0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
511 Ansichten64 Seiten
This legal declaration was attached to Kelley Lynch's legal claims against the City and County of Los Angeles with respect to their unconscionable targeting of her. The claims notified the City and County of Los Angeles that Kelley Lynch will be filing a federal lawsuit against them. Her claims relate to matters involving Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector, and Internal Revenue Service.
This legal declaration was attached to Kelley Lynch's legal claims against the City and County of Los Angeles with respect to their unconscionable targeting of her. The claims notified the City and County of Los Angeles that Kelley Lynch will be filing a federal lawsuit against them. Her claims relate to matters involving Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector, and Internal Revenue Service.
This legal declaration was attached to Kelley Lynch's legal claims against the City and County of Los Angeles with respect to their unconscionable targeting of her. The claims notified the City and County of Los Angeles that Kelley Lynch will be filing a federal lawsuit against them. Her claims relate to matters involving Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector, and Internal Revenue Service.
1. I am a resident of Los Angeles California. Except as to those matters stated on information and belief, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and could and would testify competently thereto if asked to do so.
2. This declaration supplements the Claim for Damages forms I am submitting to the City and County of Los Angeles, California, respectively. A great deal of the damages and injuries arise from false arrests and false imprisonments related to a 2012 trial for allegedly willfully and knowingly violating a valid restraining order and intending to annoy singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen for no legitimate purpose. Following a trial replete with perjured testimony, false allegations and statements, a complete lack of representation, and egregious prosecutorial misconduct, I was found guilty, sentenced, and received probation which included demands that I submit to programs domestic violence programs and pay fines/fees related to domestic violence and effective assistance of counsel. On January 22, 2014, I was found guilty of violating probation for contacting the City Attorney's office with respect to legitimate grievances and for other reasons - including the fact that I was representing myself with respect to a Writ of Habeas Corpus. I was under the impression that prosecutors with the City Attorney's Office had a duty of candor. The damages and injuries involve a prolonged and sustained course of conduct, beginning in 2005 (with a SWAT incident on May 25, 2005), culminating with my January 22, 2014 false arrest and imprisonment, and continuing. This matter involves Los Angeles County and City officials, politicians, law enforcement, employees, LA Superior Court, and others.
3. Much of what has occurred relates to the fact that on or about October 21, 2004, Leonard Cohen and I parted ways. I had worked as his personal manager - and in other capacities - since April 1988. The issues also relate to my friendship with Phil Spector and an "anonymous" tip placed to the District Attorney's office about that friendship. According to Investigator Brian Bennett, Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, a woman allegedly placed that "anonymous" tip.
4. In the fall of 2004, Leonard Cohen heard that I was reporting his tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service. At that time, he repeatedly attempted to force me into meeting with him and his tax lawyer, Richard Westin. Westin planned to fly into Los Angeles the last weekend of October 2004. According to Cohen, he wanted me to assist them with the unravelling of various entities including, but not limited to, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., LC Investments, LLC, and Traditional Holdings, LLC. Cohen also demanded that I hand over the corporate books and records for Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., LC Investments, LLC, and Traditional Holdings, LLC. I refused to meet with them and hand over the corporate records. I did, however, ask my 2
lawyers to transmit the corporate books and records to Cohen's lawyers, Greenberg Glusker. On April 15, 2005 and thereafter, I reported Leonard Cohen's tax fraud to the Internal Revenue Service. I had already contacted the State of Kentucky Revenue Cabinet and spoke with Michael Maunts about the Kentucky entity known as Traditional Holdings, LLC. Mr. Maunts concluded, at that time, that this entity did not have a business purpose and questioned its presence in Kentucky.
5. In September 2004, following extremely disturbing conduct on the part of Leonard Cohen, Richard Westin, and Neal Greenberg (Cohen's financial and investment advisor), receiving inconceivably unconscionable emails and letters, suspecting that these three individuals (and possibly others) had engaged in tax fraud and/or tax evasion, I hired an accountant, Dale Burgess, who referred me to the law firm of DiMascio & Berardo. I met with DiMascio & Berardo, reviewed the corporate books and records, and other evidence, and sometime around October 20, 2004, they attempted to contact both Leonard Cohen and Richard Westin. Both Cohen and Westin attempted to avoid DiMascio & Berardo's calls. The number of IRS inquiries regarding Leonard Cohen, Neal Greenberg, and Richard Westin's tax planning and corporate schemes was becoming alarming.
6. In September 2004, a Grand Jury indicted Phil Spector for the murder of Lana Clarkson. I was ultimately advised by Mick Brown/UK Telegraph that he reviewed the Grand Jury testimony/transcripts and confirmed that Leonard Cohen's statements/testimony were presented to the Grand Jury. I found this appalling as Leonard Cohen advised me for approximately 20 years that Phil Spector never held a gun on him and his stories to the news media were highly embellished good rock 'n roll stories. This situation would come back to haunt me and, according to the City Attorney and Leonard Cohen, my repeating what Mick Brown told me was an intent on my part to annoy Leonard Cohen. The prosecutor had an obligation to investigate her witness and provide my lawyers with Brady materials. She failed to do so. Given the fact that Streeter advised the Court that the District Attorney's Office contacted her with respect to me, and Cooley had his investigator in the courtroom for the proceedings, it would seem reasonable to assume that any Cohen statements/testimony presented to a Grand Jury could easily have been confirmed. In any event, there are motions readily available at LA Superior Court's website proving that one version of a Leonard Cohen gun story with respect to Phil Spector was raised in Spector's trials. Unfortunately, that version is directly contradicted by Cohen's testimony in my 2012 trial and his email to Streeter of April 5, 2012. There are now three different versions of Leonard Cohen's highly embellished gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court. On another note, my court appointed trial lawyers failed to respond to Mick Brown and/or obtain a declaration from him clarifying this situation.
7. On October 27, 2004, I advised DiMascio & Berardo to fax a letter to Richard Westin c/o of the University of Kentucky where he worked as a law professor. They asked Westin to explain, as the architect of certain entities, the structures and any liability these entities may have exposed me to. Cohen and Westin agreed to meet the last weekend of October 2004. I refused to attend the meeting. 3
8. Leonard Cohen attended that meeting with his lawyers, Richard Westin, Ricardo Cistero of Greenberg, Glusker, and others. Their response to DiMascio & Berardo's letter was to falsely accuse me of receiving overpayments from Leonard Cohen and various entities. The assertion was based on the absurd theory that I received overpayments for my fees as Cohen's personal manager and willfully disregarded my ownership interest in numerous entities, corporate books, records, stock certificates, and other documentation and information. This evidence was replaced with a fictional and fraudulent narrative. The corporate records legally reflect the fact that I am a 99.5% owner of Traditional Holdings, LLC and a 15% owner of Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and all intellectual property assigned thereto. Furthermore, I should be (and this may have been corrected after the entity was formed) a 15% owner of Old Ideas LLC and am owed commissions for a tremendous amount of work I did on Cohen's behalf.
9. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers (including his now personal manager Robert Kory) also began pointing fingers at many people including, but not limited to, Neal Greenberg, Richard Westin, attorneys Arthur Indursky, Stuart Fried, Don Friedman, consultant Greg McBowman, and Ken Cleveland, Cohen's accountant. The key issue was and remains tax fraud although it has been distorted and obscured through the various accusations and allegations. Cohen, Westin, and Greenberg all moved to protect themselves. In the fall of 2004, these three individuals were hysterical. Cohen personally called me morning, noon, and night - sometimes as early as 5 AM.
10. My lawyers and accountant communicated and met with Cohen and Cohen's representatives including, but not necessarily limited to, Ricardo Cestero, Robert Kory, and former Los Angeles District Attorney Ira Reiner. Cohen repeatedly attempted to force me into a settlement and my representatives were advised that he wanted me to assist with mediations involving Richard Westin, Neal Greenberg, and possibly others. Robert Kory personally advised me that he/Cohen planned to go after all of Cohen advisors. At one point, I advised Steve Lindsey (my younger son's father) that my lawyers were informed by Cohen's that he planned to go after Ken Cleveland, his accountant, as well. Steve Lindsey repeated this to songwriter Mike Elizondo who, in turn, repeated it to Ken Cleveland. This caused Cohen to personally phone Mike Elizondo to assure him that he had no such plan.
11. While an accounting that would address corporate ownership interests was warranted, Cohen refused to participate and has steadfastly refused to provide me with corporate and personal bank statements, royalty and IP income statements, corporate profit and loss statements, statements addressing Greenberg's commissions (as Cohen's investment and financial adviser), agreements and contracts, and other information that would allow me to have an accounting prepared. Cohen's loans/transaction fees were and remain willfully disregarded. As Cohen's personal manager, I received a 15% commission and it was Cohen and my understanding that he would pay me the full 15% due me from April 1988. For years, he did not pay me the full standard personal manager commission. I also did a tremendous amount of other work for Cohen and, in those capacities, was 4
compensated with 15% of Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. which was assigned all of Cohen's intellectual property and advised that I would receive 15% of Old Ideas, LLC, a company formed by Westin in or around June 2004. Cohen planned to use that entity for all publishing with respect to the "Dear Heather" studio album. Leonard Cohen attempted, but failed, to assign assets owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. into his wholly owned entity LC Investments, LLC and then Traditional Holdings, LLC. These assets have never been valued. This information is needed to address certain issues on my federal and state tax returns.
12. From October 2004 - August 2005, I was offered a variety of settlements by Cohen/Kory that included: 50% community property, all commissions due me, confirmation that my ownership in all intellectual property totaled 15% dating back to 1967 (per the non-revocable assignments). Much of this information was documented at the time for Boies Schiller who represented Cohen's financial and investment advisor, Neal Greenberg. Since June 2005, I have documented everything I have gone through since reporting the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud for the Internal Revenue Service and others including FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, Dennis Riordan (Phil Spector's appellate attorney), and the news media. According to DCA Susan Schmitter, who handled the response to my Appeal Brief, these are irrelevant parties. QUOTE SCHMITTER.
13. From October 22 - 24, 2004, Cohen phoned Greenberg to accuse me of taking money from the Traditional Holdings, LLC account without his authorization and claimed I was using the money to support a "gigolo." Leonard Cohen is an extremely devious and dishonest man and story teller. Cohen has also told extremely embellished stories about Phil Spector and Janis Joplin and as well as his alleged roles in the Yom Kippur War, Bay of Pigs, and about Janis Joplin.
14. In or around January 2005, I was advised that Ira Reiner was representing Leonard Cohen. Robert Kory evidently was not a litigator and Reiner would handle the mediations with Greenberg, Westin, etc. I refused to participate. In an early draft memorandum, dated January 5, 2005 (with Ira Reiner and Kevin Prins copied in), Robert Kory raised very serious matters that were outstanding. One of those issues was addressed as follows: "Impact of phantom income to Lynch from profit allocations without distributions from Traditional Holdings." It seems apparent that Leonard Cohen felt extremely comfortable shifting phantom income in my direction, instructing his tax lawyer, Westin, to prepare the tax returns and K-1s, advising IRS and others that I received income, and permitting me to pay taxes on this income. Another very serious tax matter is this: "Impact on all parties of Traditional Holdings failure to report sale to Sony ..." Richard Westin worked for Leonard Cohen as his personal tax lawyer. He prepared the tax returns for this entity. It is truly astounding that Leonard Cohen would not only commit tax fraud but would then attempt to benefit from his fraud. It's no wonder that in his shameless Victim Impact Statement, following my 2012 trial, he thanked the taxpayer. Cohen and Kory proposed a schedule for the mediations that would include: mediation agreement by January 21, 2005, notice to Greenberg and Westin, and a meditation target day - 90 days or less from date of mediation agreement. On or around May 20, 2005, Robert Kory wrote and advised me that "I have extraordinary negotiating authority to resolve 5
this matter, forgive improper loss of Leonard's money, if any, and put this matter behind you and Leonard with the least damage to all." I was also advised that Cohen would pay outstanding commissions and my 15% ownership interest in all intellectual property. I could easily have made this deal but the confidential settlement required my testimony against Neal Greenberg, Richard Westin, and possibly Ken Cleveland, Arthur Indursky, Don Friedman, Stuart Fried, and Greg McBowman. Some of these individuals were close friends and colleagues of mine and I view them as entirely innocent.
15. In a January 14, 2005 memorandum to my lawyers, with Ira Reiner and Kevin Prins copied in, Kory addressed potential fraud in the inducement claims against not only Greenberg and Westin but also Arthur Indursky, Stuart Fried, and Don Friedman (all transaction attorneys with the Grubman, Indursky firm) and Greg McBowman, royalty consultant and CPA/lawyer, of committing fraud in the inducement. I do not believe anyone had to "induce" Leonard Cohen into these deals or looking for ways to avoid and/or evade taxation. I found that accusation laughable given Cohen's disdain for ordinary income taxes; aggressive tax planning; demands for complex stock deals; and Neal Greenberg's January 2004 "IRS Dangers" letters. The danger with respect to IRS had to do with Cohen's loans from certain entities including Traditional Holdings, LLC. Greenberg wrote Cohen that the IRS might take the position that his "loans" were actually "disguised salary." In other words, income. Greenberg was clear in his letters to Cohen: there would be millions of dollars in back taxes if IRS successfully challenged the original Traditional Holdings transaction. Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin repeatedly advised me that Cohen's loans were dangerous to this structure. Leonard Cohen was well aware of the need to repay these loans within three (3) years with interest. The letters Greenberg sent were clearly "cover your ass" letters with remarks about Cohen spending too much. Leonard Cohen understood he would receive $1 million advance shortly after these letters; I was working on a multi-million deal with Sony - at his direction; I was working on a multi-million lithograph deal; and, he planned to tour (and was contractually obligated to do so) regardless of the stories he fed the news media. Leonard Cohen, according to industry estimates, has grossed approximately $50 million on tour. There was nothing dire about his financial situation. Cohen did not, however, want Greenberg to know about his future income including the $1 million album advance. 16. On or about June 6, 2005, Neal Greenberg filed a lawsuit against Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory. To paraphrase Judge Lewis Babock, the allegations of the Complaint are substantially the following. In 1997, Leonard Cohen retained Neal Greenberg and his companies to create charitable trusts and manage the assets placed into those trusts. Leonard Cohen drew extravagant sums from the trusts, depleting the principal amounts. Cohen and Kory allegedly conspired to extort the depleted monies from Greenberg by tarnishing his reputation, asserting spurious claims, and coercing a settlement from his insurance carrier. This they intended to accomplish by using Leonard Cohen's fame as a prominent recording artist to provide defamatory statements about the Greenberg to the press. Cohen and Kory tried to compel Kelley Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Complaint does not indicate that this 6
purported thuggery was effective. According to the Greenberg Complaint, on November 7, 2004, Cohen emailed Greenberg stating: "please to talk to the insurer. A great deal of suffering can be avoided."
Greenberg Lawsuit U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Civil Action No. 05-CV-01233-LTB-MJW
17. Greenberg also alleged in his complaint, and this is precisely what I witnessed, that Cohen and Kory were working with Steve Lindsey (the father of my younger son, Ray Charles Lindsey) and his friend, Betsy Superfon. Dan Scheid, one of Greenberg's lawyers, confirmed that he has evidence that Cohen, Kory, Lindsey, and Superfon engaged in witness tampering and conspired to have me falsely arrested by LAPD on May 25, 2005 when a SWAT team descended on my former Brentwood, California home. In a declaration dated May 26, 2005 (in connection with the coordinated custody matter), Lindsey confirms that "Mr. Cohen and his attorney, Robert Kory, have been attempting to negotiate with Respondent to avoid filing a lawsuit against her. Mr. Kory's attempts to negotiation have been without success ..." It is my absolute opinion that the custody matter was brought about to crush me into a deal with Leonard Cohen. Judge Craig Karlan removed Ray Charles Lindsey from my custody, based on a fictional and fraudulent narrative and perjured declarations, and - as it turns out - this destroyed my son's life, his brother's life, my parents' have not seen their grandson in nearly 10 years, and two Buddhist teacher - who are extraordinary individuals - are now guiding my son through his ordeal and helping him with the stress this has caused him. That would be Drukpa Yongzin Rinpoche and Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche.
18. I was told, by my lawyers, that Cohen planned to go on tour and speak to media outlets - such as "Oprah" - to "blow the whistle on Greenberg and Westin." Instead, they ultimately used the news media to falsely blame and discredit me. This slanderous and defamatory conduct continues to this day. EXHIBIT - Issimo article with slander and lies about me and Phil Spector.
19. Both Cohen and Kory had asked me to assist them in "going after" Neal Greenberg, Richard Westin, and others. I felt they were asking me to provide false testimony and possibly help them commit insurance fraud. Cohen, according to the Greenberg Complaint and what I personally witnessed, continued to press for private "mediations" until approximately June 5, 2005. Cohen evidently demanded $8 million from Greenberg although he personally had spent millions of the Traditional Holdings, LLC assets. The 2001 Sony deal re. Traditional Holdings did not actually involve payments of $8 million as contractual obligations had to be fulfilled. In November 1999, Leonard Cohen personally received $1 million prepayment from Sony with respect to the 2001 deal. This prepayment ultimately became the subject of an IRS audit.
7
20. The Greenberg Complaint confirms that Cohen/Kory had the support of my then-attorney, Dianne DiMascio. Cohen/Kory sought to purchase or coerce or purchase my cooperation in their scheme to extort money from Neal Greenberg, and other advisors, through a forced "mediation" and "settlement." Kory continually advised my representatives that he had generous and extensive settlement authorities with respect to Lynch.
21. On January 11, 2005, Kory wrote DiMascio that Ira Reiner believed "properly framed letters to Greenberg and to Westin would cause their insurance companies to show up."
22. I continued to refuse to attend meetings that Leonard Cohen planned to attend. Nevertheless, in February 2005, DiMascio attended a meeting after which she advised me that Cohen and Kory "want your cooperation in pursuing Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin." Cohen and Kory wanted me to acknowledge that Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin defrauded Cohen. I found the notion absurd.
23. In the spring of 2005, I had lunch with Robert Kory. Boies Schiller advised me that they felt Cohen/Kory were attempting to engage me in criminal conduct and suggested that I have DA Investigator Brian Bennett wire me for this meeting. Bennett was one of the investigators on the Phil Spector case and Phil Spector is a very dear friend of mine. At that lunch meeting, which was documented for Boies Schiller, Kory advised me that Cohen wanted to settle with me, would give me anything I wanted, he himself had the authority to offer me a considerable settlement, there was tax fraud on all Cohen-related entities (including Stranger Music, Inc., Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., LC Investments, LLC, and Traditional Holdings, LLC), the holding periods re. Intellectual Property assigned to these entities were illegal; I had a cause of action against ALL of Cohen's advisors/representatives and Cohen would support me in those matters; and confirmed that Cohen wanted my assistance in going after Neal Greenberg, Richard Westin, and others.
