Kelley Lynch - Direct Examination - Leonard Cohen's Stalinesque Show Trial & Attempt To Cover Up His Criminal Tax Fraud While Lying - As Usual - About Phil Spector

Kelley Lynch
Direct Testimony


Q: ... do you know Leonard Cohen?

A: Of course I do.

Q: When did you meet Leonard Cohen?

A: I met Leonard Cohen approximately 1985.  I had spoken with him earlier, but that’s when I actually met him.

Q: When you met him, were you employed at the time?

A: I was.

Q: Where were you employed?

A: I was employed in Mew York City with a law firm by the name of Machat & Machat.

Q: What was your role in that law firm?

A: Well, my role was pretty much ... Marty Machat was a partner.  I was his assistant, legal assistant, secretary, paralegal, office manager.

Q: ... Did at any time after you had met Mr. Cohen, did you ever begin working for Mr. Cohen?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: When did you start working for Mr. Cohen?

A: I began working as Mr. Cohen’s personal manager in April 1988 after Marty Machat’s death.

Q: How did you go about getting that position?

A: Marty Machat died.

Q: And did you stay in New York?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And when you were - how long were you in New York when you were Mr. Cohen’s personal manager.

A: I was in New York from 1988.  I believe I moved out here with my husband and son in very late 1989, very early 1990.

Q: And at that time in late ‘89, early ‘90, around that time when you were in New York, was Mr. Cohen also in New York?

A: Mr. Cohen would be in New York from time to time.  He did not reside there.

Q: ... What was your role when you initially were hired as personal manager.  What did that entail?

A: Well, a personal manager is a very tricky thing to describe.  And I think the best way to describe it is you’re kind of the CEO for an artist, which requires a huge team of people that would be comprised of, for instance, an artist, attorneys, legal team, transactional lawyers, tax lawyers, accountants, business manager.  The record company, touring companies, publishing companies.  It’s quite a job.  So you’re sort of overseeing all, of that, and you’re really the touchpoint with the artist himself for all these individuals.

Q: Who would go about getting these individuals to work for Mr. Cohen?

A: Well - who would go about getting them -- hiring them?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, I mean it would depend.  If a transactional attorney was needed or a business manager -- I’ll give you an example.  Leonard Cohen hired a business manager by the name of Rich Feldstein, a very famous, very well known, you know, a well-credentialed business manager in L.A., and his recommendation came from an artist by the name of Don Was, of the band Was Not Was, whose a mutual friend of Mr. Cohen and mine, because Leonard Cohen felt that his tour manager was stealing from him.  And so he asked me to find a business manager.

Streeter: Objection.

Court: Overruled.

Witness:  He asked me to find a business manager.  I brought Rich Feldstein in, Mr. Cohen approved that.  Don recommended him.  He’s also Madonna’s business manager, so he’s well known in the industry.  This is how it would happen.  And then he came in and did an audit and there as no such truth to that allegation.

Kelly:   When you -- you said that you worked for Mr. Cohen when -- you started in 1988.  Did you have any kind of an agreement for how you would be compensated.

A: Did Leonard Cohen and I have an agreement?  No, we actually didn’t any any agreement because I -- well, we had an agreement how I would be compensated to begin with, and that was a certain weekly amount which I can’t remember right now.  But what we agreed to is that we would see if I could handle the responsibility of being Leonard Cohen’s personal manager.  That we agreed on.

Then what happened is Leonard Cohen’s tour promoter, Flemming Schmidt, wanted to be his personal manager.  So for a very brief time while Leonard Cohen was promoting I’m Your Man album in 1988 Flemming Schmidt did indeed become his personal manager.

What happened is that Flemming Schmidt annoyed the hell out of the record company and became problematic for Mr. Cohen.  I was doing all the work, and at that time it was agreed that I was Mr. Cohen’s personal manager.  There was never any discussion.  There was an ongoing debate about when I would begin receiving 15% which was agreed to at a later point in time.

It was nebulous, is my answer.

Q: Okay.  At a later time did you ever have that formal agreement?

A: Absolutely.

Q: What was that agreement?

A: Our agreement was this:  When the last deal that Mr. Cohen testified to yesterday that he was examining doing, we were going to do that deal.  Mr. Cohen wanted to do it.  It was with Sony.  And at that point we would do what is called an actual forensic accounting [on?] a ledger, taking into consideration all income, all assignments.  I had assignments to me, they’re non-revocable for intellectual property dating back to 1967.  Any so-called advances I may have received on my intellectual property ... we would take into consideration corporate distributions, which were to be re characterized by his tax lawyer.  I don’t know what that means.

Anything I paid out for Mr. Cohen, anything I paid out on behalf of his children.  I managed his son, Adam.  Also any monies that I owed Leonard Cohen personally and any money which Leonard Cohen owed me.  We were going to do a complete accounting.  Not forensic,, actually, accounting.  That was our agreement.

At that time, we would take into consideration that my management agreement went back to 1988 and it was indeed 15 percent.

Q: ... How long did you actually work with Mr. Cohen?

A: From 1988 until the fall of 2004.

Q: ... Now, during that time, from the fall of ‘88 to 2004, how often would you communicate with Mr. Cohen?

A: About 50 times a day.

Q: What form would these communications take?

A: Well, before the internet, obviously we would be on the phone and by fax.  Personally, when I lived in LA, we were in the same office frequently.

Q: And after the internet, how about that?

A: All the time.  All the time.

Q: And would this be via email?

A: Yeah.

Q: And how often would you say with emails that you would talk to Mr. Cohen?

A: How often?

Q: How often would you email Mr. Cohen while you were working with him?

A: Well, I mean, I would forward all, kinds of requests to him, or, you know, we -- it just depended on issues.  These deals were of the utmost importance to Leonard Cohen.  So from approximately 1996 until 2004, the last day I worked with him was October 21st, Leonard Cohen literally badgered me about these deals morning, noon, and night.

Q:... We heard testimony that around 2004 there was an album produced called Dear Heather.  Are you familiar with that?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: What was your involvement with that album?

Streeter:  Objection; relevance.

Court:  Overruled.

Witness:  Well, as a manager you’re involved in a team of -- and I was negotiating with Mr. Cohen’s attorneys.  At the time they would have been Grubman, Indursky and Greg McBowman, that would be a royalty consultant for Mr. Cohen.  And what we were negotiating, it was an extremely miserable negotiation.  I think everybody would agree to that.  That’s hearsay.

And we were trying to get what Mr. Cohen wanted, which was a million dollar advance.  He had a contractual obligation for the album, and his advance was already included in that.  So this was a very tricky and sticky situation with Sony, and Leonard Cohen withholding this album until he got the amount he wanted.

And so this became a very labored and extremely intensive negotiation, with Sony feeling quite hostile about the whole situation.  So it went on for a year.

Q: What was your -- what did you do for this album?

