on January 12, 2009 and
the Permanent Restraining Order expired on February 15, 2009. The reasons for this confusion, based on
information in their database, were revealed in the information submitted to
Lynch by the Boulder Combined Court on April 10, 2014.
LEONARD COHEN ATTEMPTS TO REARGUE
CASE NO. 2CA04539
Plaintiffs continue in their attempts to
reargue Case No. 2CA04539 while attacking Lynch’s character when arguing that “Defendant
Kelley Lynch was Plaintiff’s former personal manager for approximately 17 years
before she was terminated for cause as his manager in October 2004 for
embezzling over $5 million of Plaintiff’s retirement savings (LASC Civil Case
No. BC338322). Shortly after her
termination in October 2004, Ms. Lynch began sending numerous emails and
placing numerous telephone calls to Cohen’s residence in Los Angeles. Many of the calls and emails contained
threats to ‘take him down’ and declaring that ‘Cohen should be taken before a
firing squad and shot.’”
Leonard Cohen testified at the March 23,
2012 hearing that Lynch never “stole” from him.
This is a highly material and relevant issue that is yet another example
of Leonard Cohen’s willingness to
change his testimony or legal arguments
from one courtroom to the next. Leonard
Cohen obtained a Default Judgment against Lynch (Case No. BC338322) after
failing to serve her the summons and complaint.
Lynch has attempted to address this matter for approximately 10 straight
years. Many federal tax and corporate
issues have arisen due to the Default Judgment.
Those issues remain ongoing. They
have not been litigated.
Lynch was not terminated for cause in
October 2004. Leonard Cohen understood
that Lynch intended to report his tax fraud to the Internal Revenue
Service. In fact, Lynch had contacted
Internal Revenue Service’s Chief Trial Counsel’s Office on July 25, 2004 and
Cohen personally informed her that
he was informed of her plans to report his
alleged tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.
In or around September 2004, Lynch hired a new accountant and lawyers. On or around October 27, 2004, Lynch’s
lawyers (who Cohen and his tax/corporate attempted to evade for approximately
two weeks) wrote Richard Westin, Cohen’s personal tax and corporate lawyer, and
advised him that they understood he was planning to fly into Los Angeles over
the weekend of October 30, 2004. They asked
him and Cohen to meet with them to explain Lynch’s role in numerous corporate
entities and any liability they may have exposed her to. See Exhibit C: Internal Revenue Service’s Chief Trial
Counsel’s Office on July 25, 2004.
Lynch refused to meet with Leonard Cohen,
and his tax/corporate lawyer Richard Westin, to unravel their handiwork with
respect to numerous corporate entities.
Lynch was represented by attorneys and accountants, from September 2004
until the spring of 2005 and, at no time, did Leonard Cohen or his lawyers
allege that Lynch was harassing him with email and/or phone calls. On the other hand, Lynch’s lawyers addressed
in writing the fact that Cohen was harassing and threatening and her family
members. Boies Schiller, who reviewed a
tremendous amount of evidence in this case, advised Lynch to find a lawyer who
would interested in helping her “take down” another Hollywood fraud who owed
her millions. They also advised her to
go wired to her meetings with Cohen and Kory because they felt she was being
asked to engage in criminal conduct.
LAPD’s report is quite clear that they felt Lynch’s alleged emails were
generally requests for tax information and that Lynch had stated that she would
take Cohen down “legally.” LAPD’s report
also notes that Lynch’s alleged emails were generally requests for tax
information. See Exhibit D: LAPD Report.