24. According to the Greenberg Complaint and what I personally witnessed, Steven Clark Lindsey and Betsy Superfon attempted to assist Cohen/Kory in "brokering" a deal with me. Superfon advised me that "Leonard and Kory are trying to get you out of this situation. I asked Superfon to phone Cohen/Kory to request that they fax me a written settlement agreement. According to Superfon, when she asked Kory to fax me the settlement document, he said "this isn't the type of deal you can fax." Superfon felt the deal was "illegal."
25. When these (and other) tactics failed to draw me into Cohen /Kory's extortion plan, they turned to far more aggressive tactics. Cohen and Kory vowed to "crush" me and, according to the Greenberg Complaint, planned to use restraining orders to prevent me "from serving as a credible witness regarding both Cohen's affairs and in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without success to draw her."
8
26. According to the Greenberg Complaint and my personal experience, consistent with that vow and plan, Cohen and Kory engaged tactics meant to terrorize, silence, and disparage me. This included coordinating a custody matter with Steve Lindsey. At one point, Cohen and Kory actually went into Steve Lindsey's office and advised him that while we were together I had sex with Oliver Stone. This was clearly meant to stir up a custody matter and was essentially one of their first lines of defense with respect to the allegations that Cohen committed tax fraud.
27. In the winter of 2005, Investigator Brian Bennett of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office stopped by my former Brentwood home unannounced. He advised me that the Los Angeles District Attorney had received an "anonymous tip" from a woman about my friendship with Phil Spector. My lawyer, Dianne DiMascio, advised me that she felt Bennett actually stopped by with respect to Cohen's tax fraud.
28. On May 25, 2005, in a coordinated fashion with Lindsey's child custody petition, Cohen/Kory encouraged or directed Lindsey to call in a warning to LAPD that caused a police or SWAT team to descend, guns drawn, on my home. This resulted in an absurd and lurid situation with LAPD demanding to know who my hostage was and using my older son as a hostage negotiator and human shield. I was in my home alone wearing a bikini. LAPD willfully and recklessly ignored Rutger who advised them that I was in the house alone and he personally had just picked up my younger son, Ray, and dropped him off at the bottom of Mandeville Canyon Road with Cloris Leachman, the mother of Lindsey's then girlfriend. LAPD advised Rutger that they planned to "shoot" me and our dog. I was literally held hostage in my home, in a bikini, for keeping my son home from school due to the fact that he did not feel well. Lindsey, whose conduct had become increasingly aggressive with me and my sons, was someone I did not want on my property. Inglewood PD advised Rutger that they were present as well. Ultimately, LAPD advised Rutger that my "dog" was my hostage and they were taking "precautions." Boies Schiller felt that I would have to be holding someone like Chelsea Clinton hostage to get this type of police response. I had no hostage.
Steve Lindsey Declaration dated May 26, 2005: "I told Rutger to take Ray and meet me and my fiance, Dinah, at the bottom of Respondent's street" (NOTE: I had Rutger come home to drive Ray to the bottom of the hill, so Lindsey did not come on my property, and he dropped Ray off with Cloris Leachman). "I then called the police, and the policeman with whom I spoke informed me that they had already received many phone calls regarding Respondent's behavior (presumably from her neighbors) and that the police were already on their way to her house ... He asked me to come to the house to describe the layout to the police officers there ... I went to the house and described the layout. To the best of my recollection there were approximately 20 police officers surrounding the house. One policeman asked me whether there were any guns in the house, and Rutger responded that he owned a shotgun, which he kept in the guesthouse." My neighbors, Morgan and Steve Smith and directly across the street, Stanka and Bojan Bazelli are the only two neighbors close enough to 9
really see or hear anything at my house. These individuals did not call LAPD and were horrified by what unfolded.
29. LAPD ultimately handcuffed me and took me nearly three hours (in traffic) to King Drew ("Killer King") although I lived approximately 8 minutes from UCLA. Officer Maurice Hampton and SMART Officer Erma Oppenhein questioned me about Phil Spector and guns en route to Killer King. I have no idea how they knew I was Phil Spector's friend but Oppenhein told me "this will be good for you" when I asked where they were taking me. At Killer King, I was drugged without my permission and left in a very dangerous environment. A nurse informed me that I was being transferred at which point I demanded a new doctor. Dr. D'Angelo took my file, advised me to wait my turn, released me, disagreed with LAPD, and informed me, Rutger, and Evan Reiss that nothing in the file would cause me to lose custody of Ray. The entire Killer King file is evidence of fraud. Apart from my address and Steve Lindsey's name and cell phone, all information in that file is false including, but not limited to, the spelling of my name, social security number, place of birth, date of birth, religious affiliation, medical number, statements attributed to my son Rutger, and all medical information. I phoned Yongzin Rinpoche, a friend of mine, numerous times from Killer King.
30. While I was being taken to Killer King, Rutger received a call from Steve Lindsey asking him to go in and sign over/transfer my house to Cohen/Kory. He immediately phoned his father, Douglas Penick, who advised him to speak with an attorney. Rutger decided not to answer or return Lindsey's calls.
31. Immediately upon my release, I was informed that a custody matter had been coordinated. I phoned my former landlord, Congresswoman Yvonne Burke, to discuss the situation. She advised me that she would look into the 9/11 call and could not think of one reason why a SWAT team would descend on my house. I also discussed the absolutely vile conditions at Killer King with her.
32. According to the Greenberg Complaint, Cohen and Kory's scheme might have succeeded if I had not refused to cooperate and, instead, made the decision to permit Boies Schiller to review three huge boxes of evidence and provided them with other information. They understood that Cohen was attempting to blame his wrongdoing on me, owed me millions, and advised me to sue Cohen for wrongful conversion, intentional torts, fraud, ...
33. Cohen/Kory, unaware that I had provided evidence/information to Boies Schiller continued, according to the Greenberg Complaint, to take steps to further their extortion scheme. Cohen and Kory informed Neal Greenberg that he (and possibly others) had "proposed the sale of Cohen's illiquid assets, including Cohen's royalty interests" and contended that "Cohen was convinced by (Greenberg) of the financial necessity to sell off his royalty interest during his lifetime ..." Cohen is the party that demanded these deals. Greenberg and his lawyers were well aware of my 15% ownership interest in Blue Mist Touring (and all IP) and 99.5% of Traditional Holdings. 10
Leonard Cohen has attempted to explain away his role in these deals by falsely stating that he was told, by numerous parties, that he had less income than he thought. Leonard Cohen was obsessed with his sales figures; understood that royalties are generally paid quarterly or bi-annually; and was keenly aware of advances, audit results, etc. On August 30, 2000, in connection with a lawsuit filed against him by CAK Universal (breach of contract) Cohen stated: "I receive what I view to be substantial royalties, on a regular basis, from sales of my albums and uses of my compositions." Attached to that declaration is CAK's "Summary of Terms and Conditions" signed by Leonard Cohen on May 10, 1999 when he was contemplating a bond securitization deal with them. Leonard Cohen was keenly aware of this agreement and this is the contract he breached. This very short document, that I read with Cohen, states that CAK would enter into a bond securitization with Cohen up to an aggregate outstanding amount of $5.8 million; a good faith deposit of $75,000 was due; and, in order to do this deal, Cohen's royalty stream, from musical compositions and royalties, had to be $783,890. U.S. annually. These are substantial royalties when you take into consideration that fact that Cohen had not delivered a studio album since 1992 and his next album would not be delivered for some time. Cohen rarely did press, was not touring, and many publishing deals were voluntarily suspended in an anticipation of these deals. That reduced Cohen's income and forced Sony, his advisors and me to come up with other forms of sales and marketing.
34. On June 3, 2005, Greenberg provided Kory with a draft complaint which revealed to Cohen and Kory, for the first time, that I and others had exposed their extortion scheme. Specifically, the draft complaint demonstrated that Greenberg was aware of Cohen's scheme to use economic compensation, emotional intimidation, and other forms of undue pressure to coerce me to provide false testimony. Cohen and Kory cancelled their planned meeting with Greenberg. EXHIBIT HELLALUJAH.
35. Following the SWAT incident and my release from Killer King, I learned that I had lost custody of my son, Ray Charles Lindsey. It most definitely appears that Cohen, Lindsey, Kory, Superfon, and possibly others, conspired to have me falsely arrested. The Killer King incident was also raised in a deposition in connection with Rutger's Whole Foods accident. It needs to be determined if this information was used to arrive at the settlement he was offered.
36. On August 15, 2005, Leonard Cohen retaliated against me by filing a complaint replete with fraud, perjury, concealment ... in an effort to obstruct justice. Cohen granted Brian Johnson/Maclean's an interview which was published together with an article detailing Cohen's fictional narrative. Immediately after filing this lawsuit against me and Richard Westin, Cohen filed a lawsuit (or what appears to be an attempt to mediate/arbitrate) against Neal Greenberg. I only learned of this case two weeks ago or so. This means that while Cohen was suing me for certain monies, he was suing Greenberg for the same monies, and would ultimately apply for and receive federal and state tax refunds for the same monies - much of which was spent by him personally.
11
37. To date, I have not been served a summons and complaint re. Cohen's lawsuit. On August 9, 2013, I filed a motion to vacate Leonard Cohen's lawsuit. At the hearing on January 17, 2014, Judge Robert Hess appeared to argue that the process server could get every detail of one's appearance wrong. He refused to vacate Cohen's lawsuit and the default judgment which wrongfully altered previously filed federal tax returns and wrongfully converted my property to Cohen. Due to this default judgment, I have been forced to amend at least one of my federal tax returns and will need to do so with respect to other periods. I have also filed an Identity Theft Affidavit with IRS regarding the illegal use of my social security number in connection with refunds based on this entirely fraudulent and unconscionable situation. In April 2012, I discovered that Leonard Cohen obtained a federal tax refund using some version of the fraudulent expense ledger used to support the default judgment. In December 2013, I discovered that Leonard Cohen obtained a refund from the FTB using some version of the fraudulent expense ledger used to support the default judgment. I have now challenged both of these refunds, with IRS and FTB, as fraud.
38. It is important to note that as of the date I filed the motion to vacate, plaintiff LC Investments, LLC listed its place of business as my former P.O. Box; Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. continues to use my former P.O. Box as its business address; and Traditional Holdings, LLC is a Kentucky entity, with no ties to California, continues to list its business address as Cohen's tax lawyer's residence address. These entities appear to be shell corporations that engaged in sham transactions. Neither Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. or Traditional Holdings, LLC were named as parties to this lawsuit; LA Superior Court did not obtain jurisdiction over these entities; and yet they were inserted into a default judgment and my ownership interests were wrongfully conveyed to Leonard Cohen.
39. On or around October 18, 2005 and _______________, Sergeant Fernandez and others from LASD wrongfully entered my property to seize items Leonard Cohen had abandoned after failing to respond to my lawyer's letter of October 27, 2004 instructing him to make arrangements to pick up his personal property. Cohen was well aware that I had an office in my home and, for years, had stored boxes of old documents as a courtesy to him. On or around October 7, 2005, I received a letter from Scott Edelman advising me: "You may arrange to have these items delivered to my office on Monday, October 10, 2005 before 5:00 PM at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher." I was not in a financial position to arrange to ship items to Cohen nor was it my responsibility to do so. LASD seized property belonging to me (partnership documents), Machat & Machat, Phil Spector, and others. LASD did not provide me with an inventory. REVIEW EDELMAN LETTER.
40. At some point in mid-October Leonard Cohen, who together with his lawyers refused to communicate with me, requested and was granted a restraining order against me. That order was a civil harassment order and I have no details regarding the allegations or hearing which I was not present for apart from Leonard Cohen's testimony at my 2012 trial before LA Superior Court. QUOTE COHEN TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT RESTRAINING ORDER - MENTIONS A PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION. HE WAS REFERRING TO KILLER KING. 12
41. In November 2005, according to the LAPD report I discovered after my 2012 trial, Leonard Cohen met with a member of the Beverly Hills Police Department. Streeter advised my jury in closing arguments that Cohen had never reported me. This LAPD report was forwarded to the City Attorney and became the basis for my prosecution. QUOTE STREETER. QUOTE LAPD REPORT. Someone spoke to individuals at the DA's office (Bill Hodgman was mentioned) and Cohen was advised that "stalking" would not apply and instructed to file 653m charges.
42. On December 28, 2005, Rutger and I were evicted from our home. The eviction was videotaped by LASD. At this point, Rutger went to live with a friend and I ended up homeless. Both of my businesses - Stranger Management and Amazing Card Company - were destroyed. I was forced to leave my home without my animals - two Akitas and an African Grey parrot.
43. I was homeless, in Santa Monica, from approximately December 2005 until November 2006. During that period of time, I was relentlessly targeted and harassed by Santa Monica Police Department who told me that they understood I knew Phil Spector. I later heard from Betsy Superfon that Leonard Cohen and his legal representatives contacted Santa Monica Police Department. I documented all conduct with respect to the Santa Monica Police Department for the IRS, DOJ, Phil Spector, and others. It was around this time that I contacted Bruce Cutler.
44. At some point in or around November 2006, I briefly lived with a woman by the name of Idelle Port. She was going through a very tumultuous and dramatic divorce so I left and moved in with a friend of hers in Santa Ana.
45. In December 2006, I filed a Complaint with the DA's Major Fraud Unit regarding Leonard Cohen's theft and fraud. I spoke with Jeff Jonas and never heard back from anyone. In fact, Jeff Jonas advised me that he did not know if he should be speaking to me which I found rather bizarre. Leonard Cohen was never prosecuted. EXHIBIT - Information from DA's Major Fraud Unit Website Page. QUOTE STREETER RE. THE INSANITY WITH RESPECT TO MY TAX INFORMATION BEING ON THIS PAGE.
46. After filing this Complaint, individuals with the District Attorney's office became rude, hostile, and increasingly aggressive with me. One such individual is an investigator by the name of "Marko." At one point, Investigator Brian Bennett advised me that I could call downstairs but not upstairs (Executive Suite); told me if I did call upstairs he would have to "report" me; confirmed that he recalled my informing him that Leonard Cohen was attempting to blackmail me; addressed the federal matters I was dealing with; and asked me to send him the complaint I filed with Major Fraud. I advised Bennett to obtain a copy of my Complaint from the Major Fraud Unit. A FOIA request I submitted failed to uncover this Complaint.
13
47. At some point in or around January 2007, I contacted the Orange County District Attorney's Office and discussed the situation with respect to the conduct of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and some of what had occurred. The individual I spoke with advised me to file a report with the District Attorney's Internal Affairs Division and a complaint with the Attorney General of California which I did.
48. On or around February 3, 2007, my son Rutger lost three fingers in a meat grinder accident at Whole Foods in Brentwood, California. I spoke to OSHA's attorney and he advised me that if there was criminal negligence, the District Attorney's office would investigate and prosecute. As it turned out, there was indeed criminal negligence, which potentially exposed many individual to harm, and yet the District Attorney's Office failed to investigate or prosecute and has treated me reprehensibly with respect to that situation. QUOTE THE MAIN CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE ISSUES FROM DISCOVERY.
49. Sometime at the beginning of March 2007, Agent Sopko and her partner from the U.S. Treasury met with me in Santa Ana. On March 6, 2007, Agent Sopko emailed me the name of an individual in a fraud group at the IRS in Los Angeles. I was advised to provide Agent Luis Tejeda with information, details, and evidence related to Leonard Cohen's tax fraud. I contacted Agent Tejeda, reported the tax fraud, and have provided the IRS and other tax authorities with an abundance of evidence. REVIEW KORY'S LETTERS TO AGENT TEJEDA ONCE THEY FOUND OUT I MET WITH AGENT SOPKO. KORY WAS CLEAR: THIS WAS A GAME CHANGER.
50. Sometime following this meeting, I met with Investigator John Thompson and Detective Silva of the DA's office. We discussed a variety of topics including my friendship with Phil Spector, Agent Sopko's meeting with me, Leonard Cohen's tax fraud, Ray Charles Lindsey's custody matter, Rutger, and so forth. At that meeting, I was told I was "probably" a witness in the Phil Spector matter. At some point, I wrote Detective Silva and sent her evidence including documents from the Killer King file which prove that file does not relate to me. I also spoke to them about the curious fact that I was questioned about Phil Spector and not Oliver Stone since he is a high-profile individual who I know.
51. In the summer of 2007, Yongzin Rinpoche and his wife invited me to stay with them in Erie, Colorado. Shortly after arriving, I ended up taking a long-term temporary position with Deneuve Construction in Boulder, Colorado. Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey's lawyers contacted Phil Shull/Deneuve Construction on numerous occasions. I was relentlessly harassed by the Boulder Police Department. When I addressed this situation with attorney David Moorhead, he felt that Leonard Cohen/Robert Kory were behind some of this activity. At one point, an officer from Boulder PD came into Deneuve Construction with the Police Chief's secretary. He advised me that LAPD contacted Boulder PD to advise them that I was dangerous to myself or others. The two left without incident but the situation was outrageous. I immediately phoned Phil Spector and contacted 14
the Denver FBI about this matter on numerous occasions. I was ultimately advised to contact the Boulder District Attorney and Attorney General of Colorado to ask them to investigate, which I did. I was recently advised that former DDA Pat Dixon may have been involved with the situation at Deneuve Construction. I documented all Boulder Police Department conduct with respect to me to DOJ, IRS, FBI, Treasury, Phil Spector, and others. In his April 2012 letter to Judge Robert Vanderet, Spector attorney Bruce Cutler confirmed that he had spoken to Pat Dixon about me as early as 2008. EXHIBIT - Letter to Alan Jackson (addresses Pat Dixon).
52. I remained in or around Boulder, Colorado until approximately September 2008. A journalist by the name of Ann Diamond had written an article she planned to submit to Rolling Stone. This article detailed much of what had actually gone on between me, Leonard Cohen, and others. Diamond published this article online and was promptly threatened by Leonard Cohen's legal representative over it. Shortly thereafter, Leonard Cohen made a dramatic flight into Boulder, Colorado (he was in the middle of a European tour) to take out yet another fraudulent restraining order against me. I did ask Judge Enichen to make the order permanent. However, after the hearing, I went back to the Court; reviewed the file; read the excessive perjury and false statements in Cohen's declaration; and filed a Motion to Quash. An excerpt of an internet post, by Cohen fan Susanne Walsh, indicates that the actual problem leading to the fraudulent California registration of this order were my online posts and comments. During my 2012 trial, prosecutor Streeter also commented on these posts and comments. REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT. This blog page is evidence of a highly coordinated campaign of cyber-terrorism on the part of lawyer Stephen Gianelli, Cohen fan Susanne Walsh, an individual by the name of Kelly Green (DARWIN EXCEPTION - 2007 - Bruce Cutler comments), and others. Cohen testified at my 2012 trial that he obtained the Boulder order as a precaution. He felt I might attend his concert that was scheduled one year following his trip to Boulder. I advised my public defenders of this but they failed to obtain the readily available online tour schedules. QUOTE COHEN FROM TRANSCRIPT.
