DECLARATION OF KELLEY LYNCH
Kelley
Lynch declares:
1. I am
a resident of Los Angeles, California and the age of 18, and have personal knowledge of
the facts set forth
hereinbelow and can competently testify thereto if called as a witness.
2. Plaintiffs have argued that I am addressing
the merits of the underlying case. While
the issues
in the underlying case are not specifically
at issue in my motion (and/or prior motion), Plaintiffs have addressed and
argued the merits (intrinsic evidence) in the declarations they provided in
support of their Opposition to the Motion to Vacate. Therefore, I am compelled to respond.
3. My Motion for Terminating Sanctions does
include newly discovered evidence. I
diligently
pursued this evidence for approximately 2
years. That evidence relates to Leonard
Cohen’s testimony, during my 2012 trial, that I never “stole” from him. This testimony is further supported by
Cohen’s statements provided to MacLean’s magazine, and involving an interview
he personally participated in, where he states that “I am not accusing her of
theft.” This article/interview was
published on August 22, 2015 and was clearly coordinated with the filing of the
Complaint in the instant matter and to confront the allegations raised, against
Cohen and Kory, in Neal Greenberg’s June 2005 lawsuit.
4. The second piece of newly discovered
evidence I submitted to the Court relates to the
foreign Colorado restraining order. There was in fact no evidentiary
hearing. That is not an issue in this
case and is offered merely for purposes of explanation. Michelle Rice and Robert Kory submitted
declarations to this Court in support of Cohen’s Opposition to my Motion to
Vacate. The evidence attached to those
declarations included their “domestic violence related” orders. These orders were provided to Kory and Rice
following my sentencing with respect to the “domestic violence” order. The prosecutor was quite clear during the
March 23, 2012 hearing that the restraining order I violated was the order
connected to Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BQ022717. That case is a “domestic violence” matter
that I intend to move to vacate in the next week or two. The Colorado order was not a “domestic violence”
order and I have now spoken with the Judicial Council, and received information
from others, that absolutely concludes that a foreign order civil harassment
(non-domestic violence order) – fraudulent or otherwise – may not be registered
in the State of California using DV-600.
This issue is highly material and relevant to this case due to the fact
that the use of fraudulent narratives in order to obtain restraining orders has
been one of the tactics Leonard Cohen, and his representatives, have employed
against me. I have no interest
whatsoever in Leonard Cohen. I do wonder
if he is utterly narcissistic to draw that conclusion or will indeed say
anything he feels will serve his selfish goals.
For the past 10 years, I have requested IRS required tax and corporate
information from Leonard Cohen and his representatives. IRS, FTB, and State of Kentucky have
repeatedly advised me to contact Leonard Cohen and, at times, the corporate
entities themselves. The judgment is
absolutely silent as to IRS required tax and corporate information and does not
state – anywhere – that it is retroactive.
I have addressed this with some degree of specificity previously. In addition to this outrageous situation, I
have been relentlessly targeted, slandered, threatened, intimidated, stalked,
and harassed by a group of individuals who appear to be functioning as Leonard
Cohen’s operatives. Their campaign of
harassment and terrorism is highly coordinated and involved targeting and
shutting down my blogs and email accounts.
For over six straight years, my sons have been relentlessly
targeted. That includes my younger son
who was targeted as a minor. Both of my
sons have been continuously targeted and victimized over this case. The campaign of harassment extended to my
sister, Paulette Brandt, other friends, colleagues, and nearly every witness
who provided me with a declaration in this case. In fact, Stephen Gianelli harassed, stalked,
insulted, threatened, intimidated, insulted, and/or slandered Paulette Brandt
(who is most definitely in “their” sights), Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, and
Daniel J. Meade. The only person who
truly benefits from this conduct is Leonard Cohen. I am the individual being relentlessly
harassed. The tactics used against me
have included psychological warfare, slandering and intimidating my family
members, intentionally provoking me, forcing me to respond to highly
inflammatory and outrageous false allegations made to my family and friends,
and generally unconscionable conduct on the part of a group of people who
resemble low-life hoodlums and common criminals.
5. Plaintiffs Opposition addresses the fact
that I have a legal background. While I
was in
college, and thereafter, I did work as a
legal secretary, assistant, and paralegal.
I was also continuously supervised in my work and have made that a
practice throughout my career. I was
also a notary public and understand the importance of signatures on documents
and the difference between executing a document and conforming one. My background primarily involves the music
industry field of law which has a strong emphasis on contracts and intellectual
property. I have absolutely been
involved in contract and deal negotiations.
I always worked with a team of professionals and never once wrote a
legal document or provided legal advice.
And, while I have worked for litigators, my primary exposure to that
field involved federal cases that dealt with federal copyright and trademark
infringements. Jules Zalon, an attorney
I worked for in my early 20s, provided me with a letter to the Court. I have emailed this letter to opposing
counsel and it is attached as an exhibit to this Motion. Throughout the years, to a greater or lesser
degree, I have been involved in the actual researching of legal matters and
have worked under the supervision of attorneys on a variety of legal
documents. While I was Leonard Cohen’s
personal manager, he had teams of professional representatives advising him. These individuals worked directly for Leonard
Cohen. They did not work for me. In particular, Richard Westin and Neal
Greenberg were hired by Leonard Cohen.
They were wrapped in attorney/client privilege with Leonard Cohen. I was excluded from that privilege and, at
one point, this issue arose with respect to a legal matter Hochman, Rettig was
handling for Leonard Cohen with respect to the $1 million prepayment he
personally received in connection with the 2001 Traditional Holdings deal. I was becoming concerned that something was
wrong with the private annuity obligation, sent Hochman Rettig certain
corporate documents and the Annuity Agreement, and asked Steve Blanq if they
would review it for any problems that were not brought to my attention. Steve Blanq called me back and advised me
that he had spoken with Richard Westin who informed him, in no uncertain terms,
that I did not have attorney/client privilege and they should not speak to me
about the matters I had inquired about.
This conversation alarmed me and, at that time, I wrote a confidential
letter to Mr. Holtz of the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office in Los Angeles,
California. I specifically addressed
this letter and the issue that arose with respect to attorney/client
privilege. I had no such privilege with
Richard Westin or any Cohen representative.
I was an independent contractor and was, in any event, not the
client. You do not simply assign someone
attorney/client privilege – particularly in hindsight when it’s convenient and
there is evidence you would like to conceal.
I provided Mr. Holtz with nearly ever exhibit I submitted to this Court
with my Motion for Terminating Sanctions.
I also prepared the declaration submitted with that Motion specifically
for the Internal Revenue Service. Since
initially reporting the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax
fraud to IRS Agent Bill Betzer, I began providing the IRS with a tremendous
amount of evidence. Much of that
evidence has now been destroyed due to the loss of my home. There is also the matter of Leonard Cohen
unlawfully seizing my business files from my office; abandoning his old
business files at my home; and obtaining an order that permitted LASD to seize
corporate records, corporate tax documents, and property that belonged to me
personally, Machat & Machat, Phil Spector, and others. The related case is now at issue because I am
being threatened with contempt of corrupt.
I find this situation incredulous and beyond outrageous. I also view the attempts to conceal and seal
evidence as a blatant attempt to obstruct justice. Yesterday afternoon, I found a package left
outside of this apartment. Contained
therein, and intentionally submitted at the 11th hour, was
Plaintiffs’ Objection to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice. Essentially that document takes the position
that judicial notice was not properly requested with respect to all exhibits
apart from a handful of exhibits that Plaintiffs attached to their original
Opposition to my Motion to Vacate but failed to request judicial notice
for. I utterly oppose this Objection;
feel these side issues related to sealing evidence and raising attorney client
privilege are of the utmost importance; do not have sufficient time to provide
a proper response; and believe the Court should take these matters under
separate consideration in a hearing devoted to going through each piece of
evidence specifically with both Plaintiffs and myself. I would like to point out that many documents
the Court has now sealed are publicly available on state websites (corporate
records); through Pacer (including those exhibits attached to Neal Greenberg’s
2005 lawsuit which I purchased); through the Southern District of New York (all
documents related to the CAK litigation) which are not under seal; and
elsewhere. Articles, such as the
MacLean’s August 22, 2005 “Devastated” piece on Leonard Cohen, specifically
involved interviews with him. Therefore,
those interviews should not be taken as hearsay particularly as Leonard Cohen
laid out the foundations of his case for journalist Brian Johnson and
MacLean’s. I have no suggestions for how
the Court could conceivably handle a hearing with respect to the evidence,
exhibits, Plaintiffs’ attempts to seal and conceal evidence, or matters related
to arguments involving attorney/client privilege. There is currently a hearing scheduled in
this case for June 23, 2015. That
hearing has been scheduled since March 2015.
I do not believe this matter should wait until the possible Sanctions
hearing in September 2015 and take great offense at Plaintiffs’ outrageous
attempt to terminate my fee waiver and prohibit me from filing additional
documents in any case before LA Superior Court without having the Supervising
Judge of the Court signing off on those matters. The sense of entitlement on the part of
Plaintiffs and their legal representatives is mind-boggling. Leonard Cohen is a Canadian citizen living in
the United States as a guest of the United States. His personal conduct with respect to this
matter, and other related litigation, is utterly reprehensible.
6. There were indeed procedural issues addressed
at the January 17, 2014 hearing on the
Motion to Vacate. Unfortunately, most of those issues were not
created or caused by me personally. As I
explained to this Court, my former appellate attorney was kind enough to file
the Motion to Vacate. I did provide him
with the Motion, declarations, exhibits, answer to complaint, fee waiver form,
and proof of service. For some reason,
the answer to complaint was not submitted to the court and I found this out
when Jeffrey Korn brought it to my attention.
I explained that I would file it at once and he had no objections to
that. Francis Suarez also evidently
transformed my declaration and case history into one document. I had authorized him to sign on my behalf and
provided him with the authority to do so in writing. He then created an Exhibit A and changed
Rutger Penick’s declaration in Exhibit B.
I am not certain I actually understand what the issue is since both the
Court and Plaintiffs were in receipt of my rather standard answer to complaint
in more than enough time to review same prior to the actual hearing. In any event, these problems did not have
their genesis with me. There were other
witnesses, including my mother and witnesses who have now provided this Court
with declarations, willing to testify telephonically due to the fact that they
were unavailable, traveling out of state, reside out of state, or reside in a
foreign country. I phoned CourtCall who
confirmed that Judge Robert Hess does indeed accept CourtCall. I then phoned Department 24 and asked a
series of questions. One had to do with
whether or not the motion hearing was off-calendar. It was confirmed that it was not. I then asked the gentleman who answered the
phone if, now that I had filed my motion and the documents were served, I had
to file anything else in order to have witnesses testify at the hearing. I was advised, and Paulette Brandt was
present for this call, that all I had to
do was show up with the witnesses and they would be permitted to testify at the
January 17, 2014 hearing. That is the
reason both Paulette Brandt and Palden Ronge were present for the hearing as I
informed the Court. I also mentioned
witness testimony to Jeffrey Korn. This
would explain why I was served an Objection document, that I brought to the
attention of the Court, by Jeffrey Korn objecting to potential witness
testimony. Based on these discussions, I
was under the impression that the Court would accept testimony from these
witnesses. The issues these witnesses
were willing to testify are the issues addressed in their declarations. Paulette Brandt did not materially change her
declaration. She did keep “in touch”
with me but, as my phones were shut off, it would be impossible to keep in
touch with me telephonically. Therefore,
my friends (such as Paulette Brandt, Palden Ronge, and others), would stop by –
unannounced – throughout the summer and fall of 2005 – and were in a position
to testify as to what I looked like at the time and whether or not I evaded
anyone who simply came to my door. As
there were floor to ceiling glass panels on either side of the door, I can
assure this Court that if the process server actually came to my house at all,
he would have been able to accurately describe me. Instead, he obviously relied on a description
that he was given that did not resemble me.
