OBJECTIONS PART 1 - Served 01.16.14 - Not Filed With Court

8/11/2019 OBJECTIONS PART 1 - Served 01.16.14 - Not Filed With Court

1/10

1

2

1

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

T2

l3

14

15

t6

l7

18

19

20

2I

22

Z)

24

25

26

27

)R

JEFFREY

KORN,

SBN

150978

714

West

Olympic

Boulevard, Suite

450

Los Angeles,

California 90015

Telephone

(3

10)

430-568

1

e-mail: ief

fkomlaw(?l

ive.com

MICIIELLE

L.

RICE, SBN

235189

KORY

&

RICE, LLP

9300

Wilshire

Blvd.,

Suite 200

Beverly

Hills,

Califo mia 9 0212

Telephone:

(3

I

0)

285- 1

630

LEONARD

NORMAN

COHEN, an individual;

LEONARD COHEN INVESTMENTS,

LLC,

A

Delaware

Limited Liability

Company,

V.

KELLEY

LYNCH, an

individual; RICHARD A.

WESTIN, an individual; DOES

1

through 50,

inclusive,

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLINTY

OF LOS

ANGELES

_CENTRAL

DISTRICT

ASE, NO.: 8C338322

d to the Hon.

Robert

L.

Hess:

OTICE OF OBJECTION

TO

RESENTATION OF

TESTIMONY

AT

OTION HEARING; NOTICE

OF LODGING

ROPOSED ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO

ECLARATIONS SUBMITTED

BY

KELLEY

YNCH

IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO SET

SIDE DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

ion

Hearing Date:

January

17,2014

:24

omplaint filed: August 15,2005

Plaintiffs

give

notice

that they will

object to

presentation

of any live testimony at

the

scheduled for January 17,2014

at

8:30

A.M.,

due

to Defendant's failure to comply

with

California

of Court 3.1306.

Plaintiffs

hereby

give

notice

of lodging with the Court

an

order on

objections

that will be

on the record before a reporter at the hearing

scheduled

for January 17

,2014

at 8:30

A.M.

Dated: January

16,2014

LAW OFFICE

OF JEFFREY

KORN

NOTICE OF OBJECTIONAND

LODGING

PROPOSED

COURT ORDER


2/10

1

2

n

J

4

5

6

.7

8

9

10

11

T2

13

l4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2t

22

Z3

24

25

26

27

)8

JEFFREY

KORN, SBN

I

50978

714

West Olympic

Boulevard, Suite

450

Los Angeles,

California 90015

Telephone

(3

l0) 430-5681

e-mai I : icl'fkurnlu*

lar

I iv e.corn

MICHELLE

L. RICE,

SBN

235189

KORY

&

RICE,

LLP

9300

Wilshire Blvd.,

Suite

200

Beverly

Hills,

Califo

mia 90212

Telephone:

(3

1

0)

285- 1630

Afforneys

for PLAINTIFF

LEONARD

NORMAN

COHEN;

LEONARD

COHEN

INVESTMENTS,

LLC

SUPERIOR

COURT

OF

THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY

OF LOS

ANGELES

-CENTRAL

DISTRICT

LEONARD

NORMAN COHEN,

an

individual;

ICASE

NO.: BC338322

LEONARD

COHEN

INVESTMENTS, LLC,

a

fssigned

to

the

Hon.

Robert

L.

Hess;

Delaware

Limited

Liability

Company,

lDept.

24

I

Plaintiff,

IIPROPOSEDI

ORDER

ON

PLAINTIFFS'

v.

IOBJBCTI0NS

To

DEFENDANT'S

DECLARATIONS

IN

SUPPORT

OF

MOTION

KELLEY

LYNCH, an individual;

RICHARD

A.

fIO

SET

ASIDE

DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

WESTIN,

an

individual;

DOES

1 through 50,

I

inclusive,

pearing

Date: January

17,2014

llime: 8:30 A.M.

Defendants

D

ept.:24

lComplaint

filed:

August 15,2005

THE COURT

RULES

AS

FOLLOWS

ON

PLAINTIFFS'

ORAL

EVIDENTIAR

OBJECTIONS

TO DEFENDANT'S

DECLARATIONS,

FILED

AUGUST

9,2013

IN SUPPORI

O

MOTION TO SET

ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT:

Page

and line

MATERIAL OBJECTED

TO

GROUNDS

FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Motion,

Page

4;

lines

8-10

The

Default itself is evidence

of

theft and

wrongfully

alters

previously

filed

federal and

state

returns Lynch

previously

filed by default

lmproper

Opinion.

The statement

is

an

opinion

and a conclusory

statement

included

in

a

declaration

and does

not

comply

with the

requirements

of

Evidence

Code section 800.

Grant

_

Deny

-1-

IPROP


3/10

1

2

1

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

t4

15

t6

17

18

t9

20

21

22

ZI

24

25

26

27

)g

Page

and

line

MATERIAL

OBJECTED

TO GROUNDS

FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Motion,

Page 4;

line

15

including

with

respect to his

tax fraud

lmproper

Opinion.

The

statement

is

an

opinion and a

conclusory

statement

included in

a

declaration and does

not

comply

with the

requirements

of Evidence

Code section 800.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

A; Page

2;

lines

13-14

[Plaintiff]

has

been

monitoring

my whereabouts

since

we

parted

ways

and

has

even

hired

private

investigators

to

keep him

appraised

of

my

whereabouts

Speculation.

