1

MUST BE SUBMITTED BY JULY 9th.

Declaration of Kelley Lynch

I, Kelley Lynch, declare:

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.

Kelley Lynch [former manager of Leonard Cohen]

http://cyberterroristwatch.blogspot.com/2009/09/kelleys-final-version-letter-to-alan.html

***

DEAR PHAWKER,

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.

Sincerely
Susanne Walsh

http://www.phawker.com/2009/10/23/mailbag-leonard-cohen-is-not-a-great-man/

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.



____________________________________
Kelley Lynch
25











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.

As the song says, the deal is rotten...

http://www.westword.com/2005-06-30/news/hellalujah/full/

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.

Amax Potash Corp. v. Trans-Resources, Inc., 817 P.2d 598, 600 (Colo.Ct.App. 1991) (citations *8
omitted).

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.

64

Your friend,

Simi The Seventeenth Shi-Tzu