DEAR PHAWKER:
Leonard Cohen is not a great man. He appears to have committed criminal tax fraud that I reported to the IRS, probably perjured himself in Phil Spectors grand jury, defrauded me of millions, and seems to think its acceptable to lie in every courtroom he shows up in. There is nothing great about a calculated fraud liar. I am praying that Phil Spector nails him on his probable perjury and I personally will be litigating my own situation against him in the not too distant future. While journalists may be awed by a man who also appears to have a pattern of stealing from his advisers (Marty Machat comes to mind) ordinary folks are not impressed with his involvement with the destruction of my life. Im not particularly impressed by his lawyers Declaration in my young sons custody matter (which I view as coercion, witness tampering, an attempt to obstruct justice, etc.) and I found it truly deranged that he went into my young sons fathers office to allege that I had sex with Oliver Stone. This just confirmed, to me, that Cohen is obsessed with me and keenly interested 15
in my sex life. I never had sex with Oliver Stone and I was not Leonard Cohens lover. He is merely a pathelogical liar who believes Phil Spector and I will take the fall for him.
To those of you who have not yet been lucky enough to meet Kelley Lynch on the internet, you are hereby warned that she is a very disturbed woman so filled with hate and desire for revenge that I believe she can be dangerous to anyone who gets involved with her and her crazy rantings.
Ms. Lynch was indeed Leonard Cohens personal manager for several years. However, a few years ago Leonard Cohen discovered that Ms. Lynch had stolen and mismanaged his entire savings. Cohen fired her, sued her and won a kelley-lynch-et-leonard-cohen.jpgjudgement of $7.9 million. However, Ms. Lynch vanished and never made an attempt to pay back the money she stole from the old poet, instead she (from where ever she was hiding) started to harass Mr. Cohen and his lawyer (E-mails and phonecalls). In 2008 Leonard Cohen obtained a restraining order against Ms. Lynch, which she accepted, but she then started a vicious hate campaign against Leonard Cohen by targeting every newspaper/magazine forum and blog who would bring a favorable review of a performance. Ms Lynch has in the most disgusting manner slandered and lied about Mr. Cohen and his family; she has accused him of every crime in the book from tax fraud, thief, child molester, perjurer and much more. Any blogger who will respond and disagree or object to her brutal attacks, she will verbally abuse and often threaten to report to the Department of Justice or even at one point to Department of Crimes against Humanity in Haag, for making her look and sound not credible and for obstructing justice. She will also turn things around and play the Victim, accusing all who in a disagreeable way replies to her postings, that we are l stupid, insane liers that are cyberstalking and harassing her, her children and parents and destroying her life.
In the past few years Ms. Lynch has sent several hundred E-mails to the IRS and other public offices and demanded that they investigate and punish Leonard Cohen and everybody she believes are in conspiracy with him to destroy her life. For several years she has been waiting for Bruce Cutler or some other high profile lawyer from Phil Spectors legal team to knock on her door and take her law suit against Cohen and others.
Ms. Lynch has been banned from practically every blog and forum she has posted on as most of the blogs she has established herself have been removed for Slanderous and hateful content.
16
It should be noted that Leonard Cohen has never been arrested, charged or prosecuted for any wrong doing as well as he has never responded to Ms. Lynchs slanderous hate campaign, and since the legal matters were finalized he has never publicly spoken of Ms. Lynch or her bertrayals.
53. Susanne Walsh, Stephen Gianelli, and others, relentlessly harassed and stalked both of my sons. At the time this web posting (and others) occurred, my younger son was a minor. I am convinced that any stranger adult who attempts to lure my then minor son into communicating with them privately could be a potential member of NAMBLA. QUOTE STREETER/COHEN RE. NAMBLA TESTIMONY THAT DID NOT RELATE TO COHEN. THIS IS ONE OF STREETER'S TRICKS. I was banned from Blogonaut's Law Blog after I commented that I believe Phil Spector is innocent and told the truth about Leonard Cohen. Stephen Gianelli was the owner, author, poster, and controlled the comments on this blog. One of his closest blog pals was Kelly Green who posted this comment on the Darwin Exception's blog:
kellygreen said September 3, 2007 at 2:15 am
The evidence will show, the evidence will show Cutler is a fucking pig, a fucking pig! So much of Cutlers OS makes me angrybut I find it truly disgusting that he never refers to Lana Clarkson by name, he always refers to her as the decedenthe is a fucking pig, a fucking pig. The man really loves to repeat himself. EXHIBIT - DARWIN EXCEPTION PAGE WITH THIS QUOTE.
##. It is my personal opinion that Stephen Gianelli also attempts to infiltrate matters and that would explain his call to Bruce Cutler, using me as a pretext; communications with IRS, Treasury, and FBI in an attempt to discern what they are doing with respect to Cohen and the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud; and others. It also seems rather apparent that Gianelli would post probable cause theories online with respect to Phil Spector's trials so that they could then be attacked and refuted by individuals such as Michelle Blaine, Sprocket, Clarkson publicist Ed Lozzi, and others. I was told by a private investigator that Sprocket (a/k/a Betsy Ross) is the mouthpiece for Lana Clarkson's mother. She, together with Michelle Blaine, are huge fans of Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson. Stephen Gianelli publicly stated many times that, in or around May 2009, he heard directly from Cohen's legal representatives and has repeatedly referred to Michelle Rice. At one point, Stephen Gianelli and my former landlord, Ray Lawrence, conspired to without evidence and personal property I stored at Lawrence's and threats were made to send my evidence/property to Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, who has spent years targeting me and was promoted to partner for her work. Ray Lawrence was used against me in the probation matter. While I had emailed the City 17
Attorney my reply to his fraudulent restraining order application, this was not presented to the court when his allegations were. While I was aware of this document, it proves that there is indeed a pattern and practice of concealing the totality of circumstances from the triers of fact. In other words, it seems like an attempt to obstruct justice. Rutger was relentlessly targeted by Gianelli after reading some of his blog posts and comments on Blogonaut Law Blog. Rutger was then sent an article "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead." The witch is Rutger's mother.
54. From approximately September 2008 through February 2009, I stayed with the Southard Family in Northern New Jersey. They are very close friends with my family and I have known them since I was a teenager. John Southard, Sr. had me speak to two of his attorneys and, following those conversations, I attempted to address some of the matters and evidence related to Leonard Cohen and my situation. While I was in Northern New Jersey, I phoned the DA's office in an attempt to ascertain certain information and was threatened by Marko who told me "I'm the individual whose going to pick your ass up and arrest you." I phoned Rockaway PD and explained this matter and was advised to come in and file a complaint. I also phoned an FBI field office in New Jersey. Previously, when attempting to gather information related to the June 13, 2005 automobile accident (as LA Superior Court requested a status conference), Marko advised me to call the Denver FBI and tell them "Merry Christmas." A colleague of mine thought this sounded like something the Sopranos would say prior to riddling a car with bullets. I was attempting to determine if the District Attorney's office planned to prosecute Thomas Bradshaw who rear-ended me on June 13, 2005 leading to an unconscionable situation with LAPD. His insurance company advised me that he lied to the police and wanted me to testify against him.
55. EXPLAIN THE AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT - knocked unconscious, dog slammed into the dashboard, suffered head trauma and broken nose, dog later died, taken out of my house in handcuffs.
56. At the middle of February, I left Northern New Jersey and planned to meet my friend, His Holiness Kusum Lingpa, in California. Unfortunately, His Holiness only made it to Bejing (from Tibet) where he fell ill. He ultimately passed away on February 26, 2009. I did not return to California at this time. In fact, I would not return to California until approximately January 2009 when I stayed with my son, Rutger, for approximately six months. I then spent a number of months in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida with my friend, Eric Salter. Eric Salter and I were relentlessly harassed and stalked by Stephen Gianelli and others. We filed a police report with Ft. Lauderdale Police Department and I contacted the USPS Inspector regarding a letter Gianelli mailed Salter. I was advised that they opened a criminal complaint. Stephen Gianelli also managed to locate my ex- husband, Richard Dallett, who also lives in Ft. Lauderdale. He then proceeded to publicly lie about their conversation. Another individual contacted Richard Dallett previously and advised him that they were my case worker, told him not to help me, and explained that I was addicted to crack. I do 18
not and did not have a case worker or do drugs and this was someone calling my ex-husband in an attempt to stop him from assisting me financially.
57. From approximately June 2009 until March 2014, my family members, friends, business associates, and I have been relentlessly harassed, stalked, threatened, and intimidated by one Stephen Gianelli. This individual frequently worked in tandem with Leonard Cohen's fan, Susanne Walsh, and at times Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, would be copied in on these utterly unconscionable emails. Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter was copied in on emails from November 20, 2013 for nearly a year. Phil Spector's former personal assistant, Michelle Blaine, joined forces with these individuals at one point and - together with Gianelli/Blogonaut (and probably others) - targeted my email accounts and blogs and had them shut down. The purpose was to silence me and prevent me from speaking honestly about what I had gone through and my views on Phil Spector and Leonard Cohen.
58. In October 2011, I moved to Berkeley, California and worked with Grassroots Campaigns on ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Campaigns. I worked with hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in the Bay Area community every week for nearly a year. Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter, in her successful attempts to deprive me of bail, advised the Court that I was dangerous to my community and also noted that I was estranged from my sons. Of course, Rutger was forced to pay my rent initially while I was in jail, drove to the Bay Area to pack my belongings, and was utterly supportive and offered to testify. I did not want Ray brought into this matter because he has suffered enough and is younger than Rutger. Stephen Gianelli evidently contacted Ray while I was in jail. Streeter was aware that Rutger was willing to testify and we had issued a subpoena to Agent Tejeda/IRS. These matters were discussed at sidebars. QUOTE STREETER RE. IRS HOLDING ON THE DEFAULT ...
59. At some point in or around mid-September 2011, my wages were garnished. I was advised of this by Grassroots Campaigns and immediately contacted the California Franchise Tax Board. I ultimately spoke with Doug Davis, a tax advocate, who advised me that he would remove the wage garnishment for sixty (60) days giving me time to gather the information I required to file my 2004 and 2005 tax returns. I explained to Mr. Davis that Leonard Cohen refused to provide me with IRS required form 1099 for the year 2004 and all my business paperwork had been destroyed for those periods of time. Mr. Davis advised me that the FTB garnished my wages because I had not filed returns for 2004 and 2005 and relied on my 2003 income/expenses to guesstimate my taxes. My income/expenses for 2004 and 2005 in no way resemble those in 2003. My expenses were considerably higher. For example, I was forced to move my office and my rent increased four-fold. I phoned the IRS to request a copy of my 2003 federal return so that I could copy my business deductions/expenses and was told that they too would like me to file my 2004 and 2005 returns. I do not owe taxes to either IRS or FTB. Doug Davis and I also discussed the fact that my former bank would probably no longer have my information from that period of time and I would be forced to contact Leonard Cohen. City National Bank confirmed this. Cohen testified that he did 19
not hear from me until September 20, 2011. He would recall this date because he was born on September 21, 2011.
60. I had been told since 2009 that the Boulder, Colorado order expired on February 15, 2009 so I attempted to contact Leonard Cohen and his representatives for the information I required - a 1099, financial and accounting information, corporate documentation and financial statements, and to ask that Leonard Cohen rescind K-1s he transmitted to the State of Kentucky and Internal Revenue Service for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Those K-1s related to LC Investments, LLC, a company wholly owned by Leonard Cohen, and this entity transmitted these forms indicating that I was a partner; owned 99.5% of this entity; and had zero income for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Furthermore, I had received at least one K-1 from Traditional Holdings, LLC for the year 2003. This listed substantial income to me and I paid taxes on that income. The default judgment in LA Superior Court Case No. BC338322 wrongfully altered my federal and state tax returns and converted my property to Leonard Cohen. The expense ledger, which in no way represents an accounting, attached to that default judgment shows income from LC Investments, LLC for certain periods and did not divulge income reported by Traditional Holdings, LLC. These issues totally undermine and prove the ledger is evidence of fraud. There are other outstanding legal, business, and corporate matters.
61. On March 1, 2012, I was arrested in Berkeley, California for violating the Boulder, Colorado order. This order had evidently been registered as a foreign order in Los Angeles, California. I was not served or notified of that order although Cohen lawyer, Michelle Rice, wrote and lied to me on February 14, 2011 that this order was registered in California. When I contacted LA Superior Court they had no evidence that the foreign order was registered. I was denied bail due to, among other reasons, numerous lies told by prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter at the bail hearing on March 23, 2012. One story Streeter told to the judges in both the bail hearing and during my trial proceedings involved a young man by the name of Jonathan Maihart. I employed him to work for my greeting card company briefly in 2005. At one point, he stopped by the offices of DiMascio & Berardo, Mike Taitelman, and Robert Kory to pick up documents I needed. Streeter referred to Jonathan Maihart, a Persian, as a Latino gang member, ETC. I contacted Congressman Waxman about the SWAT incident, Killer King situation, Jonathan Maihart incident, etc. I have not seen Jonathan since 2005.
##. Berkeley PD. Brady material as they are technically part of the prosecution team. They understood that I had no idea that there was a valid restraining order against me. I was told the Boulder order expired on February 15, 2009. Berkeley PD checked with someone (possibly LAPD's TMU) and were advised that the arrest related to a violation of the Boulder order. These officers advised me that this arrest was a waste of taxpayer dollars and questioned me about any role Cohen might have had in the Phil Spector matter and the IRS and Cohen's tax fraud.
20
Robert Kory email dated May 20, 2005: "Seventh, we did not assert that we had obtained a TRO. My associate, Michelle Rice, simply told your representative that we expected professional communication, not sudden, unannounced visits that disrupted our office."
Robert Kory email dated May 22, 2005: "I am pleased that you have spoken to the tax authorities ... the IRS can audit Leonard's accounts ... I am pleased to hear that you have already invited such a review." ADDRESS THIS IN PERJURY MOTION. He testified that I read an ad advising people to report their employers and also stated in his declaration to Judge Hess that I reported Cohen's tax fraud in 2007 to Agent Sopko.
62. Although I have tried repeatedly to obtain the transcript of the March 23, 2012 bail hearing, I have been unable to locate the court reporter and am repeatedly told that Judge Mayerson retired and the transcript is no longer available; misdemeanor hearings are recorded but the whereabouts of the tapes are unknown; etc. At the bail hearing, Cohen correctly testified that we had a purely business relationship and confirmed that I never stole from him. This testimony completely undermines his lawsuit against me and the IRS/FTB refunds I have recently discovered.
63. On April 6, 2012, I went to trial ... was not told of plea deal, was not properly represented by public defenders who were appointed by LA Superior Court ... prosecutorial misconduct and lies - about me and IRS ... Judge Vanderet refused to permit Agent Tejeda/IRS or Rutger to testify ... The issues raised at trial were whether I had knowingly and willfully violated a valid restraining order; whether or not I had intended to annoy Cohen or had legitimate business purposes for contacting him; Phil Spector, Oliver Stone, Bob Dylan, Paul Shaffer, District Attorney Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, Internal Revenue Service, Franchise Tax Board, federal tax fraud, federal tax forms 1099 and K-1, whether or not Leonard Cohen's exposing his penis to me was my intent to annoy him, the Aryan Nation and meth labs (a situation, potentially involved a murder, related to information I reported to FBI and DOJ), Rutger's Whole Foods accident, Ray's custody matter, Cohen's former drug usage which he testified assailed his reputation, and the default judgment. Former District Attorney Steve Cooley actually had his investigator in the courtroom for all proceedings. At the time, former DDA Alan Jackson and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich had announced their plans to run for District Attorney. DCA Vivienne Swanigan raises the situation with the Aryan Nation and my use of the word murder in her thoroughly perjured declaration. LA Superior Court seems to have a total lack of understanding of compulsory witnesses, impeachment evidence, Brady motions, the need to verify foreign orders, etc. EXHIBITS. REVIEW SWANIGAN'S DECLARATION.
64. Domestic Violence Unit prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter's theory of the case was entirely fraudulent and false: "So the People believe that the evidence will show in the case of People of the State of California vs. Kelley Lynch that during the 80s, Mr. Leonard Cohen who was a singer -- was and is a singer-songwriter, but also a poet, struck up a relationship with Ms. Lynch. They had a [statutory required] brief intimate relationship and then at some point after that the relationship 21
ended in the late 80s when Mr. Cohen's business manager died. Mr. Cohen hired Ms. Lynch, first as his personal assistant, and then ultimately as his business manager." Streeter then advised the jurors that "The evidence will show that shortly after the termination of the business relationship by Mr. Cohen that Ms. Lynch began an onslaught, a campaign of harassment on Mr. Cohen." TAX ISSUES - RUSE. COHEN DOESN'T HAVE THIS INFORMATION. QUOTES FROM STREETER, A GOVERNMENT LAWYER RE. IRS REQUIRED TAX FORMS.
65. I was convicted of violating this restraining order and attempting to annoy Leonard Cohen for no legitimate purpose. The jury was led to believe that I was Cohen's ex-lover (which is false); had no legitimate outstanding business with him; was not in need of tax information; the tax situation was a ruse (although I was recently forced to amend my 2003 federal tax return); and it was possible I might show up at one of his concerts. This is utterly farcical and appears to mimic statements Jeff Dunn, LAPD's TMU, has made to the news media about "stalking" cases. Cohen may also have drawn from his experience on set while Rebecca DeMornay filmed "The Hand That Rocked The Cradle." There are problems with the charges levied against me that I have asked the DOJ to investigate. It is also my position that the "intent to annoy" statute is unconstitutionally vague. Crucial meanings are not given for the words "annoy," "legitimate" (with respect to legitimate purpose for contacting someone), good faith, harass, and so forth. Other states have found these statutes unconstitutional. The fact that this statute was used against me with respect to the government is unconscionable. The trial also appeared to serve as some form of discovery with respect to Phil Spector, federal tax matters, IRS, and FTB.
66. LA Superior Court appears to have granted Robert Kory and Michelle Rice "domestic violence orders." Judge Vanderet also granted Bruce Cutler, a New York resident and lawyer, a "domestic violence order" although he did not request one. All of these orders were granted without an evidentiary hearing or evidence. Bruce Cutler's letter was nothing other than hearsay. There are statutory requirements related to domestic violence orders and one of them is that the parties must have been involved in a "dating" or "engagement" relationship. I do not know any of these individuals. The term "dating relationship" is also unconstitutionally vague.
67. QUOTE VANDERET - Sentencing. He would not preclude someone from communicating with their government. This was during sentencing and I relied on that statement which Judge Barela evidently found irrelevant.
68. I filed an appeal. Unfortunately, the Public Defender's Office refused to provide me with my file and I had to fight for the handful of items they ultimately provided me with. I still am not in receipt of that file. My appellate attorney, Francisco Suarez, advised me that the record was a mess; he had difficulty understanding the complex issues; and felt that this was actually an IRS matter that demanded an investigation.
22
69. On or about November 12, 2012, Stephen Gianelli wrote prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter copying me in on that email. SUMMARIZE what transpired.
