In one telling, Cohen went to Cuba because he was “fighting on both sides.” In another, he went because of “a deep interest in violence. I was very interested in what it really meant for a man to to carry arms and to kill other men — and how attracted I was exactly to that process.” And in the the third, he went, he got drunk (on rum, Cuba libre, or mojitos, quien sabe; déjame en paz y me deja escribir), spent his time with late night movie operators and hookers, was woken up by an official from the Canadian embassy, taken to said embassy, and politely and firmly informed that his mother was worried about him.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
5:59 PM (4 minutes ago)
To the IRS and FBI,
I can assure you that Phil Spector never spoke to Leonard Cohen again. Leonard Cohen simply lies about Phil Spector. Do keep in mind that Phil Spector has information about Leonard Cohen and his "taxes."
All the best,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Kelley Lynch <email@example.com> wrote:
Hello Mr. Riordan,How are you? In my transcripts, page 57, Cohen testifies about Phil as follows:Q: But you had no dealings with him since then, is that right? Cohen: No, I don't believe - I haven't seen him. I don't remember if it was 77 or 78 that the record came out. But since then, no,I have had no contact with him.So, how do you reconcile this BBC interview statement with his testimony? This interview is from sometime around 2001:He's not mad any longer, I've spoken to him on the phone recently, he's really quite reasonable and calm, but we were, you know, I was flipped out at the time.Love,
KelleyP.S. Don't forget to check out The Guns Of Leonard Cohen.
IN THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff and Respondent, TRIAL COURT NO: 2CA04539-01
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE HONORABLE JUDGE VANDERET LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On or about January 5, 2012, a complaint was filed charging Defendant and Appellant Kelly Lynch, (hereinafter “Kelley Lynch" or “Miss. Lynch”) with having committed on February 1, 2011 the offenses of Penal Code 273.6, 653M(B), 273.6(a), 653M(B), 653M(B) and 653M(B) On March 23, 2012 the court added a violation of 273.6(a) as counts 7, 8 and 9. Ms. Lynch pleads not guilty to all counts. (Court Transcript, hereinafter “C.T.” Page 23).
People’s motion to increase bail is made and the bail is increased to $25,000.00. (C.T.P.25.) Motion for own recognizance release is denied. On April 5, 2012 the case called for commencement of trial. Counts 4 and 5 are dismissed in furtherance of justice.
On April 4, 2012 the case is called for trial (C.T.P. 29.) The jury trial is then continued until April 5, 2012. The trial is then continued until April 6, 2012. (C.T.P. 34.) On April 10, 2012 the trial is concluded and the jury retires to commence deliberations (C.T.P. 107.)
The jury then reaches a verdict (C.T.P. 115.)
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Mr. Cohen is a songwriter and a singer (Reporters transcript, hereinafter “R.T.” page 49, line 13). Mr. Cohen confirms that he knows Ms. Lynch who worked for him as a personal manager for about 17 years. (R.T.P. 49. Ls. 24-25.) Cohen testified that they had a brief intimate relationship (R.T.P. 49, ls. 28-29.) Ms. Lynch was allegedly dismissed in 2004. “As soon as the relationship ended in 2004, Ms. Lynch began to e-mail me many e-mails a day” (R.T.P. 50, l. 28.)
Mr. Cohen was apparently alarmed by Ms. Lynch’s voice mail messages and emails. “ I was concerned about my safety and the safety of my children and grandchildren “ (R.T.P. 54, ls. 19-22.)
According to Leonard Cohen’s testimony with respect to the first group of e-mail messages: “I transcribed myself and typed into my computer and e-mailed them to my attorneys,” Robert Kory and Michelle Rice. (R.T.P. 55, l. 5). “The next batch, I recorded them from my house answering machine into a Sony cassette player and gave the cassettes to my lawyers” (R.T.P. 55, ls. 16-18). “Then the third batch I recorded with my sound engineer. We put them into CD’s and those I handed to my lawyer" ( R.T.P. 55. ls. 24). “And then recently I have a little sophisticated recorder that allows me to turn it into MP3 that I can mail to my lawyers” (R.T.P. 55, ls. 24-16).
“Her e-mails were routinely very long” (R.T.P. 59, ls. 3-4). “She often accused me of being on drugs, particularly when her voice was allegedly slurred and intoxicated” (R.T.P. 59, ls.15-17). “Her e-mails often threatened to take me down” (R.T.P. 60, ls. 12-13).
Nikhil Ramnaney sets the record straight:
Around 2005, that’s when things began to change ... there were questions about the IRS and taxes ... He got his attorneys involved ... and his attorneys had a plan., The plan was to get Ms. Lynch to work with Mr. Cohen and to pin the blame on ... She said no, I’m not going to falsify anything. I’m not going to go out and do what you tell me to do, and she refused ... Well, she’s not going to help us. That means she’s going to hurt us. So they went after Ms. Lynch the best way they knew how. Using the legal system ... have done everything in their power to harm Ms,. Lynch ... she’s lost everything ... her job, her money, her child, all orchestrated ... if they ruin her credibility, well, that helps Mr. Cohen. And they have done everything in their power to hurt Ms. Lynch’s credibility. (R.T.P. 45, ls, 1-28.) They wanted to go and they went and tried to hurt her economically and to put a restraining order so they couldn’t have any contact during the litigation. That was their intent. That was their purpose. (R.T.P. 46, ls. 9-13.)
“We got a restraining order in 2006 and then Ms. Lynch left the jurisdiction, moved to Colorado and in 2008 we got a restraining order against Ms. Lynch from Colorado. And then in 2011 we got another restraining order.” The Colorado order is a civil harassment order that Miss Lynch requested at the hearing. This was registered in California, on May 25, 2011, as a domestic violence restraining order although Kelley Lynch and Leonard Cohen were never in anything that even remotely resembled a “dating relationship.”
Exhibit 3 for identification is the restraining order from 2005 (R.T.P. 70, ls. 1-3). The voice mail the people played to the jury would be a fair representation Ms. Lynch was leaving on Mr. Cohen’s answering machine prior to 2005 (R.T.P. 70, ls.1-3). After the e-mails certainly did not stop. (R.T.P. 70, l.28.) The voice mail did not stop (R.T.P. 71, ls. 3-5). The second restraining order was in Colorado (R.T P. 72, ls. 26-28). The second restraining order in Colorado was filed in California on May 2011 (R.T.P. 73, l. 14). People’s five for identification is a document that registers an out of state restraining order (R.T.P. 74, ln. 19). “Ms. Lynch was not calling or emailing during the period when I was on the road, around 2009, 2010”. “Ms. Lynch has many times, in her messages asked about getting an amended tax return.” (R.T.P.157, ls. 3-5).
Mr. Cohen received an e-mail on April 18, 2011. (R.P.T 161, ls. 8-12). It says, “Cohen told me Phillip never held a gun on him, and that would support what the LAPD believes.” “On e-mails Ms. Lynch continually accused me of testifying against Phillip Spector in the secret Grand Jury” (R.T P. 165, l. 24.)
NOTE: Mick Brown/UK Telegraph has now confirmed that he was in receipt of the Grand Jury Transcripts and Cohen's statements were presented to the Grand Jury. There was confusion re. statements vs. testimony. Cohen's statements were absolutely used in Phil Spector's prosecutors' motions.
From September 20th approximately to the end of February 1. 55 e-mails. They were all from .Ms. Lynch. (R.T.P. 182, ls. 17-28).
“The specific comment that was made was the perennial threat to take me down” (R.T.P. 194. Ls.3-4). Another e-mail says, “Cooley’s tough on crimes but doesn’t mind young men being maimed. He has to stand up to the fraud thief, Cohen” (R.T.P. 198, ls 22-25).
Ms. Lawrence is a law clerk with the City of Los Angeles. She received the black binder from Sandra Streeter (R.T.P. 222, ls. 14-15). She does not know where Ms. Streeter got them from. (R.T.P. 222, ls. 17-20). Ms. Lawrence never had seen any subpoenas from GMAIL or AOL (R.T.P. 20-25.) She did not know who the owner of the actual e-mail address is (R.T.P. 222, ls. 26-28).
Mr. Cohen recognized the voice mail to that of the voice of Ms. Lynch on February 15, May 11, and May 28, 2011 (R.T.P. 249, ls. 20-26 to 258, ls. 1-15).