As for the comment that Leonard Cohen
should be taken before a firing squad and shot, Leonard Cohen personally
advised Lynch for years that he would like to die by firing squad. He began advising Lynch of this after he was
interviewed by Mikhil Gilmore whose brother was shot by a firing squad
assembled by the government. Lynch does
not believe that quoting Cohen back to himself is a credible or viable
threat. Nor does she believe there is
any evidence that she actually assembled a firing squad. She does believe that there is extraordinary
evidence that she is frustrated, sick and tired of lies and perjury, and has
requested IRS required tax and corporate information for over 10 straight years
now.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT
AND THE STATUTORY REQUIRED
DATING RELATIONSHIP
The
DVPA gives the family law court the authority “to prevent the recurrence of
acts of violence . . . and to provide for a separation of the persons involved
in the domestic violence . . . .” (§ 6220.) A court may issue a restraining
order under the DVPA “if . . . an affidavit and any additional information
provided to the court . . . show[], to the satisfaction of the court,
reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” (§ 6300.) Lynch claims there is insufficient evidence to
show the parties had a dating relationship, there were no findings with respect
to the alleged “dating” or “engagement” relationships and/or domestic violence,
or the existence of any abuse.
Domestic
violence includes “abuse perpetrated against” “[a] person with whom the
[defendant] is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship.” (§ 6211,
subd. (c), italics added.) A “dating relationship” is defined as “frequent,
intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection
or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.” (§ 6210) Lynch was Leonard Cohen’s personal manager
for a period of approximately 17 years.
Their entire relationship was based upon financial considerations and
did not involve, at least on Lynch’s part, any “expectation of affection or
sexual involvement.”
Although
Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 397 predates the enactment of
section 6210, it does offer a well considered opinion with respect to the
vagueness of the definition of “dating.”
Leonard
Cohen has now invoked the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200
et seq.) against defendant. Given the
fact that Cohen and Lynch were never in a statutory required “dating” and/or
“engagement” relationship, the family court did not have jurisdiction to issue
a domestic violence restraining order when registering the non-domestic
violence out-of-state order in California.
Cohen does not belong to one of the categories of protected persons
under the Act.
The
DVPA authorizes the issuance of protective orders restraining domestic violence
on several categories of persons, including present and former spouses or
cohabitants and “a person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.” (§ 6211, subds. (a), (b) & (c).) The
only protected category of persons listed in section 6211 that could possibly
trigger the applicability of the DVPA in the present case is a person in a
present or former “dating relationship.” Section 6210 defines “dating
relationship” as “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by
the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial
considerations.” While Leonard Cohen may
have had an “expectation of affection or sexual involvement,” Lynch most certainly
did not. She also does not view sexual
harassment or indecent exposure as any type of “dating” and/or “engagement”
relationship and takes great offense at the government’s attempts to assign her
any such relationship with this individual.
Oriola v. Thaler
developed a judicial definition of “dating relationship” before the DVPA
defined that phrase in section 6210, enacted in 2001. (Stats. 2001, ch. 110, §
1, pp. 1145–1146.) After reviewing the history of dating and statutory
definitions of “dating relationship” from other states (Oriola, supra, at pp.
407–411), the court derived this definition: “For purposes of the Act, a “dating
relationship” refers
to serious courtship. It is a social relationship between two individuals who
have or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest in
one another, and shared expectation of the growth of that mutual interest, that
has endured for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent interactions
that the relationship cannot be deemed to have been casual.” (Id. at p. 412.) People
v. Rucker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1107 was decided after section 6210 was
enacted. The defendant argued that a prior incident of domestic violence was
improperly admitted against her, because she was not in a “dating relationship”
with her attempted murder victim. (Rucker, supra, at p. 1114; see id. at p.
1110.) The court noted Oriola’s definition was not pertinent since it predated
section 6210, whose definition of “dating relationship” appeared in the battery
statute at subdivision (f)(10) of Penal Code section 243. (Rucker, supra, at p.