A: Well, I mean, what I had to do is, there was -- there’s a lot of components to a record contract negotiation.  They’re very specific and sophisticated contracts that include certain types of royalty calculations, and so you need people on board that understand this type of accounting.  That would be Greg McBowman.  He worked at Sony Business Affairs.  And then you’d have transactional attorneys and you might have a tax lawyer like Richard Westin.

And so what you’re doing is you’re part of the negotiations and you’re bringing information to Leonard Cohen, and actually also working on behalf of the label to some degree to try to get someone to agree to certain terms so that this doesn’t’t drag out interminably.

So you’re a facilitator, you might make recommendations to the artist.  You will bring the artists’ comments and demands and concerns and complaints back.  You’ll, you know, review information.

I take shorthand, I have been a secretary, so I would take perfect shorthand notes at every meeting I had, or conversation, and so then I was able to convey everything to Mr. Cohen in great degree [detail?], and then would be able to convey back what he wanted.  I would be asked for information, perhaps years worth of royalty statements, contracts I would have to find.  Do all sorts of things.

Q: When you worked for Mr. Cohen, would you say you were thorough?

A: I would say that’s true understatement.

Q: ... what period of time would you say that you worked on that Dear Heather album?

A: Dear Heather was done while Leonard Cohen was on Mt. Baldy.  He had a recording unit there.  So I would say he went to Mt. Baldy primarily to finish writing this album.  So he began working on it in 1994.

Another thing I would do, which isn’t really in the realm of a personal manager, would be to help oversee obtaining studio time.  Seeing if certain musicians were available.

Normally a producer would do all of this.  Do the production contracts, which are -- kind of even accountants can’t figure these out.  They’re insane.

And, you know, all kinds of things.  Deal wit lyrics, handle publishing, contact co-songwriters to work out terms, try to explain what is going on, see if they needed to talk to Mr. Cohen’s attorneys.  Lots of different things.  1999 to 2004.

Q: You mentioned Mt. Baldy.  What is Mt. Baldy?

A: Mt. Baldy is a zen center outside of Los Angeles about 45 minutes.

Q: How long was Mr. Cohen on Mt. Baldy.e

A: Leonard Cohen was on Mt. Baldy on and off from approximately 1994 to 1997.  He wasn’t really there,.  He would go and stay primarily during the monthly rohatsu.

Q: That’s - in 1994 to 1997, that’s when the Dear Heather album was worked on in Mt. Baldy?

A: Yeah.  He might have gone up there a bit around ‘98, ‘99 also.  He had a guest cabin there also.

Q: Now, how much did you actually make, commissionwise, on that Dear Heather album.

A: Nothing.

Streeter:  Objection; relevance.

Court:  Sustained.

Streeter:  Move to strike

Court:  The answer is stricken.

Q: We heard emails and voice mails talking about you needing to get paid.  What were you referring to in those emails?

A: My commissions that were withheld on Dear Heather, my commissions that were withheld on Book of Longing, my commissions that were withheld on the deal he stopped that we had worked on for years.  My commissions on a lithograph deal.  These are millions of dollars in commissions.  My commissions, actually, I should have had on the tour itselfe.  Merchandising, etc.

Q: ... you mentioned also an advance from Sony.  Did you in your role as a personal manager ever work any out any prior deal with Sony?

A: Did I personally?

Q: Yes, or were you involved in any way.

A: Yes, there was a deal in 1996 on behalf of the company.  It was a stock deal Leonard Cohen did with Sony by his company called Stranger Music.  Then there was a deal in 2001 with a co9pany that was really essentially Leonard Cohen’s called Traditional Holdings, so two other deals.

Q: ... you said that your business relati,onship ended on October 21, 2004e?

A: Essentially, yes.

Q: Why did it end?

A: Well, it’s a complicated answer, but I would say because Leonard Cohen heard I was going to the Internal Revenue Service about what I was told is criminal tax fraud.

Q: We’ll get to that in a moment.  Now, prior to your ending of that business relationship, we heard testimony that you had a meeting with Mr. Kory, Robert Kory.

A: Well, I had a meeting with Robert Kory.  I had a lunch with Robert Kory in the spring of 2005.  I stopped in to see Robert Kory.

Court:  Just wait for the question.

Witness:  Oh.

Court:  It was a preliminary question.

A: I apologize.

Court:  Okay.

Kelly: What was the meeting with Mr. Kory about?

A: The meeting at lunch or --

Q: Yes, the lunch meeting.

A: I forget how the meeting came about.  I know I talked to an attorney by the name of Bert Deixler.  I no longer was really represented.  eI went to Mr. Deixler.  He worked with Proskauer Rose.  He represented me very, very briefly.

Streeter:  Objection; nonresponsive.

Witness:  He told me it was okay to go to this meeting with Robert Kory.  So I went to have lunch with him.  I’m not specifically certain why ...

Court:  Overruled.

Witness:  What we were going to talk about, about Leonard Cohen and myself.

So I went to lunch, and what we discussed were various issues.  eI was told by Mr. Kory there’s fraud, tax fraud on every entity:  Blue Mist Touring, Traditional Holdings, LC Investments.  There were problems with the Stranger Music deal that had tax issues.  The IRS would demand information going back years, and the holding periods with respect to copyrights that were sold are illegal.  I said I had wondered about that.  His lawyer had worked on that.

We talked about -- he asked me if I would mediate with Mr. Cohen in a private mediation on Mr. Cohen’s side against his advisers.  Particularly they wanted to go after Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin and their insurance companies.  Mr. Kory told me that Allen -- I mean Arthur Indursky, Don Friedman and Stuart Fried of Grubman, Indursky firm committed fraud in the inducement, as did Greg McBowman.  That I had a lawsuit they would help me with against every single one of Leonard Cohen’s advisers.  That I was used horrendously as a pawn, and he told the waitress that we were there about a divorce and serious tax problems.

Q: Were you asked to give false information that would hurt Mr. Greenberg and help Mr. Cohen?

A: I don’t know if I was asked to give false information.  I would not characterize the conversation that way.  I was asked to testify that Neal Greenberg defrauded Leonard Cohen, and I most certainly do not feel that Neal Greenberg defrauded him.  I( feel that Leonard Cohen, Neal Greenberg, and Richard Westin were wrapped in attorney/client privilege and they all defrauded the U.S. government.

Q: Did you ever agree to any of that?

A: No.  I felt I was being asked to participate in criminal conduct.

Q: Okay.  Now, at any time after your business relationship with Mr. Cohen ended, did the police, either federal or state, ever question you for fraud?

A: No.  I had an unusual encounter where LAPD showed up at my house, lied to mee.  Said that there was a jewel thief in my neighborhood and that they were investigating this jewel thief and they would like to see receipts of jewelry I may have pawned to make sure that a jewel thief didn’t sell them.

Q: Okay.  Ms. Lynch, if you could just focus on the questions I ask.

A: Well, that was law enforcement, right?