On December 23, 2011, Mr. Cohen identified an e-mail specifying Leonard Cohen does have a small to non-existent penis (R.T.P. 293, ls. 9-10). Mr. Cohen considered the e-mail as vile. (R.T.P. 262, 20-28). From February 2011 through the end of June 2011 Mr. Cohen found such e-mails annoying (R.T.P. 262, ls .21-26). Mr. Cohen was annoyed by the voicemails during the time period of July 1, 2011 to the end of the year 2011 (R.T.P. 263, ls. 9-12). Mr. Cohen got it wrong as far as dates receiving the e-mail on March 11, 2012. It was actually March 11, 2011 (R.T.P. 270, ls. 21-28 to Page 271, ls. 2-8).
Mr. Cohen had hired Ms. Lynch to manage Mr. Cohen’s accounts. (R.T.P. 273, ls. 1-2). Mr. Cohen was very inactive in managing his own accounts (R.T.P. 273, ls. 3-5). Through time Ms. Lynch was entrusted implicitly with all of Mr. Cohen’s affairs (R.T.P 274, ls. 3-6).
NOTE: Kelley Lynch did not handle anything having to do with the corporate structures, corporate books and records, tax strategies, financial advice or investments, accounting, etc. Leonard Cohen was fully represented by experts in their field - who were lawyers, accountants, etc.
(Cohen alleged that) Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch had an intimate relationship, sometimes sexual that spanned for a period of time (R.T.P. 275, ls 13-25). At another hearing on March 23 Mr. Cohen was asked if his relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship and answered yes - he later acknowledged lying (R.T.P. 276, l. 17-28). Their personal and business relationship ended in October of 2004 (R.T.P. 277, l.17).
Mr. Cohen did not request documents from 2001 through 2004 from his manager that requested his taxes (R.T.P. 283, ls. 10-13). Mr. Cohen’s attorneys are Robert Kory and Michele Rice (R.T.P. 283, ls. 15-21).
Mr. Cohen obtained a civil harassment order in 2008 from Colorado (R.T.P. 298, ls. 21-28.) The order was not registered in California until 2011 (R.T.P. 300, ls. 22-23). It was registered in Los Angeles as a domestic violence order although Cohen and Lynch were not in a dating relationship, ever (R.T.P. 301, ls. 10-13).
If you could just take the words without the tone there is nothing threatening there (R.T.P. 313, ls. 18-22). Ms. Lynch never said she was going to kill Mr. Cohen (R.T.P. 314, ls. 28). Ms. Lynch never said that she was going to see Mr. Cohen at a particular place or location (R.TP. 315, ls. 3-4).
People’s Exhibit 24 contained an attachment of the Colorado restraining order. Michele Rice (hereinafter “Ms. Rice”) sent it on February 14, 2011. Half an hour later she alleged that she received approximately 95 e-mails. Ms. Lynch in the e-mail said it was a fraudulent restraining order and she needed tax information (R.T.P. 333, ls. 20-23). Ms. Rice would personally save the e-mails during the period between 2004 and 2011 if they were on her yahoo! Small Business Account (R.T.P. 362, ls. 14-23). She did not sit there and supervise if the e-mails were for Mr. Kory. (R.T.P. 363. Ls. 13-28).
On May 25, 2005 one day after a SWAT team incident a custody manner had been filed (R.T.P. 462, ls. 11-15). “ I don’t know Mr. Kory at all. I had lunch with him, I stopped by his office and I saw him at the restraining order hearing at Boulder“ (R.T.P. 462, ls. 18-27). “I went to a lunch meeting with Robert Kory. I was told by Mr. Kory that there was fraud, tax fraud on every entity: Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, LC Investments, LLC. There were problems with the Stranger Music deal that also had tax issues. Mr. Kory asked if I would mediate on Mr. Cohen’s side against his advisors. Mr. Kory told me that Arther Indursky, Don Friedman and Stuart Fried of Grubman, Indursky Firm committed fraud and inducement, as did Greg McBowman.”
Ms. Lynch met Mr. Cohen in 1984 when she was employed by the law firm of Machat and Machat. She began working with Mr. Cohen after Mr. Machet died (R.T.P. 448, ls. 13-24). She worked from as Cohen’s personal, manager from April 1988 until 2004. In several e-mails Ms. Lynch was requesting to be paid in regard to commissions, deals etc. (R.T.P. 457, ls. 11-28). At no time during 2004 through 2005 did the police contact Ms. Lynch regarding the threatening of Mr. Cohen and his children or Mr. Kory (R.T.P. 466, ls. 1-8). There are no threats and LAPD was clear in their report - the emails were generally requests for tax information.
“I spoke to Bill Betzer on April 15, 2005 after I paid my taxes in full (R.T.P. 463, ls. 20-23). 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” (R.T.P. 464, ls.13-16). “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” (R.T.P. 468, l. 24, 469, ls. 11-13, 18-26). “I was never served with a lawsuit.” “I read the complaint when it was put online in April of 2010 and I was astounded at the allegations.” “I was not represented.” (R.T.P. 469, ls. 11-21) From 2006 to 2012, Ms. Lynch never received any of the tax information she requested from Mr. Cohen (R.T.P. 478, ls. 26-28).
“One of the main reasons I contacted Leonard Cohen is for - I have K-1s that were transmitted to the IRS that do not belong to me. I was not a partner on LC Investments. That causes tremendous confusion with my taxes “ (R.T.P. 497, ls. 1—19.)
“None of the e-mails are harassing. I feel like I’m being harassed by not being given the information.” “Another e-mail has to do with the fact that I think Leonard Cohen has lied about Phil Spector holding a gun on him” (R.T.P. 501, ls, 24-27).
Ms. Lynch was at the restraining order hearing in Colorado: “I told the judge I felt Leonard Cohen was dangerous to me and asked if this restraining order would protect me, that’s correct. There was no evidentiary hearing” (R.T.P. 511, ls. 18-21). “I actually filed a motion to vacate with Judge Enichen after I went back and I realized that Leonard Cohen’s perjury and fraud were excessive” (R.T.P. 512, ls. 14-17). Ms. Lynch understood that she could have no contact with Leonard Cohen from 2005 until 2008. Ms. Lynch never served or notified the default judgment on May 15, 2006 as she was homeless. (R.T.P. 525, ls. 12-17.) The prosecutor and Cohen (who altered the voicemails with a sound engineer - sound, speed, and volume - alleged that: Not all of those voicemails were when Ms. Lynch was sober. Prosecutor: You were sober when you made those, correct? There were some when I drank too much. Leonard Cohen has testified that I was slurring, right (R.T.P. 527, ls. 10-15). And I found the sound distorted. I couldn’t tell (R.T.P. 527, ls. 24-25).
I. NO REASONABLE JURY COULD HAVE CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
In reviewing a judgment of conviction, the Appellate Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume, in support of the judgment, the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. People vs. Sweeny 556 Cal.App.2d 198, 198 Cal.Rptr. 182 (1960). The court does not, however, limit its review to the evidence favorable to the prosecution. People vs. Johnson 26 C3d 537, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 (1980). The court must resolve its issue in light of the whole record - that is the entire picture of the defendant put before the jury – may not limit its appraisal to isolated bits of evidence selected by the respondent and the court must judge whether the evidence of each of the essential elements is substantial. People vs. Basset 69 C2d 122, 70 Cal. Rptr. 913 (1968). It is the function of the Appellate court in reviewing a criminal conviction on appeal to determine whether the record contains any substantial evidence tending to support the finding of the trier of fact, and in considering this question must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding. In Re P 103 Cal.Rptr. 425, 7 Cal.3d 801 (1972). As specified in In Re P the Supreme Court of California held: “The prosecution burden is a heavy one. To justify a conviction, the trier of fact must be reasonably persuaded to a near certainty. The jury must therefore have reasonably rejected all that undermines confidence. Accordingly, in determining whether the record is sufficient in this respect, the appellant court can give credit only to “substantial evidence.” i.e., evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value.”
The jury instruction given to the jury is as follows:
The Defendant is charged in counts Two and Four with making annoying or harassing phone calls and emails to Leonard Cohen, in violation of Penal Code 653. Two alleges that such calls and contacts were made on or between February and June 30, 2011. Count Four alleges that such calls and contacts were made on or around the dates of July 1, 2011 and January 9, 2012.