I would also like to point out that my driveway was just beyond a curve
on Mandeville Canyon Road and many people missed the house which required
crossing a bridge. My mailbox did not
have the address or number on it. When
you crossed the bridge, there were two houses.
One was mine and the other belonged to my neighbors. I do not leave lights on when I leave a room
and have been trained to shut them off since I was born. In fact, the Court should feel free to call
Phil Shull, the owner of Deneuve Construction, as this became a minor mystery
when I worked for them while temporarily residing in Boulder, Colorado. They could not figure out who was turning out
the lights and, as it turned out, Mr. Shull did not want the lights turned off
at all and spoke to me about that issue.
The entire back of my house was covered in floor to ceiling plate glass
windows. I never had lights on during
the day and there would be no reason to have lights on in an entrance hall in
the morning. Every room in the house,
for the most part, was covered in floor to ceiling plate glass windows and
sliding doors. I personally do not
believe a process serve came to my house.
And, I can assure this Court that I did receive Neal Greenberg’s amended
complaint. It was thrown outside the
door of my house on the ground. However,
I did not object to service. I
acknowledged receiving the Amended Complaint and eventually advised Judge
Babcock personally that I refused to participate in that litigation due to my
concerns that the case was nothing other than an attempt to obstruct justice
and cover up criminal tax fraud. In any
event, with respect to CourtCall, when I phoned Department 24 about this
matter, also in Paulette Brandt’s presence, I was told that Judge Robert Hess
never accepts CourtCall. This
essentially addresses the procedural issues raised at the January 17, 2014
hearing.
7. Prior to filing my Motion to Vacate, I
spent a great deal of time assembling the exhibits
which were rather voluminous. Paulette Brandt assisted me and printed out
many documents. We then took those
documents to Kinkos in Hollywood. The
machines repeatedly broke down, the attendants had to assist me on
approximately 10 separate occasions. I
was given credits totaling nearly $50.
My documents were caught in the machine, pulled from the machine, ripped
out of the machine, and evidently lost.
While I was at Kinko’s, with Paulette Brandt, I initially copied the
declarations. These were then conformed
and Paulette Brandt signed two declarations that she was submitting to the
Court. She signed all copes of those two
declarations. When we arrived at LA
Superior Court, I went through the documents one final time and discovered one
of Paulette Brandt’s declarations was missing.
Due to that, I went upstairs to Family Court where Paulette Brandt was
waiting in line to file a document, and she decided it would be best to hand
write the relevant information on the one declaration we did have copied. Because she was standing in line with files,
I wrote the paragraph on the document itself and she personally initialed that
paragraph. A copy of both documents that
were originally to be submitted to this Court with the Motion for Terminating
Sanctions is attached to Paulette Brandt’s new declaration being submitted with
this Reply.
8. With respect to my mother’s declaration,
some of this was already addressed in her
declaration. For approximately a month or more, my mother
(Joan Lynch) and I reviewed documents submitted to this Court, in related
matters, with respect to my younger son’s custody matter, the probation matter
with respect to the 2012 trial, and other matters. My mother and I discussed these documents at
length and I took shorthand notes of her comments and responses. After we finished reviewing the documents, I
then drafted a declaration and mailed it to her. My mother received that document and approved
it. Paulette Brandt read the declaration
to my mother, in its entirety, to ensure that there was no confusion. While my mother has had memory problems for a
number of years, she also had good days where her memory was perfect and bad
days where she couldn’t recall certain information. My mother agreed to sign her declaration and
mail it to me. In the meantime, due to
the Christmas mail, she authorized Paulette Brandt to sign her declaration on
her behalf. Paulette Brandt was
authorized to conform my mother’s signature and I intended to attach the
original signature page to the document should her signed declaration page not
arrive in time for the hearing. On
December 26, 2013, my mother had a serious stroke. She was hospitalized for a considerable
period of time. Following her stroke she
had little if any memory. There are
times when I am unsure if she actually knows who I am. There are other times when it seems as though
she recalls details but then asks me questions, repeatedly throughout the
conversation, having to do with what the weather is like; who I live with;
where I live; and so forth. I am
uncertain if she even knows who Leonard Cohen is any longer. My father has informed me that my mother does
not recall her childhood; immediately forgets what was discussed with her; has
been under the care of medical practitioners for her memory problems for
approximately 3 years; but, since her stroke, her memory has grown increasingly
worse on a daily basis. Therefore, my
mother’s declaration is precisely what she intended it to be: a declaration with her signature conformed by
Paulette Brandt who was authorized to sign on my mother’s behalf. Paulette Brandt and I have now been accused,
on Stephen Gianelli’s latest blog devoted to slandering me, of potential
criminal prosecutions with respect to these declarations. I would have to conclude that Leonard Cohen,
and his legal representatives, are desperate individuals who come up with one
false allegation after another. I would
like to remind this Court that Daniel Bergman destroyed my sons’ lives. The custody matter was clearly coordinated
with the SWAT incident. I was taken from
Brentwood to King Drew in South Central.
The entire King Drew file was falsified.
Apart from my former address in Brentwood, and Steve Lindsey’s cell
phone, the file does not relate to me.
And yet, this incident was used to file a custody matter that destroyed
my sons’ lives. Leonard Cohen and Robert
Kory assisted Steve Lindsey with that custody matter and I can assure this
court that not one of these individuals cares at all about my sons or their
welfare. Ray Charles Lindsey is now over
18 and this Court has no jurisdiction over him.
The damage is done and the statute of limitations have run so Leonard
Cohen, Robert Kory, Steve Lindsey, Daniel Bergman, and others, should rest
comfortably knowing that their conduct led to the outright destruction of the
lives of two young men. My older son,
Rutger Penick, has survived this ordeal and was indeed a witness to much of
what happened. I assume he will now be
targeted given the fact that Leonard Cohen personally lied about me in relation
to Rutger’s horrendous Whole Foods incident.
My younger son advised Stephen Gianelli, Cohen fan Walsh (who did indeed
copy Michelle Rice on numerous criminally harassing emails), and Ray Lawrence
that their emails slandering me were making him physically ill. I tend to doubt Robert Kory filed a
declaration in this case addressing that alarming situation. After all, Stephen Gianelli and Michelle Rice
spoke in May 2009 and, since that time, he and his cyber-terrorists have
relentlessly targeted me, my sons, sister, elderly parents, and many others.
Declaration of Michelle
Rice
In support of
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to
Vacate
Case No. BC338322
Dated January 4, 2014
9. Michelle Rice’s declaration confirms
that, from January 2005 to December 2010, she was an
associate of the Law Offices
of Robert Kory. Since January 2011, she
has been partner in the firm of Kory & Rice, LLP. Rice serves as Leonard Cohen’s general
litigation counsel and oversees his intellectual property matters. Michelle Rice, having spent several months
researching and reviewing relevant background documents, drafted the civil
complaint in this case. The research and
writing occurred over the period of January 2005 through June 2005.
10. In July 2005, Cohen engaged Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher as litigation counsel. Cohen’s
civil
complaint against Kelley Lynch
and Richard Westin was filed by Scott Edelman on August 15, 2005. During the course of litigation and
continuously ever since Kory & Rice represented Cohen as his general
counsel.
11. Rice fails to mention a suit brought by
Leonard Cohen against Neal Greenberg in the Central
District Court of California
[Case No. 2:05-cv-06047]. This case,
which may involve matters related to Lynch, was initiated on August 18, 2005
when Leonard Cohen personally (and not the corporate entities) filed a Petition
against Greenberg and Associates Securities, Inc., Neal R. Greenberg, Greenberg
and Associates, Inc., and Tactical Allocation Services, LLC for an order
compelling arbitration. It is of
interest to note that these parties were not parties to Case No. BC338322. A Notice of Dismissal was filed on January
10, 2006 by Leonard Cohen as to Greenberg and Associates Securities, Inc., Neal
R. Greenberg and Associates, Inc. and Tactical Allocation Services, LLC.
12. Michelle Rice’s declaration, which is presumably
arguing against my Motion to Vacate,
immediately reintroduces the
merits of the underlying case and falsely states, under oath, that: “After her termination as Mr. Cohen’s manager
in October 2004, Ms. Lynch refused to return Mr. Cohen’s business records and
other personal property. The declaration
refers to Cohen’s Ex Parte Application for a Writ of Possession to recover his
business records and personal property in Los Angeles Superior Court on October
11, 2005 [Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC341120].” I have addressed this matter previously but
it is important to review the extent of the perjured statements and fraudulent
misrepresentations made in these declarations.
Rice then begins her argument that, having met me once, months after the
date the proof of service was filed, she believes I was actually served. I have not, for the Court’s information,
provided the Court with a declaration from Chad Knaak due to the ongoing
harassment of members of my family and friends.
I do not believe it is acceptable to expose anyone to needless criminal
harassment, stalking, slander, intimidation tactics, and threats. Rice confirms that she saw process server hand me documents on October
18, 2005. I have no idea what this has
to do with the willful failure to serve me the summons and complaint. “On October 18th and 24th,
2005, two deputy sheriffs from the Santa Monica Sheriff’s Department executed
the Order on the Writ of Possession at Ms. Lynch’s residence at 2648 Mandeville
Canyon Road in Los Angeles. I was
present both days as Mr. Cohen’s legal representative. On October 18th, I saw a process
server personally serve Ms. Lynch with Mr. Cohen’s application for a
Restraining Order.”
13. Rice, who has made partner targeting me
and now serves as Cohen’s paid witness, now
distinctly recalls my
appearance at this time: “I distinctly
recall in October 2005, Ms. Lynch had a short, blonde hairstyle, with obvious
dark brown roots.” These statements are
merely meant to mislead the Court because Lynch did not resemble the individual
in the proof of service filed on August 25, 2005 and was not served Cohen’s
summons & complaint.”
14. Rice’s declaration also confirms that on
April 28, 2008, she entered an appearance on behalf
of Leonard Cohen in the
Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc. et al. v. Cohen, et al. [Civil Case No.
1:05-cv-01233-LTB-MJV.” Rice explains
that the litigation was ongoing for approximately three years; the original
complaint was against Cohen and his attorney, Robert Kory, and was first filed
in Colorado State Court in Boulder District Court on June 5, 2005 by “Mr.
Cohen’s former investment adviser, Neal Greenberg” and his related
companies. The case was then removed to
the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado on July 7, 2005. Rice’s declaration goes onto explain that
Greenberg joined Lynch as a defendant through an amended complaint filed on
August 2, 2005. The Amended Complaint
asserted four claims against Leonard Cohen and added a new claim for
interpleader which involved resolving “Mr. Cohen’s and Ms. Lynch’s competing
ownership claims to the remaining Traditional Holdings funds still under
Plaintiffs’ management.” Through the
interpleader claim, Greeberg disavowed any interest in the remaining invested
funds and paid a sum of $154,180.78 into the Registry of the Court for the
District Court’s determination as to whom the remaining funds should be
distributed. Rice simply concludes that
I attempted to evade service of Greenberg’s Amended Complaint. This is blatantly false; Rice (who did not
know Lynch) has no evidence to support her fraudulent misrepresentations; and
she appears willing to say and do anything for her client, Leonard Cohen. The Greenberg plaintiffs filed a Submission
of Return of Service that was filed through the CM/ECF system. California process server, Cory Marsh, stated
that he had served the Summons, Complaint and District Court Civil Cover Sheet
on “Jane Doe, an individual matching Ms. Lynch’s description that had been
provided to him, at Ms. Lynch’s residence at 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road, Los
Angeles, California 90049 on August 10, 2005.”