Q: Well, did any law enforcement, either federal or state, ever question you about theft?

A: Federal or state law enforcement about theft?

Q: Yes, about theft from Mr. Cohen.

A: No, not that I can recall.  Oh yeah.  Actually -- well , theft, no.

Q: Did any law enforcement, either federal or state, ever question you about embezzlement from Mr. Cohen?

A: Not that I recall.

Q: Now, I want to talk to you a little bit about -- there was evidence about custody of your son.  And who9 - which son are we - was there a custody issue?

A: There’s a custody issue with my son, Ray.

Q: Who is Ray?

A: Ray is my younger son.

Q: And how old is Ray?

A: Ray is 19 years old.

Q: And when was this custody issue with Ray, regarding Ray?

A: It began on May 25, 2005.

Q: Okay.  What happened on May 25, 2005?

A: A SWAT team came to my house.  I guess.  I was told it was a SWAT team.

Q: At any point, did you actually have a legal custody battle regarding Ray?

A: Up until that point?

Q: Or any point after that?

A: Yeah, the next day.

Q: Okay.  And what was that custody issue.

A: That I was taken to King Drew by LAPD.  I lived in Brentwood, and when I was released 24 hours later a custody matter had been filed.

Q: Okay.  Now, are you aware whether or not for that custody battle, one day after that incident with the police, did Mr. Kory have a declaration in that case?

A: The same day, May 25th, 2005.

Q: Okay.  Now, how well do you know or did you know Mr. Kory?

A: I don’t know Mr. Kory at all.

Q: How many times had you -- prior to this date, had you actually been in physical contact with Mr. Kory?

A: I had lunch with him.  I stopped by his office, and I saw him at the restraining order hearing in Boulder.

Q: Okay.  So during those 16 years that you worked with Mr. Cohen, did you ever know Mr. Kory?

A: No, I did not.

Q: During those 16 years that you worked with Mr. Cohen, was Mr. Kory Mr. Cohen’s attorney?

A: Not that I know of.

Q: So the person that you had met three times in your life wrote a declaration ein your custody battle that happened one day after the police came?

A: Yes.  Stating that he was writing it on behalf of he and Leonard Cohen.

Q: Now, you mentioned earlier about IRS and tax situation.  Were you ever contacted by any tax authorities regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes?

A: I don’t know if I was contacted regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes.  As I reported the tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer, I was working on paying my own taxes, and he suggested that I contact the Fraud Unit with anything I had to report.  And so I contacted the Fraud Unit by phone and then I filed a complaint online with the IRS.  And I also called the IRS in Washington.

Q: When were you told to contact the Fraud Unit?

A: I spoke to Agent Bill Betzer on April 15, 2005, after I paid my taxes in full.

Q: Okay.

A: He told me that normally this type of situation is brought.

Streeter:  Objection; nonresponsive.

Court:  Sustained.

Q: What did you tell these authorities when you spoke to them?

A: Objection; relevance.

Court:  Sustained.

Kelly:  You heard voice mails regarding the IRS; is that correct?

A: Right.

Q: Can you tell us what you meant?

A: What I meant by the IRS?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, I did receive an email ... I mean I did receive a phone call from Agent Kelly Sopko of the Treasury regarding this matter.  And I did meet with her and her partner, whose name is Brandon.

Q: What year was that?

A: That was 2007.

Q: And what - based on what you saw in the email -- did you write about this in any of your emails?

A: Yeah, I did write about this.

Q: What did you write about in those emails?

A: Well, I think I attached Agent Sopko’s email to me, saying that she found an appropriate individual for me, which is Agent -- to report this to, which is Agent Luis Tejeda of the IRS Unit in Los Angeles.  And to go to Agent Tejeda with whatever information and evidence I had regarding this tax matter.

Q: Did you ever notify Mr. Cohen or any of his representatives about this tax issue?

A: Well, they have a copy of the email to me from Kelly Sopko.  So yes, I did.

Streeter:  Objection; non-responsive.

Court:  Overruled.

Q: Now, after you sent this email regarding your conversations with Agent Sopk9o ---

A: Right.

Q: ... Did Mr. Cohen ever get a restraining order against you in the State of California?

A: You know, I’m a little unclear about he restraining orders in California.  My answer right now is yes, because it’s obvious he did.  But I have a lot of confusion about it.

Q: Now, at any time from 2004 or 2005 no9w, did the police every contact you about threatening Mr. Cohen?

A: Not that I know of.

Q: Did they ever contact you about threatening Mr. Cohen’s son ... Mr. Cohen’s daughter?
Mr. Kory?

Answer No to all three.

Q: Did they ever contact you about threatening Mr. Kory’s daughter?

A: No.  I don’t know that Mr. Kory has any children.

Q: ... During these voice mails and emails, we heard about Phil Spector.  What’s your knowledge about Phil Spector?  How do you -- where did that come from?

A: When Marty Machat died -- Marty Machat represented Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector.  He was their attorney and personal manager.  When he died, I ultimately became Leonard Cohen’s personal manager and I interned with Phil Spector.

For - especially for 1988 and 1989.  Thereafter, I worked for him from time to time.

Q: Now, we heard evidence about an interview that Mr. Cohen had with the LA Police Department.

A: I believe it was actually the Sheriff’s Department.  I thought it was LAPD too.

Q: Well, were you present for the interview?

A: I was present beforehand with my attorney, Steve Cron.

Q: .. Now what happened after you were present?

A: I explained to Steve Cron that the detectives had asked me to arrange an appointment with Leonard Cohen and I did not want to be dragged into Phil Spector’s matter.  I thought it would affect the custody of my child to some degree, and I just really did not want to be dragged into it.

So Mr. Cron advised me to leave the house before the detectives came.  I was leaving and ran into Detectives Tomlin and Fournier out on the steps of Leonard Cohen’s house.

Q: You heard the story about Phil Spector putting a gun to Mr. Cohen’s head?

A: Well, I’ve heard that he put a gun to his neck and I’ve heard he’s put it to his head.

Q: Now, is that what you had learned from Mr. Cohen prior to that interview the police?

A: No, it is not?

Q: And what were you under the impression of?

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

A: I was not under the impression, I was told.

Court:  Sustained.

Q: Now, you heard voice mails and emails regarding the Phil Spector issuee, and you mentioned in the email about -- something about a Grand Jury.  What did you mean in those emails?

A: Whst I meant is that Mick Brown of the UK Telegraph wrote me ...

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

Court:  Overruled.

Witness: And advised me that he was writing a book on Phil.  That he had Grand Jury testimony, and that Leonard Cohen had testified against Phil Spector.  He later wrote, recently, and said he was confused.  It wasn’t actually testimony -- this was in the past couple of days, a few days, and it wasn’t actually testimony.  Statements were given of Leonard Cohen’s to the Grand Jury.  So I was confused, and because Mr. Brown felt that Leonard Cohen had given testimony, I thought he testified and was shocked.