To prove the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: 1) the Defendant made repeated telephone calls or repeated contact by e-mails combination; 2) the Defendant made such phone calls and/or contacts with the intent to annoy and harass Leonard Cohen; and, 3) the calls or contacts were not made in good faith or in the ordinary course of business.
It is not necessary that the conversation actually ensued from the telephone call or emails for the statute to be violated.
A. THE EXHIBITS PROFERRED BY THE PROSECUTION WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED AND INADMISSIBLE
Under Evidence Code 250 electric email is considered a writing. Any writing must be authenticated. Evidence Code 1400-1401 Authentication of a writing means a) introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or b) the establishment of such facts by any other means. Another way to authenticate writing is to show a chain of custody.
Chain of evidence is defined as follows: In evidence, the one who offers real evidence, such as narcotics in a trial of a drug case, must account for the custody of evidence from the moment it reaches his custody until the moment it is offered into evidence, and such evidence goes to the weight not the admissibility of evidence.(quotes) For example, “chain of custody is proven if an officer is able to testify that he or she took control of the item of physical evidence, identified it, placed it in a locked or protected area, and retrieved the item being offered on the day of trial. (quotes). BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition, Nolan, Joseph 1990
Where defect in chain of custody of evidence is alleged, prosecution must introduce sufficient proof so that a reasonable juror could find that evidence is in the substantially the same condition as when it was seized, and may admit evidence if there is reasonable probability that evidence has not been changed in important respects. U.S. v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F2d 754, C.A. 9 (Cal. 1995) opinion amended on denial of rehearing 98 F. 3d 1100, certiori denied 117 S. Ct. 965, 519 U. S. 1118, 136 L.Ed. 2d 850.
There were no foundational facts sufficient to constitute a chain of custody. Mr. Cohen as specified in the record transcribed the messages himself. This is not a reliable source. This mishandling of the evidence is unwarranted and diminishes the credibility of the evidence. Therefore such evidence constitutes reversible error. Furthermore to allow Mr. Cohen to enter evidence that was processed through his sound engineer is another instance where the evidence is tainted. This is another fact which points to an error with the evidence presented and ruled upon by the judge.
B. THE WORDS ATTRIBUTED TO MS. LYNCH WERE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH
In a recent federal case U.S. v. Cassidy 814 F. Supp2d 574 (2011) .there were words uttered through a twitter communication. The recipient of the tweets was a public figure. The court in dismissing the case ruled that Mr. Cassidy was being prosecuted on the content of his speech not conduct. As the Supreme Court has noted “the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern” is the core of First Amendment protections , even when it where speech includes “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
In U.S. v. Cassidy 814 F. Supp2d 574 (2011) the court dismissed the case on the bases that a public figure has a high threshold in regard to a finding that words about them are annoying. A content based restriction on protected speech must survive strict scrutiny U. S. v. Playboy Entmt Group, Inc.529 US 803, 813, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000). Mr. Cohen is a public figure. Such utterances are the an unavoidable consequence of being a public figure. Therefore the instant case should be reversed.
C. THE PROSECUTION’S PROFERRED EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE VOICE MAILS AND E-MAILS VIOLATED THE STATUTE.
Under the statute prohibiting obscene electronic communications made with intent to annoy, the meaning of the words must be contextual, the matter must be judged in its entirety, including in the context in which it is presented. In Re C.C. (2009) 100 CalRptr 3d 746, 178 Cal.App.4th 915 In In Re C.C. the court looked to People v. Hernandez (1991) 231 CalApp3d 1376, 283 Cal.Rptr 81. Hernandez involved a traditional type of annoying telephone call, where Hernandez repeatedly called a woman over a two week period, hurling abuse by using vile terms such as calling her a fat “bitch”, a whore and a “C”.
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
The definition of obscene has three distinct parts, offensive to ones feelings, or to prevailing notions of modesty, or decency: lewd.
In the instant case Ms. Lynch did not use any such words that would violate the statute. Her words “take you down” do not connote any decency subjects. As reflected in the transcript, Ms. Lynch never indicated she was going to harm Mr. Cohen. Ms. Lynch never tried to get Mr. Cohen to go to a particular place at a particular time.. Furthermore Mr. Cohen has been known as an artistic ideologue of indecent proclivities. Leonard Cohen has published what is known as the most obscene book ever published in Canada, “Beautiful Losers.” He has written lyrics such as “don’t go home with your hard on” and “give me crack and anal sex.” Cohen recently gave his blessings and interviews to a biographer who has a chapter titled “Children, Taxes, and Lost Pussy.” Leonard Cohen is not offended by obscenities and most certainly not by expletives, which is what Ms. Lynch used out of extreme frustration.
The evidence proffered in this case is for a legitimate business purpose. Ms. Lynch had to do her taxes and was entitled to her tax records. The record reflects that several of those persons who were in possession of the records never contacted Ms. Lynch. This quest for records rebutts a key element in the Prosecution’s case.
Furthermore there was also evidence that Ms. Lynch (and the State of Kentucky and IRS) received documents like the K-1s from other sources (Leonard Cohen, as the sole owner of LC Investments, LLC) that were not the property of Ms. Lynch. This is another legitimate reason for Ms. Lynch to request tax records/information from Mr. Cohen which included requests to rescind the illegal K-1s that are evidence of felonies.
An error will be held prejudicial where there exists such an equal balance of reasonable probabilities as to leave the reviewing court in serious doubt as to whether the error had affected the result. Whether there is prejudicial error resulting in a miscarriage of justice must, in the last analysis, depend upon the particular facts of the individual case. People vs. Weatherford 27 C2d 401 164, P2d 753 (1945) (EMPHASIS ADDED). The facts of this case are certainly in dispute. Both versions of the events are contradictory. As to the totality of circumstances, however, the exaggerations of the alleged victim are more pronounced. There are two versions of the event. One version is that Ms. Lynch was sending e-mail and voice mails to Mr. Cohen to harass and annoy him. The other version is that these e-mails and voice mails were not authenticated and should be stricken. The other inference is that the e-mails were for the purpose of Ms. Lynch requesting the tax records, financial data, royalty statements, accounting information, etc. for her personal records and tax filing purposes.
The un-corroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable People vs. Scott 21 Cal.3d 284, 296 (1978). An appellate court will assume every fact and inference, which the trier of fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence People vs. Hanggi 265 Cal.App.2d Supp. 969, 972, (1968). To warrant reversal, it must be made clearly to appear that, on no hypothesis, is there substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the lower court People vs. Mayberry 15 Cal.3d 143, 150 (1975). Again by reviewing the facts of the case there is no substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the jury.
D. A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AT TRIAL
A criminal defendant has the due process right to compel the attendance of witnesses at trial: United States Constitution VI, XIV, California Constitution Article 1 Section 15, Penal Code Section 683. In the instant case, the trial judge made a reversible error by failing to allow the IRS Agent Luis Tejeda to testify on behalf of Ms. Lynch. The witness would be able to testify as to the tax predicament the Ms. Lynch was in; the fact that the 2005 refund could not possibly close the IRS case re. the allegations Lynch brought to Tejeda’s attention in 2007; the illegal K-1s from LC Investments, LLC; whether a 1099 or tax documents (IRS filing and reporting requirements) could violate a restraining order - as Kory and Rice have alleged, etc. She had no other choice but to insist that she obtain tax documents to clear her name.
F. THE RESTRAINING ORDER REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA WAS NEVER SERVED ON MS. LYNCH AND THEREFORE ANY ACTION IS NULL AND VOID AS SHE NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE AND THEREFORE SAID CONVICTION IS VIOLATIVE OF MS. LYNCH DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
In the instant case Ms. Lynch specified that she was not served the California registered order (and was under the impression the Boulder order expired). If indeed that is the case there would be no way that the proof of service would be true. No proof of service was attached to the registered order. Therefore use of the restraining order in California would not be valid and the conviction for violating it would be reversible.
E. THE PROSECUTIONS ARGUMENTS WERE OUTRAGEOUS AND CONSTITUTE REVERSIBLE ERROR
In the instant case the prosecution alluded to the fact that Ms. Lynch apparently stole $150,000.00 from Mr. Cohen. This was not true as there was evidence that Mr. Cohen was the one who owed Ms. Lynch money. Furthermore Ms. Lynch had contacted the District Attorneys Major Fraud unit to report the problems with Leonard Cohen and his theft from her in the millions, tax fraud, etc.