1116.) The Rucker court interpreted
the legislative definition of “dating relationship” as not requiring serious
courtship, increasingly exclusive interest, shared expectation of growth, or an
enduring relationship over a length of time. (Rucker, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1116.) “The statutory definition requires “frequent, intimate associations,”
a definition that does not preclude a relatively new dating relationship. Leonard Cohen and Kelley Lynch never had any
type of relationship that involved “frequent, intimate associations.” Financial considerations remove a
relationship from the purview of the domestic violence statutes. Lynch and Cohen’s relationship, which was
purely business in nature, was entirely dependent upon financial
considerations. Those financial
considerations do not, as LAPD’s report noted, mean that Leonard Cohen’s
desires or fantasies with respect to Lynch involved a “sexual relationship.” It is also entirely possible that Cohen
simply believes his “disgruntled ex-lover” who is not in need of IRS required
tax and corporate information and may want to attend one of his concerts is
more salacious than the reality of what has unfolded between them.
As
noted by the Family Law section of the State Bar, the DVPA is used with
increasing frequency for purposes other than the prevention of domestic
violence: “While clearly these protective orders are necessary in egregious cases
of abuse, it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more
frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes rather than from the true
need to be protected from a genuine abusive batterer.” Such concerns serve to emphasize the need for
due process in actions brought under the provisions of the DVPA, especially
where there is significant evidence that the action was brought in
retaliation. Robe, Lynette Berg, Extending
the Impact of Domestic Violence Protective Orders, Family Law News, April
2005, at p. 26
Leonard Cohen was limited to
registering the out-of-state order as a harassment injunctions available under Code
of Civil Procedure section 527.6. There
was no “dating relationship” between plaintiff and defendant. The family court lacked authority to issue a
domestic violence restraining order.
LYNCH DOES NOT AND HAS NOT POSED A THREAT OF
VIOLENCE TO LEONARD COHEN
Lynch
is not on trial here. She is attempting
to vacate the wrongful registration of the Colorado order as a domestic
violence order. There is no evidence
that Lynch has seen or contacted Leonard Cohen because she has not. There is no evidence whatsoever that Lynch
poses a threat to Leonard Cohen. There
is, on the other hand, evidence that Leonard Cohen refuses to provide Lynch
with IRS required tax and corporate information and steadfastly refuses to rescind
K-1s transmitted to IRS and State of Kentucky fraudulently indicating that
Lynch is a partner in Cohen’s wholly owned entity, LC Investments, LLC.
Leonard Cohen’s attempts to assassinate
Lynch’s character are ongoing. Nothing
prevented or prevents Leonard Cohen from registering the Colorado order as a
civil harassment non-domestic violence order.
Lynch has advised Cohen’s legal representatives that she will be filing
a federal RICO suit addressing these issues, including the original Colorado
order issued without any findings whatsoever, but she is not attempting to
vacate the Colorado order at this time before this Court. Cohen continuously argues that Lynch’s
attempts to seek legitimate legal remedies are “harassment.”
Leonard Cohen’s long and publicly
documented history of psychiatric problems, drug and
alcohol abuse, should be taken into
consideration – together with his habit of fabricating and embellishing stories
– when considering his statements or those of his lawyers. There are very serious issues outstanding
between Lynch and Cohen and many of those issues relate to federal tax matters
and federal tax issues that have been implicated by the various legal issues,
decisions, and judgments before LA Superior Court and elsewhere. Lynch, her sons, family members, and friends,
are the individuals who have been relentlessly harassed, stalked, threatened,
intimidated, and slandered over Leonard Cohen and these legal issues. This conduct is ongoing. Alternatively, the Court should view Leonard
Cohen’s gratuitous, mean-spirited, and self-serving comments about Lynch as
going towards bias and motive.
SECOND AMENDMENT & OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
ARE NOT A VEILED THREAT TO SINGER-SONGWRITER LEONARD COHEN
ARE NOT A VEILED THREAT TO SINGER-SONGWRITER LEONARD COHEN
Lynch has a right to address constitutional
issues that this case has raised. That
would include, but is not limited to, her Second Amendment Rights. Protecting her constitutional rights is not
evidence of “future violence.” That
statement is evidence of Cohen’s ongoing attempt to assassinate her
character. Furthermore, Cohen is the
individual with the history of devotion to armaments – not Lynch. See Exhibit E: Article (Cohen’s Devotion to Armaments).