Q: Now, we also heard about a default judgment in 2005.  Are you familiar with that.

NOTE:  The default judgment was 2006.

A: Yes, I am.

Q: ... Did you ever receive any summons regarding that lawsuit?

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

Witness:  I was never served with a lawsuit.

Court;  Overruled.

Q:  Did you ever get any discovery about the lawsuit?

A: I received one document request from Gibson, Dunn, and I didn’t realize it was from another lawsuit.  I didn’t realize until Ken Freeman, Judge Ken Freeman’s court transcriber/reporter called me recently and told me that there are two lawsuits and not just one.

So I received a document request is what I’m staing, and that’s what I recall.

Q: Did you ever get the complaint in that case?

A: No.  I read the complaint when it was put online in April 2010 and I was astounded at the allegations.

Q: Did you ever appear in court in that case in 2005?

A: No, I did not.  I was not notified as to any hearings.

Q: Were you ever represented by an attorney in that case in 2005?

A: I was not.

Q: Did you ever present your version of the story or the account of that case to anyone in 2005?

Streeter:  Objection.  Relevance.

Court:  I’ll allow this question.

A: Well, I mean, to the news media.

Q: But to court anytime during the legal proceedings?

A: No.,

Q: Now, you also mentioned in your emails and voice mails something about working pro bono for Mr. Cohen.  What did you mean in those voice mails and emails?

A: Well, no.  My wages were garnished this past September, 2011, by the state.  And they want my 2004 and 2005 tax returns, which is what I have been fearing.  As does the IRS now.

And what I am saying is that I said that I was confused about how to file my tax returns because Leonard Cohen has gone into court and stated, I believe, if my interpretation is correct, his allegations that if he deposited his royalties into his personal account that I am not entitled to my commission.

Q: Okay.  Did you work pro bono at any time --

A: No, and that’s what Doug Davis of the Franchise Tax Board said to me.  You didn’t work pro bono for Mr. Cohen, did you?

Q: Who is Doug Davis?

A: Doug Davis is a tax advocate that was assigned to me to remove the lie while I attempted once again to get the tax information I needed to file my returns.

Q: We’ll get to that in a moment.

Now I want to talk to you about the 2000 (2008?) order in Colorado.  Why were you in Colorado?

A: Well, my son had a very serious accident.  He has his fingers ripped off.  That was in 2007.  So a friend of ine, a Tibetan lama by the name of Yongzin Rinpoche, felt that, you know, I’ve been through a lot and things were very stressful for e.  I ended up homeless in 2005 and he and his wife ask,ed me to visit.

Q: Okay.  You said your son had lost his fingers.  Are you talking about Rick?

A: Rutger, my older son.

Q: How old is Rutger.

A: Rutger is 25.

Q: He was 25 at the time?

A: He’s 25 now.

Q: How old was he back in 2000 ---

A: Well, that happened on February 3rd, I remember, because that’s the same day Bill [Phil] had a major incident in his health [house].  And mine happened in 2007.

Q: What was your state of mind around the date of the hearing for the 2008 order?

A: I felt tortured by that time, to be honest with you.

Q: What do you mean?

A: I mean I felt that I’ve been through a tremendous amount and that, you know, I’ve been dealing with this on my own.  I couldn’t afford attorneys, you know, after a certain amount of time.  My commissions were withheld.  I lost my house and I couldn’t even afford a lawyer for Ray’s custody matter, and so I felt tortured, literally.

Q: Now, you said something about Rutger losing his fingers.  Now, is there any reference to this in the emails that you’ve heard?

A: I believe there is, yes.  I think Leonard Cohen testified to something about it.

Q: And did you ever say that Mr. Coen cut off Mr. - or your son’s fingers?

A: No, I did not.

Q: What did you mean when you talked about blaming Mr. Cohen?

A: I don’t blame Mr. Cohen.  My son, Rutger personally believes that if I had not gone to the IRS, reported the tax fraud, created a contentious situation with Leonard Cohen, that he wouldn’t have lost his fingers.

Streeter:  Objection.

Court:  Sustained.

Streeter:  Move to strike.

Court:  The answer is stricken.

Q: You’ve never accused Mr. Cohen for being responsible for cutting off ...

Streeter:  Objection as to ...

Witness:  Well, he doesn’t have a meat grinder at Whole Foods, so it would be impossible.

Streeter:  Objection; non-responsive.

Court:  Sustained.

Page 473:

Streeter:  Move to strike.

Court:  The answer is stricken.

Kelly:  Now, you said that you couldn’t afford an attorney back in 2008.  So did you have representation --

A: No.

Q: -- by counsel?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever see any declarations that were written regarding that 2008 order?

A: The restraining order?

Q: In 2008, yes.

A: After I asked the judge to make that permanent, I went back to the court because I had been shocked to hear from Judge Enichen that Leonard Cohen actually flew into Boulder for this.  Because I didn’t even know he was on tour,.

Streeter:  Objection; non-responsive.

Court:  Sustained.  Just wait for the question.

Witness:  Yes.

So I went back and read his declaration.  Yes.

Kelly:  And were you actually present for that preliminary hearing back in 2008?

A:  Is that what the hearing was?

Streeter:  Objection.

Court:  Overruled.

Witness:  Is that a preliminary hearing?

Q:  We heard evidence that Mr. Cohen testified at a hearing in Colorado.

A:  Oh no, I wasn’t there.  I didn’t even know he was in Colorado.

Q: Okay. Were you - did you ever waive an evidentiary hearing in that case?

A: I most certainly did not.

Streeter:  Objection; relevance, your honor, 352.

Court: Overruled.

Witness:  Absolutely not.

Kelly:  Did you ever present evidence in that 2008 hearing?

A: No one did.

Streeter:  Objection.  Vague as to which hearing.

Court: Overruled.

Kelly:  You mentioned that you had asked to be a protected party in that order.

A: I asked Judge Enichen, I told her Leonard Cohen was dangerous to me, and I asked her if the restraining order would protect me.

Q: Okay.  And what were you under the impression of?

A: That this man has tried to destroy my life, and I felt I should be protected by a restraining order.

Q: Did you believe that the order was protecting you?

A: I don’t really believe restraining orders protect anyone, to be honest with you.

Q: Did you believe --

A: But I hoped that it would stop some of the insanity.

Q: Okay.  Were you -- did you ever contact any authorities regarding Mr. Cohen?  Any law enforcement?

A: For a number of years.  I’ve contacted LAPD for years about Leonard Cohen.  I’ve contacted the District Attorney’s office.  I’ve filed a complaint with the District Attorney’s Major Fraud Unit.  I’ve kept the District Attorney copied in on emails , you know, so that no one can deny later that I have attempted to report these types of tactics that have been used against me.

I’ve contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation about it.  I’ve contacted Agent Sopko, who is Intelligence with hthe Treasury, with the IRS,

Q: Okay.  Did you -- you said that you had requested that the order be permanent.  What did you mean by permanent?