Another extremely important point is that there was mention that Mr. Cohen had lied about Mr. Phil Spector to the grand jury. In fact, Leonard Cohen’s statements were apparently presented to the Grand Jury. His statements regarding Phil Spector and a gun incident appeared in the prosecutors motions in the Phil Spector trial. Unfortunately, that version of the gun incident is contrary to the two additional versions of Leonard Cohen’s Phil Spector gun stories in this trial alone. Therefore, there are three versions of Leonard Cohen’s gun story incident re. Phil Spector before LA Superior Court. The versions involve a gun to the head, a gun to the neck, a gun to the chest, an automatic weapon, and a semi-automatic weapon. Additional versions in the news media involve a bottle of wine in one hand. The prosecutors in Phil Spector’s trial omitted that detail. All of this will be addressed more fully in Kelley Lynch’s Writ of Habeas Corpus - as will every lie and perjured statement made by prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter, Leonard Cohen, Robert, Kory, Michelle Rice, and Captain Jack Horvath.
The Prosecutor’s office for whom Deputy City Attorney Streeter works (in the Domestic Violence Unit although Lynch and Cohen were not in a dating relationship and there is no domestic violence), together with the District Attorney’s office, have a vested interest in making sure that the prosecution of Mr. Spector remains intact. They clearly do not want the verdict overturned. The District Attorney failed to prosecute Mr. Cohen for fraud. Prosecutor Alan Jackson appears to be in charge of the Major Fraud Unit that would technically prosecute individuals for fraud, theft, etc. over $300,000. In this instance, Leonard Cohen has stolen millions from Kelley Lynch. The protection of Mr. Cohen seems to be borne out by the instant case in which Ms. Lynch is being unlawfully prosecuted.
Objection to the misconduct must be made at trial before the point may be raised on appeal unless a timely objection and admonishment would not have cured the harm. People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal4th 253, 17 Cal Rptr2d 365 In this instance case the Los Angeles City Attorneys office should have recused itself instead of attempting to silence the truth. An objection would not have reversed the inconceivable harm Streeter created for Kelley Lynch - based on lies, concealment of exculpatory evidence, etc.
II. THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED ON THE CHARGES DUE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” People vs. Kelly 51 Cal.3d 931, 956, (1990) citations omitted. This insufficiency of the evidence stems from testimony that is tainted. Furthermore there are a myriad of issues which constitute a denial of a fair trial of Ms. Lynch. She was arrested and then at her bail hearing her bail was increased. She was subject to a prosecution where her acts were condemned from the start. Another interesting act of unfairness was Mr. Kory testifying in a custody battle against Ms Lynch when in reality he only had lunch with Ms. Lynch once. As indicated, Mr. Kory - at that lunch - attempted to convince Ms. Lynch to testify on Mr. Cohen’s behalf and essentially blame other parties for Leonard Cohen’s wrong doing and tax problems.
Based on the above it is respectfully requested that the instant case be overturned and dismissed.
Dated: 17 December 2012 Respectfully Submitted
Francisco A Suarez
Attorney for Appellant
Kelley Lynch worked as Leonard Cohen’s personal manager for approximately 17 years. In the fall of 2004, she decided - due to the fact that she had been used horrendously as a pawn by Mr. Cohen - to report what she felt was Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to the Internal Revenue Service. By that time, Miss Lynch had gathered a tremendous amount of evidence, switched accountants, and hired lawyers. It was ultimately confirmed that Leonard Cohen had committed criminal tax fraud, the penalties and interest on one entity alone - Traditional Holdings, LLC - were in the vicinity of $10 million, and there were similar penalties and interest on at least two other entities, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and LC Investments, LLC. Leonard Cohen heard that Miss Lynch was going to the IRS and began pressuring her to meet with him and his tax lawyer, Richard Westin, so that they could unravel their handiwork. Leonard Cohen, his tax lawyer Richard Westin, and his financial adviser Neal Greenberg, were absolutely hysterical at this point. Cohen began demanding that Miss Lynch hand over the corporate books and records for these three entities. She had previously been advised, by his tax lawyer, to rip up non-revocable assignments re. intellectual property assigned to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. She refused and refused to hand over the corporate books and records. She gave them to her lawyers. Kelley Lynch was a beneficial owner of Traditional Holdings, LLC and Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. She was not a beneficial owner of LC Investments, LLC although K-1 partnership documents were transmitted to the State of Kentucky and IRS, for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 - alleging that she has a 99.5% ownership interest in this entity and wrongfully using her name and social security number. Leonard Cohen is the sole 100% owner of this entity.
On or about April 15, 2005, Kelley Lynch had a conversation with IRS Revenue Agent Bill Betzer. She had been working with Agent Betzer to pay the taxes her accountant advised her were due and owing through the year 2003. He ultimately advised Miss Lynch to report the tax fraud to the Fraud Unit of the IRS which she did . She also filed a complaint with the IRS online and contacted the IRS in Washington. In October 2004, Kelley Lynch’s lawyers wrote Cohen’s tax lawyer, Richard Westin, questioning the structure of Traditional Holdings, LLC and inquiring as to what liability they had exposed Ms. Lynch to. Westin had recently written Cohen and Lynch a rather alarming letter advising that the IRS could overturn Traditional Holdings, if they noticed a lack of substance or form. The IRS might actually notice a lack of a business purpose (the State of Kentucky did), criminal tax fraud on at least three entities, and unconscionable activity on the part of Leonard Cohen and his advisers. In October 2004, a meeting was scheduled with Cohen, his lawyers, and Miss Lynch’s lawyers. Miss Lynch refused to attend. While Leonard Cohen may feel Kelley Lynch is interested in seeing him, and using the IRS matter as a “ruse” (as the prosecutor farcically asserted at trial), he is sadly mistaken. It is possible that his lifelong (and publicly documented) history of psychiatric ailments, drug and alcohol abuse, lying, falsely accusing his representatives, and theft has taken its toll and come back to haunt him. Cohen and prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter also lied to the court and jurors when they presented Ms. Lynch as Leonard Cohen's business manager. Lynch was not Cohen's business manager and handled nothing having to do with his corporate structures, taxes, finance, accounting, etc. In fact, Rich Feldstein was - at one point - Cohen's business manager. He was fired after he advised Cohen that he would like to meet with him personally, felt uncomfortable with Cohen's behind the scenes communications, and was concerned that Cohen wasn't paying his estimated taxes. Cohen personally wrote an insulting letter in response to Rich Feldstein's concerns, noting that accounting is not a religion. Cohen has an utter disdain for ordinary taxes, demands complex stock deals, and studied business, commerce, and law so his position that he is merely creative are absurd. Leonard Cohen knows how to weave a fantastical yarn and has a pattern of lying about others, even if the news media views him as a sage and the prosecutor seemed overwhelmed by the presence of a celebrity.
At the meeting in the fall of 2004, Cohen falsely began accusing Kelley Lynch of receiving overpayments with respect to her personal management fees. He and his advisers began willfully overlooking her ownership interest in these entities as well as her ownership of 15% of his intellectual property. Having said that, his lawyer did write to ask if Traditional Holdings, LLC would forgive Leonard Cohen's loans which are actual assets of Traditional Holdings, LLC.