70. At some point in the spring of 2013, while working on my Writ of Habeas Corpus, I phoned LA Superior Court and was advised that the Boulder, Colorado restraining order had been registered in Los Angeles, California as a foreign domestic violence order. The Boulder, Colorado order was NOT a domestic violence order and I have just recently received written confirmation of this from the Boulder Combined Court. I have also received evidence supporting the fact that Paulette Brandt and I were advised, many times, that the Boulder, Colorado order expired on February 15, 2009.
71. At some point after February 14, 2013, I phoned Detective Viramontes at LAPD's Threat Management Unit. I had originally contacted him due to the fact that there was an inconceivable amount of false and misinformation in his report about me and the circumstances involving my situation with Leonard Cohen. I also explained the situation with respect to the IRS and FTB and confirmed that I still was not in receipt of IRS required form 1099 regardless of the fact that prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter lied about this to the jury. My appeal was filed in December 2012 and raised very serious issues related to prosecutorial misconduct. On February 14, 2013, I sent an email card to the FBI and DOJ as an example of the type of false threats Los Angeles City Attorney's Office uses against people. I added a facetious P.S. to that card. QUOTE. This led Streeter to conjure up further false accusations against me. The card had an image of a drone and humorous statements. I had worked on ACLU campaigns that involved drones and thought it would be amusing to send these email cards to FBI and DOJ. This time, Streeter evidently feared for her life. I found that absurd and preposterous given the fact that this woman refused to ask Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and others, to cease and desist copying me, members of my family, and others in on their harassing emails being directed to her. It is my opinion that prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter, and others, gave their implicit consent to these individuals and their unconscionable conduct with respect to me.
72. After consulting with my appellate attorney, I decided to abandon my appeal. The Appellate Division, perhaps concluding that they might be endorsing my position in the appeal abandonment attempt, refused to permit me to abandon the appeal. They, of course, denied my appeal. My Writ of Habeas Corpus was also denied. REVIEW BOTH DENIALS. My appellate attorney, Francisco Suarez, was also relentlessly harassed by Stephen Gianelli and others. Suarez was of the opinion that Streeter engaged in criminal obstruction of justice when she contacted LAPD with her shameless fantasies about the drone email I sent to FBI and DOJ.
GIANELLI PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HE SPOKE TO ONE OF MY PUBLIC DEFENDERS ABOUT WHAT MY WITNESSES WOULD TESTIFY ABOUT.
73. On or about June 4, 2013, I moved to Los Angeles, California where I have resided with Paulette Brandt. Paulette Brandt is an old friend of mine and worked as Phil Spector's personal 23
assistant for approximately 12 years. Almost as soon as I arrived, Paulette, I, and others, were relentlessly harassed by Stephen Gianelli, Ray Lawrence, Susanne Walsh, and others. REVIEW EMAILS.
74. On August 9, 2013, I filed a motion to vacate Leonard Cohen's default judgment.
75. On September 13, 2013, while allegedly attending a probation hearing, I was advised - vaguely - that I had violated probation. An "anonymous" attorney, who apparently felt she was before the FISA court, now began lying about me. The City Attorney's Office appears to have a pattern and practice of concealing the totality of circumstances from jurors and the triers of fact.
76. CITY ATTORNEY - Restraining order abuse.
77. On January 17, 2013, Judge Robert Hess denied my motion to vacate Leonard Cohen's default judgment. This fraudulent judgment continues to accrue 10% interest per year and I am potentially facing a state wage garnishment. The default judgment is evidence of nothing other than theft and fraud. Paulette Brandt and Palden Ronge attended this hearing and planned to testify. Cohen's lawyer made no objection but I was not given an opportunity to present witnesses. Both of these individuals have known me for quite a long time, visited me throughout the summer and fall of 2005 and know for a fact that I did not resemble the individual Jane Doe described in the proof of service.
78. On January 22, 2013, in what was nothing other than a show trial, Judge Barela advised me that I violated probation; refused to review the evidence I had submitted with various documents; refused to address the Brady Motion I filed; and viciously attacked me when I responded to a lie DCA Vivienne Swanigan told about me on the stand. A "material witness" is not an individual willing to take the witness stand and lie. Furthermore, she was one of the individuals directing the harassment of me and possibly divulged details about my whereabouts and what I was wearing, the color of my hair, etc. to individuals engaged in criminal conduct with respect to me and others. It had recently come to my attention that Swanigan, in emails, had expressly directed Stephen Gianelli to send me emails. In other words, she advised him to continue harassing and stalking me. Swanigan also instructed Gianelli to advise me, on behalf of the City Attorney's office, that he was not in a "conspiracy" with DCA Sandra Jo Streeter. Swanigan testified that she does not know Gianelli. She has also been the subject of another lawsuit, brought by Steve Miller, for retaliation. Barela sentenced me to six months at LA County Jail. He terminated probation and the fines/fees LA Superior Court charged me with during sentencing. Of course, some of these fees relate to domestic violence and assistance of counsel and I view them as nothing other than an extortion attempt as there was and is no domestic violence order and I was not represented - at all. My court appointed lawyers did not have the facts straight, provided the jurors with a tremendous amount of false information (including re. a "sexual relationship" that they picked up from the LAPD report), and did not obtain declarations from my mother and father, sister, Rutger, Agent Sopko, Agent 24
Tejeda, Doug Davis/FTB, Steven Machat (who confirmed that Cohen stole from him and his father, withheld commissions and refused to pay him on deals he worked on (such as the settlement re. "When I Need You"), REVIEW STEVEN'S COMMENTS. Steven Machat offered to testify, pay for his own flight to LA, but ultimately had a conflict in his schedule so a continuance should have been requested. SEE STREETER COMMENTS ABOUT NO ONE CORROBORATING MY STORY. OF COURSE, THE TRANSCRIPT OF STEVEN MACHAT AND MY CONVERSATION WAS ATTACHED TO MY RESPONSES TO MICHELLE RICE'S EMAIL OF FEBRUARY 14, 2011 WHERE SHE LIED TO ME, IRS, FBI, TREASURY, DENNIS RIORDAN, RON BURKLE, AND OTHERS.
79. While in LA County Jail, I received a letter from Stephen Gianelli. I reported this to LASD and they advised me that they would speak to LAPD's Threat Management Unit about the matter.
80. Sometime after my release from LA County Jail at the end of February 2014, two officers from LAPD visited me at Paulette Brandt's house. They had evidently received information from Boston PD that, On June 11, 2013, I may have placed a "bomb threat" in an employment application to GCI. I have never heard of anything so insane in my entire life. REVIEW GIANELLI EMAILS FROM THIS PERIOD. HE WROTE ABOUT GCI AND BLAMED THE OLIVER STONE DEFAMATION/BLOODY STUMP EMAIL ON TWO YOUNG MEN I WORKED FOR AT GCI AND HAVE REMAINED FRIENDLY WITH.
81. On _______________________, 2014, I received a call from ________________/Department 47 advising me that the fines/fees are still outstanding although Department 47 had recently advised me that they were not. I phoned Barela's courtroom; spoke to him; and he advised me that the fines/fees were terminated with the probation and the file put away.
82. For approximately two years, I have been attempting to obtain the transcript of the March 23, 2012 bail hearing. Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter lied during that hearing and Leonard Cohen confirmed that he and I were solely in a business relationship and confirmed that I never stole from him - just his peace of mind. He also advised the Court that I "failed" to file my tax returns which is completely outrageous. I am being willfully prevented from filing my tax returns.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 25th day of June 2014, at Los Angeles, California.
EXHIBITS - CORRECT ANN DIAMOND ARTICLE - COHEN ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE MY MAILING ADDRESS TO HIS; I WAS NOT COHEN'S LOVER (SHE ASSUMED THAT OR READ IT SOMEWHERE); AND I RAISED TRUNGPA RINPOCHE'S SON - GESAR - AND WAS HIS HOLINESS KUSUM LINGPA'S PERSONAL ASSISTANT AND NOW LINEAGE HOLDER AND CHOS KYI DAG MOS.
Hellalujah After an unpleasant brush with celebrity, a Boulder investment banker files suit against Leonard Cohen. By Laura Bond Thursday, Jun 30 2005
When Neal Greenberg met Leonard Cohen over dinner in 1996, the Boulder banker gushed that it was a rare honor to dine with the iconoclastic writer and musician -- a celebrity since the late '60s for his cerebral, soul-baring songwriting. They ate and talked, and within several months Greenberg was responsible for investing and managing the bulk of Cohen's fortune.
Nearly ten years later, millions of dollars that Cohen had invested through Greenberg's Boulder- based firm, the Agile Group, are gone. But Greenberg would like everybody to know that, to quote a Cohen song, the deal is rotten, but it isn't his fault. So last month, he filed suit in Boulder District Court, claiming that Cohen and his attorney, Robert Kory, had conspired to falsely blame him for Cohen's financial woes and had threatened to use Cohen's celebrity to extort money from Greenberg.
Leonard Cohen, a conspirator? The artist who lived for five years as a Buddhist monk?
In 1996, the same year that Cohen entered the Mt. Baldy Zen Center in California, Greenberg was hired to look after more than six million dollars that Cohen generated when he auctioned off portions of his intellectual property -- culled from a lucrative catalogue that included such hits as "Suzanne" and "Hallelujah" -- to Sony Music International. Notoriously unapproachable, Cohen rarely handled business matters himself: Kelley Lynch, his partner and manager, had done his bidding since they'd commenced an on-again, off-again romantic relationship in the '80s. Lynch 26
opened his fan mail and bills, brokered deals with his record company and fielded questions from his attorneys, accountants and bankers, including Greenberg.
In 2001, Greenberg's company took over the management of a new influx of assets from a second sale of Cohen's work to Sony, which grossed approximately eight million dollars. Yet over the next few years, even as the firm's investments regularly turned monthly profits, the balances dwindled. According to the lawsuit, Lynch made frequent withdrawals of hundreds of thousands of dollars, telling Greenberg that the money was for Cohen, to support his "extravagant 'celebrity' lifestyle." Whoever and whatever the money was for, Greenberg was legally bound to release it: By granting Lynch power of attorney and a majority ownership in a corporation created to manage his assets, Cohen had given Lynch free rein over the funds.
In January 2004, Greenberg sent Cohen one of many letters warning that he was on course to go bust.
"I don't know much about your ability to create another album and sell it, so I can't speak to that," Greenberg wrote. "But I do know that at the rate funds are being withdrawn, you will run out in a few years... I URGE YOU TO CURB YOUR SPENDING. It is at a very dangerous level."
In October, Cohen ended his relationship with Lynch, both professionally and personally. He began looking closely at the accounts she'd managed for him, and eventually told Greenberg that he suspected Lynch had been forging his signature, withholding information and taking his money. "Cohen claimed that Lynch was using the money to support a gigolo and to fund shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus," Greenberg's suit reads. Elsewhere, the complaint states that Cohen told Greenberg he'd never received any "subsequent written warnings about his excessive spending, and that Lynch 'must be intercepting his mail.'"
Cohen soon got a new lawyer, Robert Kory, a Hollywood attorney known for his aborted attempt to build a Wizard of Oz theme park on a polluted ammunition plant outside of Kansas City. A former leader of the transcendental meditation movement, Kory shared Cohen's interest in Eastern philosophy and his taste in women: Kory's ex-wife is Cohen's current girlfriend, the singer Anjani Thomas. According to Greenberg's suit, Cohen and Kory also shared a plan to deceive him.
The lawsuit alleges that when Kory entered the picture, the blame for Cohen's financial woes shifted from Lynch to Greenberg. Rather than try to get money from Lynch, Cohen suggested that Greenberg's insurance policy should cover his losses. According to the lawsuit, Cohen told Greenberg to "be a man" about things, saying, "Please do talk to the insurer. A great deal of suffering can be avoided." When Greenberg didn't go for being the scapegoat, his suit contends, Cohen and Kory threatened blackmail and intimidation to get him to come to the table.
27
"Cohen and Kory... began to threaten to publish false statements about Greenberg with the intent of harming" his business, the lawsuit reads, "such as by indicating that unless Greenberg obtained insurance funds to satisfy Lynch's alleged obligations to Cohen, Cohen would go out on tour to promote his new album and give interviews to reporters in which he would insinuate that he was touring because he had been bankrupted by improprieties of Greenberg and other financial advisors.
"Greenberg was selected as a target not on the basis of any genuine potential for liability to Cohen, but rather out of the perception that Greenberg... out of fear for his reputation, would prove an easy target to shake down."
In April, Kory sent a letter to Greenberg, urging mediation and a settlement to recoup some of the eight million dollars they claimed he'd allowed to dissipate. (Kory attached a copy of a glowing newspaper article about Cohen -- which hinted the artist might win a Nobel prize -- suggesting that Greenberg might "find it interesting.") Instead, Greenberg and his attorney, Sherab Posel, started building their own case. That same month, they arranged for a meeting at Denver International Airport, where they planned to show proof that Greenberg had acted properly and that Cohen knew, or should have known, what was happening to his money. Posel flew in from New York; neither Cohen nor Kory showed up. (They didn't respond to Westword's requests for comment, either.)
"We were left with no choice" but to litigate, Posel says. "Either we made an effort to try to present the facts and take our chances with the court of public opinion, or we simply allowed ourselves to be bullied into submission and pay lots of money for nothing other than averting the threat posed by Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory no matter that it lacked any basis."
"It's a very unfortunate unfolding of events," he adds. "We are certainly hoping that they will come to their senses and stop what is very disturbing and unprofessional behavior."
The claims in the case -- on all sides -- get even more disturbing. The lawsuit alleges that Cohen and Kory employed "tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage" Lynch if she didn't take Kory and Cohen's side against Greenberg. One of the suit's wildest-sounding charges accuses the pair of instigating an incident in which the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT Team descended on Lynch's home and arrested her in her bathing suit; later, Lynch was involuntarily admitted to a psych ward and drugged. Lynch, who's suggested that Cohen's money dissolved due to his own lavish spending, has supplied documents and information to support Greenberg's case against Cohen and Kory.
After Greenberg and the Agile Group announced his lawsuit, Cohen chat rooms and fan sites seized on the banker as a greedy shark out to steal an artist's hard-earned cash. Yet while Greenberg's career has considerably less flash than does Cohen's, it's imbued with its own quiet distinction: After twenty years in the investment business, Greenberg now manages more than $550 million in assets. He's never been sued by a client for mismanagement of funds. 28
In a statement after the suit was filed, Kory described it as a "surprise attack" that was "completely consistent with Agile's reckless disregard for its client and his investments." Cohen's attorney, Joe DePlasco, cited Kory's statement when questioned by Westword. DePlasco and Kory have vowed to counter-sue. So far, though, no one's heard a peep about that; attorneys working for Greenberg and Agile have been unable to locate Kory.
BRIAN JOHNSON & MACLEAN'S AUGUST 2005 ARTICLE AND INTERVIEW UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL ...
Ann Diamond's Original Draft Article For Rolling Stone Thursday, July 3, 2008
Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch?
Kelley Lynch is the woman accused in 2005 of skimming millions from singer Leonard Cohens retirement fund. I knew of her through friends of Leonard Cohen, and had heard her described in glowing terms as the agent who, singlehandedly, saved Cohens career in the 1990s.
In early May of this year, Lynch suddenly contacted me. She said she was mainly interested in my perceptions of Cohen as a former friend and next door neighbour in Montreal. At one time I also studied with his Zen Master in California, and had spent time with him on Hydra, Greece.
Not having heard her side of the story (I doubt that anyone has, apart from a circle of her closest friends), I was curious. Over the next few weeks, she shared several documents pertaining to the case including an affidavit written and signed by her older son, Rutger.
Together, they paint a picture very much at variance from the sketchy media image of Lynch as a reckless, delusional woman on the brink of a career meltdown. Lynch's own timeline also includes disturbing behind-the-scene dealings that suggest she may have been set up to take the blame for Cohen's tax situation.
The following account is based on what Lynch has sent me --
Since 2005 when she became the object of media gossip, little if anything has been heard from Kelley Lynch.
29
A single mother with two sons, Lynch was Leonard Cohen's personal manager from approximately 1988 to 2004, and was known for her skill, hard work, and dedication. Until 2004, Kelley lived and worked in Los Angeles where she still has many friends and acquaintances in the entertainment world including Phil Spector and Oliver Stone.
Her own account of the events that wrecked her career, varies widely from the media portrait of a reckless, delusional woman in the throes of a personal meltdown. The meltdown was real, however. By late December, 2005, Lynch had lost custody of one son and was homeless and living on the streets with her older son, Rutger, who witnessed the chain of bizarre events that had begun a year earlier.
In 2004, Lynch owned a house in Brentwood, and still worked for Cohen, who owed her money for royalties and other services, but was increasingly involved with his new girlfriend, Anjani Thomas, ex-wife of Cohens attorney, Robert Kory.
In retrospect, Lynch believes she was set up by Cohens lawyers and accountants to help cover up a tax situation which made the IRS nervous. In November 2004, Cohens attorney Kory told Lynch that a financial entity known as Traditional Holdings, LLC could be overturned by the IRS. Lynch, who had been selected as a partner on the entity, became uneasy and consulted a new accountant, who referred her to tax lawyers, who found irregularities in Cohen's tax history, both in the US and Canada where he has residences.
Rattled by what she was hearing that she was being dragged into criminal tax fraud -- Lynch called the IRS in Washington and also contacted their website. An IRS collection agent advised her to call the Fraud Hotline, which she did.
Told that any further action on her part might implicate her in fraud, Lynch refused to meet with Cohen or turn over the corporate books. At that stage, Cohens advisers began claiming that certain payments, distributions, or advances made to her were actually "over-payments." Lynch says their accounting was incomplete and ignored her share of intellectual property, unpaid commissions and royalties, and share in Traditional Holdings, LLC. Apparently Lynch had also been issued K1 partnership tax documents and made a partner on another Cohen investment entity, LC Investments, LLC, without her permission or awareness.
Lynch says an increasingly nervous and desperate Cohen was pressuring her to agree to mediation and told a friend of hers that Lynch was "the love of his life." She and Cohen had had a brief affair in 1990, but Cohen now was offering her 50% of his "community property" as well as "palimony" through lawyer Robert Kory at a meeting attended by Lynch's legal representatives and her accountant, Dale Burgess. To Lynch, none of this made sense at the time.
30
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles District Attorney's office received an anonymous tip informing them that Lynch was a friend of producer Phil Spector, whom Lynch maintains is innocent. Cohen, on the other hand, had given an interview in which he described a gun-waving Spector who threatened him during recording sessions in 1977. At around the same time he was offering her millions, Lynch says, Cohen was also circulating slanderous stories about her. She believes Cohen encouraged Los Angeles record producer Steve Lindsey, the father of her son Ray, to initiate a custody suit on May 25, 2005, the same day a 25- man SWAT team from the LAPD, acting on a bogus 911 call, suddenly cordoned off her street and surrounded her home in response to a "hostage taking."
Earlier that morning, Lynch says, her 12 year old son Ray woke up not feeling well. She sent an email to his school informing them she was keeping him at home. When the boy's father found out Ray was home he became agitated and abusive over the phone to Lynch.