The process server also noted that the individual served had “refused to
identify herself.” Rice attached the
Return of Service (Greenberg) as Exhibit A.
This incident never occurred and Rice has no evidence proving
otherwise. She has merely attempted to
mislead and deceive the Court. The
process server, in this particular situation, tossed the documents on the
ground in front of Lynch’s home. She
found them on the ground outside her front door. At no time did I attempt to evade service
and, in fact, had already received Greenberg’s initial Complaint (from numerous
parties) and provided a copy to my neighbor, an investor who advised me that he
intended to move his investments away from Greenberg’s companies. Greenberg and his lawyers were aware of the
fact that service was never an issue with respect to the Amended Complaint. At issue was the fact – initially – that I
did not reside in Colorado (or have minimal ties to that jurisdiction) – and
felt many of the allegations in the Complaint were self-serving and false. I found others to accurately reflect the
issues at hand. I advised Judge Lewis
Babcock on numerous occasions, and personally spoke to him on one, that I
refused to participate in this lawsuit.
The reasons I gave for doing so was my unshakeable conviction that this
lawsuit, which did nothing other than obscure issues between Lynch and Cohen, was
nothing other than an attempt to obstruct justice and cover up criminal tax
fraud. Michelle Rice feels utterly
comfortable conjuring up narratives and theories that serve her client (and
ultimately herself). There was and
remains no issue related to service in the Greenberg matter. Michelle Rice has simply created one where
one does not exist.
15. According to Rice’s declaration, on
April 30, 2008, she electronically filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment – via the
CM/ECF system – with the District of Colorado.
According to Rice, Cohen sought summary judgment as to the four
surviving claims asserted against him individually and as to the interpleader
claim. It is highly relevant to note
that Traditional Holdings, LLC was the account holder and Cohen took the
position that he was the alter ego of this entity and its accounts with the
Greenberg companies. Traditional
Holdings, LLC was not a party to this matter.
The Motion apparently contained 16 exhibits and three supporting
declarations with their associated exhibits.
Cohen evidently argued that the May 15, 2006 judgment of the Los Angeles
Superior Court (Case No. BC338322) declared that “Lynch is not the rightful
owner of any assets in Traditional Holdings, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.,
or any other entity related to Cohen” and that therefore the remaining
Traditional Holdings funds should be released to Mr. Cohen. Lynch has a rightful and legal ownership
interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Old
Ideas, LLC so this statement is a fraudulent misrepresentation and, as it
relates to Rice’s declaration, perjury.
Plaintiffs, via their declarations, are arguing the merits of the
underlying case in response to Lynch’s Motion to Vacate.
Rice confirms that Exhibit
A-16 attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment was an exemplified copy of the
May 15, 2006 judgment of the Los Angeles Superior Court in Civil Case BC338322
entered against me by default. Rice
attached as Exhibit B true and correct copies of the electronic receipts from
the District of Colorado’s CM/ECF system of the electronic filing of the Motion
and supporting exhibits and declarations.
She attached, as Exhibit C, a true and correct copy of Motion Exhibit
A-16, the exemplified copy of the May 15, 2006 judgment. Therefore, Plaintiffs introduced the language
of the default judgment itself into their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
Vacate. According to LA Superior Court’s
website, Plaintiffs filed the following documents on May 9, 2006: Request to Enter Default Judgment (following
the status conference of February 27, 2006); Request to Enter Judgment (not
entered as requested); Request for Dismissal (Does 1-50); Declaration of
Leonard Norman Cohen; Declaration of Scott A. Edelman; Points & Authorities
(re. Default Judgment); Declaration of Kevin L. Prins (which includes the
fraudulent financial ledger); and Plaintiff’s Case Summary. Therefore, when Michelle Rice submitted the
actual Default Judgment to the Court, in response to my Motion to Vacate, she
essentially submitted the supporting and miscellaneous documents that were
filed in support of the request for default judgment which was granted on May
15, 2006 as well as Cohen’s Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting
declarations and exhibits filed in the Greenberg Colorado matter. I am unaware of any law, particularly when
issues related to “misappropriation” have been raised and argued, that requires
her to remain silent in the face of false allegations, perjured statements,
fraudulent misconduct, and litigation tactics and abuse. The allegations, raised in the Greenberg
Colorado matter, were introduced into Case No. BC338322 via declarations.
16. Michelle Rice asserts that, on the
afternoon of April 30, 2008, she sent an email to me c/o
the email address: odzerchenma@gmail.com. I no longer have access to that account, and
haven’t in years, as my email accounts and blogs were ultimately targeted by
Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Blaine (Phil Spector’s former assistant who
misappropriated nearly $1 million from him and engaged in a vile and vindictive
campaign to demonize him in defense), Susanne Walsh (Leonard Cohen’s fan), and
others. Rice’s declaration states that
one of the attachments was Motion Exhibit A-16.
However, she and I had no agreement to serve documents electronically
and, based on the conduct of Plaintiffs and their lawyers, I refuse to agree to
electronic service without a Court order in place directing the parties to
serve one another in this manner. Rice
has provided no authentication whatsoever with respect to the email address
itself. I, who has dealt with tremendous
harassment over the years related to this case – including being bombarded by
psychotic and deranged emails on a daily basis for nearly six straight years,
have no independent recollection whatsoever of this email exchange. I no longer have access to my prior email
account and am unable to independently verify the authenticity of that
evidence.
17. According to Rice, on May 1, 2008, I
responded to her April 30, 2008 email and
informed her that my mailing
address was no longer 2648 Mandeville Canyon Road (Exhibit D). Rice then asked
me to provide her with a current mailing address. By this time, Plaintiffs were well aware of
my whereabouts. Leonard Cohen, who
evidently has endless funds to target me relentlessly with legal teams, was
monitoring my whereabouts, confirmed this during his 2012 trial testimony, and
even hired private investigators. It has
also come to my attention that Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, and others have
contacted numerous law enforcement agencies with respect to Lynch. Those agencies include, but are not limited
to, LAPD, Santa Monica PD, and Boulder PD.
Rice failed to highlight the fact that I allegedly wrote that she was
well aware that my address was no longer 2648 Mandeville Canyon as she wrote
Phil Shull’s attorney, Craig Blockwick in Boulder, Colorado. I worked directly for Phil Shull, owner of
Deneuve Construction, at the time and was subjected to relentless harassment involving
matters related to Leonard Cohen.
Michelle Rice failed to highlight my statements that “There is evidence
that your client (and Robert Kory) attempted to silence me, terrorize me, crush
me, and destroy me. Some of that
evidence is with the FBI in Denver – perhaps they are amused by these antics
and perhaps they want to develop a close friendship with Robert Kory. That is the FBI in Denver’s business. Not mine.
There is evidence with Greenberg/Posel/Scheid/Chipman/et al. that
Leonard Norman Cohen and Robert Kory have engaged in witness and evidence
tampering. According to the Duty Agent I
spoke with at the FBI in Denver, that is criminal activity. Perhaps you should drop the ludicrous
insanity having to do with slander and focus on the issues that are actually
criminal. Then, perhaps you can figure
out what tax return was filed by Traditional Holdings, LLC for the year
2001. I know that Robert Kory and
Dimascio & Berardo did not want to provoke any type of unwarranted
attention on the part of the IRS. Thank
you again for confirming that the books and records of Traditional Holdings,
LLC actually contain the truth of the matter.
I did point out to Judge Babcock (via voicemail) that I felt, after
reading your complaint, that he needed to go to law school. Very kind of you to let him know what
“besmirched” meant. Please confirm
receipt of my mailing address in
California and do copy in the IRS Commissioner’s Staff. All complaints you have about the civil
and/or criminal tax fraud should be addressed to them directly. That, I would imagine, is their forte and
area of expertise. Kelley Lynch” I provided Rice with a California address and
explained that I resided in Colorado and she and Plaintiffs well
understood. See Rice’s Exhibits E and F.
18. Rice evidently instructed someone in her
firm to mail a copy of the exemplified May 15, 2006
judgment to both the Colorado
and California mailing addresses. The
mail to Phil Spector’s former post office box was evidently returned. I did not receive any such documents by mail
in Colorado; was not part of the Colorado case (in terms of not personally
appearing); and had brought my reasons for taking that position to the
attention of Judge Babcock. There was no
confusion with respect to issues related to service. There were obviously issues related to
jurisdiction. I had numerous addresses
in Colorado and Cohen, Kory & Rice were well aware that I worked for
Deneuve Construction and understood how to contact me. In fact, Robert Kory personally phoned Deneuve
Construction, asked for Phil Shull, and, when I asked him what he wanted, hung
up on me. I believe Daniel Bergman,
after I attempted to contact him (and he was ordered to communicate with me)
for my younger son’s social security number (because I was filling out forms
related to life insurance and beneficiaries), wrote a letter personally to Phil
Shull. Phil Shull and I reviewed that
“nuisance” letter.
19. Rice goes onto confirm that on May 1,
2008, I included a note in one of my emails to her that
read as follows: “NOTE to the IRS: That Kelley Lynch was never served [Cohen’s
summons & complaint] and, I might point out – again, that I was told in no
uncertain terms (by numerous individuals) that if Cohen attempted to say he was
the rightful owner of Traditional Holdings it proved further fraud.” The reason I wrote this is due to the fact
that I was not served Leonard Cohen’s summons and complaint and have raised
this fact as an issue for 10 straight years now. (See Exhibit G attached to Rice’s declaration). Rice also confirms that I wrote that “No
judgment was obtained, the fraudulent, bogus, insane lawsuit was never served
on me, and I will address this in my own lawsuit.” (See Exhibit G attached to Rice’s
declaration). I have continuously advised
Plaintiffs, their lawyers, and others that I was not served Cohen’s summons and
complaint; the Court obtained no jurisdiction over me; and the judgment was
void.
20. Rice’s declaration inaccurately states
that Judge Babcock’s order was dated September 2, 2008
when, in fact, it was dated
September 5, 2008. She should be well
aware of the fact that the hearing in the Boulder, Colorado restraining order
matter was held on September 2, 2008 and seems to have been coordinated for a
number of reasons. In rendering his
judgment, Judge Babcock referred to the May 15, 2006 judgment in Case No.
BC338322 that falsely declares that “Lynch was not the owner of any assets in
Traditional Holdings, LLC” and any interest Lynch had in any other entity
related to Cohen, she held “as trustee for Cohen’s equitable title.”
21. Michelle Rice’s declaration does note
that I never made an appearance in the District of
Colorado litigation. Rice added Phil Spector’s California address
and my email to certificates of service she attached to documents filed with
the District Court. For reasons I cannot
imagine this conduct, on the part of Rice, led to a change of address re. my
mailing address with respect to the District of Colorado (although I most
certainly did not authorize this change) to Phil Spector’s address in Pasadena,
California. Rice’s conduct also led to
the Court’s decision to change my email address to odzerchenma@gmail.com without my
authorization. This email account was
targeted and shut down. (See Rice’s
declaration Exhibit I).