Kelley Lynch also served as Cohen’s publishing administrator, publicist, book publishing agent, assistant, and in other capacities. At trial, he testified that he also viewed her as his typist. That is because he has misogynistic tendencies. She was compensated with 15% of the intellectual property for her prior work. Miss Lynch’s ownership interest in these entities (and the IP) has nothing whatsoever to do with her personal management fees. The corporate books, records, stock certificates, notarized documents, her indemnity agreement re. Traditional Holdings, LLC, and many other documents, have been concealed from various courts. A fraudulent expense ledger was presented to LA Superior Court. Kelley Lynch's accountant met with Cohen's accountant., At that time, Kevin Prins (representing Cohen) advised her accountant that he did not have the corporate back-up documentation necessary to prepare the forensic accounting. Dal,e Burgess confirmed this conversation in a letter Ms. Lynch attached to her Motion to Quash Cohen's fraudulently obtained restraining order in Boulder, Colorado. The illegal K-1s completely undermine that ledger and cause tremendous confusion. Cohen also stated in his lawsuit against Miss Lynch that she was not entitled to commissions on royalties he deposited into his personal account - and yet, he has listed at least one large commission (re. Dear Heather advance) that was deposited into his personal account on his fraudulent expense ledger. This causes further confusion. Miss Lynch has, therefore, asked for a complete and proper accounting that takes into consideration her ownership interest in these entities, the IP wherever it has now been moved, asset valuations, Cohen's expenses from these entities, and Cohen’s loans/transaction fees that total approximately $5 million with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC and were to be repaid within 3 years at 6% interest. For some reason, prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter decided to lie to the jury when she advised them that Cohen’s assets were limited to $150,000 in the fall of 2004. Cohen’s loans are assets of the corporation although he has done his best to prove that he is the alter ego of these entities who has engaged in self-dealing. Leonard Cohen was not broke in the fall of 2004. He had just received $1 million advance for the delivery of the studio album “Dear Heather.” He went through with a multi-million lithograph deal Miss Lynch negotiated. He had planned to tour and has made millions of dollars. He brought a multi-million asset sale to a halt - although he had demanded that deal. Leonard Cohen demands stock deals, has a grave disdain for ordinary taxation, and advised Lynch that he cannot live in Canada (after abandoning one green card in 1988 and applying for another around 1991) because Canada Revenue asks where you paid your taxes the prior year while the IRS does not. After Marty Machat's death in 1988, Leonard Cohen and his lawyer (Herschel Weinberg), abandoned his green card, began unraveling the off-shore accounts (Loyens & Volkmaars in Holland), resolving issues related to his numerous social security numbers, advising Sony that his recording contract was inadvertently assigned to the wrong company, and reapplying for a new green card. Lynch's brother-in-law (who she had contacted at Cohen's request) confirmed that Cohen had tax and residence issues in Canada. This is why Canada's National Treasure must live in the United States. He is the only Sony artist who is not assigned to his home country and he was brutal with the head of Sony Canada when she viewed him as a Canadian roster artist. Cohen received a tax memo in 1977 which advised him that he did not have to pay taxes where he had residences - Canada, U.S., and Greece - but cautioning him not to have a green card. He did and that may be why it was abandoned. He appeared to be paying taxes, while a U.S. resident, as a non-resident. He worldwide publishing income was being paid to the off-shore account. Leonard Cohen's tax problems follow him around. The anatomy of this particular tax fraud appears to have begun when Cohen hooked up with Neal Greenberg who then introduced him to tax lawyer Richard Westin. The three of them were wrapped in attorney/client privilege, essentially leaving Kelley Lynch in the dark about their activities.
After settlement negotiations failed (due to the fact that Miss Lynch refused to mediate with Cohen, felt he was wrongfully accusing some of his advisers of defrauding him, turned down an offer of 50% community property, and became convinced that Cohen was attempting to engage in extortion and insurance fraud), Leonard Cohen filed a retaliatory and fraudulent lawsuit against her. At the same time, he gave an interview to MacLean’s noting his major tax hit and advising the journalist that he was not accusing Ms. Lynch of theft. In fact, at the bail hearing on March 23, 2012, Leonard Cohen acknowledged that Ms. Lynch has not stolen anything from him, except his peace of mind. Biues Schiller, who reviewed a substantial amount of evidence, understood that Cohen owes Lynch millions and advised her that he and his lawyer, Robert Kory, were attempting to engage her in criminal activity.
The prosecution’s theory of this case is that Miss Lynch contacted Leonard Cohen, using the IRS, as a ruse. Miss Lynch’s wages were ultimately garnished by the State of California FTB although she owes no taxes. Tax Advocate Doug Davis/FTB removed the wage garnishment and asked Miss Lynch to file her returns for the years 2004 and 2005. The IRS made the same request. In order to do so, Miss Lynch is in need of a 1099 from Cohen for the year 2004. The prosecutor advised the jurors that Ms. Lynch is in possession of the information necessary to prepare this 1099 which is outrageous. Employees do not have the legal right to prepare their own 1099s on behalf of the employers but Streeter appeared willing to say anything to protect Leonard Cohen. Miss Lynch owes no taxes, has huge losses related to the destruction of two businesses and theft, but the IRS and FTB estimate taxes (when preparing automatic returns) based on past income. At that time, Lynch had substantial past income. The IRS and FTB have reporting and filing requirements. Miss Lynch also asked Leonard Cohen to rescind what she knows are illegal K-1s, transmitted to the State of Kentucky and IRS, and can be viewed as felonies from the perspective of the IRS. The prosecutor seemed aware that the K-1s were illegal but obfuscated matters when she advised the court and jurors that I was requesting a K-1. It is irrelevant if Cohen knows what a 1099 or K-1 are. He has advisers and he has IRS filing and reporting requirements. He also testified that he does not what they are although the prosecutor absurdly advised the jurors, in closing arguments, that no one knows what a 1099 or K-1 are. Every studio musician in LA knows what a 1099 is. She also appeared to advise the jurors that no one knows what the IRS and FTB are.
The prosecutor construed Kelley Lynch’s attempts to obtain tax, financial, and accounting information as harassment. Since 2005, when Lynch no longer had assets to pay for lawyers, she has been representing herself. Leonard Cohen’s lawyers have steadfastly refused to communicate with her although the State Bar, and other attorneys, have advised Ms. Lynch that they have an obligation to do so. These attempts to communicate with Cohen’s lawyers, including with respect to the Complaint in the lawsuit that she was not served; default judgment entered in May 2006 that she was not served or notified of (although Streeter attempted to prove that the USPS delivers mail to the homeless - and Cohen was clear about monitoring her whereabouts) and other serious matters, were presented to the court - by the prosecutor - as Lynch’s common plan and scheme. District Attorney Steve Cooley and prosecutor Alan Jackson were continuously raised as issues. They dragged Kelley Lynch into the Phil Spector trial in 2005 when Investigator Brian Bennett rolled by her house, advising her that an anonymous tip about her friendship with Phil Spector had been left with the DA’s office. Miss Lynch believes Phil Spector is innocent, has been rendered unrecognizable, and feels the DA’s office set Phil Spector up. She has been very vocal about these beliefs. It seemed, to Lynch, that Cohen, the prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter, and the DA (and others), were actually engaged in some form of legal conspiracy with respect to her. Leonard Cohen’s statements about Phil Spector and one version of his good rock and roll gun story (that he himself wrote Streeter were embellished over the years) were evidently presented to Phil Spector’s grand jury and used in various prosecution motions. Lynch has been clear with the DA - Leonard Cohen lies about Phil Spector. She also filed a complaint with the DA’s Major Fraud Unit regarding Cohen’s tax fraud and theft from her in the millions, advising them of evidence and witnesses. They chose not to prosecute him and Miss Lynch feels there is an attempt to protect Cohen while undermining her credibility. During her trial, Kelley Lynch learned that the prosecutor offered her a plea deal of 180 days and 3 years summary probation. That was not conveyed to her by her lawyers until she asked about it. She feels this is the main reason for the preposterous theories and lies advanced during her trial. Miss Lynch also believes Leonard Cohen has used fraud, perjury, lies, and concealment to obtain abusive restraining orders, judgments, and verdicts against Miss Lynch.
There are numerous matters the DA's office refuses to investigate and/or prosecute with respect to Kelley Lynch. One such matter involves a horrendous accident at Whole Foods that led to her son's fingers being amputated in a meat grinder. OSHA's attorneys felt there might be criminal negligence and advised Lynch to contact the DA's office. Lynch has reviewed the depositions and there is indeed criminal negligence. There were reports, for approximately two years, advising the safety unit that the machine was faulty. Her son was not trained to operate the machine - clearly in breach of his contract with Whole Foods. And, the machine was to be removed from the floor prior to this horrendous accident. The customers were to be told that they could not buy ground meats.