A: Well, I mean, I understand two aspects of a restraining order.  Now, when someone gets a restraining order it goes into the preliminary hearing, which is what you said Leonard Cohen was at and I wasn’t; that’s a temporary restraining order. , And then once you go into the hearing -- I didn’t go to the hearing in 2005.  I thought when I was served the TRO, that I was already under a restraining order.  I wasn’t represented.

Then, that become permanent for a couple or a few years.  That was my understanding.

Q: Okay.  Did you believe that the order in Colorado had expired?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: You mentioned earlier also about the tax information that you learned about regarding -- 9or after your conversation with Doug Davis.  What exactly did you -- what kind of tax information were you looking for?

A: Well, Doug Davis was a very kind man and agreed to remove the tax lien.  Because I would have ended up homeless again.  But he told me he would give me 60 days to9 obtain -- first of al, we went over the fact that I was confused about what to call what I thought were my commissions on Dear Heather, because Leonard Chen had said if he deposited it into hsi personal account, I wasn’t entitled to it.  I have evidence proving otherwise.

But I’m concerned about filing anything that could be construed as fraudulent, and because of the tactics used against me in the legal issues where everything is twisted, I don’t want to file anything that’s confusing.

So he told me they don’t believe I did charitable or pro bono work.  So Doug Davis told me to report that as income, and I told Mr. Davis this has been since 2004, I would call City National Bank to see if I could get copies of my bank statements.  Even though I don’t have the money.  He said they probably won’t have them any longer.

So, they didn’t call me back.  They refused to call me back.  I called their legal department also.

Streeter:  Objection; non-responsive.

Witness;  And they asked --

Court:  Let’s wait for a question.

Q: You mentioned something about City National Bank.  What did you do to contact City National Bank?

A: I called their legal department to ask for my bank statements.

Streeter:  Objection; relevance.

Page 478:

Court:  Sustained.

Streeter:  Move to strike.

Court:  Sustained.  The answer is stricken.

Kelly:  We’ve heard voice mails and emails requesting tax information.

A: Right.

Q: What tax information were you requesting?

A: I was try9ing to determine the total amount I was given as a commission in the year 2004.  Not just for Dear Heather, there are other royalties.

Q: Okay.  Did you try to get this information from other sources?

A: Well, I tried to get it from City National Bank, which would be the only other source.

Q: Did you actually have those actual physical records in your possession.

A: No.  I’ve lost everything.

Q: When did you lose everything.

A: Well, I lost my ho9use in 2005 and my storage in 2006.

Streeter:  Objection; nonresponsive.

Court;  Overruled.

Witness:  So I have nothing.

Kelly:  From 2006 to 2012, did you ever receive the documentation that you were requesting from Mr. Cohen?

A: No, I have not.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever receive the tax information you were requesting from Mr. Kory?

A: None of it.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever get any of the tax information that you needed by any accountant o9f Mr. Cohen’s?

A: No, I did not.

Q: From 2006 to 2012, did you ever get any of the tax information that you needed from anyone related to Mr. Cohen?

A: No, I did not.  I’ve been told that --

Streeter:   Objection; non-responsive.

Witness:  -- the restraining order prohibits it.

Streeter:  No question pending.

Court:  Sustained.
e
Kelly:  We have seen volumes of emails -- that have been written.  Did you write these emails?

A: Well, I’ve written emails, I’m not going to give a blanket statement that I’ve written all the emails.  I will go through every one of them and say whether or not I did.

Q: But the ones that you’ve heard in court, did you write those emails?

A: It seems like I did, yes.

Q: Why did you include so many people in those emails?

A: What do you mean?  In who I’ve cc’d?

A: Yes.

A: Because I was advised to document everything in emails, and I was advised to copy witnesses in.  eAnd so some of those witnesses are, I felt, the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, Agent Sopko.  Now, Mr. Doug Davis.

I felt because I don’t have a lawyer and I was told I might probably be a witness in Phil Spector’s matter, that I should copy in Dennis Riordan, possibly Bruce Cutler.  Clearly the District Attorney’s office.

It’s a very serious matter and I don’t have legal representation.  So I felt it would be good - instead of somebody later saying this is hearsay or she told me this, she told me that, that all parties would be copied in so I couldn’t be accused of anything that looked like a disparity later.

Q: Why are these emails so long?

A: Well, I don’t know.  I mean, there’s different parties copied in.

Q: Okay.  Did you - these threads, do you know that there’s -- that emails have threads of multiple emails?

A: Right.

Q: Did you send all of those emails within that thread to every individual?

A: Yeah.  If what you’re saying is -- the emails might have gone on for a month.  It might be one thread.  And what I would do, for instance, if I was writing about an issue that I felt dealt with the IRS, I wold write to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.

If I was writing something having to do, I felt, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which they told me, let the IRS take the lead, we will be brought in with respect to criminal witness and evidence tampering, I would copy in the FBI.

If I felt it had something to do with Phil Spector, I would copy in Dennis Riordan, at a time Doron Weinberg, Iris Keitel, Mr. Spector’s former Manager at ABKCO Records.  Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, Truc Do, William Frayeh, who is an investigator, and John Thompson who came to meet with me.  I filed a complaint about the DA with Internal Affairs.

Q: Did you believe in sending emails that you attached to Mr. Cohen to, that you were violating the law?

A: No.

Q: Did you believe that when you sent these emails --

A: Which emails?

Q: All the emails.  Did you ever believe that you were doing it to harass someone?

Streeter:  Objection.

A: Absolutely not.

Court: Overruled.

A: To harass someone?

Q: Was it ever your intent to harass any of the recipients of the emails?

A: No, it was not.

Q: Was it ever your intent to threaten any of the individuals in your email?

A: No, it was not.

Q: You -- at any time since 2006 to 2012, have you made actual threats to Mr. Cohen?

A: No.

Q: Have you made any threats to Mr. Kory?

A: No.

Q: Have you made any threats to Ms. Rice?

A: No.

Q: Have you ever gone to Mr. Cohen’s concert?

A: Mr. Cohen is clear that I’ve told him I’d never, from 2004, sit in a room with him again, let alone go to one of his concerts.  I could hardly go to one when I was managing him.

Q: Did you ever stay outside his house?

A: I have never gone near Mr. Cohen again, since 2004.

Q: I have nothing further at this time.

Court:  Sure.

Stephen Gianelli - Evidently Aligned With Cohen, Cooley, and Jackson - Continues To Lie About Me - His Obsession With Me Is Creepy

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Subject: STOP LYING GIANELLI
To: "SandraJo.Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, info <info@kibi-edu.org>, "YesheRimpoche@aol.com" <bhakhatulku@yahoo.com>, STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, The Scientist <thescientist@dubmusic.com>


Gianelli,

I have not said I wasn't served the Colorado order.  I said:  the Colorado civil harassment order was fraudulently registered in California as a domestic violence order.  LA Superior Court has now advised me, on three separate occasions, that this is not permissible.  I was not served the California registered order which is a new order.  LA Superior Court has now advised me, on three separate occasions, that the new California order had to be served.  I see your obsession with me continues.  In fact, your delusional rants that appear to be your attempts to give me legal advice are frightening and creepy.