22. Rice then raises the California
Restraining order Cohen obtained in November 2005 after he
and his lawyers steadfastly
refused to communicate with Lynch about failure to serve her the summons and
complaint and with respect to the litigation proceedings and discovery
maters. The merits of the restraining
order matter (Case No. BS099650), a civil harassment order, are not being argued
in this matter but Rice decided to introduce them. Cohen and his legal representatives have
abused the restraining order process and used these orders as tactics. In paragraph 23, Rice confirms that she understood,
at the time, that I resided in Boulder, Colorado. While Rice’s declaration states that Cohen
applied for a new civil harassment order in Boulder, Colorado in August 2008,
she clearly states that Cohen sought this order (Case No. 2008C 000776) because
the California order, that Lynch really has no details about, was set to expire
in November 2008. Leonard Cohen
personally testified during my 2012 trial that his reasons for obtaining this
order were his concerns, farcical or otherwise, that I might attend his concert
scheduled for June 2009 in the Denver, Colorado area. By that time, I had long since left Boulder,
Colorado. He also testified that his
concerns, when he made his extraordinary flight into Boulder, Colorado in the midst
of a European tour, related to Lynch’s online posts and communications with
journalists. I have no personal interest
whatsoever in Leonard Cohen and wouldn’t attend his concert if my life depended
no it. I do have an interest in
confronting the legal issues, slander, harassment, and other matters that have
now arisen due to Leonard Cohen’s conduct and this lawsuit in particular.
23. Rice confirms that, in August 2008, she
attended a court hearing in Boulder County Court
with respect to Cohen’s
application for a temporary restraining order.
This ex parte hearing was held on August 19, 2008, one day after Kory
& Rice, on behalf of Leonard Cohen, threatened legal action against
journalist Ann Diamond over her article “Whatever Happened to Kelley
Lynch.” The Boulder Combined Court,
after I noted the hearing was “insane” and requested that the order be made
permanent, entered a permanent order. No
witnesses presented testimony, apart from me, and no evidence was presented to
the Court during that hearing. (Rice
attached the Boulder, Colorado order as “Exhibit J.)
24. Although Rice wrote me on February 14,
2011 stating that the Colorado order was registered
in California, that issue was
addressed during my 2012 trial and it turned out that Michelle Rice wrote and
lied to me about a material issue in this matter. The Boulder, Colorado order was fraudulently
and unlawfully registered with LA Superior Court (Case No. BQ 033717; Permanent
Colorado Order attached to Rice’s declaration as Exhibit K) as a domestic
violence order using form DV-600. Copies
of Michelle Rice’s February 14, 2011 emails to me are attached hereto. In her emails, Michelle Rice advised me as
follows: “As you are well aware, since you chose not to exercise
your legal rights at the time of the lawsuit and failed to respond at all to
the complaint, much less engage in an orderly discovery process to obtain the
information you now seek, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a default
judgment against you in May 2006.” I
most certainly did not fail to respond to the complaint in this matter. Leonard Cohen, and his legal representatives,
willfully failed to serve me the summons and complaint. Include in this email thread was the
transcript of Steven Machat and my conversation which he confirmed was accurate
apart from the information about Robert Kory being possibly present when he met
with Leonard Cohen, about his film “Bird On A Wire,” who may have secretly
recorded their meeting. The IRS also
does not require individuals to use LA Superior Court’s discovery process to
obtain IRS required tax and corporate information.
25. Micelle Rice’s declaration notes that I was arrested in Berkeley,
California on March 1, 2012
(Criminal Case No. 2CA 04539). I was arrested for violating the domestic
violence order in case no. BS099650.
This is the restraining order case
number the prosecutor provided the Court during the March 23, 2012
hearing. The charges remain somewhat
vague and I have asked DOJ to investigate that matter together with the abuse
of domestic violence orders, my conviction and sentencing for violating a
domestic violence order, probation requirements and fines/fees assessed related
to domestic violence. There was and
remains no domestic violence and the newly created California order is evidence
of further fraud.
26. Robert Kory and Michelle Rice now serve as Leonard Cohen’s personal and
business
managers, legal representatives, litigation counsel, and paid
witnesses. I intend to file a motion to
vacate the fraudulent registration of the Colorado order as a domestic violence
order and will ask the Court to remove the information transmitted to the CLETS
database. That will include the domestic
violence related orders the Court provided Kory and Rice. (Rice’s declaration Exhibit I – Kory &
Rice domestic violence related protective orders.) These orders were presented to this Court in
an attempt to willfully evade service of the Motion to Vacate Service. Robert Kory, Kory & Rice, is also the
Registered Agent of Plaintiff corporation, LC Investments, LLC. I was indeed sentenced to eighteen months in
jail and have put the City and County of Los Angeles on notice that I intend to
file federal RICO cases against them with respect to these and other
matters. Michelle Rice has merely
described the tactics used against me through numerous litigation matters. That would include, but is not limited, all
restraining orders, the instant matter, my 2012 trial, and the federal tax
matters that will be litigated with respect to Leonard Cohen’s use of the
summons & complaint to obtain fraudulent tax refunds and defend himself against
allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with Agent Luis Tejeda,
Internal Revenue Service.
27. The May 15, 2006 Default Judgment permits Leonard Cohen to collect an
alleged debt. The
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is a federal law
prohibiting debt collectors from engaging in abusive or deceptive bill
collection practices. Those living in California are also protected by the
California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CFDCPA), which covers more types
of collectors and offers additional protections. The default judgment in this matter
unlawfully assigned me “debt” that accumulates financial interest that
continues to accumulate at a rate of 10% per annum. I have been criminally harassed, threatened,
intimidated, stalked, and slandered over this “debt.”
Declaration of Robert
Kory
In support of
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to
Vacate
Case No. BC338322
Dated January 4, 2014
28. Robert Kory’s declaration confirms that,
from January 1993 to December 2010, he has
practiced law in
California. Since January 2011, Robert
Kory has been a partner in the firm of Kory & Rice, LLP. From January 1993 to December 2010, Robert
Kory practiced law in California under the name of the Law Offices of Robert
Kory. Since November 2004, Robert Kory
has represented Leonard Cohen in corporate and tax matters including with the
federal, state, and international law authorities. He currently serves as Cohen’s general
corporate counsel and oversees all general business affairs as well as matters
related to taxes.
29. Robert Kory’s declaration confirms that
he began representing Leonard Cohen in his
“dispute with his former
personal manager, Kelley Lynch, regarding her misappropriation of funds from
his various personal and retirement accounts.”
While this sentence is entirely self-serving and needlessly gratuitous,
it has opened the doors in the present matter to the merits of those statements
which were part of the Complaint that led to the Default Judgment in Case No.
BC338322. At no time did I
misappropriate anything from Leonard Cohen.
Leonard Cohen, his legal representatives, and others, have continually
taken the position that Leonard Cohen is a highly entitled alter ego of
numerous corporate fictions. Leonard
Cohen is not the entities known as Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., LC
Investments, LLC, Traditional Holdings, LLC, or Old Ideas, LLC. Corporate assets are not Leonard Cohen’s
personal assets regardless of his personal views on that matter. Kory’s declaration goes onto state that he
also represented Cohen “in a related dispute with his former lawyer, Richard
Westin, Esq. and his former adviser, Neal Greenberg, regarding their roles in
enabling Ms. Lynch in her wrongdoing.” I
engaged in no wrongdoing and therefore it would have been humanly impossible
for Westin, Greenberg, or anyone else for that matter, to assist me with this
fictional wrongdoing. Robert Kory also
falsely states that “Mr. Westin and Mr. Greenberg created an estate plan for
Mr. Cohen that gave Ms. Lynch unfettered control over Mr. Cohen’s
accounts.”
30. This statement alone raises many
corporate and tax issues. However, I did
not have
“unfettered control” over
Leonard Cohen’s “accounts.” I was asked
to assist Leonard Cohen and that is the precise reason he asked me to execute a
power of attorney because he planned to travel.
It was never my understanding that any of these entities were created as
an estate plan for Leonard Cohen. Blue
Mist Touring Company, Inc., formerly LC Productions, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation. It was formed in or around
1989. In 1993, Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc. was registered to do business in California. It was initially used for “The Future
Tour.” LC Investments, LLC, also a
Delaware entity, was formed in the fall of 2000 and registered to do business
in California in November 2000. Old
Ideas, LLC, a Delaware entity, was formed in June 2004. It registered to do business in California in
April 2011.
31. Robert
Kory apparently helped Leonard Cohen devise a plan that involved an attempt to
unravel
these entities and provide Internal Revenue Service (and other tax authorities)
with an excuse for Cohen’s role. Part of
that plan seems to involve an attempt to explain away Leonard Cohen’s personal
transaction fees, and other expenditures, as corporate expenses. These items, apart from Richard Westin’s
relatively minor legal fees related to the formation of Traditional Holdings,
LLC are not corporate expenses. Kory
states that: During the course of my
representation, I learned that Mr. Cohen had been advised first to sell his
song copyrights and later to sell his royalty interest in record albums as part
of his estate plan. He sold his song copyrights in 1996 and contributed the
bulk of the sale proceeds to a family trust. He sold his record album royalties
in 200l, and the bulk of the sale proceeds were placed in a company called
Traditional Holdings, LLC that was established to provide long term annuity
income to Mr. Cohen during his life with the corpus, if any remaining on his
death, going to his two children. He contributed his writer's royalties to LC
Investments, LLC in 2000 with a view toward the eventual sale of LC
Investments, Inc. in2005, a sale which was cancelled upon independent review of
Mr. Cohen's entire estate plan.”
32. Leonard
Cohen was not advised to sell “his song copyrights” and it is important to keep
in
mind
that the intellectual property was irrevocably assigned to Blue Mist Touring
Company, Inc., by Leonard Cohen personally in or around 1999. Leonard Cohen insisted on selling
intellectual property assets; explored potential bond securitization deals; and
is the individual who demanded complex stock sales and insisted upon avoiding
ordinary income tax payments. In fact,
Greg McBowman and I met with Cohen early on and informed him that neither of us
believed he should sell the intellectual property assets outright. Leonard Cohen’s declaration in the CAK bond
deal litigation confirms that he was extremely involved in these deals; all
decisions regarding them; and kept well informed of the deals as they
unfolded. Robert Kory did not represent
Leonard Cohen throughout any time that I knew him over a 20 year period. I never once heard Leonard Cohen mention
Robert Kory. Once he began representing
Cohen, I learned that he was the ex-husband of Cohen’s girlfriend, Anjani
Thomas. Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory
seem to have conjured up a scheme, that involves a fabricated narrative, that
not only excuses Cohen’s conduct; attempts to breach contracts; willfully disregards
corporate books and records; permitted Leonard Cohen to wrongfully convert
Lynch’s property to himself; was used to file Cohen’s 2005 tax returns and
amend his 2003 and 2004 returns; obtain fraudulent refunds from IRS and FTB
(using the Complaint narrative); and ultimately was used to defend Leonard
Cohen with the IRS with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal
tax fraud.