It is clear to Lynch - the DA's office does not want the Phil Spector verdict overturned and view her as some type of threat on that front. In fact, Captain Jack Horvath (DA investigator and security personnel) may have been the DA Investigator hanging out with Cohen, his lawyers and PI, during the trial. He was even seen lunching with them. Evidently, Cohen's PI has close ties to the DA's office and LAPD's Threat Management Unit who forwarded Lynch's case to the City Attorney, noting that her emails were generally requests for tax information - which would not violate a restraining order, fraudulent or otherwise. Lynch has been convicted of unauthorized rambling with respect to extraneous information (for her sole purpose) in her emails. She has been documenting the destruction of her life since reporting Cohen's tax fraud - to the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and Phil Spector's attorney, Dennis Riordan. She had other valid reasons for contacting various parties as well. These are deadly serious issues, Lynch has been surrounded by liars, and feels everyone should be on the same page and given the opportunity to refute information or correct misinformation. Captain Jack Horvath, whose salary is paid by the taxpayers, then proceeded to lie to the court about Miss Lynch during the sentencing face. Streeter, an apparent creative writing expert, felt Lynch's letters to Bruce Cutler were overly familiar. She appears to be a sycophant. Judge Larry Fidler's Clerk, Wendy, and the Grand Jury Legal Advisor have instructed Lynch to contact the DA's office (copying in Judge Fidler) re. the various Leonard Cohen/Phil Spector gun stories before LA Superior Court and to contact Phil Spector's attorney, Dennis Riordan. Lynch will address all of this in her Writ of Habeas Corpus which she will mail to Judge Larry Fidler and the District Attorney's office.
Lynch awaits a response to her letter to Alan Jackson which Investigator William Frayeh hand delivered to Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, and Truc Do. It raises serious issues re. Cohen's criminal tax fraud, theft from her, Phil Spector, Gianelli - who has criminally harassed Lynch and others since 2009 (when he aligned himself with Cohen), and Pat Dixon who is addressed in Bruce Cutler's letter to the court. Kelley Lynch stands by those letters and thinks Bruce Cutler should have handed them over to Phil Spector and his legal team.
Kelley Lynch has been advised that George Mueller, former FBI agent, and one of the heads of the Investigation Unit/Major Fraud Unit of the DA's office is investigating something here. She wonders what he thinks the FBI meant when they advised her to let the IRS take the lead and they will be brought in with respect to criminal witness and evidence tampering. Perhaps Mueller is not clear as to why Kelley Lynch has copied in the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and Dennis Riordan - as well as the news media - on her emails documenting everything she has gone through since reporting Cohen's criminal tax fraud to the IRS. Leonard Cohen testified that a fraudulent refund he obtained in 2005 from the IRS (approximating nearly $700,000) closed the case re. the allegations of his tax fraud she discussed in her meeting with Agent Sopko and her partner in 2007. After that meeting, Agent Sopko emailed Lynch that she should take these allegations to Agent Luis Tejeda/IRS and provide him with evidence. She has provided the IRS with an abundance of evidence. Kory noted, in one letter to Agent Tejeda, that Agent Sopko's email was a game changer and they were taking the situation seriously. Kory also wrote that he understood that Tejeda had to remain open to the allegations but he and Cohen decided to lie on the stand. Their lies and perjury are excessive. They have no qualms, whatsoever, obtaining orders, judgments, and verdicts via fraud, perjury, lies, and concealment.
Leonard Cohen has also stolen from Steven Machat, Marty Machat, and Phil Spector. The prosecutor lied when she said my statements were uncorroborated and must have read the transcript of my conversation with Steven Machat. She was also present for the sidebar where Agent Tejeda's testimony was discussed. But, Streeter was gushing in her cell phone about celebrity Cohen, prancing around the courtroom, breaking the podium, lying to the judge and jurors, and generally seemed uninterested in anything that resembled an actual fact or the truth. My lawyer advised me that while judges are annoyed by her (she evidently does not understand the law), they don't realize she is lying to them. She baby talks them so perhaps that's part of the issue.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Kyabje Thinley Norbu with the King of Bhutan
What was Buddhist Leonard Cohen doing - destroying my life, withholding tax documents, stealing from me, targeting my children, lying to the news media, and aligning himself with absolutely unconscionable people from the District Attorney and City Attorney's office. What was Judge Robert Vanderet doing? Concealing Agent Tejeda/IRS and reality. Welcome to LA Confidential. Their actions speak for themselves. Streeter thinks Cohen's religious? Well, that's because she's a bald faced liar with motive out to sabotage me and the IRS, etc. She was empowered and emboldened by another celebrity fraud.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Leonard Cohen's Private Investigator's Ties To Los Angeles District Attorney & Detective Viramontes & LAPD's Threat Management Unit - Celebrity Justice At It's Very Best
teve Stephens most recently was Security Director at Warner Bros Records in Burbank (2005-2009), providing
armed security for executives and artists and conducting stalking investigations. Prior to that position he was Security Director at Maverick Records (1995-2004), Madonna’s label, where he conducted many investigations and managed numerous threats working closely with the LA County District Attorney’s “STAT” Team ( Stalking and Threat Assessment Team-founded by DDA Rhonda Saunders) and the LAPD’s Threat Management Unit.
A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector (originally released as A
Christmas Gift for You from Philles Records) is an album of Christmas songs, produced by Phil Spector, and originally released as Philles 45 in 1963. Spector treated a series of mostly secular Christmas standards to his trademark "Wall of Sound" treatment, and the selections feature the vocal performances of Spector's regular artists during this period. It is one of only twelve long-playing records released on the Philles label, peaking at No. 13 on Billboard magazine's special, year-end, weekly Christmas Albums sales chart in December 1963.
The album was reissued by Apple Records in 1972, with different cover art -- a
photograph of Spector dressed as a heavily-bearded Santa Claus, wearing a "Back to Mono" button -- and retitled Phil Spector's Christmas Album. This version went to No. 6 on Billboard's special Christmas Albums sales chart in December of that year, which was its highest chart ranking
Judge Robert Vanderet Permits Leonard Cohen To Testify About The IRS & Drugs - But Does Not Permit My Defense Witness Or Evidence That Cohen Had Drug Problems
Excerpts From Sidebar:
Judge Robert Vanderet: I will tell you my strong view is I'm not going to delay the trial for Agent Tejeda [IRS Agent, Head of Fraud, Western Division of the United States]. You guys, whether you knew his name or not, you were well, aware of the relationship, if any, and I think it was quite tangential of the merits of the IRS thing long before the trial, and I'm not going to delay at this point the trial.
Public Defender: Your ruling is not that he's not precluded from testifying; it's that you won't delay the trial.
Judge Robert Vanderet: I won't delay the trial. I'll reserve judgment on whether I will allow him to testify.
Public Defender: I've done some research on Mr. Cohen and he's in the past made interviews about having used legal and illegal drugs.
Judge Robert Vanderet: No we're not going to get into the issue of his drug use.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Transcripts Of The Stalinesque Kelley Lynch Show Trial - Leonard Cohen Develops Powerful Allies & Attempts To Further Blame Kelley Lynch For His Wrongdoing, Tax Fraud, Etc. - Phil Spector, DA Steve Cooley, & Alan Jackson Have Starring Roles
Leonard Cohen is a songwriter and a singer (RT page 49, line 13.) Mr. Cohen knows Appellant Lynch as she worked for him and served as his personal manager for about 17 years. (R.T.P. 49. Ls. 24-25.) According to Cohen, they had a brief intimate relationship (R.T.P. 49, ls. 28-29.) Ms. Lynch was dismissed in 2004 (R.T. 50,. L4). “As soon as the relationship ended in 2004, Ms. Lynch began to e-mail me many e-mails a day” (R.T.P. 50, l. 28.) Mr. Cohen testified that he was alarmed and frightened. “ I was concerned about my safety and the safety of my children and grandchildren “ (R.T.P. 54, ls. 19-22.)
According to Cohen, the first group of voicemail messages: “I transcribed myself and typed into my computer and e-mailed them to my attorneys." The next batch I recorded them from my house answering machine into a Sony cassette player and gave the cassettes to my lawyers (R.T.P. 55, ls. 16-18.) Then the third batch I recorded with my sound engineer. We put them into CD’s and those I handed to my lawyer. ( R.T.P. 55. ls.24.) And then recently I have a little sophisticated recorder that allows me to turn it into MP3 that I can mail to my lawyers (R.T.P. 55, ls. 24-16.)
She routinely accused me of drug abuse (R.T.P. 61, ls. 15-16.)
“We got a restraining order in 2006 and then Ms. Lynch left the jurisdiction, moved to Colorado and in 2008 we got a restraining order against Ms. Lynch from Colorado. And then in 2011 we got another restraining order.” Exhibit 3 for identification is the restraining order from 2005. (R.T.P. 70, ls. 1-3.)