For the record, Cohen said he thought I believed that he, Cooley, and Jackson were villains.  I don't find them all that glamorous but do understand why you've lumped yourself into that category with them.

I have, once again, confirmed for the IRS and FBI that I believe they should charge and prosecute you for criminal harassment, stalking, witness intimidation, witness tampering, etc.  You have also repeatedly lied to the IRS and FBI - including with respect to taxes I do NOT owe to the IRS.  Cohen's fraudulent refund in no way closed any IRS matter re. the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud - it predated Agent Sopko and my meeting (and communications thereafter) by over a year.  And that's before, I brought the allegations to Agent Tejeda/IRS who was not permitted to testify which will be addressed on appeal as it was raised repeatedly - on the record.  

I am advising you to stop lying about me.  You've confirmed this - you understand CEASE AND DESIST.

Kelley Lynch

 Blogonaut said...

One additional comment: Kelley Lynch now claims that she was never "served" with the Colorado protective order that she was arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced for violating.

But at the botom of the Colorado protective order, linked in the comments above, is an area of the order where Kelley Lynch SIGNED the order, acknowledging her reciept of a copy of same at the time that the judge issued the order.

She literally SIGNED FOR IT!

December 30, 2012 5:49 PM

The "Villains" - Leonard Cohen, Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, & Stephen Gianelli

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Date: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: My Revised Brief & Blogonaut's

To: "SandraJo.Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, info <info@kibi-edu.org>, "YesheRimpoche@aol.com" <bhakhatulku@yahoo.com>

Cc: ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, The Scientist <thescientist@dubmusic.com>

To the IRS and FBI,

See comments below.  Gianelli is, once again, offering me legal advice.  Truly astounding and deranged.  It is interesting to note that he has now lumped himself in the category of "villains" that appear to include - as of this moment in time - Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, and Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen referred to this group of so-called individuals as "villains" - not I.  I would not glamorize these people for one moment.  That was simply another one of Cohen's carefully crafted garbage comments.  I should have a good solid first draft of my replacement brief ready by this evening.  At that time, I will send you, Mr. Riordan, Agent Sopko, Doug Davis,

and others copies privately.  The arrogance of these people is astounding.  Did I "vow" to strike the brief and replace it?  I had a conversation with the appellate and trial divisions about this situation.  LA Superior Court appointed these lawyers and at least one of them - according to Gianelli - spoke to Gianelli about my witnesses and what they could or could not corroborate.  The fact that Kelly wanted my son to testify about the SWAT incident is unconscionable, but utterly predictable.  That's one of the reasons people are noting that Los Angeles is corrupt.  It's probably routine for someone like Streeter to lie through her teeth about an innocenthuman being.  One thing that will be addressed on appeal - the fact that a civil harassment order was fraudulently filed as s domestic violence order in Los Angeles and Cohen and I were NEVER in a dating relationship.  Perhaps Cohen's lifelong history of drug and alcohol abuse (well documented by the news media so even the news media should understand that I didn't assail this thief's reputation but he cannot stop lying and embellishing), psychiatric problems, etc. have indeed taken a permanent toll.  He's quite fortunate that even sycophants will ignore any and all type of degraded behavior to further their own ambitions.

All the best,

Kelley

 Blogonaut said...

Ah, Kelley Lynch ... she never disappoints!

We respond to her latest blog post at once denouncing our editor's views of her Opening Brief posted here as "pathetic" and vowing to "strike" the brief and "replace" her court appointed counsel for filing an "incoherent" brief:

It’s interesting that Gianelli refers to himself in the third person when he states that I am “denouncing our editor’s views” of my opening brief.  

Amusing perhaps, but quite absurd. 

If you feel you have been denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal under Anders v. State of California 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and seek to replace your court appointed appellate counsel, you can file a Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), but you must demonstrate that there are good and arguably meritorious issues that could have been raised in your appeal but were not.

I suppose Gianelli was unclear about my discussion with the appellate division re. replacing my court appointed appellate counsel.

In my personal view, your court appointed counsel should have simply reviewed the record for error then filed a Wende brief. (People v. Wende (1969) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

This man is a true lunatic and continues to believe that I would actually follow his legal suggestions.

Even had the six trial binders of your emails and the transcripts of your intoxicated voice mails in evidence at your criminal trial been fully and fairly summarized in your AOB, that evidence supports a reasonable inference by the jury that you acted with the intent to annoy at the very least. 

The voicemail messages, that were clearly tampered with and for which there is no chain of custody, will be addressed on appeal.  In any event, Streeter was clear - I was stone cold sober.  Someone ought to pick a side of a story and stick to it.

In any event, the distinction between the Los Angeles County City Attorney and the Los Angeles County District Attorney is quite irrelevant to the effectiveness of your court appointed appellate counsel or the outcome of your appeal, because the murder prosecution of Phillip Spector is utterly independent of, and irrelevant to, your criminal trial and your criminal appeal.

The distinction between these offices is NOT an issue on appeal.  It is an issue with respect to my court appointed attorney.  The DA’s office clearly acted in collusion with the City Attorney against me and I think when I am dealing with powerful foes of this ilk, my attorney should understand the difference.  Leonard Cohen testified about Phil Spector.  He wrote the Deputy City Attorney about Phil Spector.  There are now two different versions of his Phil Spector gun story in my trial and a third in Phil Spector’s matter.  Leonard Cohen’s false testimony will be addressed on appeal.

As for having your roommate’s brother, a criminal defense attorney, assist you with filing a motion to vacate the default judgment entered against you on May 12, 2006, you have been threatening to file such a motion since April of 2010.

As I said, consider it a bluff.

You really should get an opinion on the merits of such an untimely and unmeritorious motion from an experienced civil litigator, after full disclosure of (among other things) the voice messages that you left for plaintiff’s counsel in various states of sobriety (and the lack thereof) referencing the suit, shortly after the proof of service of the summons and complaint reflects that you were sub-served with the suit. 

What do Leonard Cohen’s lies in my “intent to annoy” trial have to do with his fraud, perjury, concealment, and lies in the retaliatory lawsuit - apart from the fact that Sandra Jo Streeter LIED about TH assets, attempted to prove I was served the 2006 default judgment while homeless, and concealed the existence of corporate books, records, stock certificates, and other evidence that prove Cohen owes me millions.  Gianelli should understand exculpatory evidence.  Scott Edelman called me to advise me that he no longer represents Cohen.  The proof of service is fraudulent.  There was no female co-habitant.  This is a very serious issue for courts evidently.  