Lynch says she had young people who worked for her coming and going that day, and did not want Rays father coming to the house and attacking her, as he had in the past. She called her older son Rutger, who was visiting a friend nearby, and asked him to pick Ray up and take him down the hill where actress Cloris Leachman waited in her car. Leachman, a friend of Lindsey, took charge of Ray just as seven LAPD squad cars came speeding up Mandeville Canyon Road in the direction of Lynchs house. With them was Rays father, Steve Lindsey.
Lynch says she looked out the window and saw armed men on her lawn. Her son Rutger and his friends were telling police there was no hostage-taking, that they had spent the morning with Lynch, and that there must be some mistake. For reasons no one understands, LAPD/Inglewood PD decided to believe Steve Lindsey, who had left the scene.
Police later gave varying explanations about what led up to the incident. West LAPD said they responded to a report that someone heard "shots fired." But a company that oversees SWAT said Lynch would have to have a superior caliber weapon to warrant such a high risk entry. A member of the SWAT team claimed to have seen a note that Lynchs sister had placed the call stating Lynch posed a danger to herself and everyone around her. Her sister denies this.
Lynch stayed inside her house and called her former custody lawyer, Lee Kanon Alpert. She also called Leonard Cohen, assuming he had played a role in the events unfolding on her lawn. Lynch says she knew Steve Lindsey had also been meeting with Cohen and his attorney, and had recently told their son Ray that Lynch was going to jail, upsetting the boy. She says Cohen taped the phone call later used in his successful court case against her for which, Lynch says, she never received a summons.
31
Lynch says, Police were on my hillside and crouching under my kitchen window. She says the standoff on her lawn continued for several more hours, disrupting the neighbourhood. Members of Inglewood Police Department also participated in the operation.
Eventually, she decided to go into the back yard. Seeing her son Rutger acting as a human shield and hostage negotiator, Lynch ventured out front with her Akita on leash and joked to the cops: "Who am I supposed to be holding hostage? My dog?"
The police responded by telling her son they would only shoot Lynch and her dog if necessary.
That was when I dove into the pool.
SWAT team members searched her house. As they entered, Lynch's African Grey parrot, Lou, called out: "I see dead people!" further alarming the nervous cops.
Offering her a hand out of the pool, one officer said they were only there to help her and not to hurt her.
No one asked me if I was all right; no one questioned me about my well-being. The Medical Examiners Office later wondered how the police had evaluated her. After stating they were not arresting her, they handcuffed Lynch, still in her bikini. On her way out the door, her son managed to hand her a brocade jacket.
Although she lived near UCLA Medical Center, she was taken in a squad car to King-Drew Medical Centre in Watts, 40 miles away and a three-hour drive in traffic. Known as one of Americas worst hospitals, King-Drew was recently closed down as a place where patients routinely die from neglect and medical errors. During the long ride through South Central Los Angeles, Lynch says she was questioned closely about her relationship with Phil Spector, who had been charged with first degree murder of Lana Clarkson. In the car, Lynch voiced concern over what awaited her at the hospital but was told by a woman cop: "This will be good for you."
I felt I was being kidnapped.
At Emergency, the admitting psychiatrist administered anti-psychotic drugs without authorization and left Lynch in the waiting area for hours, still in her bikini and brocade jacket, and handcuffed to a chair. A nurse advised her she would be transferred but did not tell her where. Examining her file, the nurse noticed it listed her as 19 years old with wrong social security number, wrong date of birth, wrong religion, and her name misspelled as "Kelly Lynch" Lynch thinks it was the same file she had seen, several months earlier, in the hands of the Special Investigator who came to question her about Spector.
32
A second doctor told her to wait her turn to ensure no further harm would come to her, and assured her that nothing in the King Drew report could cause her to lose custody of her child. The following day, she was released after nearly 24 hours in the psych ward.
Back home, Lynch learned that while she was being held at the hospital her younger son's father, Steven Clark Lindsey, had filed for custody of her son Ray Charles Lindsey and obtained a restraining order denying her access to the boy. She says Lindsey attempted to convince doctors at King Drew that she was dangerous, in order to have her committed, She says Lindsey also threatened the psychiatrist who had her released.
On that same day, Cohens attorney Robert Kory filed a Declaration in the custody matter, as did Betsy Superfon (a friend of Cohen, Kory and Lindsey who had befriended Lynch a few months earlier ). Superfon later told Lynch she didn't realize what she was signing, and that Cohen had offered Lindsey money or something else to take Ray away from Lynch.
Her older son alleges Lindsey offered him money to go to Leonard Cohen's lawyer's office and transfer or sign over Lynchs house to Cohen or his attorney Robert Kory. Rutger refused and phoned his own father, who advised him to contact a lawyer.
Two weeks later, in early June, as she drove down her street to buy dog food, a Mercedes sped out of a neighbouring driveway and rear-ended her car, Lynch was thrown forward, fracturing her nose against the steering well, and was knocked unconscious. Later, she says, as she drove back up the hill to her home, the same driver was standing in his driveway and called out: We are watching you as she passed.
Seeing his injured, bleeding mother enter the house, her older son again phoned his father, who may have called 911. Accounts vary as whether the call referred to an incident of "domestic violence" or a "drug overdose." Either way, police arrived at Lynchs door for the second time in two weeks. Over the protests of her son, they entered while she was on the phone to a friend, Dr. Wendi Knaak who stayed on the phone talking with Rutger while police again handcuffed Lynch. This time they took her to UCLA hospital where her obvious head injuries were ignored. Instead, she was once again drugged and placed in the psychiatric unit where she remained for several days.
Lynch and her advisors maintain these events were coordinated by Cohen, Kory and Lindsey, with the help of former LA District Attorney Ira Reiner in a well- orchestrated plan to traumatize and discredit her paving the way for media stories which accused her of skimming millions from Cohens retirement fund.
In the summer of 2005, as Lynch was struggling to save her home and protect her child from a father her friends describe as "viciously anti-social" and violent, reports of Leonard Cohen's financial troubles hit the press. They alleged the 70-something singer had been scammed by his 33
personal manager, Kelley Lynch, who colluded with an advisor at the AGILE Group in Colorado to send him false financial statements while emptying his accounts of millions of dollars.
Although listed as the owner of Traditional Holdings, the entity in question, Lynch says she never received any statements from the AGILE Group -- who instead had been sending them to Cohen -- having changed her mailing address to Cohen's home in Los Angeles. She has since filed a complaint with the US Post Office for mail tampering.
She insists Cohen sued her because she went to the IRS about his tax situation. She says he is not, and never was, "broke" and that missing funds went to buy homes for his son Adam Cohen and girlfriend, singer Anjani Thomas, ex-wife of Robert Kory. Noting Cohen is famous for his financial largesse and once gave Zen Master Sasaki Roshi $500,000 as a gift, Lynch also cites hefty payments to advisers, various transaction fees, personal taxes, and other monies which may have been sent offshore.
While Cohen and Lindsey attempted to persuade others, including LA Superior Court, that she intended to flee to Tibet or another non-extradition country, Lynch was isolated and penniless and still in Los Angeles. Lynch was former personal secretary to the late Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a flamboyant Tibetan spiritual teacher who founded Naropa Institute in Boulder, Colorado in the 1970s, and died in 1987. She says various Tibetan lamas are praying for her safety.
Journalists covering the story were either unable, or didn't bother, to track Lynch down, and most reported Cohen's statements as fact. The NY Times contacted Kelley for a quote which they never printed
By July 2005, Lynch had lost her custody battle and Ray went to live with his father. On December 28, she and Rutger were evicted from the house in Brentwood, and ended up homeless in Santa Monica, which has no resources for the homeless. The Police Department gave her no help and, she claims, laughed when she brought in evidence that she was being stalked by a known serial killer while she camped on the beach.
In 2006, Cohen was awarded a symbolic $9 million settlement in a civil suit against Lynch, who still does not have a lawyer representing her. Corporate books and other evidence of fraud appear to have been overlooked by Judge Ken Freeman in his judgment, Lynch says, although she admits she has not read the court documents and was never served a summons. At the time of the decision, she told reporters she lacked the money to make a phone call. That same year, her older son lost his fingers in an accident with a meat grinder while he was working at Whole Foods in Los Angeles and Lynch could not afford a bus ticket to visit him in hospital.
Lynch heard through a journalist that Cohen later testified for the District Attorneys office in a secret grand jury relating to the Phil Spector case with former District Attorney Ira Reiner acting as 34
his lawyer. Reiner is a personal friend of Cohen, and as D.A. presided over some high-profile cases including the Night Stalker serial killer and the McMartin Day Care scandal.
Recently, on June 17, 2008, Cohen's lawsuit against the Agile Group was thrown out of court for lack of evidence. In response the AGILE Group dropped its counter-suit accusing Cohen of defamation and fraud. AGILE still claims to be shocked that a singer of Leonard Cohen's talent and stature would engage in false accusations against his own representatives.
Lynch believes Cohen and AGILE colluded to defraud her. She continues to deny all allegations against her, and remains hopeful that Phil Spector's lawyer, Bruce Cutler, will represent her in recouping damages to her livelihood and reputation. She now lives in another state and recently learned her younger son, 15, whom she has not seen since July 2005, stopped attending school last January.
These days Cohens fans seem to have expended their rage at Kelley Lynch for driving their idol into bankruptcy. Some now say she unwittingly did them a service -- by forcing him to go on tour for the first time in nearly two decades.
At 74, singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen continues to ride a wave of sympathy, gathering wide support from the music world and even some British royalty. Unquestionably, his career and finances have benefited from news reports that he is too impoverished to retire.
From his tower of song, Cohen has written:
I smile when I'm angry I cheat and I lie I do what I have to do To get by
And Im always alone And my heart is like ice And its crowded and cold In my secret life
My Secret Life. Leonard Cohen
His many admirers need to listen closely.
GREENBERG ASSOCIATES. INC., d/b/a Agile Advisors, Inc. a Delaware corporation, TACTICAL ALLOCATION SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Agile Allocation Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, AGILE GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 35
GREENBERG ASSOCIATES SECURITIES, INC., d/b/a Agile Group, a Delaware corporation, and NEAL R. GREENBERG, a Colorado resident, Plaintiffs, v. LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California, ROBERT KORY, a United States citizen residing in California, KELLEY LYNCH, a United States citizen residing in California, and JOHN DOE, Numbers 1-25, Defendants.
Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB-MJW.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
December 5, 2005 ORDER
LEWIS BABCOCK, Chief Judge
The defendant Robert Kory moves for dismissal of all claims against him on the alternate grounds that I have no personal jurisdiction over him, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against him, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The motion is adequately briefed and oral arguments would not materially aid its resolution. For the reasons stated below, I find and conclude that I have no personal jurisdiction over Mr. Kory and I GRANT the motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).
Because Mr. Kory has contested the Court's jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have "the burden of proving jurisdiction exists." Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995). *2 "Where, as in the present case, there has been no evidentiary hearing, and the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits and other written material, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists." Id.
In resolving factual questions,
The allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits. If the parties present conflicting affidavits, all factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor, and the plaintiff's prima facie showing is sufficient notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving party. However, only the well-pled facts of plaintiff's complaint, as distinguished from mere conclusory allegations, must be accepted as true.
Id. (citations omitted). I. Allegations
The allegations of the Amended Complaint are substantially the following. In 1997, the defendant Leonard Cohen, a resident of California, retained the plaintiffs, directed by the plaintiff Neal 36
Greenberg and headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, to create for him charitable trusts and to manage the assets placed into those trusts. (Throughout the Amended Complaint and their briefs, the plaintiffs refer to themselves individually and in the aggregate as "Greenberg." They do not reveal the nature of their relationships to each other. I have attempted to be as precise as the pleadings and the record will allow.) Mr. Cohen allegedly drew extravagant sums from the trusts, depleting the principal amounts and impeding the plaintiffs' efforts successfully to invest the funds in profitable ventures. The defendant Kelley Lynch, Mr. Cohen's manager, oversaw and had power of attorney over, all of Mr. Cohen's financial dealings. Mr. Greenberg allegedly repeatedly warned Ms. Lynch and Mr. Cohen that Mr. Cohen was spending too much and that, absent a change of habit, he would become destitute. *3
In October, 2004, Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch allegedly parted ways and began to issue competing directives to the plaintiffs. They each blamed the other for Mr. Cohen's financial distress. Mr. Cohen claimed that Ms. Lynch had deprived him of substantial sums of money. Thereafter, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory, Mr. Cohen's personal attorney and a California resident, allegedly conspired to extort the lost sums from the plaintiffs by tarnishing the plaintiffs' reputation, asserting spurious claims, and coercing a settlement from the plaintiffs' insurance carrier. This they intended to accomplish by using Mr. Cohen's fame as a prominent recording artist to publish defamatory statements about the plaintiffs to the press. They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.
Mr. Kory sent an allegedly defamatory demand letter to Mr. Greenberg's attorney, wrongly accusing the plaintiffs of fraud and various breaches of fiduciary duty. After the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Messrs. Cohen and Kory allegedly published defamatory statements on Mr. Cohen's web site, blaming the plaintiffs for the lost monies, asserting that the plaintiffs had wrongfully permitted Ms. Lynch to withdraw unauthorized sums, and asserting that the plaintiffs had provided Mr. Cohen with fraudulent accounting records. Mr. Cohen and Ms. Lynch now dispute entitlement to the funds remaining in the trusts. Each seeks immediate acquisition of the funds.
Mr. Kory allegedly submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by his purposeful and repeated written and telephonic communications with the plaintiffs and his direction of Mr. Greenberg's activities, performed in Colorado. Additionally, Mr. Kory allegedly reserved a *4 conference room at the Denver International Airport and scheduled a meeting, which he, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Greenberg's counsel were to attend. Messrs. Kory and Cohen allegedly failed to appear for the meeting, which Mr. Greenberg attended. II. The record
A. Kory affidavit
37
Mr. Kory has provided two affidavits replete with refutations of the plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations. He is licensed to practice law in California, where he resides and has his law practice. He last traveled to Colorado in 1985 or 1986 for a ski vacation. He has no business or property interests in Colorado.
In the fall of 2004, Mr. Cohen retained Mr. Kory to investigate suspected losses from an entity denominated Traditional Holdings, LLC ("Traditional"), which the plaintiff, Tactical Allocation Services, LLC ("Tactical") managed for Mr. Cohen under Mr. Greenberg's direction. In the ensuing weeks, Mr. Kory contacted Tactical's Boulder, Colorado office on two or three occasions. Tactical responded by sending information about Mr. Cohen's accounts to Mr. Kory in California. Thereafter, Mr. Kory communicated predominantly with Tactical's legal counsel, Sherab Posel, whom Mr. Kory believed to be resident in New York. Though he engaged in at least one email exchange with representatives of Tactical located in Boulder, Mr. Kory communicated Mr. Cohen's asserted legal claims against Tactical and related requests for information to Mr. Posel, who responded on letterhead imprinted with New York addresses.
In April, 2005, Mr. Kory and Mr. Posel scheduled a mediation for June 5, 2005, which was to occur in Colorado. Mr. Kory reserved a conference room at a hotel near the Denver airport in anticipation of that meeting. After Mr. Posel disputed the veracity of Mr. Cohen's *5 claims and threatened litigation, Mr. Kory cancelled the room reservation in Colorado and remained in California. B. Barnett affidavit
Timothy Barnett, Tactical's Vice President who works in Boulder, has produced correspondence emails and letters between Mr. Kory and representatives of the plaintiffs in Colorado and New York. Numerous emails and letters between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett throughout the period beginning in November, 2004 and ending in June, 2005 addressed Mr. Kory's requests for information about the accounts that Tactical managed for Mr. Cohen and Tactical's efforts to comply with those requests. Contrary to Mr. Kory's assertion, these communications number in the dozens. Many of the communications indicate that copies were sent to Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Posel, among others. Emails exchanged on December 15 and 16, 2004 detailed plans for a conference call involving Messrs. Kory, Barnett, and Posel. The three set up another conference call in March, 2005. Other emails reference telephone calls between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett and calls and conversations between Mr. Kory and Mr. Posel.
In an April 10, 2005, twenty-seven page demand letter to Mr. Posel, Mr. Kory asserted claims against "the Agile Group, Neal Greenberg and his partners" on Mr. Cohen's behalf. Mr. Kory made repeated references to the "several telephone conversations and e-mails regarding" the claims that he and Mr. Posel had previously exchanged. He invited a further response from Mr. Posel. Thereafter, Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett exchanged emails only discussing the scheduling of a mediation meeting for June 5, 2005. Mr. Posel and Mr. Kory continued to communicate in writing about Mr. Cohen's allegations. On June 4, 2005, Mr. Kory wrote to Mr. Posel by email cancelling the mediation, but 38
making no reference to the lawsuit that the plaintiffs had purportedly *6 threatened. In a June 9, 2005 email, Mr. Kory expressed surprise at the contents of a draft complaint that Mr. Posel had sent him the day before.
By letter on June 2, 2005, Mr. Kory sent to Mr. Barnett two checks for deposit in Mr. Cohen's accounts. On June 7, Mr. Barnett responded in writing, noting that Mr. Cohen had terminated his relationship with the plaintiffs. III. Discussion
"To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action, a plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1074 (10th Cir. 1995). Because, as set forth below, I conclude that the Colorado long-arm statute does not reach Mr. Kory, I need not consider the constitutional question.
The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kory has submitted to jurisdiction in Colorado by the "commission of a tortious act within this state." Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-1-124(1)(b). Colorado courts have held that the tort provision of the long-arm statute may be satisfied either 1) when tortious conduct occurs in Colorado, or 2) when tortious conduct initiated in another state causes injury in Colorado. Wenz, 55 F.3d at 1507; Classic Auto Sales, Inc. v. Schocket, 832 P.2d 233, 235-236 (Colo. 1992).
The plaintiffs first argue that Mr. Kory committed tortious conduct in Colorado. Directing into Colorado communications by which a tort is committed constitutes conduct sufficient to satisfy the statute if the tort is completed by the plaintiff's receipt in Colorado of the communications. Id. at 236; Broadview Financial, Inc. v. Entech Management Services Corp., *7 859 F. Supp. 444, 448 (D. Colo. 1994). However, merely communicating with a person resident in Colorado is, in itself, insufficient to bring a defendant within the reach of the Colorado statute. Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Lukoil, ___ P.3d ___, 2005 WL 3097588 (Colo. 2005).
Mr. Kory's several communications with Mr. Barnett concerned Mr. Kory's attempts to elicit information from Mr. Barnett that would prove useful to Mr. Cohen. Though the plaintiffs feel that Mr. Kory solicited their cooperation in bad faith Mr. Kory used much of the information the plaintiffs provided to construct claims against them, even as he repeatedly commended them for their diligence the gravamen of their claims against Mr. Kory is that he conspired to defame them and to extort money from them by asserting frivolous claims. Mr. Kory directed to Mr. Posel in New York, and not to Mr. Barnett in Colorado, the communications by which he allegedly accomplished those torts. The plaintiffs have not argued nor does it appear from the record that the exchange of information and documents between Mr. Kory and Mr. Barnett was tortious. Nor could the plaintiffs premise liability on Mr. Kory's later-reneged reservation of a conference room in Colorado. 39
I am left to determine whether the plaintiffs have suffered an injury in Colorado as a result of Mr. Kory's allegedly tortious acts. Wenz, 55 F.3d at 1507. Tortious-activity jurisdiction obtains under the statute when "the injury itself" occurs in Colorado. McAvoy v. District Court, 757 P.2d 633, 635 (Colo. 1988).