The second restraining order in Colorado was filed in California on May 2011 (R.T.P. 73, l. 14.) People’s five for identification is a document that registers an out of state restraining order. (R.T.P. 74, ln. 19.)
Ms. Lynch has many times, in her messages asked about getting an amended tax return (R.T.P.157, ls. 3-5.)
Mr. Cohen received an e-mail on April 18, 2011. (R.P.T 161, ls. 8-12.) It says, Cohen told me Phillip [Spector] never held a gun on him, and that would support what he told the LAPD. “On e-mails Ms. Lynch continually accused me of testifying against Phillip Spector in the secret Grand Jury” (R.T P. 165, l. 24.)
The specific comment that was made was the “perennial threat to take me down” (R.T.P. 194. Ls.3-4) “Sometimes Ms. Lynch says legally." (R.T.P. L. 4.) Another e-mail says, Cooley’s tough on crimes but doesn’t mind young men being maimed. (R.T.P. 198, ls 22-25.)
Ms. Lawrence is a law clerk with the City of Los Angeles. She received the black binder from Sandra Streeter (R.T.P. 222, ls. 14-15.) She does not know where Ms. Streeter got them from. (R.T.P. 222, ls. 17-20.) Ms. Lawrence never saw a subpoena from Gmail or AOL (R.T.P. 20-25.) She did not know who the owner of the actual e-mail address was (R.T.P. 222, ls. 26-28.)
Mr. Cohen recognized the voice mail to that of the voice of Ms. Lynch on February 15, May 11, and May 28, 2011. R.T.P. 249, ls. 20-26 to 258, ls. 1-15.)
On December 23, 2011 Mr. Cohen identified an e-mail specifying Leonard Cohen does have a small to non-existent penis (R.T.P. 293, ls. 9-10.) Mr. Cohen considered the e-mail as vile. (R.T.P. 262, 20-28.) From February 2011 through the end of June 2011 Mr. Cohen found such e-mails annoying (R.T.P. 262, ls .21-26.) Mr. Cohen was annoyed by the voicemails during the time period of July 1, 2011 to the end of the year 2011 (R.T.P. 263, ls. 9-12.) Mr. Cohen got it wrong as far as dates receiving the e-mail on March 11, 2012. It was actually March 11, 2011 (R.T.P. 270, ls. 21-28 to Page 271, ls. 2-8.)
Mr. Cohen had hired Ms. Lynch to manage Mr. Cohen’s accounts. (R.T.P. 273, ls. 1-2.) Mr. Cohen was very inactive in managing his own accounts (R.T.P. 273, ls. 3-5.) Through time Ms. Lynch was entrusted implicitly with all of Mr. Cohen’s affairs (R.T.P 274, ls. 3-6.)
Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch had an intimate relationship, sometimes sexual that spanned for a period of time (R.T.P. 275, ls 13-25.) At another hearing on March 23 Mr. Cohen was asked if his relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship (R.T.P. 276, l. 17-28.) Their personal and business relationship ended in October of 2004 (R.T.P. 277, l.17.)
Did you talk to your manager who handles your tax to request those documents from 2001-2004? (R.T.P. 283, ls. 4-5.) Did you give them Ms. Lynch’s information for you to send that information to? (R.P.T. 283, ls. 10-11.) [Cohen] No, Sir. (R.P.T. 283, l. 12.) Mr. Cohen’s attorneys are Robert Kory and Michele Rice (R.T.P. 283, ls. 15-21.)
Mr. Cohen obtained an order in 2008 from Colorado (R.T.P. 298, ls. 21-28.)The order was not registered in California until 2011 (R.T.P. 300, ls. 22-23.) It was registered in Los Angeles (R.T.P. 301, ls. 10-13.)
If you could just take the words without the tone there is nothing threatening there. (R.T.P. 313, ls. 18-22.) Ms. Lynch never said she was going to kill Mr. Cohen. (R.T.P. 314, ls. 28.) Ms. Lynch never said that she was going to see Mr. Cohen at a particular place or location. (R.TP. 315, ls. 3-4.)
Peoples Exhibit 24 contained an attachment of the Colorado restraining order. Michele Rice (hereinafter “Ms. Rice”) sent it on February 14, 2011. Half an hour later she received approximately 95 e-mails. Ms. Lynch in the e-mail said it was a fraudulent restraining order and she wanted some tax information. (R.T.P. 333, ls. 20-23.) Ms. Rice would personally save the e-mails during the period between 2004 and 2011 if they were on her yahoo! Small Business Account. (R.T.P. 362, ls. 14-23.) She did not sit there and supervise if the e-mails were for Mr. Kory. (R.T.P. 363. Ls. 13-28.)
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. (R.P.T. 462, ls. 8-10.)
On May 25, 2005 one day after a SWAT team incident a custody matter had been filed. (R.T.P. 462, ls. 11-15.) “ I don’t know Mr. Kory at all. I had lunch with him, I stopped by his office and I saw him at the restraining order hearing at Boulder “ (R.T.P. 462, ls. 18-27.)
“I went to a lunch meeting with Robert Kory. I was told by Mr. Kory that there was fraud, tax fraud on every entity: Blue Mist Touring, Traditional Holdings, LC Investments. There were problems with Stranger Music, Inc. that also had tax issues as Steven Machat know for a fact.. Mr. Kory asked if I would mediate on Mr. Cohen’s side against his advisors. Mr. Kory told me that Arther Indursky, Don Friedman and Stuart Fried of Grubman, Indursky Firm committed fraud and inducement, as did Greg McBowman.”
Ms. Lynch met Mr. Cohen in 1984 when she was employed by the law firm of Machat and Machat. She began working with Mr. Cohen after Mr. Machet died. (R.T.P. 448, ls. 13-24.) She worked for Cohen from 1988 until 2004. In several e-mails Ms. Lynch was requesting to be paid commissions with respect to deals etc. (R.T.P. 457, ls. 11-28.) At no time during 2004 through 2005 the police did not contact Ms. Lynch regarding the threatening of Mr. Cohen and his children or Mr. Kory. (R.T.P. 466, ls. 1-8.) NOTE: I think I was contacted - see SWAT.
I don’t know if I was contacted regarding Mr. Cohen’s taxes. As I reported the tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer, I as 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 onlne with the IRS. And I also called the IRS in Washington. (R.P.T. 463, ls.11-17.)
I spoke to Agent Bill Betzer on April 15, 2005 after I paid my taxes in full. (R.T.P. 463, ls. 20-23). 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.
(R.T.P. 464, ls.13-16.) 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. (R.P.T. 464, ls. 25-28, R.P.T. 465, ls. 1-3.)
[Public Defender] Now, 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? (R.P.T. 466, ls. 9-12.)
When Marty Machat died - Marty Machat represented Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector ... I ultimately became Leonard Cohen’s personal manager and interned with Phil Spector. For -- especially for 1988 and 1989. Thereafter, I worked for him from time to time. (R.P.T. 466, ls. 13-19.) Now, we heard evidence about an interview that Mr. Cohen had with the Los Angeles Police Department. (R.P.T. 466, ls. 20-21.) I explained to Steve Cron that ... 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. (R.P.T. 467, ls. 3-8.) Well, I’ve heard that he put a gun to his neck and I’ve heard he’s put a gun to his neck. (R.P.T. 467, ls. 16-17.) [Public defender] Something about a grand jury. What did you mean in those emails? (R.P.T. 468, ls 1-2.) What I meant is that Mick Brown of the UK Telegraph wrote me -- 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. (R.P.T. 468, ls. 7-16.)
I was never served with a summons regarding a complaint in 2005. (R.T.P. 468, ls. 18-26.) I read the complaint when it was put online in April of 2010 and I was astounded at the allegations. I was not represented (R.T.P. 469, ls. 11-21.) From 2006 to 2012 Ms. Lynch never received any of the tax information she requested from Mr. Cohen. (R.T.P. 478, ls. 26-28.)
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 I was not entitled to my commission. (R.P.T. 470, ls. 10-15.)
Doug Davis is a tax advocate that was assigned to me to remove the lien while I attempted once again to get the tax information I needed to file my returns. (R.P.T. 470, ls. 22-25.)