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RELATED
CRIMINAL PROTECTION ORDERS
CRIMINAL PROTECTION ORDERS
Plaintiffs
also argue that “Lynch did not challenge the criminal protective orders issued
at her sentencing or in her appeal and cannot move to vacate criminal protect
orders in this civil procedure.” Lynch
filed a Motion to Vacate Cohen’s fraudulent default judgment (Case No.
BC338322). She was not served the
summons and complaint in that matter. In
their reply documents, Plaintiffs attached the criminal protective orders issued
to Robert Kory and Michelle Rice during Lynch’s sentencing hearing on April 17,
2012. Until these documents were
submitted to LA Superior Court in January 2014, Lynch was unaware that they
were “domestic violence related” orders.
It would therefore have been impossible to challenge them prior to the
discovery that they were domestic violence related orders. Lynch has asked the Court to vacate the
criminal domestic violence related order granted to Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory,
Michelle Rice, and Bruce Cutler during her sentencing hearing. She would also like to point out that Bruce
Cutler did not request a restraining order and she objected to that specific
order as she is convinced that Phil Spector had a right to know that former DA
Steve Cooley publicly aligned himself with Leonard Cohen in targeting Lynch
during her trial. This occurred during
the DA’s campaign for re-election.
Additionally, Lynch remains convinced that Phil Spector had a right to
know that Leonard Cohen was on the stand during her trial testifying about an
alleged gun incident that involved Phil Spector. That testimony is contradicted by the version
used by the Spector prosecutors in at least one motion filed in that trial and,
if Mick Brown was correct, before the Spector Grand Jury. This is most certainly not the basis for
granting a restraining order to anyone. See
Exhibit F: Mick Brown emails.
CLETS/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DATABASES
With
CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) orders, Domestic
Violence Protective Orders are entered into the California law enforcement
computer system, which can be accessed from all over the state, and are also
entered into the Federal Registry (the “Family Violence Indicator”) where the
so-called accused’s identification is put into data banks without a mechanism
for removal even if the order is later canceled. This situation should be resolved by the
Court.
RETALIATION
Leonard Cohen has used lawsuits and
restraining orders to discredit Lynch.
This matter was addressed in Natural Wealth’s June 2005 lawsuit against
Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory. Six months
prior to Cohen’s obtaining the first California restraining order (which is a
civil harassment order), Natural Wealth understood that Cohen and Kory planned
to use restraining orders to discredit her:
“145. When these tactics to draw Lynch into
his extortion scheme proved futile, Cohen and Kory – according to Lynch –
turned to far more aggressive means to obtain her cooperation. Indeed, as heard by other witnesses, Cohen
and Kory vowed to "crush her," and planned to use restraining
orders and other means to prevent her from serving as a credible witness
regarding both Cohen's affairs and
in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without success to draw her.”
The Natural Wealth lawsuit goes onto state
that “consistent with that vow and plan, and according to Lynch and other
witnesses, and on information and belief, Cohen and Kory's tactics to
terrorize, silence, or disparage Lynch have included” contacting City National
Bank, where Lynch and her son had personal banking accounts, and convincing
City National Bank to put a freeze on all three of their accounts; alleging that
Lynch's father and mother were depositing funds for Lynch in secret offshore
bank accounts; threatening Lynch that she would go to jail if she did not
cooperate, and having her younger son's father, Steve Lindsay, who was also
Cohen’s record producer, repeat these threats in the child’s presence; threatening
to “go to child services,” encouraging Steve Lindsay to file
legal
action to remove Lynch’s younger (and his) son from her custody, and submitting
affidavits (from
Kory
and Superfon) supporting that effort; in a coordinated fashion with Lindsey’s
child custody petition, encouraging or directing Steve Lindsey to call in a
warning to the LAPD (not related to Traditional Holdings, but on some other,
unknown pretext) that caused a police team to descend, guns drawn, on Lynch's
home, resulting in her being handcuffed and taken involuntarily, in her bathing
suit,
to a hospital psychiatric ward [King Drew] and medicated without her consent, before
being released the next day, during which time Kory attempted to persuade
Lynch’s older son, Rutger, to sell Lynch’s house and provide $3 million. It is important to note that the entire King
Drew file is fraudulent and does not relate to Lynch. According to Cohen’s testimony at Lynch’s
2012 trial, the SWAT/King Drew situation were used to obtain the original 2005
restraining order. Lynch has asked IRS,
FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others to investigate this situation. See Exhibit G: King Drew Report.