Further, the injury in the forum state must be direct, not consequential or remote, and loss of profits in the state of plaintiff's domicile is insufficient to sustain long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Hence, when both the tortious conduct and the injury occur in another state, the fact that plaintiff resides in Colorado and experiences some economic consequences here is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on a Colorado court.
The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kory directed the injurious consequences of his wrongful activity toward Colorado because they, who have an office here, were the intended recipients of the harm. They cite D D Fuller CATV Const., Inc. v. Pace, 780 P.2d 520 (Colo. 1989) for the proposition that Mr. Kory could, therefore, have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Colorado. However, they have not addressed the prior question where the injury occurred. Nothing in the record, Mr. Barnett's correspondence from Colorado included, appears to demonstrate that the plaintiffs suffered an injury in Colorado. Indeed, the only business the plaintiffs are alleged to have lost was transacted with Mr. Cohen, who resides in California.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that
1) Robert Kory's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) [13] is GRANTED; and
2) the plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Kory are dismissed
Revealed: Work of the LA police who protect the stars from stalkers
Feb 27, 2009 00:00 By Dailyrecord.co.uk
FOR a celebrity there are few more dangerous places in the world than Los Angeles.
Share Share Tweet +1 40
Email
FOR a celebrity there are few more dangerous places in the world than Los Angeles.
The epicentre of the Hollywood dream factory also attracts its share of lunatics, obsessed with the stars and desperate to make their twisted fantasies a reality.
"There is a fine line between fan and fanatic," says Jeff Dunn, from the Los Angeles Police Department. "Today they've got access to a telephone and a computer and they can make our victims' lives a living hell."
Dunn is part of the "threat management unit" which handles star stalkers who've gone over the edge.
Among the stars threatened are actress Jennifer Garner, who recently got a restraining order against a man who blogs about human sacrifice. He has terrorised her since 2002.
Michael Douglas' stalker, Dawnette Knight, threatened to cut up the actor's wife, Catherine Zeta- Jones, and feed her to her dogs, while Uma Thurman describes her experience with stalker Jack Jordan, as a nightmare.
And no Hollywood star is immune from the threat. Anthea Rolando was so in love with Brad Pitt, she once broke into his home, fed his dogs and even slept in his pyjamas.
The LAPD's Threat Management Unit was formed in the wake of a star's sickening murder at the hands of a stalker in 1989.
Rising star Rebecca Schaeffer had a lead role on smash American TV show My Sister Sam. Schaeffer was butchered by Robert Bardo, an obsessed fan who was madly in love with her.
The slaying stunned Hollywood, and at the time there were no stalking laws in California or anywhere else.
Schaeffer was gunned down at her front door. For cops, her brutal death was a wake-up call.
"Rebecca Schaeffer had to be the victim of a homicide in order for us to get the message that something needed to be done in the way of legislation to address stalking crimes," said Dunn.
Twenty years on, few know the terror of a crazed stalker better than pop princess Britney Spears.
41
In 2003, Spears was followed by obsessed fan Masahiko Shizawa who embarked on a 37-date tour in pursuit of the pop star.
Dunn said: "He was a Japanese businessman who came to America to follow Britney Spears around on her concert tour. As far as Britney was concerned, he was completely delusional."
Shizawa used the internet to track Spears' concerts and every aspect of her life from Louisiana to Los Angeles, with chilling results.
Dunn said: "He was in very close proximity to her at several points.
"There's a picture of her limo as she is leaving a show. On the back of the photo he says 'I'm chasing you.'"
Shizawa also believed he had a relationship with Spears.
Dunn added: "We knew there was going to be a long-term problem until she dealt with it."
Advised by the stalking unit of the potential danger, Spears got a restraining order.
And when Shizawa's tourist visa expired, that restraining order was used to get him on a no-fly list.
He's tried to re-enter America five times, but luckily he's been stopped.
Expert Reid Meloy says the average star stalker case lasts about 16 months, but he's seen them go on as long as 15 years.
In the past 20 years he has seen an increase in murderous stalkers.
He said: "Violence among celebrity stalkers, if it is carried out, is usually planned and purposeful."
Besides Schaeffer, John Lennon was murdered by a stalker, while others, such as Monica Seles, were stabbed.
And with the man believed to have murdered Jill Dando, Barry George, having had his conviction quashed, a question mark remains over who killed the Crimewatch presenter.
But Dando isn't the only British star to have been targeted. The list of famous faces who have been the victims of stalkers reads like a celebrity who's who.
42
George Michael, Charlotte Church, Colin Firth, Keira Knightley, David and Victoria Beckham, Sir Ian McKellen and Cheryl Cole have all had stalkers.
And in January, 66-year-old Sandra Price was given a 12-month suspended sentence after being found guilty of harassing actor Martin Shaw over a five-year period.
The pensioner believed she was able to help Shaw get over the breakdown of his marriage, sending letters and tapes to the star, while compiling a huge dossier on him.
She moved from her home in Yorkshire to live in the same village as him in Norfolk, was spotted outside his house, and was only arrested after she poured petrol through Shaw's girlfriend's letterbox.
It's stories such as this which led to the UK setting up its own version of the LAPD's Threat Management Unit.
Based in London, the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre uses police officers and psychiatrists, and helps around 1000 people a year.
Its aim is to "assess, manage and reduce potential risks and threats from fixated individuals, against people in public life."
Research based on 8000 files compiled by the Metropolitan Police between 1988 and 2003 found in the cases judged to be genuine instances, 80 per cent of those responsible had some form of mental illness.
It's a statistic that comes as no surprise to police in Hollywood. One stalker considered to be extremely dangerous by both Reid Meloy and LAPD, was Jonathan Norman.
Dunn said: "He had a plan to kidnap and sexually assault Steven Spielberg."
Norman tried to pass himself off as the ET director's adopted son, but from his twisted journal entries, it's clear his motives were more sinister.
He wrote: "I would force him to put on a screening muzzle, and then put handcuffs on him with his hands in front of him.
"I would then have him direct me to his apartment and then cuff and gag any roommates he might have."
Norman was sentenced to 25 years to life. 43
Eighties star Morgan Fairchild played a stalking victim in the movie The Seduction, but even she has faced the threat for real, recently shaking off an obsessed woman with the help of the LA-based unit.
She said: "Different people who have had female stalkers you tend to view it as less threatening in a certain kind of way, but they can be just as lethal."
Fairchild then added that the troubled woman thought the star was her mum.
Robert Hoskins, one of the most dangerous stalkers on record, was the man who scaled the security walls of Madonna's estate trying to get to the singer.
He thought Madge was his wife, but Madonna's bodyguard luckily intervened.
Dunn said: "The thing that makes Hoskins so dangerous is he believed Madonna's spirit could inhabit anyone at any given time.
"If Robert Hoskins was walking the streets today and he decided that you or I were Madonna, we would be at grave risk.
"We've got to keep guys such as this in custody for as long as we possibly can."
Annals of Law STALKING IN L.A. by Jeffrey Toobin February 24, 1997
1
Print More
Subscribers can read the full version of this story by logging into our digital archive. Not a subscriber? Get immediate access to this story, along with a one-month free trial, by subscribing now. Or find out about other ways to read The New Yorker digitally. February 24, 1997 Issue
Keywords Forensic Psychology; Los Angeles, CA; 44
Mental Illness; Psychology; Dyer, Susan; Dietz, Park; Hoskins, Robert
ANNALS OF LAW about the problem of stalking, especially in Los Angeles... Ten years ago, when a neighbor asked a woman, "Mary", if he could help her move her trash cans back from the curb after a garbage pickup, she thought he was merely making a friendly gesture. A well-educated, upper- middle-class woman, Mary was eventually forced to sell her business and move; her stalker was jailed for insulting a judge. "He was never sentenced for anything he did to me," Mary said bitterly.... To this day, before she leaves her house she looks out the window to see if the stalker is waiting outside and watching for her... In recent years, few subjects in law enforcement have received more attention from the news media and from legislators than stalking. Stories about the stalking of celebrities such as Madonna and David Letterman and of ordinary women like Mary are television mainstays, and the federal government and every state have passed laws that define the act of stalking as a crime. As the center of the entertainment industry, Los Angeles set out to establish a national model for confronting the problem with the creation of the Threat Management Unit, which arrests stalkers whenever possible, for violating restraining orders.... The T.M.U. owes its existence to two notorious incidents in Los Angeles; the stabbing of actress Theresa Saldana by an obsessed fan, and the fatal shooting of actress Rebecca Schaeffer, seven years later.... Writer interviews Gavin de Becker, a private security consultant who advises clients on stalkers, John Lane, who runs the L.A.P.D.'s T.M.U., and Park Dietz, who also runs a consulting business... Tells about one woman who was stalked by another; the second woman was arrested after she burst into her victim's house with a gun, and was later discovered to have made a little bed-nest in a crawl space under the house... Dietz believes restraining orders do little good... Such views are nonsense, according to Michael Zona, who unequivocally endorses Lane's methods. A skilled medical entrepreneur, Zona now manages a practice of eighteen psychiatrists and conducts a small private practice of his own. Lane intends to retire from the L.A.P.D. in July, and join Zona in forming a private threat-management business--a direct competitor to de Becker's and Dietz's operations... The Los Angeles stalking debate comes down to de Becker and Dietz on one side and Zona and Lane on the other... Lane cited Mary as a victory for restraining orders and enforcement of the law, but she survived her ordeal chiefly by using the strategy favored by Lane's rivals, de Becker and Dietz... "A friend of mine said I shouldn't ever consider myself safe until I see a death certificate for this guy," Mary said. "I think my friend's right."
CA vs. Spector Revisiting Opening Statements Bruce Cutler
Posted by thedarwinexception on September 2, 2007
45
OK heres a new and different quiz. Below you will find the text of the opening statement of Bruce Cutler. I went through it yesterday and today, trying to compare and contrast what Cutler promised and what was actually delivered. What the opening statements said we would find from the evidence and what we actually found when the evidence was all presented and given to the jury.
I went through and found a lot of areas where Cutler promised something, only to find that this was not what was actually testified to at all. I found lots of innuendos and hints of explosive or blockbuster material that never materialized at all, and lots of misstatements of what the evidence would show.
So, heres your chance. This time you wont be able to go through and research or look up answers. This time youll have to interpret, extrapolate and cogitate.
Find areas of Cutlers opening that didnt match the testimony given. Find areas where Cutler says the evidence will show when no, it really didnt show that at all. And predict what areas Alan Jackson will jump on to refute what the defense said in opening statements that they didnt actually deliver.
And in the meantime, enjoy the revisiting of the opening statements. I think its important to take another look at them before closings, just to remind ourselves what we were promised, and keep these statements in mind when we are listening to closings.
Ladies and Gentlemen Good afternoon I havent spoken with you since last week I think it was on Wednesday of last week so Its been a week as you know, Im Bruce Cutler and Ive come here to represent Philip Spector in this very, very serious matter. And with the courts permission, Id like to begin my opening remarks to you.
Those photographs we saw, the remarks we heard from Mr. Jackson are not evidence the photographs are, the remarks are not. It seems from Mr. Jackson that he has, from his opening statements, which is not evidence, a very negative view of Mr. Spector. It seems from Mr. Jacksons opening remarks that he has depicted and described him in the most negative of terms. So it becomes a problem to alert you to what the evidence will show. Part of what the evidence will show is that being successful, accomplishing so much, achieving so much in life, doing so much for others, when you achieve so much, can come back to hurt you. The car is too nice, the restaurant is too nice, the evidence will show, the hotel in Manhattan, the Carlyle, is too nice, the evidence will show, fame and success comes back to haunt you.
The evidence will show this was a tragic accident and that its a sad thing for any jury to see photographs that you saw. And the evidence will also show that back on February 3rd of 2003, before they even had a cause of death, let alone a manner of death, they had murder on their mind, murder on their mind, the police. According to Mr. Jackson, DeSouza, a substitute driver, with a 46
language problem, who was full of snacks and cookies and water and sound asleep, sitting in a closed car with the heat on and the radio on and the fountain going, could hear what Mr. Jackson claimed he heard, and that awakening from a deep sleep, which Mr. Jackson apparently did not mention the evidence will show, he was able to be startled enough and to hear those five fatal words I think I killed somebody, I think I killed somebody, I think somebody is killed, or maybe he didnt hear anything. Because according to Mr. Jackson the evidence will show that DeSouza asked Mr. Spector What happened sir? and he received a shrug. But when I say to you, ladies and gentlemen, murder was on their mind, this is what I mean. This is a quote from Detective Fournier, I hope Im pronouncing it right, and Tomlin, but I think its Detective Fournier, F-O-U-R-N-I-E-R, to DeSouza, in an interview, in Alhambra, on the third of February, right after this incident:
Quote: This is going to be a high profile case, no doubt about it, hes a man with a lot of money, hes wealthy, and its going to be considered high profile. Its going to be in the news, its going to be a big thing. And DeSouza says What do I have to do? And the detective says Tell the truth. And DeSouza says I want somebody to direct me. And the detective indicates What you saw, you saw, what you heard, you heard, and that isnt going to change tomorrow, next week, next year, or down the road.
What Im getting to, ladies and gentlemen, is that by the time Alhambra responded to the home and by the time they spoke to DeSouza, they had delineated and described this case as a murder. It had no alternative in their mind. It had no alternative in their mind. If the evidence shows you that the decedent who is five eleven, was five eleven, 161 pounds and almost 6 feet in heels, and who was familiar with guns and firearms and the evidence shows you that and we prove that to you, and the evidence indicates to you that this was a self inflicted gunshot wound, that at the time of the discharge of the weapon, of the gun, it was in her mouth, by her own hand, not by Mr. Spectors, and if science proves anything, and we prove to you, that Mr. Spector was at least 2 1/2 to 4 feet away, at the time of the gun discharge, and if you find from the evidence that
Dixon: Objection Argument
Fidler: Its not argument
the evidence will show, that at the time of the discharge, from what weve seen and what weve heard, the decedent fired the gun herself, and Im not suggesting to you and Im not saying the evidence will indicate to you that this was a suicide. But a self inflicted gunshot wound, ladies and gentlemen, can be an accidental suicide. And if the evidence, and I submit, the evidence will show you thats the case. And the way we started today, early this morning, was that Mr. Jackson, who was taking Mr. Spector to task for being successful, said he ran with a haughty crowd. Haughty. H-A-U- G-H-T-Y. That means arrogant. Supercilious. He doesnt run with the evidence will show that he didnt run with any haughty crowd. The evidence will show that Philip was born in New York, as I 47
was, a city boy. Lower middle class background and that the evidence will also show, unlike Mr. Jackson mentioned, that at the age of 9 years old he lost his father to a sudden, shocking death.
Dixon: Objection, relevancy
Fidler: At this point I dont know whether this will be relevant. But Im going to allow this during opening statement. The offer is made that this is what the evidence will show. There may be a theory of admissibility. Ill allow it
and that he moved here with mother, Bertha, at 9 years of age. So, I dont want any of you to feel that some how, some way anything was given to Philip. Quite the opposite is the case. The evidence will show that he had a talent and he worked very hard at his talent. To make an impact in this world, in the world of music and in the world of entertainment and in the world of art. So when Mr. Jackson talks about these women, he mentions some of them. And that you are going to hear from some of these women who some how, some way, had a romantic interest in him. The evidence will show you what the reason, what the draw, what the attraction was, for them to be interested in Phillip. Why were they interested in him? The evidence will show to you that in his way, he was a true and is a true romantic of a bygone era. He didnt chase any of these women. They came to him, they wanted to spend time with him.. These were relationships that occurred between him and these women. They have nothing to do with the death of the decedent. Judge Fidler will tell you what, if anything, you can use with regard to the testimony of the other women. With regard to a narrow legal issue in this case. But be assured, rest assured, that these incidents to which Mr. Jackson referred, go back as far as 30 years ago, at least one of them does, and the rest 20, 25,.18 12, and 10 years ago. Not one of these women, not one, stopped seeing Philip, not one of these women prosecuted him. Phillip was never charged once for assaulting or hurting another human being, and hes in his 6th decade. Not one of these women came forward to them until after this incident. In this day and age, the evidence will show, with the excessive information that goes around the world, as you see from our friends here in the audience, after February 3 of 03, they decided, and the prosecutors decided, to come together. And they came forward at that time, or they reached out to them at that time. But if you listen to what Mr. Jackson the prosecutor said here, they had murder on their mind on February 3 of 03. Their case was DeSouza right then and there. They didnt have any need at that time, the evidence will show, for a cause of death. They didnt have any need, the evidence will show, at that time for a manner of death. The evidence will show that when the coroner, who they will call in this case, had some misgivings and some doubts about how the decedent died, and wanted some further information about the decedent, the prosecutors office, at that time, said no. And from February 3 of 03, to September of 03, there was subtle and direct pressure put on Dr. Pena and some of the others in the coroners office, to declare this death, as gory as it is, as horrific as it is, as egregious as it is, to declare it a homicide. Because as you heard from the prosecutors, there were no witnesses to this. What youve heard from the prosecutors here today, is that this is some continuation of a pattern. The evidence will show otherwise. That this was some evidence of intent on the part of Phillip, the evidence will show otherwise. That this was a 48
motive on the part of Philip. The evidence will show otherwise. That there was some malice on the part of Phillip, the evidence will show otherwise.
The evidence will show that the decedent approached Phillip. When she found out who he was, she came over to him, she showed an interest in him. I mean, sit back, take in so much, Mr. Jackson made such an efficacious and forceful argument, painted a man he doesnt know as almost a stark raving maniac. And the opposite is the case. These other women have nothing to do with the death of the decedent. These other women had relationships with Phillip, the decedent and Philip were strangers according to the evidence in this case. And, according to the evidence in this case, the decedent, at her own volition, there was no pressure, there was no pressure applied, she decided to come home with him. She found out who he was. Youll hear from the evidence in this case, that the decedent, and she should rest in peace, had some difficulties with her life. I told you in the beginning I will not besmirch the reputation of a decedent. I wont do it. But if its relevant as to manner of death, I will go into it, because its relevant to clearing Philip of these false charges. And youll understand and appreciate that she was 41 years old, she shouldnt have gone like that.