In any event, I could care less what you file and if you file it except as a further source of amusement – as I do not represent, nor have I ever represented, Leonard Cohen or anyone associated or previously associated with him, including you.

This man is obsessed with me; has aligned himself with Cohen; and may have found a sympathetic ear with Alan Jackson about me.  

I am simply a blogger whom you decided in your own deluded mind was in cahoots with Cooley, Jackson, and all of the other Moriaty-esque alleged villains that, as with Holmes himself, are purely figments of your hallucinations. 

Gianelli now uses Cohen’s word “villains” to refer to Cooley, Jackson, and himself.  Interesting parties to align himself with.  Cooley and Jackson are not figments of my imagination.  They are pathetic individuals who targeted a woman due to the fact that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud; they used him against Phil Spector; and I believe Phi Spector is innocent.  Their efforts with respect to me are totally unconscionable governmental conduct - as is the fact that Cooley had his private security detail hanging out with Cohen’s PI and lawyers and lunching with Cohen - while he spewed more venomous lies about Phil Spector on the stand and trapped himself in his various versions of the gun stories ... right down to a different weapon from what the prosecutors used in Phil Spector’s matter.  Gun victims know if a gun was pointed to their head, neck, or chest.  Cohen is simply a pathetic and disgraceful liar with motive.  

In any event (again this is my opinion, I am not your lawyer), your pending appeal is utterly and completely lacking in merit and no attorney can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. (See, e.g., Benson v. State Bd. of Parole and Probation, 384 F.2d 238, 241

(C.A.Or. 1967) "'[Counsels'] inability to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ought not reflect on their competency. (Citation).'"

Truly enlightening quote.

Oh, and Ms. Lynch, if my views of your brief are so "pathetic" why are you now describing the AOB on your blog as "incoherent"? 

The opening brief is incoherent.  I could care less about Gianelli but continue to maintain that the IRS and FBI should charge and prosecute him for criminal harassment, stalking, witness tampering, witness intimidation, etc. - even if the man thinks it’s a game and has no qualms lying to the IRS and FBI.  

December 29, 2012 3:03 PM

Gianelli, Blogonaut Law Blog, Moderates His Posts - He Likes To Lie Without Any Ramifications - I Continue To Maintain That The IRS & FBI Should Charge & Prosecute Him; He - No Doubt - Views That As A Game

Gianelli,

For the record, and I will publish this on my Blog, I have spoken to the Appellate Division.  A Motion to Strike this Opening Brief is being filed - as is a Motion to replace the attorney whose efforts I appreciate.  I think if someone is representing me, the Brief should be coherent and the lawyer should understand the difference between the City Attorney and District Attorney who are clearly in cohoots here.  Furthermore, my Writ of Habeas Corpus will ask that the City Attorney's office be removed and replaced with a Special Prosecutor due to the situation with respect to Phil Spector and her obvious alignment with the DA's office.  The three Leonard Cohen versions of the Phil Spector gun story will be addressed.  The Grand Jury Legal Adviser (who does not know how Cohen's statements were presented to the Grand Jury, without a witness testifying) advised me to contact Phil Spector's attorney about the situation.  I did.  His name is Dennis Riordan.  Judge Fidler's clerk, Wendy, advised me to write the DA and copy in Judge Fidler.

Leonard Cohen has stolen millions from me and the IRS has been provided with an abundance of evidence.  Cohen's fraudulent refund from the IRS in no way closed the case re. the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud.  I met with Agent Sopko, and her partner, over a year after he received that refund and after that reported Cohen's tax fraud to Agent Luis Tejeda who will be properly addressed on appeal.  Cohen perjured himself.  He obtains judgments, orders, and verdicts via fraud, perjury, lies, and concealment.  These appear to be his religious beliefs.

I have reconfirmed, for the IRS, FBI, DOJ, and Treasury, that I continue to maintain that you should be prosecuted for criminal harassment, stalking, witness intimidation, witness tampering, etc.

I have advised the court and Viramontes/LAPD that you attempted to entrap me into violating the restraining order - with the prosecutor Streeter and Cohen's lying lawyer, Rice, copied in and that will be addressed in my Writ.

I am filing a Motion to Vacate Cohen's fraudulent and retaliatory lawsuit and have a criminal attorney ready to review it.  Assume I'm bluffing.

Kelley Lynch

Gianelli, Aligned With Cohen & Possibly Prosecutor Alan Jackson, Pathetically Weighs In On The Appeal

"SandraJo.Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, info <info@kibi-edu.org>, "YesheRimpoche@aol.com" <bhakhatulku@yahoo.com>

ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, The Scientist <thescientist@dubmusic.com>

To the IRS and FBI,

Gianelli has, predictably, weighed in.  Are you certain he's not on someone's payroll?  His obsession with me, willingness to lie, 

target my family and friends, attempt to entrap me into violating a restraining order, lie to the IRS and FBI about me, are truly astounding.

As I have repeatedly said, this man needs to be prosecuted for his actions which I feel include criminal harassment, stalking, witness

tampering, witness intimidation, etc.

I am working on the replacement brief and that will be submitted with my Motion early next week.  I will privately send you a draft over the weekend.  At that time, it will also be sent to my roommate's criminal attorney brother who will assist me with my Motion to Vacate re. Cohen's fraudulent and retaliatory lawsuit.  At the same time, a Writ will be filed addressing all perjury, fraud, lies, concealment, etc.

All the best,

Kelley

EMBEZZLING FORMER LEONARD COHEN MANAGER FILES APPEAL FROM HARASSMENT CONVICTION

THE MAN ALIGNED WITH COHEN - WHO MAY HAVE FOUND A SYMPATHETIC EAR WITH SPECTOR PROSECUTOR ALAN JACKSON - WEIGHS IN, PREDICTABLY, ON THE APPEAL BRIEF THAT I AM ABOUT TO FILE A MOTION TO STRIKE AND REFILE (AS i'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPELLATE DIVISION).

We promised to post former Leonard Cohen manager Kelley Lynch’s appeal from her conviction and jail sentence following Lynch’s violations of a court issued protective order and obscene and threatening phone messages left on the entertainer’s home phone.

I HAVE REVIEWED THE TRANSCRIPTS AND THERE IS NOTHING OBSCENE OR THREATENING.  JUST LEONARD COHEN'S VERBAL MUSINGS.  THE MAN HAS A 50-YEAR HISTORY (ACCORDING TO THE GUARDIAN) OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE, PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS, LYING, STEALING, EMBELLISHING STORIES, ETC.  

THE CIVIL HARASSMENT ORDER WAS FRAUDULENTLY FILED AS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER IN CALIFORNIA.  LA SUPERIOR COURT HAS NOW ADVISED ME, ON AT LEAST THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS, THAT YOU CANNOT FILE A CIVIL HARASSMENT ORDER AS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER.  COHEN AND I WERE NEVER IN A DATING RELATIONSHIP AND THE NOTION IS LAUGHABLE.  I ALSO WAS NOT SERVED THE REGISTERED CALIFORNIA ORDER AND LA SUPERIOR COURT HAS ADVISED ME, ON AT LEAST THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS, THAT I HAD TO BE SERVED.