33. Robert
Kory continues with his fraudulent misrepresentations and false statements made
under
oath. “During the course of my
representation, I learned that Mr. Cohen had been advised first to
sell
his song copyrights and later to sell his royalty interest in record albums as
part of his estate plan. He sold his song copyrights in 1996 and contributed
the bulk of the sale proceeds to a family trust. He sold his record album
royalties in 200l, and the bulk of the sale proceeds were placed in a company
called Traditional Holdings, LLC that was established to provide long term
annuity income to Mr. Cohen during his life with the corpus, if any remaining
on his death, going to his two children. He contributed his writer's royalties
to LC Investments, LLC in 2000 with a view toward the eventual sale of LC
Investments, Inc. in2005, a sale which was cancelled upon independent review of
Mr. Cohen's entire estate plan.” Leonard
Cohen did not sell “his copyrights” in 1996 or 2001. In 1996, Stranger Music, Inc. and the d/b/a
Bad Monk Publishing sold stock to Sony/ATV.
In 2001, Traditional Holdings, LLC sold stock to Sony Music. The assets Traditional Holdings, LLC
allegedly owned and sold to Sony were never transferred to this entity and
continue to be owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. is not part
of any estate planning on Leonard Cohen’s part.
The only entity conceivably related to potential estate planning is LC
Investments, LLC. And, while I have no
ownership interest in this entity, K-1 partnership documents were transmitted
to State of Kentucky and Internal Revenue Service for the years 2003, 2004, and
2005. Those K-1s, which I have
relentlessly asked Cohen to rescind (as instructed to do by IRS, FTB, and State
of Kentucky), indicate that I have a 99.5% ownership interest in this entity. They show $0 income for the years 2003, 2004,
and 2005. That totally undermines the
expense ledger, that in no way resembles an accounting – let alone a corporate
accounting – and proves that this document is nothing other than evidence of
financial and accounting fraud. LC
Investments, LLC was created specifically for the purpose of accommodating a
bond securitization deal with CAK.
Leonard Cohen personally confirmed this in the declaration he provided
the Court when CAK sued him for breach of contract. Leonard Cohen has a long and disturbing
history of breaching contracts and falsely accusing his representatives of
ripping him off. In any event, LC
Investments, LLC was not used to pursue the bond securitization. CAK had demanded a bankruptcy proof entity
and that was one of the sole reasons for the creation of this entity. Nothing was ever assigned to this
entity. However, due to the fact that
SOCAN refused to pay the writer’s share of royalties, then owned by Blue Mist
Touring Company, Inc. to a company not wholly owned by the writer, Leonard
Cohen, it was agreed by Cohen and Lynch that LC Investments, LLC could collect
that royalty income and then distribute it in accordance with the ownership
interests in the assets.
34. Leonard
Cohen did enter into an Annuity Agreement.
That agreement addresses the fact that
Cohen
is permitted to take loans from Traditional Holdings, LLC which had to be
repaid within 3 years with interest. The
agreed upon interest was 6%. This issue
was endlessly discussed with Cohen and his representatives, addressed in
Greenberg’s “IRS Warning” letters of January and June 2004, had to be
documented, and Cohen personally understood that his loans/expenditures had to
be repaid. Cohen has steadfastly refused
to discuss the fact that he borrowed or caused to be expended assets belonging
to Traditional Holdings, LLC totaling approximately $6.7 million. The Annuity Agreement, and other documents,
confirm that Traditional Holdings, LLC bypasses Cohen’s estate and his adult children
were not beneficiaries. That was Cohen’s
sole decision. The annuity obligation
was to begin in or around January 2011 years after the Complaint in this matter
was filed so there was and remains no breach of fiduciary duty on my part. The annuity obligation itself was
extinguished from the 2003 federal tax return and moved to the capital
account. In 2001, Cohen and his
representatives failed to report the income from the Sony sale on the tax
returns and in 2002, Cohen and his representatives extinguished my promissory
note. These matters were handled by
Cohen’s personal tax and corporate lawyer and I was unaware of them until they
were brought to my attention, in the fall of 2004, by my new accountant and the
lawyers he referred me to.
35. As my
lawyers correctly summarized: Blue Mist
Touring Company, Inc. (and Old Ideas,
LLC)
owns the assets; Leonard Cohen personally and LC Investments, LLC (and possibly
other entities now) collects royalties on assets it does not own; and,
Traditional Holdings, LLC sold something it doesn’t own. Robert Kory’s declaration goes onto state that
“The business purpose as to all these
transactions was to capitalize a future royalty stream and remove the risk
related to the health of the music industry and a potential decline in Mr.
Cohen's popularity through a current sale of a future royalty stream based on a
then current valuation of that royalty stream, and to create instead a
substantial pool of capital that could fund Mr. Cohen's retirement without
regard to the health of the music industry or Mr. Cohen's popularity. This
estate planning strategy emerged in the 1990s to meet the needs of aging stars
in the music business. Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Westin developed an innovative
application of a well accepted estate planning tool, the private annuity, in
the record album royalty sale transaction.”
It was my understanding that Leonard Cohen realized there were many
lucrative publishing deals taking place.
As PolyGram Music was extremely involved in some of these deals, Cohen
and I decided that I should travel to New York and meet with Eric Kronfeld. In 1991, Eric Kronfeld, a show business
attorney for two and a half decades, was appointed president and CEO of
Polygram Holdings, Inc. In 1994, I met
with Mr. Kronfeld to discuss Cohen’s interest in an intellectual property
deal. Mr. Kronfeld was aware of Leonard
Cohen’s work as he, Marty Machat, and Allen Klein (ABKCO) Records had been
business partners years earlier.
36. On review
of these transactions, Kory “questioned their propriety for two principal
reasons.
First, the transactions seemed to involve excessive fees. In the sale of the
record album
royalties,
Traditional Holdings, LLC sold the record album royalties for $8 million, but
paid over
$3.3
million” and “netted only $4.7 million in capital to fund Mr. Cohen's
retirement owned by Traditional Holdings, LLC.
Second, the transactions created a pool of funds managed exclusively by
Greenberg as an investment manager, but under the control of Lynch, with few if
any checks and balances.” It is entirely
irrelevant want Kory questioned in hindsight or felt hypothetically he
personally could have accomplished on behalf of Cohen. Leonard Cohen’s personal expenses, referred
to as “transaction” fees were indeed in excess of $3.3 million. Using Robert Kory’s math that left only $1.4
million left. Kory fails to explain that
Leonard Cohen personally received the $1 million prepayment on the Traditional
Holdings, LLC deal and failed to transfer that amount to the entity. Leonard Cohen’s personal record account recoupments
were deducted from the gross sales price.
Those recoupment amounts, never properly addressed, totaled in excess of
$500,000. Therefore, using the most
rudimentary math and figures, Cohen personally received the sole benefit of
$4.9 million before addressing other amounts he personally borrowed or caused
to be expended. The Annuity Agreement
clearly states, and Cohen personally executed this simple 2 page agreement,
that if Cohen’s loans/advances were not repaid (with interest), any potential
annuity obligation payments could be withheld until they were. In the alternative, Cohen’s personal tax and
corporate lawyer extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2003 federal tax
return. Neal Greenberg did indeed manage
and control the investments. He worked
as Leonard Cohen’s personal investment and financial adviser since Cohen hired
him in 1996. Greenberg personally
brought Richard Westin onboard to assist Cohen.
I had control over nothing and that term seems to be used liberally by
Cohen, and his legal representatives, and no doubt relates to potential IRS
implications with respect to these deals and federal tax matters.
37. Robert
Kory’s declaration continues on with his narrative: “Mr. Cohen engaged me in
November
2004 in part because he suspected that Traditional Holdings, LLC, which he
believed (based on monthly emails from Greenberg) had over $5 million in stocks
and bonds under Greenberg's management, might in fact have substantially less
in real assets because Ms. Lynch had directed Greenberg to sell the stocks and
bonds held by Traditional Holdings, LLC so that she could borrow funds from
Traditional Holdings, LLC without Mr. Cohen's knowledge or consent. Early
review of Mr. Cohen's accounts also indicated that Ms. Lynch might have
misappropriated funds from other of Mr. Cohen's accounts over which she then
had control. Claims against Ms. Lynch and Mr. Westin ultimately led to the
preparation by my then associate (and now partner) Michelle Rice, Esq. of Mr.
Cohen's and LC Investments, LLC civil complaint against Kelley Lynch and
Richard Westin (eventually filed by Scott Edelman of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP on August 15, 2005) (the "Complaint") in the instant
case seeking monetary damages as well as an injunction and constructive trust
over those entities established for Mr. Cohen's benefit but effectively
controlled by Ms. Lynch.”
38. In the
summer of 2005, Leonard Cohen provided journalist Brian Johnson with an
exclusive
interview
that appeared in the August 22, 2005 edition.
The interview and article appeared to be coordinated with the filing of
the Complaint in this matter. The
article “Devastated” told the tale that Canadian music icon Leonard
Cohen was broke and the lawsuits are flying. As Katherine Macklem reported
“lt's a sordid tale involving allegations of extortion, SWAT teams, forcible
confinement, tax troubles and betrayal.”
I personally find that conclusion rather over-simplified and
absurd. Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory’s
response to Neal Greenberg’s accusations that they engaged in a conspiracy and
extortion was to go on the defensive and accuse a number of parties, including
me, of mismanagement of Cohen’s financial affairs. The MacLean’s article confirms that Leonard
Cohen was “tipped off by an insider that a lot of money was missing from his
accounts.” It is of interest to consider
the fact that this unnamed “insider” viewed corporate accounts as Leonard
Cohen’s personal accounts. In the
interview portion of the article, Brian Johnson explains: “That night he told me what he'd hinted at
months earlier in an email - that he'd been stripped of most of his assets, and
was mired in a legal battle with his money managers, who would accuse him of
extortion. He said it would get nasty and personal, and that his name would be
dragged through the mud. Now, after reading the pre-emptive lawsuit filed
against him, a 34-page screed that reads like a salacious tabloid, I know what
he meant.” The Complaint in the instant
matter was Leonard Cohen’s response to Neal Greenberg’s lawsuit, a fabricated
narrative for the news media, and an attempt to confront potential problems
with tax authorities. Various versions
of this fabricated narrative have been regurgitated in the news media and by
Cohen’s fans and their respective fan websites.
Many news accounts seem to be under the impression that Leonard Cohen
was on Mt. Baldy, in the fall of 2004, when he learned that his so-called
assets had been dissipated. Leonard
Cohen permanently left Mt. Baldy in late 1998.
I have explained the monthly emails Greenberg sent versus the formal
financial statements Greenberg provided to Leonard Cohen on a monthly
basis. The loans were handled as assets
and it is my understanding that loans are indeed corporate assets. On the other hand, it is entirely possible
that Leonard Cohen views his loans/expenditures as “disguised salary” or
possibly gifts to him from the corporate entities.
39. At no time did I ever direct Greenberg
to sell stocks and bonds held by Traditional Holdings,
LLC or any account related to
me and/or Leonard Cohen. Leonard Cohen
appears to be attempting to allude to the fact that I took loans on his
behalf. There was no such understanding
and Leonard Cohen’s loans, deposited into his personal bank account, were and
remain his loans. Leonard Cohen’s
personal bank statement was sent to his home.
He received his mail there and religiously reviewed and questioned those
statements, his income, and his expenses.