How do I speak to you jurors, after you see photographs like that, you probably want to strangle me, I dont mean that literally, but youre probably so against us, you think that theres something to it, because of 5 words allegedly said to one taking a siesta. DeSouza, he was asleep, he claimed, at the time he heard the noise. Thats what I learned was the term for a nap, but 5 words to one person, thats what they said. Theyve taken that and theyve added, and whats called, the evidence youll see, is like an interstitial filler, like those foam peanuts you see in a box when you get a fancy present from a store, maybe a clock from Cartier, if youre fortunate, or a clock from anywhere that works, and they surround the item with the foam peanuts so it doesnt break. But here the evidence will show when you open the box, its just the peanuts, there is no clock in there. These women are being permitted to testify under the aegis of Judge Fidler. Theyre permitted to do it. I submit to you that the evidence will show they are being called to assassinate Phillips character. To make him look bad. To make him look like something hes not. This is a man whose music changed the world.
Jackson: Objection your Honor.
Fidler: The objection is sustained, thats going into argument.
This is a man that Hal Blaine, who is on the prosecutors witness list, said in the 37 years I worked with him I never once saw him with a gun. I never saw him in the studio doing anything off color. Ever. I heard the rumors he said. The problem is, out here, the evidence will show, with the insatiable, insatiable appetite for well known people, the insatiable news about well known people, rumors begin, innuendos start and stories are started. Fiction becomes fact. Untruth becomes truth and thats what youll see. And youll see that even our great writer, from the evidence, Tom Wolfe, indicated that back then, when Philip hit his high note, through the 60s and 70s and the late 50s, he closed down his non music life, he became a very private person, and so, when you become a 49
private person, then Mr. Jackson can show on the screen, that he owned a home in Pasadena. The home in Pasadena didnt have a back door, but they say it anyway. Then he can say that he lived in Hollywood. The evidence will show that Phillip never lived in Hollywood. Then he can show a photograph of the Pyrenees Castle. Built in 1919. It was called the Pyrenees castle when it was built, which is a landmark in Alhambra, and make it seem like its some den of iniquity, and its some private possession and somehow was given to Phillip. Because he came here from the Bronx with his mother at 9 years old. Nothing was given to him. He didnt mistreat these women.
This is an example, the evidence will show, that something terrible happened in his home, he was arrested for it not charged until 10 1/2 moths later. Not indicted until 17 months later. But he was charged with it because the police had murder on their mind. And thats how they went to the house. The evidence will show that when they approached Phillips home they waited outside for 30 or 40 minutes. You listen to Mr. Jackson the prosecutor youd think they were storming the Bastille. And they knew from DeSouza, if he was honest, that there was nobody in the house. The decedent died a shocking, horrific death, most shocking kind of thing, and the evidence will show that you cant point a finger and have somebody pay for that because it happened in his home. The evidence will show that the prosecutor has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are not empty words. Thats the highest form of proof we have in this whole country. Shadow of a doubt is nice, Mr. Jackson said, there is no shadow of a doubt.
Jackson: Objection this is argument
Fidler: The objection is sustained. You may proceed into opening statement..
Beyond a reasonable doubt, Judge Fidler will tell you. Thats the standard in this country. When they approached the castle, and they saw Phillip, they claim, according to the opening statement by the prosecutor. They saw him on the second floor. The evidence will show he wasnt doing anything improper. This was a shocking event. This was an event that shocks you to the core. So, not everybody, the evidence will show, knows what to do. Not everyone, the evidence will show, knows what to say. Not everyone, the evidence will show, has worked for the EMS or the 911 folks. Not everybody has done that. And the evidence will show that in a shocking event people do things that sometimes are not explainable. And the evidence will show theyre not consciousness of guilt. But theyre consciousness of terrorized innocence. Consciousness of terrorized innocence
Jackson: Objection
Fidler: The objection is sustained. Please return to your opening statement and do not argue the case.
So, ladies and gentlemen, when they approached the castle and Mr. Jackson says the policemen gave Philip directives and orders. They told him to put his hands up. He did put his hands up. He invited 50
them in. He said Come in youve got to see this. Theres a dead woman in my home. Whether he had 14 phones or 1400 phones. The evidence will show how does that change anything? Whether he ran upstairs or walked upstairs or ran outside or didnt go outside the important thing is at the time of the discharge of the gun at the time the gun was fired Phillip was not holding that gun well prove that to you she was.
Evidence will show that this is so hard after seeing the photographs the evidence will show that playing with guns in a provocative or salacious manner can result in death. Instantaneous death as Mr. Jackson said. A most horrific death. Completely avoidable. Completely unnecessary. A complete waste. But not because Philip is a man of note. Not because hes successful. Not because he had arguments with women 30, 20, 18 and 15 years ago. The evidence will show he never hurt anybody. Hes never been charged with hurting anybody. He never put a gun in a womans mouth he would never do something like that.
Jackson: Objection this is argument
Fidler: That has become argument the objection is sustained.
Evidence will show you that. None of the so called 1101 B or incident with gun women to which Mr. Jackson referred will give that kind of testimony. The evidence will also show why theyre coming. Why theyre coming. The evidence will show that if we were in another site, another place, another city, another state, without the great cache of Hollywood, without the great cache of the entertainment capitol of the world and if Philip didnt have a name of major note because of what hes accomplished in his life, they wouldnt be here. They wouldnt be here. The evidence will show some of them peddled their stories to magazines. Supermarket tabloids. He mentioned Miss Jennings. Shes a freelance photographer. He called her a professional photographer. I like that. I like that. But shes not Philip. And neither are the other women. These were women who were drawn to him. To him. And came back to him after these alleged incidents. To be with him. Some of them even called him after the February 3rd incident. Some of them even communicated with his daughter well after the February 3rd incident. So how is it the evidence will show that they decide to come forward now? Whats their motivation?
Jackson: Objection This is argument
Fidler: That part, the last quoted words is argument. The objection is sustained.
The evidence will show, and I know you will look to see where their heart is. The evidence will show that at times people act a certain way for their own benefit, the evidence will show. You might even see some tears in the courtroom. The evidence will show that some people, when they see another is vulnerable, when they see another is vulnerable, falsely charged with the most serious
51
Jackson: Objection. Argument
Fidler: The latter portion is argument, the objection is sustained.
Charged with the most serious crime you could be, former girlfriends, boyfriends, employees, paramours, so called friends, can really give it to you.
Jackson: Your honor once again, this is argument
Fidler: Sustained.
Just so its clear. When you hear from the prosecutor, you get the impression that it is Phillip who pulled and wanted to go with these women. This was a mutual relationship. The evidence will show that he took these women to the finest places. Now hes being punished for it. Took them to the Rock and Roll induction ceremony dinners. The evidence will show he himself was inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame some 20 years ago
Jackson: Objection relevance.
Fidler: That may or may not come in. Im going to overrule the objection at this point.
By his dear friend Tina Turner, who presented him. The evidence will show this is a man who spanned the years from Lenny Bruce through John Lennon. For those who dont know, Lenny Bruce was a political satirist in New York and all over, who spoke out, in fact, he preceded the great Richard Pryor and many others. He used to speak out in a strong way, and he was prosecuted and persecuted
Jackson: Objection this is irrelevant
Fidler: The objection is sustained.
So If you want to know who Lenny Bruce is
Jackson: Objection
thats who he is
Fidler: The objection is sustained the jury is admonished to disregard . Any thing where I sustain an objection you are admonished to disregard it.
52
And Philip spans all the way from that through the John Lennon era. And youll hear evidence that he worked with John Lennon. That was his dear friend who was murdered in New York. That he worked with George Harrison. That was his dear friend who died. That he worked with the Rolling Stones. That he worked with all these girl groups. That he extended himself to others. He made livings for others through his talent. He was not a taker the way hes been described by the Prosecutor. But he was a success and a talent who gave to others. Thats what he was. Whether he became a private person, a private person, because he closed off his personal life, his non music life, as the great Tom Wolfe said, thats a separate part. But that doesnt mean, and you should never accept the thought which was put to you this morning, that somehow theres evil there. Evil in the castle. Dubbed the castle.
Youve heard not one iota of evidence in this case. Including my statement this afternoon, and including the statement by Mr. Jackson. And if you were going into the room to deliver a verdict now, you know what the verdict would be. So theres no more problem with having to worry about you prejudging the evidence, because after today and tomorrow, you will be judging the evidence. But I submit to you, please bear in mind what I say. That a theory that the prosecutor has weaved in this case is just that its a theory. The ex girlfriends who are coming forth have nothing to do with the decedent who he had just met. Nothing whatsoever. Some people have arguments and say things and do things, the evidence will show, are not meant for a public forum. Its interesting to hear today about one of them. Miss Melvin and the prosecutor indicated that she worked for someone of note. And the evidence is going to show that Phillip was friendly with Miss Rivers. That was his friend. Somebody he knew. Thats why he went to her parties.
The evidence is also going to show that part of the cache and the appeal to be around Phillip Spector was because of the success he had in life. And that does not mean, as I said to you in voir dire, that hes looking for anything from you other than justice. This tough courtroom, where it takes you so long to get up, so long to get down, wait in line for lunch. Our offices are not here. This tough, tough building is a temple of justice. Thats really what it is. As difficult as it seems to be. This is a temple of justice, and as a temple of justice, you need to understand.
Jackson: Im sorry to interrupt. This sounds like its getting into argument.
Fidler: Its getting close but it hasnt quite got there.. I think its a precursor, so Im going to overrule the objection.
This temple of justice is here for you to do justice. To analyze the evidence. To evaluate the evidence. To look at it with a careful eye. A judicious eye. To understand and appreciate. To understand and appreciate why the prosecutor, the evidence will show, is going back so many years. To bring up something that you may or may not think is relevant to this case.
Jackson: Objection. This is Argument. 53
Fidler: The objection is Sustained.
And judge Fidler will tell you how to use it.
Jackson: Objection. This is argument.
Fidler: Sustained. Please, what the evidence will actually show as far as facts go.
When I mention murder on their mind. Youll see from the evidence that once the police department had a person of major note. And this has been going on for well over a hundred years. Well over a hundred years out here. Someone of major note had a death in his home. A drowning outside his home. The police had murder on their mind. And so because of that, they did everything they could to take care of Mr. DeSouza. Who called himself on the 911 tape - Souza. He was here illegally, I dont fault him. There are 11 13 million people who want to come to the United States. He was here illegally. But he was working. I dont fault him for that. I dont fault him for that. I dont fault him for that. You are going to see from the evidence that he had some animus and antipathy towards Phillip. Youll hear from the evidence that he said to the police, in his own speaking terms and youll consider and appreciate that this happened over 4 years ago, and hes been in this country under the aegis and protection of the District Attorney, with their help, and his English is better and is better and is better, and youll try and think how it was four years ago, when he first heard these things. And youll understand and appreciate what they did for him and why. And the jealousy and the animus will be indicated by him on the stand. Youll hear evidence about that. Other customers like to talk to me. Other customers speak to me. Mr. Spector didnt speak to me. Other customers I went home at 2, 3 oclock in the morning. Or 12 midnight. Mr. Spector kept me late. Kept me late.
I submit to you the evidence will show that the decedent, the decedent, not only went there voluntarily, and I dont mean anything unkind about that, moved her car. I believe the evidence will also, and I submit to you, will show, that she had a design of her own. She had a plan of her own. Im not speaking against her, because thats not fair, but Im here to save a life. She had a design and a plan of her own. The people who worked with her and the people who knew her will indicate some of the difficulties she was having, financially and otherwise. We all do, everybody does. Even Mr. Spector, it would be a shock to Mr. Jackson. Everybody has them. Everybody has them. Difficulties and problems. Problems and difficulties. So the evidence is going to demonstrate to you that she saw an opportunity. And she saw something in Mr. Spector, in Phillip, that would be beneficial to her. Beneficial to her. The evidence will show that sometimes an ornamental gun, an ornamental gun. An ornamental gun, Ill say it again, an ornamental gun, can be used for all kinds of things even though its unsafe to do. Its unsafe to do. Policemen themselves, the evidence will show, have been hurt with their own guns. But the evidence will show she was fully familiar and facile with guns and side arms. She knew how to use them. And she was a big, strong, strapping 54
woman. Im not casting aspersions, I wouldnt do it. No matter what, I wouldnt do it. I told you its not right. But you must consider the woman. You must consider the design. You must consider the plan. This staying for one drink thats all coming from DeSouza. I think I killed somebody:, thats all DeSouza. Their whole case is DeSouza. And these other so called victims. One whos a, Miss Pillegi, whos a bank thief. Youll find out she stole from a bank. And the others who pedaled their stories. Theyre not bad people. Phillip didnt know Pillegi Grosvenor was a thief, when she romanced him, when she spent time with him. A sometimes romance, a part time romance, a fling that goes on on and off for years, then ends, and theres animus and resentment. And then you have a problem, a terrible problem, because a woman killed herself in your home, so they come to your aid, and they give a story, a tall tale. Thats what this case is, youll see from the evidence, tall tales. He pointed a gun at me he pointed it at my face. He cursed at me and pointed a gun. Well then why do you keep seeing him? Theres no shrugs in Southern California. Not everything is shrugged off. Why do you keep seeing him? Why do you keep taking his money? Why do you keep spending his money?
Jackson: Objection this is argument
Fidler: This is dipping into argument, so the objection is sustained.
So the evidence will show that they kept spending his money. They kept taking his money. Like Mr. Jackson said, Miss Jennings had a suite at the Carlyle hotel. A hotel he says he cant go to. Well, Ill take him there any time he wants. Theres nothing off color about the Carlyle Hotel. And the evidence will show they have a piano bar. And some of the most famous musicians, entertainers and people in Phillips life spend time at the Carlyle hotel. Thats not a bad thing, thats a good thing. The fact that hes talented and successful, theyre not bad things, theyre good things, the evidence will show.
Jackson: Objection, relevancy
Fidler: The objection is sustained, and on that note we will break for the day.
Day 2:
I started yesterday with some thoughts, and what I thought the evidence would show you. I wont be very long this morning, but I did want to revisit and also mention and revisit some other matters and also mention some new matters, and hopefully I did not mention them yesterday.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of the concepts that I mentioned was that the detectives and the Alhambra police department, when they responded to Phillips home, had what I called murder on their mind, and as a result of, the evidence will show, the evidence will show, as a result of murder on their mind, they interviewed and acted in such a way that anything that was consistent, the 55
evidence will show, with their preconceived notions and theories they didnt rest, and anything that was not consistent or inconsistent with that murder on their mind, they ignored. Youll hear from the evidence that the detectives worked very hard, and interviewed, by last count, youll hear from the evidence, well over 150 or 60 civilians, from the time of February 3 03, to the time charges were filed November 21 03 to the time that they presented this matter to a Grand Jury in September 04. And youll hear from the evidence that these devoted detectives who had murder on their mind, spoke to any and everybody who had any thought whatsoever with regard to Phillip. And they even went to the trouble of taping the interviews. And they even went to the trouble of taping the interviews of the policemen who responded to the castle, to his home. And the evidence will show thats the case here. And the evidence will show thats why they acted the way they did when they responded to the castle. The evidence will show as I said yesterday, I alluded to the fact, that when they came to the castle, they had spoken to DeSouza, and according to the evidence, they were informed by DeSouza that there was nobody home other than Phillip and the decedent. So after they went banging in and were invited in, the police department, I dont personally and in no mean to fault them, but youll hear from the evidence that they stormed the castle, and youll see from the evidence that what they had to do, what they did do, when they brought Phillip out of his home, was unnecessary. 5, 6,7, policemen, to bring a man out of his home whos 5 4, 135 pounds, unarmed, and a decedent in his home, youll see from the evidence was unnecessary. The use of the stun gun, the dangerous tazer gun, was completely unnecessary, the tackling, completely unnecessary, the hogtieing, the handcuffing, completely unnecessary. But just keep that as a backdrop, so when you hear the phrase murder on their mind, youll understand what the evidence will mean in this case. Im not upbraiding the policemen, but youll see that all they needed to do was, the evidence will show, Phillip, we want you to come with us, would you come with us? Instead of the tackling, the tazering, and the tying, and the sitting on him and all of that. Why thats relevant, the evidence will show is, the mindset of the police, and Im not, in any way, denigrating, or saying anything in derogation of the department. Im not saying anything in derogation, and the evidence will back me up, that they were not being careful, of course they were being careful.
Youll also hear from the evidence that DeSouza, who claimed to run down to the end of the driveway so he could see the address of the home, youll understand and appreciate from the evidence that the home of Phillip in Alhambra, is a landmark, and youll understand and appreciate from the evidence, youll hear testimony that the police department in Alhambra know of it as the castle, so if they were called, and they were called, and the evidence will show they were called, all they needed to be told was Im here at the castle, please come. This is to the Alhambra police department. Youll also appreciate and understand the importance of the witness DeSouza. And youll see from the evidence what really happened with him. Youll see from the evidence that during the interview I broached with you with Detectives Fortier and Tomlin, the very first formal interview following the earlier interview with Detective Pinetta, with the murder on their mind mindset, they were very careful to ask him, what it is he claimed he heard. And during the interview, youll hear from the evidence, the detectives saying are you sure? They were very careful. And this is on February 3 03. And his response was Well, Im not, Im not, Its my English, you know, Its 56
my English, you know. Now thats over 4 years ago. But the evidence will show that he was considered their fair haired boy, they treated him that way. So the evidence will show that they posited him, and he looked at them, the evidence will show, as handlers, of him, and he identified with them. Im not saying the evidence will show that he is an evil doer, but the evidence will show that there was no confession made. Mr. Jacksons comment and verbiage there was a confession made is not evidence. There was no confession made to him. Hes not Father Confessor. He was a substitute driver who was asleep at the time that the shot rang out. Mr. Jackson didnt even mention the fountain being on. Youll hear that there was all kinds of background noise during that period of time. Theres no question a shot rang out. But there was no confession, I submit to you, and the evidence will not show you a confession, it will show you that if a statement was made after a shot, the evidence will show, youll consider it in the context in which it was made, and youll consider it, if you will, with most respectfully, what they did as a result of the statement, what the detectives did, how they performed their function with murder on their mind.
One of the things I wanted to mention yesterday was the theory that the prosecution put forth in their opening statement. The decedent, and theyve left you with the impression there was some kind of struggle or difficulty, the evidence, they said, would show. The decedent was 5 foot 11 and over 6 feet tall in high heels. In heels. And Phillip is 5 foot 4 and 135 pounds. As judges of the facts and the facts in this case, youll hear evidence of the differential in size. Youll use it for what you feel its warranted for. Youll also hear evidence of the decedent and whether she was drinking, whether she was taking pain killers or other pills and youll decide from the evidence what effect, if any, that had on her as a labile individual whos affected by alcohol and pills. Youll decide from the evidence what, if any, effect it had on her judgment. Youll decide from the evidence what, if any, effect it may have had on her being somewhat reckless. Youll see. Youll judge it. Youll have an open mind. Youll see what, if any, effect any of this had on what happened at 5 am on February 3rd 03. The evidence will lead you to what happened. Youll even keep in mind from the evidence where the bottle of tequila came from. Maybe a query in this case. The evidence will demonstrate that.