The Natural Wealth lawsuit addressed the
fact that Cohen and other co-conspirators (including Robert Kory) participated
in a “pattern of racketeering activity” that attempted to commit, conspired to
commit, solicited, coerced or intimidated others to commit mail fraud, wire
fraud, interference with
commerce
by threats, criminal extortion, bribing a witness [Lynch], intimidating a
witness [Lynch], and tampering with a witness [Lynch]. See Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc. v. Cohen 2008 WL 511761. D. Colorado , February 21, 2008 ( No.
05-cv-01233-LTB ). These issues have not been litigated. Leonard Cohen has retaliated against Lynch –
including by abusing the restraining order process – for reporting the
allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service
and other tax authorities on April 15, 2005 and at other times. In enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, Congress added
retaliation for “providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful
information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal
offense” to the list of statutorily-defined predicate acts. See DeGuelle v. Camilli, No. 10-CV-0103, 2010 WL 1484236 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 12,
2010).
In his December 2005 Order
(Natural Wealth case), Judge Lewis Babcock addressed some of the more
disturbing aspects of Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory’s actions: “Mr.
Cohen and Mr. Kory, Mr. Cohen's personal attorney and a California resident,
allegedly conspired to extort the lost sums [including, Lynch assumes, the
nearly $6.7 million in loans and/or advances Cohen personally took from
Traditional Holdings, LLC] from the plaintiffs by tarnishing the plaintiffs’
reputation, asserting spurious claims, and coercing a settlement from the
plaintiffs' insurance carrier. This they intended to accomplish by using Mr.
Cohen's fame as a prominent recording artist to publish defamatory statements
about the plaintiffs to the press. They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to
participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on
false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The
Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.” The purported thuggery was not effective but
has destroyed her sons’ lives. That is
one of the reasons Lynch informed Judge Carolyn Enichen that she felt the
Boulder, Colorado proceedings were “insane.”
Lynch believes the fraudulent restraining orders have been used as a
ruse or diversionary tactic to discredit Lynch.
CONCLUSION
Any
finding – which simply does not exist - that Lynch committed an act prohibited
by the DVPA, or was in a “dating” and/or “engagement” relationship with Cohen,
is not supported by the evidence, because no court has actually weighed the
evidence or addressed the issue. Thus, the domestic violence restraining order
was wrongfully imposed and Lynch’s due process rights were violated.
Lynch
respectfully asks the Court to vacate the domestic violence order created when
Leonard Cohen fraudulently registered the out-of-state order in California
using domestic violence former DV-600.
She also asks the Court to vacate any domestic violence related orders
provided to Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, and/or Bruce
Cutler. As Lynch does not represent
Leonard Cohen, it is not her place to ask this Court to properly register the
Order or determine what the appropriate Judicial Council form would be when a
party seeks to register an out-of-state non-domestic violence order in
California. It is of interest to note
that Leonard Cohen is not interested in finding out how to properly “protect”
himself. Finally, Lynch asks this Court
to remove her name and information from the Domestic Violence Registry or any local,
state, and/or federal registry and/or database that includes information with
respect to the newly created California domestic violence order of May 25,
2011.
Dated:
21 August 2015
________________________________________
Kelley Lynch, In
Propria Persona