He was particularly fastidious with respect to his gifts to family
members and friends. Again, I
misappropriated nothing and appear to have been accused of “embezzling”
commissions that were approved. I find
that allegation incredulous. Everything
that was done, including with respect to loans, corporate distributions, and so
forth was reviewed and approved by Leonard Cohen personally. Every letter, fax, and email was reviewed
with Leonard Cohen. He personally
reviewed all bank account and investment statements. I did not have control over any account. I was a signer on certain accounts because
Leonard Cohen did spend time on Mt. Baldy and traveled. It is important to note that Leonard Cohen
personally received his personal bank statements and never discovered an
“irregularity” until he heard I was reporting his tax fraud to Internal Revenue
Service. Leonard Cohen, as my lawyers
noted in the fall of 2004, needed to argue fraud and/or rescission to unravel
these transactions and explain them away to the tax authorities. Robert Kory evidently worked with Michelle
Rice to prepare the civil complaint in this matter. It is astounding to me that Leonard Cohen
would not only claim that corporate assets were his personal assets but then
benefit from his own wrongdoing by obtaining substantial tax refunds (using the
Complaint narrative) and wrongfully converting my property to himself. The taxpayers, who Cohen self-consciously and
transparently thanked following my so-called trial in 2012, are also bearing
responsibility for Leonard Cohen and his representatives reckless and
unconscionable conduct. These entities
were not established for Cohen’s benefit or controlled by me. Cohen and his legal representatives are
merely laying out a defense for Internal Revenue Service. Leonard Cohen understood and testified during
my 2012 trial that his lawyer handled and/or oversaw the corporate books and
accountings. Therefore, I effectively
controlled nothing whatsoever. I also
did not prepare corporate records or any legal or loan documents. I was very clear about these issues in my
February 2002 email to Cohen and Westin.
Westin responded and confirmed that he agreed with my positions. Leonard Cohen is the individual who
controlled his representatives, these entities, and used the corporate assets
as though they were his personal piggy banks.
40. Robert Kory’s declaration also confirms
that he “engaged on Mr. Cohen’s behalf, the
accounting firm, Moss Adams,
and specifically the head of the forensic accounting practice at that firm,
Kevin Prins, to review all of Mr. Cohen’s accounts that were under Ms. Lynch’s
control from 1998 to 2004. I advised Mr.
Prins that Ms. Lynch as Mr. Cohen’s manager was entitled to 15% of annual gross
revenues to Mr. Cohen from publishing/writer royalties, record album royalties,
and personal appearances.” Given this
statement and understand, it is therefore astounding that Kevin Prins’
declaration would take the position that I was not entitled to any royalty
income deposited into Cohen’s personal account as the record royalties, and
other royalty income, was deposited into that account. This statement alone proves that there is
further fraud in connection with the expense ledger and serious problems with
Kevin Prins’ declaration. Nevertheless,
Robert Kory was not a party to my agreements with Leonard Cohen and I was entitled
to 15% of all gross income, dating back to April 1988, from all sources. That was our agreement and
understanding. I have gone into further
details about our understandings in other documents filed in this case. Exhibit A (Kory Declaration) Kevin Prins
declaration/ledger.
41. Kevin Prins personally flew to San
Francisco to meet with my then accountant, Dale Burgess,
and discussed the fact that he
was not in possession of necessary corporate records and/or back-up information
required to prepare proper accountings.
He also confirmed that he would have to review corporate tax
returns. There is no indication
whatsoever that Kevin Prins gave consideration to any of these items when
preparing this rather disturbing ledger.
42. In 2005, Robert Kory evidently “engaged
on Mr, Cohen's behalf, the tax accounting firm,
Michael
Mesnick & company ("Mesnick"), to review the tax consequences of
Ms. Lynch's
misappropriation
of funds from Mr. Cohen's various legal entities.” There were no misappropriations from Cohen’s
so-called legal entities. As of February
7, 2005, my lawyers advised me that Robert Kory was unclear as to how the
corporations and tax matters should be handled.
I was informed that all parties were concerned about any communications
with Internal Revenue Service – even so much as the request for a tax return
copy could invite unwarranted inquiries.
My lawyers advised me that Mike Mesnick previously worked for Internal
Revenue Service and was brought onboard to help Cohen and his representatives
determine how best to handle the issues that had arisen.
43. Kory
confirms that Mike Mesnick worked under his personal supervision and was
subject to
Kory’s
review. Mensnick has evidently prepared
Cohen’s tax returns and those of his affiliated entities for the calendar year
2005 and every year thereafter. Robert
Kory is also apparently the party who concluded that “Mr. Cohen could deduct a
certain portion of the funds misappropriated by Ms. Lynch from 1998 to 2004 as
a ‘theft loss’ on Mr. Cohen’s 2005 federal and state income tax returns.” The situation is mind-boggling. Cohen reported problems with Ms. Lynch
nowhere in October 2004. On October 27,
2004, my lawyers (whose calls Cohen and Westin were evading) faxed a letter to
Richard Westin confirming our understanding that he was flying into meet with
Cohen the last weekend of October 2004.
DiMascio &Berardo asked Westin to agree to a meeting and asked for
an explanation of these entities, my role in them, and any potential liability
Cohen and his representatives may have exposed me to. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that
a forensic accountant and lawyer were unable, over a period of 9 to 10 months
to review bank statements and determine whether or not there was indeed any
loss and the extent of that loss. Kory
is merely attempting to explain away matters including the fact that this
Complaint was filed in retaliation over the fact that I reported the allegations
that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and Cohen and
Kory were forced to confront the extremely disturbing and public allegations
raised by Greenberg in his June 2005 lawsuit.
There was and remains no “theft loss.”
I have challenged the substantial refunds Leonard Cohen has received
from Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board as fraudulent with both
tax agencies. I personally cannot
imagine willfully disregarding corporate books, records, agreements,
non-revocable assignments, stock certificates, and other relevant materials –
including federal and state tax returns – and agreeing that anyone should claim
the “theft loss” Leonard Cohen fraudulently claimed as a deduction in 2005.
44. According
to Kory, “Mr. Mesnick included a seven figure theft loss on Mr. Cohen's 2005
federal
and state income tax returns. He also amended Mr. Cohen's 2003 and 2004 federal
and state income tax returns to ‘carry back’ the loss on the 2005 income tax
returns arising from the theft loss.” If
this is accurate, that would mean that Leonard Cohen’s 2003, 2004, and 2005
personal tax returns contain evidence of fraud.
Kory goes onto explain that “Mr. Mesnick included a copy of the
Complaint with Mr. Cohen's federal and state income tax returns for 2005 in
order to substantiate the size of the theft loss and explain the carry back of
the loss to prior years with the amendment of those prior year income tax
returns.” I have filed a Petition with
Tax Court challenging the Internal Revenue Service over these tax refunds and
Cohen’s use of the Complaint – at least six months prior to the May 2006
default (which is evidently when his refunds were addressed by Internal Revenue
Service) – to obtain the refunds. The
declaration I submitted to the Court with my Motion for Terminating Sanctions
was initially prepared for Internal Revenue Service, was submitted to Internal
Revenue Service prior to my filing it with LA Superior Court, and submitted to
Tax Court. The Tax Court matter remains
unresolved at this time. I also
submitted all evidence attached to my Motion for Terminating Sanctions, and
declarations submitted therewith, to Internal Revenue Service prior to filing
that evidence with LA Superior Court.
The evidence was also submitted to the Tax Court. At this time, Leonard Cohen has asked this
Court to seal that evidence and I continue to view all attempts to seal this
evidence, or in any way conceal this evidence, as an attempt to obstruct
justice. Since reporting the allegations
to Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005 (and other tax authorities before
and after that date), I immediately began submitting evidence to IRS
Commissioner’s Staff. Leonard Cohen and
his representatives were well aware of that fact. I have also brought details of the IRS and
federal tax matters to the attention of many courts and law enforcement
agencies. That would include, but is not
limited to, LA Superior Court and LAPD’s TMU.
Other details were provided to the City Attorney and District Attorney
of Los Angeles.
45. Paragraph
14 of Kory’s declaration then goes onto mischaracterize, or blatantly lie,
about my
meeting
with Agent Kelly Sopko and her partner.
Both individuals were agents working for the U.S. Treasury. At some point at the end of February 2007, I
received a call from Agent Sopko. She
explained that she was in Washington, DC, was flying to Los Angeles, and would
like to arrange a meeting with me. We
set a time for the meeting which was held at my residence in Santa Ana,
California at some time around the first week of March 2007. I did not report the allegations that Leonard
Cohen had committed criminal tax fraud to Agent Sopko or her partner,
Brandon. I had, as both of these
individuals understood, reported these allegations to Internal Revenue Service
approximately two years earlier. At this
meeting, these agents confirmed that this matter was extremely complex. They asked me to provide them with a two-page
summary of events. They also confirmed
that members of the IRS Commissioner’s Staff were reading my emails; various parties
were handling or addressing various aspects of them; and explained that they
received the materials I submitted by U.S. mail as well. We did discuss the evidence I provided to
Internal Revenue Service and additional evidence I was in possession of at the
time. I was advised to provide that
evidence to Internal Revenue Service and later instructed to present that
evidence to Agent Luis Tejeda who Robert Kory continuously refers to as the
“head of the fraud group at the Internal Revenue Service for the Western United
States.” These agents and I discussed a
wide variety of issues and never once did they advise me that they felt I had
misappropriated Leonard Cohen’s “assets” or affirmed the default judgment in
this case. Testimony regarding these
issues was elicited during my 2012 trial.
I subsequently spoke with Agent Sopko and she also sent me an
email. The email advised me to report
the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to Agent Tejeda and
provide him with the relevant information, with as much specificity as possible,
and submit the evidence to him. Following
receipt of Agent Sopko’s email, I did indeed contact Agent Tejeda and discussed
this matter with him personally. I
probably should not have, and in hindsight it was terribly naïve, but I did
publicly publish Agent Sopko’s email and Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory
contacted Agent Tejeda and prepared to defend Leonard Cohen, as has been
planned since approximately late 2004, by using a fabricated narrative and
fraudulent financial data. Robert Kory
Declaration – Exhibit B – my email cc’ing him with Agent Sopko’s email to me. In fact, according to Kory’s declaration and
evidence submitted to this Court, only one day following Agent Sopko’s email to
me Kory called Agent Tejeda and wrote a letter to him dated March 9, 2007. (Kory’s 3/9 letter to Agent Tejeda – Exhibit
C). Kory then met with Agent Tejeda at
his office on April 19, 2007 and attempted to blame what appears to be Cohen’s
egregious tax fraud on me. He explained
Cohen’s pre-2005 estate planning structure although Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc. and Old Ideas, LLC, which own the assets, were not part of Cohen’s estate
planning structure. The annuity
obligation had already been extinguished from the tax returns by 2003 and I did
not handle IRS, tax, corporate, accounting, or legal matters. Corporate assets are not Leonard Cohen’s
“funds” and I misappropriated nothing.
It does not appear that Kory discussed, or divulged that information in
his declaration, Leonard Cohen’s approximately $6.7 million in loans/expenditures
from Traditional Holdings, LLC to Agent Tejeda.
I did not administer Traditional Holdings, LLC and have no idea what
that means. Traditional Holdings, LLC
was not established as a retirement vehicle for Cohen. It did have an annuity obligation to Cohen
but that was extinguished from the tax returns in 2003, without my knowledge,
and one would assume that Agent Tejeda was aware of that fact. The fabricated narrative contained in the
Complaint was created and used to defend Leonard Cohen with respect to the
allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud.
46. Kory
boldly asserts that I “failed to persuade Internal Revenue Service that Mr.
Cohen was
engaged
in tax fraud.” There is no evidence to
support this assertion and Kory has submitted no evidence to this Court from
Agent Tejeda or Internal Revenue Service itself. A 1099 issued by Traditional Holdings, LLC
would most certainly not support an allegation that I failed to persuade the
Internal Revenue Service of anything.