The last, the other item, I shouldnt say last, the other item I wanted to mention was the Carlyle hotel incident. Youll hear from the evidence in this case, that one of the incident with gun women occurred, according to Mr. Jackson, which is not evidence, occurred at the Carlyle hotel, and he put up a police call, somebody responded, or at least a call was made and there was a response to the Carlyle hotel. Youll see from the evidence in New York, unlike California, that if you have a gun in a hotel without a permit. They dont look to a woman, to ask you to come to them, meaning, if you have a gun, youre going to be arrested, when they respond to a hotel in New York City. You are not permitted to carry a gun unless you have a carry permit, youll hear evidence to that effect. So the woman Stephanie Jennings has no say, youll hear from the evidence, in whether or not Mr. Spector had a gun or was charged with carrying a gun. He didnt and he wasnt. He didnt and he wasnt. Youll hear from her that she was given taxi fare, or train fare, back to Philadelphia after a ruckus that occurred, because the people at the hotel, and Im not being in any way pejorative here, thought she was a prostitute. Because of all the ruckus. Of course she is not, but thats what they thought. 57
And thats what will be put forth to you as evidence in this case. Thats why she left the hotel, thats why she was given train fare from the hotel. And, of course, youll also hear that the suite and the rooms were all paid for by Phillip, youll also hear evidence in this case with regards to Stephanie Jennings, like the other three women they mentioned, that they continued to see Phillip. After this incident they accompanied Phillip to affairs and other things, and they stayed at the Carlyle, she did, for a week, and Phillip wasnt even there.
So I was trying to say yesterday, and I reiterate today, that bear in mind when you hear the evidence in this case from these women, as judges of the facts, I implore you to keep in mind motive, incentive, bias and purpose. With Stephanie Jennings youll hear, that, evidence, that, after February 3 of 03, in this world of immediate access, she took out photographs she had that she collected of Philip, and she spoke to a reporter from the National Enquirer. And youll hear evidence of what kind of newspaper that is. And youll hear from the evidence that she sold her story. She sold her tall tale and what they really wanted was a photograph of her and Phillip and she gave it to them. So please keep all of that in mind when you consider hearing from her or from any other incident with gun women who are not witnesses in this case. Also bear in mind DeSouza is not a witness to what happened at 0500 inside Philips home. Hes not a witness to it. Bear in mind that DeSouza will indicate to you, the evidence will show, that he served in the Brazilian army for 8 or 9 years. Nothing wrong with that, you have to have respect for that. But as soon as he saw a woman in distress, according to what Mr. Jackson said, he ran away. Fully familiar with guns, fully familiar with the military lifestyle. He ran away. Youll hear from the evidence he himself said Phillip was not a violent person. But he did have an argument with him a week or two before. But consider that in judging credibility, perceptibility, availability and truth telling. Please keep that in mind as well.
One of the other incident with gun women that Mr. Jackson mentioned was a Dorothy Melvin. Bear in mind that the evidence will show that she told authorities, and dont forget all of these people came in after February 3 of 03, all of these people got together with the detectives after February 3 of 03. To talk about incidents that went back to 1987, talk about incidents that went back to1991, to talk about incidents that occurred in 1993, to talk about incidents that occurred in 1994. This is all after 2003, and as I said yesterday, none of them prosecuted Phillip, none of them sued him civilly, and all of them saw him afterwards and none of them ever sought any medical attention. Dorothy Melvin herself, youll hear evidence in this case, claimed, claimed, when she wanted to get her pocketbook, because of the precious passport belonging to Joan Rivers her boss, and her, that she was hit twice in the head with a handgun. Not what Mr. Jackson said in his opening statement, which is not evidence, that she was slapped by Phillip, by Phillips hand. She said she was slapped twice in the head with a handgun.. And so wed expect, that the evidence will show, that detectives, that policemen from Pasadena, that she called, would have seen some difficulty with her head. Youll hear evidence that, and youll use your common sense, that if youre hit twice in the head with a handgun, theres bruising, bleeding and injury. And youll hear from the evidence in this case that there was no bruising, bleeding or injury. And there was no acceptance of any medical aid or needed. In this case. In this incident, I should say, in this incident that is used in this case, the evidence will 58
show. The evidence will further show that as far as this incident. The policemen who responded didnt arrest Phillip, they themselves gave the pocketbook to Miss Melvin. They saw a shotgun, they left it in the house, and they have no recollection, at least as far as we know, the evidence will show, about her indicating she was hit in the head. Twice with a gun. No injury, no medical attention, no police recollection. Because its not so.
Keep in mind as tryers of the facts, that a case can be rehearsed, scripted, choreographed and put together. Im not talking about anything unethical or illegal. It can be scripted, rehearsed, choreographed and put together. So it looks like, the evidence will show, that theres some relationship between relationships that Phillip had in his life that ended on a sour note, and the death of the decedent. If the decedent, the evidence will show, did not fool with the gun and cause her own death, you wouldnt know anything about Miss Melvin, Miss Jennings, Miss Ogden, or any of the others. And the last as well, you wouldnt know anything about them. They didnt say anything about it. Other than the evidence that youll hear.
Keep in mind as tryers of the facts, this is not a spectacle or an event. Even though its so well covered. Its well covered, the evidence will show, because of the achievements by Phillip.
Keep in mind, as well, the evidence will show, that according to Mr. Jackson, there was some kind of attempt by Phillip to clean things up and move things. Bear in mind the shock effect when you saw those photographs, bear in mind the shock effect and what it may have. Bear in mind when Mr. Jackson said Phillip was upstairs and took off his white jacket, bear in mind the evidence will show, and you will see, he wasnt hiding anything, he wasnt hiding his white jacket, as a matter of fact when they took him after they knocked him down and tazered him and handcuffed him and sat on him and everything else, they took him down to Alhambra, and he, Phillip, asked, May I have my white jacket? There are phone numbers in there, I want to to call people if you are going to charge me. So he wasnt looking to hide the white jacket, he was the person who asked for the white jacket.
Bear in mind the evidence will show, even though its presented in a scripted, choreographed, practiced fashion, that these incidents with women he knew and had relationships with, was not a pattern, they were isolated, the evidence will show, isolated spats, over the course of years. Over the course of 20 years. So, when you cherry pick, when you have murder on your mind, and you just pull out anything negative you have something negative to say about Phillip, youll hear, the evidence in this case, come on with us. They so much even went to the hospital where his son was sick, he lost his son, terrible tragedy. He lost his son, his son was almost the same age he was when he lost his father
Jackson: Objection, your honor. This is argument.
Fidler: The objection is sustained. Please refrain from arguing the case. 59
Consider the evidence that they, the detectives, the police, who had murder on their mind and had a mindset. Went everywhere and anywhere, to speak to anyone crackpot or not, about Phillip. And youll hear evidence of that. Anybody that saw him in a hotel, anybody that saw him in a restaurant, tell us what was he doing, who was he with? This event, this tragic event, that caused the death of the decedent, was not the fault of Phillip, but it became a cause,
Jackson: Objection. This is argument.
Fidler: Im going to overrule that. You may proceed.
Form the evidence, it became a cause celebre for the authorities. Because of who he was, thats what this is all about. All of these nice people here, from all over the world. Youll see that from the evidence. Youll see the kind of duplication, and quadruplication, that the detectives did in this case. Interviewed people on the telephone, taped their interviews, saw them in person, taped their interviews. They mentioned Kathy Sullivan,. Mr. Jackson did yesterday in his opening, which is not evidence. They interviewed her, they taped her. The evidence will show that they were together, they were friends, they had a platonic relationship, there was no dismissal of her at the House of Blues. She was tired, she went home. The evidence will show you she was tired, she went home, and the prosecutor in his opening statement made it seem like she was dismissed. Phillip was angry she wouldnt have a drink. Evidence will also show drinks were ordered, diet cokes were ordered, and we dont know how much liquor was consumed. And its not a crime to have a drink late at night. Its not a crime to order food late at night. Its not a crime, youll see from the evidence, to go out with your high school friend at 8:00 on a Sunday night. Its not a crime, youll see from the evidence, to take out a friend who works at the Grill. Those things are not crimes. The man has closed off his personal life, his non music life. Youll see from the evidence there are times, there are times, when the limelight burns. There are times when the limelight is lonely. Its lonely. Youve done so much its lonely.
Jackson: Objection, your honor, this is argument.
Fidler: The objection is sustained. Again, you are delving into argument.
Youll see from the evidence, the evidence will show, that when you reach a certain pinnacle,
Jackson: Objection, this is still argument
Fidler: The objection is sustained. Just saying the evidence will show when its still argument is still objectionable. The objection is sustained.
Ill move forward 60
Fidler: OK, thank you.
Certainly the evidence will show that its not a crime to enjoy company of another.
Jackson: Objection your honor, this is still argument.
Fidler: Again, It is.
Ladies and gentlemen the evidence will show, and as I indicated to you in my voir dire and earlier in my opening statement, our evidence will show, through an example of a Dr. Lee and other criminalists, forensic pathologists, blood spatter experts, ballistics experts, and all the rest. Phillips home was not a crime scene. From the evidence you will see, no matter how many police labels they put up, no matter how many tags and identification cards they put up to make it seem like a crime scene. Youll hear from our experts it was a death scene, not a crime scene. Youll also hear that in the home where Phillip lived, there was a starter pistol, a starter pistol, which resembled the gun that took the life of the decedent. That was a gun found on the same lower floor where the decedent was. Youll see from the evidence the resemblance between the starter pistol and the gun that took her life. Whatever weight you want to give that, you give that. Those were the only two guns found on the lower level where the decedent was. The gun that that she used to kill herself, and the starter pistol, encased in a holster, like the one Mr. Jackson showed you on the overhead Elmo here. St. Elmo, Elmo, I guess its called.
So keep in mind, keep in mind, alcohol, pain killers, a starter pistol that doesnt hurt, a deadly gun that can kill, almost look exactly alike. Keep in mind the evidence will show, a big strong woman, a take charge woman, an assertive woman, its not beyond the pale, in fact its consistent with the evidence, that she felt comfortable there in Phillips home, and whatever she was doing, whatever she was consuming, however she felt, she took her life, unfortunately. Much too young.
Bear in mind, the evidence will show, I believe the evidence will show, Phillip harbored no malice to the decedent, he had just met her. Bear in mind the evidence will show, there was no dispute, as a matter of fact they were in the back of the car going to the castle, she was riding with Phillip on her own volition. She watching a old movie with James Cagney, which was ironic almost. Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye that was the movie she was watching.. Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye. How prophetic.
Keep in mind the evidence will show again, unlike the women coming in here with tears and tall tales and stories. Phillip never knew this woman, he had no intent to hurt this woman.
Jackson: Objection thats argument
61
Fidler: No, Im going to allow that with that proviso. Thats fine.
The evidence will show he had no motive to hurt this woman. He harbored no malice towards this woman. Most importantly, the evidence is going to show conclusively that the gun was held by the decedent when it fired. The evidence is going to show that the decedent, according to the evidence, was seated, the gun was in her mouth, put there by her. No broken teeth in, everything was out. Everything was out. There was no evidence that a gun was forced in her mouth, there were no broken teeth in not so, thats not consistent with the evidence, there was no, the evidence will show, nobody forced a gun in her mouth. Fooling with guns. The evidence will show this was not a pistol, Mr. Jackson. The evidence will show theres a major difference between a pistol and a revolver. Pistol is a semi automatic, a revolver is not. The evidence will show that to shoot a revolver you press the hammer back and you can pull the trigger and you dont need as much pressure as you do if the hammer is pulled back. Im not a ballistics expert, but thats what the evidence will show.
The evidence will show she had a broken nail, the decedent. Consistent with self inflicted gunshot wounds. Whats consistent with self inflicted gunshot wounds is reasonable doubt. So there is no evidence of any intent to put someone in danger. Theres no evidence of any intent to hurt, harm a woman. Five words according to prosecutors. I think I killed somebody, I think somebody is killed or nothing. Or nothing. Youll see from the evidence, youll decide, what it means, if anything. If it was heard, by whom, what state he was in.
Phillip says through me everyday in addition to the presumption of innocence
Jackson: Objection. This is argument.
Fidler: I dont know, I have to hear the whole statement. Its premature.
Phillip says through me everyday in addition to the presumption of innocence in which he is swathed, in which he is bandaged, Im not guilty.
Jackson: Objection.
Fidler: The objection is sustained.
I did not fire that gun.
Jackson: Objection.
Fidler: The objection is sustained. The jury is admonished as it has been before to disregard anything I sustain an objection to.
62
The evidence will show you, Phillip did not shoot the decedent. The scientific evidence is a witness in the home. There were no witnesses to the shooting. Decedent is gone, DeSouza saw nothing in the home at the time. But science, forensics is a witness. To reenact the event. We are going to call witnesses. Miss Kenney Baden is going to go into that in a few moments. But just so youre receptive to it, Science, we embrace it, its our friend. So youll see that the evidence will show, Phillip did not shoot this woman, he did not force a gun in this womans mouth. And he didnt do it. Thats what the evidence will show. And they cant change that. By bringing in tall tales from other girls with whom he had relationships. So when you hear all the evidence, and we come before you again, Im confident youll find that Phillip is not guilty of this most serious charge. And I dont expect from the evidence that youll appreciate and agree with every aspect of a persons life. Every single day of a persons life whos in his sixth decade. But its the evidence of this case that were focusing on. Its the evidence here, the lack of evidence, Judge Fidler will give you a charge on, the lack of evidence can also be considered by you, when the prosecution tries to convince you of something beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesnt , the evidence will show, that it just doesnt fit, theres nothing, the evidence will show, theres nothing similar to this incident with a stranger and to these spats with other women. Theres nothing similar about it. This was a sua generous, unique, incident the evidence will show. The evidence will show this was an accident, not at the hand of Phillip. The evidence will show that he is not responsible for the death of the decedent. And I want to thank you for agreeing to sit on this case. And I want to thank each and every one of you for the attention you have paid to me. And I want to thank each and every one of you for the way you listened to the things I had to say, and the way you are open to the evidence. I also want to thank Judge Fidler and I want to thank his staff, for making me feel at home in a strange and new and different place. Thank you very much. Rate this:
CA vs. Spector Day 2 - Accidental SuicideIn "Crime"
CA vs. Spector Day 1 - Opening StatementsIn "Crime"
Spector Refresher - Opening Statements and Admissions In "Crime"
This entry was posted on September 2, 2007 at 3:53 pm and is filed under Crime, Legal, News, Phil Spector, Trials. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 13 Responses to CA vs. Spector Revisiting Opening Statements Bruce Cutler
kellygreen said September 3, 2007 at 2:15 am
The evidence will show, the evidence will show Cutler is a fucking pig, a fucking pig! The man really loves to repeat himself. 63
So much of Cutlers OS makes me angrybut I find it truly disgusting that he never refers to Lana Clarkson by name, he always refers to her as the decedenthe is a fucking pig, a fucking pig.
I BELIEVE THIS EMAIL WAS SENT BY GIANELLI. HE CREATED THE 14th SHEEPDOG MONIKER WHEN HE BEGAN SLANDERING the 14th Sharmapa.
Helvetia Hornwaller <simitheseventeenthshitzu@gmx.at>
8/31/13
to me Kelley, you are diseased scum and the essence of evil. In another time you, like all alcoholic, drug addicted witches and whores, would have been burned at the stake for your horrible crimes and insanity. The best we can hope for now is that you are raped and murdered in jail after you are sent back shortly. Or maybe you will die of a brain tumor or lung cancer. However you die, it is important that you burn in Hell for all eternity. How you ever escaped jail for abuse of your children is a mystery. Not only did you abuse them emotionally and neglect their basic material needs, nutrition, and safety, but you abused them sexually too, and allowed your depraved Hollywood friends to abuse them sexually. Really Kelley, making Rutger and Ray snort coke off the head of Oliver Stone's cock at your infamous parties. That is just beyond evil, not to mention a severe violation of Miss Manner's etiquette. Rutger and Ray still to this day cry themselves to sleep reliving the horrible abuse you dished out to them. That's why Rutger's hand is now a DISGUSTING BLOODY STUMP. He was overwrought with grief for his mentally ill, alcoholic mother, so grief stricken that he couldn't pay attention at the slicing machine and got his fingers lopped off. You like to say it was Leonard Cohen's fault but it actually was your fault, Kelley, entirely your fault. I guess that's why Rapunzel's second cousin told everyone how you wanted to be fist fucked with RUTGER'S BLOODY STUMP. Go to the stump, Kelley, go to the stump. And maybe you could coat it with LSD, for a long time your drug of choice, before he shoves it up your foul, diseased cooze and wipes off his BLOODY STUMP on your saggy, wrinkled tits. I'm sure you'll let out several howls and dozens of your infamously foul vaginal blood farts after he consummates the act. Alex The Rat and Libby The Lush would approve and so would Dorcas Dooglemeyer. Nor to mention Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector. Don't bother forwarding this email to the FBI, IRS, DOJ, ATF, FTB, LAPD, Vivienne, Dennis, Doug, Ann, Kelly, Robert, Michelle, Bruce, Anderson, or any of your other regulars. They blocked you long ago. Your emails to them go into the ether. Thank God you and your flea bitten attorney, Francisco the Fuckup Feeb, are too incompetent to file a proper legal motion. Criminal appeal denied. Writ denied. Motion to vacate the seven year old default judgment will soon be denied. Soon you will have your probation hearing and will be sent back to jail for a very long time. You could always commit suicide, Kelley. I think that would be your best option, actually. Do the world a favor, you drunken old hag.
N.Y./Florida Investigator Bob Nygaard's Criminal Complaint Crimes reported to Captain Ronald Curtis Jr.,of Organized Scheme To Defraud and Mortgage Fraud Conspiracy Crimes committed by Miriam Pacheco, Real Estate Agent Blanca Rosa Sachtouras, Maria T. Torres, Marvin Torres, attorney Thomas S. Heidkamp, Mortgage Broker David Cooksey, Owner of Key Mortgage Brokers, Inc., Barbara M. Petrowitz, aka Mortgage Barb, Intervenor/Defendant Robert O' Siller, attorney Frank Alioa Jr., and attorney Micheal David Randolph.
United States v. Sergey Birkin, German Yagupolsky, Oleg Kholodenko, Yana Desedensko, Also Known as Yana Dedusenko, Pabel Tisnovsky, Victoria Volfson, Also Known as Vika Volfson, Edouard Borisov, Dimitriy Zibrov, Also Known as Dima Zibrov, and Lilya Borochina, Dima Koner, Also Known as Dima Lnu, Also Known as David Koner, 366 F.3d 95, 2d Cir. (2004)
10-07-04 Human Rights Alert Complaint against the California Judicial Council, Chaired by California Chief Justice Ronald George - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law in re: Richard Fine.
United States v. Mario Riccobene, in No. 82-1399 v. Joseph Ciancaglini, in No. 82-1410 v. Charles Warrington, in No. 82-1411 v. Pasquale Spirito, in No. 82-1412 v. Joseph Bongiovanni, in No. 82-1413 v. Harry Riccobene, in No. 82-1414, 709 F.2d 214, 3rd Cir. (1983)
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. (10 Civ. 9647) (PKC) (JCF) -- Defendants' Letter to Judge Castel to Submit Motion for a Protective Order Against Mr. Washington [November 17, 2014]