Well, my son had a very serious accident. He had his fingers ripped off. That was in 2007. So a friend of mine, a Tibetan lama by the name of Yongzin Rinpoche, felt that, you7 know, I’ve been through a lot and things were very stressful for me. I ended up homeless in 2006 and he and his wife asked me to visit. (R.P.T. 471, ls. 1-6.)
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, I 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. (R.P.T. 471-472, ls. 23-28, 1.)
And did you ever say that Mr. Cohen cut off ... your son’s fingers. (R.P.T. 472, ls. 7-8.)
I don’t blame Mr. Cohen. My son, Rutger, personally believes that if I had not gone to the IRS, reported this tax fraud, created a contentious situation with Leonard Cohen, that he wouldn’t have lost his fingers. (R.P.T. 472, ls. 12-16.)
Streeter, who has lied about me relentlessly and dragged my son into this - causing him further pain, now objects.
You’ve never accused Mr. Cohen for being responsible for cutting off -- (R.P.T. 472, ls. 22-23.)
Well, he doesn’t have a meat grinder at Whole Foods, so that would be impossible. (R.P.T. 472, 25-26.
“One of the main reasons I contacted Leonard Cohen - I have K-1s that were transmitted to the IRS that do not belong to me. I was not a partner on LC Investments. That causes tremendous confusion with my taxes “ (R.T.P. 497, ls. 1—19.)
None of the e-mails are harassing. I feel like I’m being harassed by not being given the information. Another e-mail has to do with the fact that I think Leonard Cohen has lied about Phil Spector holding a gun on him (R.T.P. 501, ls, 24-27.)
Ms. Lynch was at the restraining order hearing in Colorado. I told the judge I felt Leonard Cohen was dangerous to me and asked if this restraining order would protect me, that’s correct. There was no evidentiary hearing. (R.T.P. 511, ls. 18-21.) I actually filed a motion to vacate with Judge Enichen after I went back and I realized that Leonard Cohen’s perjury and fraud were excessive. (R.T.P. 512, ls. 14-17.) Ms. Lynch understood that she could have no contact with Leonard Cohen from 2005 until 2008. Ms. Lynch never received a judgment on May 15, 2006 as she was homeless. (R.T.P. 525, ls. 12-17.)
Emails, voicemails ... Emails again to Steve Cooley, the FBI, [Agent] Sopko. (R.T.P. 42, ls. 1-2.) And indeed, one of the things, the evidence will show, that she talks a lot about is tax fraud and the need to have the tax return ... Indeed the most important thing that she mentions every so often the tax statement is really a ruse ..,. Ms. Lynch specifically asked for her K-1 form ...” (R.T.,P. 42, ls. 12-25.)
NOTE: Sandra Jo Streeter is lying about the IRS, my need for a 1099 (which only Cohen can provide me), the illegal K-1s that Cohen transmitted to the IRS, and her statement that the IRS matter is a ruse for me to contact Cohen are laughable, farcical, and absurd. The woman was gushing into her cell phone about celebrity Leonard Cohen.
Let’s talk a little bit about Ms. Lynch’s need for the tax form or tax return ,.. Mr. Cohen has no clue as to what a W-2 form is, a 1099 is, a K-1 form. The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch is the one that had all of that information, knew all that information. Mr. Cohen did not have it, does not have it and does not understand what it means. (R.T.P. 43, ls. 3-9.)
Leonard Cohen, or his representatives, are the only individuals who can provide me with a 1099 for the year 2004. Of course, Leonard Cohen has the information. He paid my commissions. The lies are truly deranged and one must wonder about Streeter's motive.
Around 2005, that’s when things began to change ... there were questions about the IRS and taxes ... He got his attorneys involved ... and his attorneys had a plan., The plan was to get Ms. Lynch to work with Mr. Cohen and to pin the blame on ... She said no, I’m not going to falsify anything. , I’m not going to go out and do what you tell me to do, and she refused ... Well, she’s not going to help us. That means she’s going to hurt us. So they went after Ms. Lynch the best way they knew how. Using the legal system ... have done everything in their power to harm Ms,. Lynch ... she’s lost everything ... her job, her money, her child, all orchestrated ... if they ruin her credibility, well, that helps Mr. Cohen. And they have done everything in their power to hurt Ms. Lynch’s credibility. (R.T.P. 45, ls, 1-28.) They wanted to go and they went and tried to hurt her economically and to put a restraining order so they couldn’t have any contact during the litigation. That was their intent. That was their purpose. (R.T.P. 46, ls. 9-13.)
She began to indicate that I was the author of her misfortunes and everything happens to her was my fault and that she would she would repay me with the same kind of kindness as I had shown her. That was said in a very menacing tone. (R.T.P. 53, ls. 11-15.) After the default judgment, she began to be very clear that I had ... some kind of fraudulent action against her ... (R.T.P. 53, ls. 23-25.) There are some voicemail messages that said “You’re going to be sorry you ever met me.” (R.T.P., ls. 6-7.)
Did she ever mention Phil Spector ... (R.T.P. 57, ls. 3-4.) She accused me of testifying before a secret grand jury which resulted in the conviction of Phil Spector. (R.T.P. 57, ls. 8-10.) She accused me of being indirectly responsible for her losing custody of one child. (R.T.P. 58, ls. 1-2.) Does she have another child? (R.T.P. 58, l. 5.) His name is Rutger .... (R.T.P. 58, l. 8.) The very tone and volume of the emails suggested a threat -- (R.T.P. 60, ls. 4-5.) She’s changed her emails several times. (R.T.P. 60, ls. 16-17.)
In any of her emails, did she ever mentiion Phil Spector? (R.T.P. 60, ls. 27-28.) She often mentioned Phil Spector, repeating over and over that I had testified before a grand jury and I was involved in the conviction of Phil Spector. (R.T.P. 61, ls. 1-4.)
And the declaration by Ms. Lynch that she would never back down. (R.T.P. 72, ls. 19-20.)
[Prosecutor] And do you also recall, discussions about K-1, criminal K-1. (R.P.T. 82, ls. 2-3.)
[Cohen] A 1099, yes, is issue by an employer to an employee. (R.P.T. 83, ls. 17-18.) Sometimes if she was writing to the Department of Justice she might say, “Love, Kelley.” Or to me she might say “Lynch,.” She had different ways of signing them, as I remember. (R.P.T. 86, ls. 18-22.)
Did Ms. Lynch in any of her emails accuse you of molesting your children. (R.P.T. 90, ls. 5-6) followed by Do you know what N-A-M-B-L-A is, Mr. Cohen? (R.P.T. 90, ls. 10-11.) followed by I don’t think this particular email is referencing me. (R.P.T. 919, ls,. 26-27.)
NOTE: This has nothing to do with Cohen. Gianelli.
Public Defender - Your honor, I’ll object to 352. More prejudicial than probative. Cohen proceeds to testify about minor children, allegations re. child molestation, etc.
[Prosecutor] Did she also mention the IRS? (R.P.T. 93, l. 19.) [Cohen] Yes, she routinely mentioned the Department of Justice, The FBI, The IRS ... (R.,P.T. 94, ls. 20-21.)
[Prosecutor] Did she ever mention anybody from the District Attorney’s Office? (R.P.T. 94, ls. 23-24.)
[Prosecutor] Does she make any comment about a gentleman - about Alan Jackson? (R.P.T. 95, ls. 5-6.)
[Prosecutor] Has she ever compared you to being like Mr. Cooley and Mr. Jackson? (R.P.T. 95, ls. 20-21.) [Cohen] I think I was included among those villains. (R.P.T. 95, ls. 22-23.)
[Prosecutor] Is there any mention of Steve Cooley. (R.P.T. 96, l. 24.) [Prosecutor] Is there any mention of Alan Jackson. (R.P.T. 96, l. 26.)
[Cohen describing the comparison he believes I’ve made between him, Cooley, and Jackson] She says we live our lives selfishly pursuing fame at the expense of others. (R.P.T. 97, ls. 6-7.)
[Cohen] I think she did mention something about drug usage. (R.P.T. 130, ls. 11-12.)
Testimony about Cohen and drugs. See public record. He feels I assailed his reputation although his history of psychiatric problems, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. is public and well documented.
[Prosecutor] Was the District Attorney referred to in the voice mail message that we just heard? Do you recall? (R.P.T. 145, 19-21.)
[Cohen’s testimony regarding Rutger] Yes, many times she suggested I was responsible for an accident that befell him. (R.P.T. 58, ls. 10-11.)