Furthermore, it sounds ridiculous that I would have to “persuade” IRS
that anyone committed anything. They are
the tax authorities for the United States and one can safely assume that they –
not I – understand criminal and corporate tax fraud. (Kory declaration – Exhibit D – TH 1099). I personally believe that the allegations
that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud, brought to my attention by lawyers and
accountants, have a very real basis in fact and law. They are most definitely not plain and
simple, defamatory falsehoods, and that notion is absurd in the extreme.
47. I have
addressed the fraudulent misrepresentations and perjured statements made by
Leonard
Cohen’s
lawyers, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice, solely due to the fact that Plaintiffs’
Opposition document attempts to argue that I have not demonstrated fraud upon
the court or any misconduct on the part of Plaintiffs or his attorneys. I believe I have. That misconduct includes egregious fraud and
deceit directed at the Court itself.
48. Plaintiffs’
Opposition to my Motion for Terminating Sanctions states unequivocally that
“Extrinsic
fraud is distinguishable from intrinsic fraud, ‘which goes to the merits of the
prior proceeding and is not a valid ground for setting aside a judgment when
the party has been given notice of the actions and has had an opportunity to
present his case and to protect himself from any mistake or fraud of his
adversary but has unreasonably neglected to do so.’” This is an extremely relevant and material
point given the fact that Plaintiffs are the individuals who raised the merits
in the declarations, and other documents, addressed above and submitted to this
Court in response to my Motion to Vacate.
Therefore, I am obligated to confront these fraudulent
misrepresentations, false accusations, and perjured statements. I have previously addressed similar conduct
on the part of Leonard Cohen and others in response to their introduction of
matters related to the merits of the underlying case. I would like to remind this Court that, six
months prior to obtaining the May 15, 2006 Default Judgment, Leonard Cohen used
this fabricated narrative to file his 2005 tax returns, amend his 2003 and 2004
tax returns, obtain fraudulent federal and state tax returns, and ultimately
used the Complaint (and the expense ledger) to defend himself against
allegations related to criminal tax fraud with the IRS fraud unit in Los
Angeles, California. I was not served
the summons and complaint. That is a
simple fact. Based on the money Leonard
Cohen has spent targeting me, one can safely assume that if he wanted to ensure
that I was properly served, he could have sent another process server to serve
the summons and complaint again. I have
personally been involved in a situation where that is precisely what the law firm
did under very similar circumstances.
The reason this did not happen is because, when Cohen and his
representatives, realized I was not served, they decided to willfully disregard
my attempts to address this situation, hung up on me, refused to speak to me,
and generally behaved in the most unprofessional and unconscionable manner
imaginable. I would also like to point
out that Daniel Bergman refused to communicate with me from the time my son was
12 until he turned 18. He was in willful
violation of a court order, ordering him to communicate with me, for that
entire period of time. His client, Steve
Lindsey, was in willful violation of a court order for this same period of
time. He was ordered to have my younger
son call me every other night. I suppose
he simply couldn’t be bothered to abide by Judge Craig Karlan’s order and
chose, in the alternative, to destroy his son’s life – and, I might note,
permit him to be targeted by adult strangers who could, for all I know, be
sexual predators. They are most
certainly common criminals.
49. If I inadvertently
included one unpublished case in my Motion for Terminating Sanctions,
please
forgive me and cross the case out. I do
not have the money to hire teams of lawyers to show up in court and do my
bidding. Leonard Cohen, after all,
intentionally bankrupted me and that is another reason why I was prevented from
responding and providing a defense. I
assume that too was intentional.
Therefore, this fact should be viewed as evidence of “extrinsic
fraud.” I remain unclear how a Court
could convert my property to Leonard Cohen’s or take the position that he does
not owe me money for services rendered.
In any event, Cohen’s decision to bankrupt me, destroy my reputation,
target my children and family members, and relentlessly slander me in the news
media, is actually evidence of extrinsic fraud because it does show how the
alleged misconduct by Cohen and his attorneys prevented me from presenting my
claim or defense in the original action.
I will say that I have been threatened each and every time I publicly
state that I intend to file a motion or document in any Leonard Cohen related
matter. I have recently, with Paulette
Brandt, been advised to commit suicide – by proxy lawyer and criminal stalker
Stephen Gianelli.
50. I have
challenged the imposition of the constructive trust. There was no fiduciary obligation
breached
on my part with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC. Leonard Cohen’s loans/expenditures exceeding
the annuity obligation by approximately $2 million. His tax lawyer, for his benefit, extinguished
the annuity obligation from the 2001 federal tax returns. And, the annuity obligation would not have
arisen until January 2011. I did not
have a fiduciary obligation with respect to Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc. I was compensated with stock and an
ownership interest in the company, and intellectual property assigned, for my
services in connection with Cohen’s music publishing and with respect to other
services I provided. I had no
relationship whatsoever to Plaintiff entity LC Investments, LLC and could not
have had a fiduciary obligation with that entity. I had no fiduciary obligation with Old Ideas,
LLC. I was compensated with stock and an
ownership interest in the company based on Leonard Cohen and my compensation
agreements. I did not have
attorney/client privilege with Richard Westin or any representative of Leonard
Cohen. These individuals represented
Leonard Cohen; worked for Leonard Cohen; and had no reason whatsoever to assist
me to the detriment of their client who hired and paid them. My share of these entities was not held in
trust for Leonard Cohen’s benefit. I do
feel that it’s overwhelmingly obvious that Leonard Cohen is not a religious
sage. For the entire 20 years I knew
him, I never heard that he attended Temple and may have witnessed him at a
Seder that was prepared because journalist Leon Wieseltier was visiting. During my 2012 trial, Leonard Cohen (who has
used the excuse that he was in a Buddhist retreat on Mt. Baldy and took formal
monk’s vows), testified that he is Jewish and sat Sedar every Friday night for
the most part. I found that revelation
astounding.
51. I attach hereto as Exhibit A a copy of a
Memorandum Robert Kory provided my lawyers on
January 14, 2005. Former DA Ira Reiner, who was representing
Cohen with respect to the potential mediation matters, was copied on this
memorandum. I did not, and would not,
agree to maintain any confidentiality with respect to any document provided to
my lawyers from Robert Kory or anyone else.
I refused to enter into settlement discussions and/or mediate. The document is quite revealing. I am not clear why I didn’t receive the
similarly requested information from Leonard Cohen. Exhibit A:
Robert Kory Memorandum dated January 14, 2005.
52. I attach hereto as Exhibit B a sample of
the harassing, slandering emails I’ve received since
the Ex Parte hearing in
this matter. I did receive a letter from
Stephen Gianelli, with Kory and Bergman copied in, advising me that he will
stop harassing me until this case is over.
He has now devoted a blog to slandering me: http://kelleylynchsociopath.blogspot.gr/2015/03/kelley-lynch-former-manager-who.html. Prior to creating this blog, Gianelli advised
me to either shut down my blog, make it private, or he would create a blog of
his own. When he announced the opening
of his blog to me, and others, he “inadvertently” copied Robert Kory on his
email. The comments on the blog are
growing increasingly aggressive, hostile, threatening, and slanderous. Paulette Brandt, and others, are now in the
sights of the cyber-terrorists.
“Blogonaut,” posting in the comment section is California State Bar
Member Stephen Gianelli.
SECOND UPDATE 4/15/2015 – By email of today,
Kelley Lynch fills in more details. According to Ms. Lynch, the housemate that
she replaced at Paulette Brandt’s a small 2-bedroom apartment – and who roomed
with Ms. Brandt for 14-months - was a “grifter” and former “stripper” who “shared
a room here with a dominatrix” and two incontinent cats that “peeed
on the floor” and who unwittingly imported cockroaches into the apartment
during frequent forays into the bottom of the corner dumpster. Lovely circles
Ms. Brandt socializes in!
If
Ms. Lynch’s email of today is true, it would certainly explain why Ms. Brandt
would willingly welcome into her home an adjudicated embezzler and convicted
criminal harasser who served half of the last three years in the Los Angeles
County Jail, and who has a history of homelessness, involuntary psychiatric
holds, a slew of civil harassment orders against her, and even now continues to
copy her mass emails to the IRS, the DOJ, the Security Service of the Russian
Federation (FSB), and many others, and whose own family describes as “sick and
she needs help” – a/k/a Kelley Lynch.
5/31/2015 UPDATE:
On
Friday, May 29, 2015 Cohen’s emergency application for an order sealing the
privileged and confidential attorney-client correspondence between Cohen and
his lawyers that Lynch obtained as Cohen’s manager that Lynch maliciously filed
as exhibits to her pending motion was GRANTED over Lynch’s opposition, per
Lynch’s blog post of 5/30/2015 AND PER THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT WEBSITE (enter
case# BC338322):
05/29/2015 at 08:30 am in
Department 24, Robert L. Hess, Presiding Exparte proceeding (TO GRANT
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TOSEAL PORTIONS OF THE COURTSRECORD) Granted
Lynch failed to turn over the correspondence and other files she wrongfully
retained after Cohen fired her in 2004, in violation of a 2005 injunction
obtained by Cohen. Potential penalties for criminal
contempt (Penal Code § 166) is up to ONE YEAR in jail
for each violation of the order, should Lynch be found to have willfully
violated it.
More to come when the court rules on the pending
motion.
6/1/2015 UPDATE:
Cohen’s opposition to
Lynch’s SECOND motion to vacate (posted on-line by Lynch) and Cohen’s related
request for non-monetary “sanctions” (also posted by Lynch) raise another serious issue: The
allegation that the signatures one or more of Lynch’s declarations filed with
the court in support of the motion are not genuine – that is actually
subscribed by the witness identified as making the “declaration”. If true this
could be considered a violation of Penal Code § 134(preparing fabricated evidence for
submission to a court) – which is a felony offense. IF TRUE needs to be
underscored here, since Lynch has not yet filed her reply brief answering these
allegations.
Stay tuned for
comprehensive coverage and commentary following the hearing on Lynch’s second
motion to vacate on 6/23.
6-10-2015 UPDATE:
In a blog post dated
6-9-2015, Kelley Lynch quotes the 6/1/2015 UPDATE posted immediately above, and
responds with a full denial that the Penick OR the Ronge OR the Meade
declarations submitted by Lynch in support of her SECOND motion to vacate
(filed in March of 2015) were signed by anyone else but Penick and Ronge:
“Desperate tactics. They're
NOT going to prove I fabricated anything. Those declarations were prepared
and sent to me. This didn't happen. ...The signatures are genuine.”
Of course, a blog post is not a court-filed reply to Cohen's accusation of
"fabrication" - let alone a denial under oath - so it remains to be
seen what, if anything, Lynch will file by way of reply papers early next week.
Nor is this brief denial very specific on the subject of precisely
who prepared the
Penick, Ronge and Meade declarations if not Kelley Lynch, how
Lynch accounts for the apparent fact that the signature on the Penick
declaration does not match Penick's signature on his declaration in support of
the FIRST motion to vacate, or why the Penick, Ronge and Meade signatures
appear to closely resemble the signature on Kelley Lynch's own declaration (supporting
the inference that the person who signed Lynch's declaration, signed
all four declarations).
Perhaps, as
Kelley Lynch already stated in a blog post dated May 27, 2015 (SCROLL DOWN TO QUOTED
LANGUAGE) regarding Lynch's own declaration, she
will now claim that PAULETTE BRANDT subscribed Penick's and/or Ronge's and
Meade's declaration -
["What signatures on what declarations are fraudulent?Paulette Brandt signed mine...".]