It is utterly and completely deficient as an appellate brief, meaning that the issues it tries to raise are instead forfeited though failure to comply with the applicable rules on appeal.

SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE HAS READ HOW THE AG OR CA SHOULD RESPOND TO A BRIEF - ARGUE FORFEITURE.  A REPLACEMENT BRIEF IS BEING PREPARED AND WILL BE FILED.  

For instance, Lynch argues that the trial evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, but does not even try to fully and fairly set forth an exposition of all of the trial evidence against her as the law requires to even deem the question properly raised, let alone win it.  

ACTUALLY, I FOUND THE BRIEF INCOHERENT WHICH IS WHY I HAVE DISCUSSED, WITH THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE NEED TO HAVE THIS ATTORNEY REPLACED - ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE HIS EFFORTS ON MY BEHALF.  

As stated by the California Court of Appeal in Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007)

157 Cal.App.4th 728, 737:

“Defendants assert that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding of excessive force. At least we so construe their brief, which alludes in passing to the insufficiency of the evidence, but which is actually devoted almost entirely to rearguing the facts. This approach disregards the fundamental principles governing appellate review of factual findings, and the “daunting burden” those principles impose upon an appellant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment. ( Citation omitted. ) “ ‘The rule is well established that a reviewing court must presume that the record contains evidence to support every finding of fact, and an appellant who contends that some particular finding is not supported is required to set forth in his brief a summary of the material evidence upon that issue. Unless this is done, the error assigned is deemed to be waived. [Citation.] It is incumbent upon appellants to state fully, with transcript references, the evidence which is claimed to be insufficient to support the findings.’ [Citations.]” ( Citation omitted, italics added.)

IS SOMEONE PAYING JIHAD GIANELLI TO DO HIS LEGAL RESEARCH OR IS HIS OBSESSION WITH ME MERELY A HOBBY?  AFTER ALL, THIS MAN DID FEEL FREE TO WRITE PROSECUTOR STREETER (COPYING IN COHEN'S LAWYER, MICHELLE RICE) IN AN ATTEMPT TO ENTRAP ME INTO VIOLATING THE RESTRAINNG ORDER, CAUSING ME TO CONTACT JUDGE ROBERT VANDERET, DETECTIVE VIRAMONTES/LAPD, THE STATE BAR, AND OTHERS.

If anyone cares to read the brief we have posted it HERE. But the notion that six binders of at times obscene emails transmitted to Leonard Cohen or the multiple vile and drunken voice messages that Cohen was forced to endure – after Lynch embezzled $5M of his hard earned cash – are all fully and fairly summarized in this 17 page brief is absurd.

NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT ANY DRUNKEN MESSAGES WERE LEFT.  A LIAR AND THIEF WITH MOTIVE (LEONARD COHEN) IS IN NO POSITION TO PROVE ANYTHING.  SINCE HE ESSENTIALLY CONFESSED TO COMMITTING PERJURY (AND HAS COUNTLESS INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS) HIS TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED ENTIRELY, PER THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS.  COHEN AND HIS SOUND ENGINEER TAMPERED WITH THE VOICE MAIL MESSAGES THAT ARE NOT DATE OR TIME STAMPED.  THIS WILL BE FULLY ADDRESSED IN THE REPLACEMENT APPEAL BRIEF AS WILL THE SHABBY AND INCOHERENT TRANSCRIPTS THAT STREETER PRESENTED TO THE JURORS.

COHEN HAS STOLEN MILLIONS FROM ME AND THE EVIDENCE PROVES THAT.  IT HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED TO THE IRS AND THE REFUND IN NO WAY CLOSED THE CASE ON THE ALLEGATIONS THAT COHEN COMMITTED CRIMINAL TAX FRAUD - NOR DID IT AFFIRM THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SINCE IT PRE-DATED IT.

Other arguments, like Lynch’s contention that the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office had a conflict of interest arising out of the Phil Spector murder prosecution – when that agency was not even involved in the Spector matter – make no sense, setting aside that there is no indication in the brief that Lynch even preserved that issue for appeal by filing a disqualification motion in the court below.

THAT WASN'T MY CONTENTION BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS:  STREETER IS ALIGNED WITH THE DA'S OFFICE, REPEATEDLY RAISED PHIL SPECTOR, DENNIS RIORDAN, STEVE COOLEY, AND ALAN JACKSON, AND HAD A DA INVESTIGATOR SITTING IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE ENTIRE TRIAL.  CAPTAIN JACK HORVATH/DA'S OFFICE THEN LIED TO THE COURT WHEN HE SAID I CONTACTED THE DA'S OFFICE IN 2007 WHEN, IN FACT, THEY CAME TO MY HOUSE IN 2005 ABOUT PHIL SPECTOR AND I FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THEIR MAJOR FRAUD UNIT RE. COHEN IN 2006.  THEY DECIDED NOT TO PROSECUTE HIM AND I WANT DETAILS REGARDING THAT DECISION AND WANT TO KNOW IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO THAT PROTECTS COHEN.  THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CERTAINLY APPEARS TO BE INOLVED IN THE PHIL SPECTOR MATTER NOW AND LEGAL CONSPIRACY CERTAINLY SEEMS TO RING A BELL.

The argument that no one physically handed her the protective order she was convicted of violating when she admittedly received a copy via email, and then promptly replied that the protective order was a “fraud” is equally silly.

I WAS NOT SERVED THE CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ORDER.  NOT NOTIFIED.  I NEVER ADMITTED RECEIVING A COPY VIA EMAIL. THAT'S A BALD FACED LIE.  RICE WROTE AND LIED TO ME ON FEBRUARY 14, 2011 WHEN SHE SAID THE ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA.  THAT LIE IS REPEATED IN THE LAPD REPORT AS VIRAMONTES/LAPD AND I HAVE DISCUSSED.  THE ORDER IS FRAUD BUT THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE ON APPEAL AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.  COHEN'S FRAUD, PERJURY, CONCEALMENT, AND LIES WERE ADDRESSED IN MY MOTION TO QUASH (WITH EVIDENCE ATTACHED) AND STREETER CONCEALED THAT FROM MY JURORS WITH A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.

That is all the comment that this sordid tale deserves in this, the seventh year of this sad saga.

THE SORDID TALE HERE IS THAT LEONARD COHEN NOW HAS THREE VERSIONS OF HIS PHIL SPECTOR GUN STORY BEFORE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT.  

If our readers have anything at all to add they may do so in the comments.

 

--Blogonaut   

POSTED BY BLOGONAUT AT 12/28/2012 04:27:00 PM