(Clearly, Lynch seems unclear on the legal rules requiring a witness
to subscribe a declaration with his own hand in order for the court to rely on a
declaration as having any evidentiary value, and consequently
how MISLEADING it is when
persons OTHER than the declarant subscribe court filed
declarations. And we also wonder whether Brandt will admit to the felony
violation of Penal Code section 134 that Lynch's quoted blog post
suggests that Brandt committed, by preparing false
and misleading declaration(s) by subscribing the name(s) of the
declarant(s) thereto, intending to mislead the court into believing that
these are bona fide declarations?Nor
does any of this have anything to do with whether the declarant/witness
"gave his or her permission" for someone else to sign their name -
since a declaration that is not signed with the hand of the declarant is
useless as evidence and is in that respect misleading.) But we will await what Lynch
(and/or Brandt) says about all of this, if anything, in Lynch's court
filed reply papers, if any, and,
MORE IMPORTANTLY, what Judge Hess says about all of this on 6/23 and 8/3.)
6-11-2015 UPDATE:
We were just copied by Kelley Lynch with this email she sent to her housemate Linda
Carol, that gives us a further glimpse not only into the
Brandt-Lynch household, but into Lynch's paranoid thought processes (not to
mention Lynch's charming habit of emailing her roommates, cc to the IRS,
FBI, and mass distribution list of strangers, including the this author):
Linda,
You just walked by and
told me you "don't know" what I am talking about. What I am
talking about is your overhearing me (you were standing in the hallway when
Paulette was in the living room) saying I was going to the store. You
then waited outside the front door and, when I opened the door, appeared to be
eaves dropping. Then, I walked to 7/11 and you were there. After
you paid for your items, you waited outside and walked in and out of the store
twice. You then waited for me to leave. Your behavior is alarming and
irrational. That's why I mentioned it to you. This extends to both
me and Paulette.
As for your
declaration - I will now file a document with Judge Hess (in a case that
doesn't relate to you and you do not know Leonard Cohen) addressing the fact
that you wrote me (and I have that email to provide him) that I filed the KVW
declaration on May 29. I will ask him if he knows what you are talking
about. I filed a Reply to an Ex Parte hearing and attended that
hearing. I think the judge will understand that your declaration (for
Paulette's Small Claims matter - as dictated and told by you - and you
confirmed for LAPD's TMU that KVW told you she was a prostitute ...) was not
filed in Leonard Cohen's case.
If Leonard Cohen
interests you, please feel free to contact him directly. I'm not
interested in liars, thieves, or con artists. I don't care how much money
he has. I turned down 50% community property because he wanted me to lie
about his representatives.
As for forged documents, you are the only person that
raised that. Cohen
himself has not although he has questioned declarations that I have all the
signature pages for so Cohen is lying further. You then told me in front
of Paulette that you didn't know if you saw forged documents but saw his NAME.
Paulette and I
have both heard you mention your therapist. Something's wrong and it is
not me or Paulette. You have now
falsely accused us of many things and
your conduct is becoming alarming. The other night, just before you woke
me to say the house was on fire (which I found mean and weird), someone pounded
on the door. That's why Paulette was in the kitchen. She knows
nothing was on the stove so that means you made it up. Why? What is
the point?
I know you smoke
medical marijuana, and have disability, but nothing explains this
conduct. Please try to contain yourself and act like a mature adult.
Kelley
Stay tuned folks for comprehensive coverage AFTER the pending law and motion
proceedings have been fully resolved at the trial court level by Judge Hess
(including Cohen's 9/3/2015 sanctions motion that will be filed should Lynch
fail to withdraw her SECOND motion to vacate that is now scheduled to be heard
on 6/23/2015).
Up to now we have
simply been reporting what has been filed and then posted by Lynch on the
internet.
We will have a great
deal of analysis and comment to share with you AFTER Judge Hess rules on all of
this on 6/23 and 9/3 (if the sanctions motion goes forward).
12
comments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
5.
6.
1.
7.
8.
I declare under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true Dated: 16 June 2015
______________________________________
Kelley
Lynch, In Propria Persona
EXHIBIT A
ROBERT
KORY MEMORANDUM
DATED JANUARY 14, 2005
EXHIBIT B
EXAMPLES OF RECENT HARASSING EMAILS
From: Marianne I. <Marianne1957@gmx.com>
Date: Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:58 AM
Subject: Rotten tatics?
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
My, my, what an
angry little blog you have.
Tell me, Kelley
Lynch, why you talk so tough on your blog - "warning" Judge Hess
about this or that, threatening to bring the court's attention to this or that
person and their emails - but when you are notified of a hearing you stay home!
One would think, my
dear, that with all of your talk, talk, talk you would jump at the chance to
appear at ever court appearance you could, to bring all of the "criminal
harassment" you emagine suffering to the judge's attention. But instead
you stay home.
"I was never
served" and "I never agreed to email service" seems to be your
mantra, doesent it dear?
You stole Leoanrd's
money and now you are afraid to face the court.
I don't blame you
dear. I would be hiding my face from the world too if I was in your shoes....
From: Marianne I. <Marianne1957@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:14 AM
Subject: Who is interested in the Declaration of
Paulette Brandt?
To: Kelley Lynch
<kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
I think you are
confused, dear.
According to
his emails posted on your blog, the retired lawyer you seem to be
so obcessed with lives on CRETE (an island in the Medeterrian Sea), whereas
Athens, Greece is a city of 5M people located on the Attica Pensula (a
distinace of 178 miles).
Total Visits:
3
Location:
Athens, Attiki, Greece
IP Address:
Search Referral:
Notice how
"Marianne" wrote: "obcessed" -- the
exact same misspelling Gianelli used on his recent blog targeting you:
From: Marianne I. <Marianne1957@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:13 PM
Subject: Your internet blog
To: Kelley Lynch
<kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Do you actualy read
the links transcripts you post, dear?
I don't think they
mean what you think they mean!
Leonard Cohen: 6
Kelley
Lynch: 0
But who is keeping
score, dear, right?
From: <Mongochilli@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:51 AM
Subject: Your halariously clueless blog posts
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Lynch,
You just don't get it - or maybe you do and just
don't care.
First and foremost, the entry of Leonard Cohen's
default judgment had the legal effect of confessing all allegations in the
Complaint. Unless and until the judgment is set aside (which, nine years down
the road ain't gonna happen) all facts alleged in the Complaint are deemed to
be true. All rights on your part to contest the merits, argue alternative
theories of what happened, introduce new evidence, make related counter-claims,
or to claim "perjury" in any court have been forfeited.
Additionally, even if you were allowed to
contest the merits in court, the Kory Memorandum is a confidential settlement
communication and is inadmissible for any purpose - because it was prepared for
mediation. It may not even be mentioned, let alone stand as proof of anything
in any court of law.
Any successive attempt to ask for the same order
(in your case the 2013 request for an order vacating the default, and then your
2015 request to vacate) is deemed to be a "motion for
reconsideration" - even if you name it something else or support the
motion with different grounds. And as a motion for reconsideration your motion
fails - because you failed to file the required supporting affidavit with your
moving papers, let alone tick all of the required boxes in that affidavit. On
that basis alone Judge Hess doesn't even have jurisdiction to entertain your
motion, let alone grant it.
Your blog posted statements that you don't
really care whether you win this round in court, that Judge Hess "can have
my fee waiver", and vowing that Leonard Cohen. Will not "get away
with" throwing your ass out on the street without so much as a dime to
your name, all further confirm your bad faith motive in filing the motion in
the first place.
You are wrong about something else: The
sanctions motion does not merely seek forfeiture of your fee waiver; it seeks a
lot more, including an order for the return of all documents that you retained
after Cohen fired you, including attorney-client correspondence and corporate
documents. Then, if you fail to comply, you will be facing contempt charges
AGAIN.
As for your broken record that
"perjury" was committed when the 2006 default judgment was obtained,
as made explicit by YOU OWN CITED AUTHORITY and the cases cited in the
opposition that you helpfully posted on Scribed.com, after the time to appeal a
judgment has expired, the judgment MAY NOT be set aside based on alleged
"perjury" going to the merits of the judgment. Like the Kory Memorandum
it's just not relevant of admissible. You can't even talk about it court. Your
allegations of perjury are of no legal consequence - even if true (which they
aren't).
Regarding your threat "move on to federal
court", under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution,
federal statute, and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case law, the federal
district court must give "full faith and credit" to the 2006 judgment
and must treat it with the same rules applicable in California state court, INCLUDING
the FACT that all allegations in the Complaint are deemed to be TRUE, and that
all findings made in the judgment itself - including that Cohen owes you
NOTHING - are binding on you in any federal court suit.
Not only that, but your 2012 criminal conviction
is an ABSOLUTE BAR to any contention by you in a federal court complaint that
you were wrongfully arrested, wrongfully convicted, or were innocent of either
criminally harassing Leonard Cohen or of violating the 2008 Colorado protection
order.
But there's more.
All of your theories of recovery against Cohen,
either for breach of contract, "theft" of your intellectual property
rights, false arrest, fraudulent tax returns or refunds, or under the RICO
statute are TIME BARRED.
It's not just any one of the foregoing that
would bounce you out of federal court in a heart beat, it is the TOTALITY of
these factors that make it IMPOSSIBLE to sue Cohen or his advisors on ANY
THEORY at this point.
You have no legal grounds to stand on. Only some
buzzwords you found on-line that you don't understand and do not give you cover
for what we all know you are really doing, have been doing since 2005 - seeking
revenge against Leonard Cohen through a decade of criminal harassment.
You thought you were Cohen's muse. That Cohen
wuved keewee. That just because he banged you a couple of times in the 1980's
Cohen would let you rob him blind and not throw you out on your ass. You were
wrong on all counts.
YOU are the CRIMINAL who stole here, not the
victim.
And the bottom line is you cannot wait ten years
after the end of a business relationship and then getting sued to overturn a
default judgment OR to pursue legal claims. From a legal standpoint, it's OVER,
criminal - except for additional criminal charges if you keep breaking the law
or violating the orders of the court.
--Mongochilli
From: <Mongochilli@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:23 AM
Subject: Take whose word for what?
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Lynch,
If you really wanted to know the truth you could
start by simply reading your own cited precedent, holding - among other things
- that a judgment may not be overturned after the time for appeal has run
for alleged perjury that goes to the merits of the complaint.
You could then read Cohen's cited caselaw holding
that a motion that requests the same order as a prior motion that was presented
and denied is a "motion for reconsideration" even if the two motions
bear different titles and even if the same order (in this case vacating the
judgment) is request on different grounds.
Adding those two bedrock legal principles
together leads to one conclusion: Your motion isn't even in the ballpark.
As for the good faith and credit clause of the
United States Constitution, it's written in plain English.
Your capacity for self-delusion knows no bounds.
--Mongochilli
From: <1di7f2+axibneo3bycs4@guerrillamail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:41 PM
Subject: Hi Kelley - remember me?
To: "kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com"
<kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Now that your zillion page screed is sealed,
what's the point of your little charade?
Get a job, criminal!
--Mongochili
I find it hard to believe while she was robbing Cohen blind, her family did the bookkeeping for Cohen's entities; yet, neither her mother, father, sister, nor Steve Lindsey had any idea everything they had, and the high life they were living, was paid for by Cohen? Unbelievable. Of course she couldn't go to rehab during that period. Had she gone to rehab, the gig would've been up.