The

statement is

speculation

included in a


not

comply

with

the

requirements

of

Evidence

Code section 702.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

A;

Page

2;

lines

15-24

[Plaintiff]

understood

that

I

intend

to

report his

tax

fraud,

that

I was

told

is

criminal

to

the

lnternal

Revenue

Service.

He

attempted

to

force

me into

a

settlement agreement

that

would

include,

from what I

understood,

providing

false

testimony

against

his

representatives

and/or

advisors. On

April 15,

2005,

and thereafter

I

reported

[Plaintiff]'s

tax

fraud

to the

lnternal

Revenue

Service and

this

case was

and

remains

retaliation

due

to

that

fact.

Speculation.

Hearsay.

lmproper

Opinion.

The

statement attributes

motivation

and

knowledge

to

Plaintiff in

a declaration

with

no

supporting

fact

recited

and

does

not

comply with the

requirements

of

Evidence

Code section 702.

Part

of

the

statement is

attributed to

something

Declarant

was

told.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

A; Page

2;

lines

24-28

Betsy

Superfon also

advised

me

that she spoke to

[Plaintiff],

in

the spring of 2005,

and

he

told her

at

that time

that

I was

the

love

of

his life,

he felt

remorseful

and

terrified,

and

would

give

me

anything

I

wanted

to

enter an agreement

with

him.

Hearsay.

Evidence

Code section

1200.

Relevance.

Evidence

Code

section

350.

Grant

_

Deny


4/10

1

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

14

15

t6

t7

18

19

20

2t

22

Z)

24

25

26

27

)*,

Page

and

line

MATERIAL OBJECTED

TO

GROUNDS

FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Exhibit

A;

Page

3;

lines

1-2

ln

the

winter

andlar

spring

of

2005,

Boies Schiller

advised

me that

[Plaintiff]

and

Kory

were

attempted

to engage

me

in

criminal conduct

and advised

me to

go

wired

to

my meetings

with them.

Hearsay.

Evidence Code

section

1

200.

Relevance.

Evidence Code section

350.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

A;

Page

2;

lines

6-7

ln

a

lunch

meeting

I had with

Robert Kory,

he

confirmed

that

there

is

tax

fraud

on every

IPlaintiff]

related

entity.

Hearsay.


1200.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

A;

Page

3;

lines

8-9

[Plaintiff]

has

used

extremely

abusive

legal

tactics,

including

fraudulent

restraining orders, to

prevent

me

from

being

involved

in

the

litigation

with

respect to

this

matter

lmproper Apinion.

The

statement

is

an

opinion

and a conclusory

statement

included in

a


not

comply

with

the

requirements

of

Evidence

Code section

800.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

A;

Page

3;

linesl4-

15

lt

is my

personal

opinion

that

[Plaintiff]

uses corporate

entities

to

evade

taxes and

he

appears

to

have

a

history

of tax

and

residence

problems.

lmproper Apinion,

The

statement

is

an

opinion

and a conclusory

statement

included in

a

declaration

and

does

not

comply

with

the

requirements

of

Evidence

Code section

800.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

A;

Page

3;

lines

17-18

My

family

members,

and

others,

have been

victimized

by

individuals

either

related

with

or aligned

with

[Plaintiff].

lmproper Opinion.

The

statement

is

an

opinion

and a conclusory

statement

included in

a

declaration

and does

not

comply

with

the

requirements

of

Evidence

Code section 800.

Grant

_

Deny


5/10

1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

11

t2

13

t4

15

t6

17

18

t9

20

2T

22

Z)

24

25

26

27

)R

Page

and

line

MATERIAL

OBJECTED

TO GROUNDS

FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Exhibit

A;

Page

3;

line

22

The

matters they are

raising

relate

to

[Plaintiff],

the

lnternal

Revenue Service

and

Phil

Spector.

Hearsay.

Evidence

Code

section

1 200.

Relevance.


350.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

A; Page

4;

lines

18-22

He

has

gone

to

extraordinary

lengths,

targeted

my

sons,

falsely

accused

my

elderly

parents

and sister of

various

things,

relentlessly

slandered

and

maligned me,

and

has

used

perjury,

fraud,

and

concealment to obtain orders,

judgments,

and

verdicts. He

has

also used

the

news media

skillfully

to twist,

distort,

and

manipulate the truth.

lmproper Opinion.

The

statement

is

an

opinion and a conclusory

statement

included in a


not

comply

with

the

requirements

of

Evidence

Code section 800

Relevance.

Evidence

Code

section

350.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B;

Page

6;

lines

14-23

Begins:

Ann

Diamond' article,

written

for

Rolling

Stone

....

Continues

to:

...There

was

zero

probability

in

any event.

Relevance. None

of

the

material

has

a connection

to

subject of current

motion.

Hearsay.

Content

attributes itself to or

appears

to

paraphrase

an

internet

gossip

article.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B;

Page

6;

lines

24-27

[Plaintiff]

has

used abusive

restraining

orders against

defendant and

has

availed

himself

of

the

legal

system

in

order

to

obtain orders,

judgments,

and

verdicts via

fraud,

perjury

and

concealment. lt

is Lynch's

opinion

that

all of this

was

done

in

an attempt

to

obstruct

justice.

Relevance.

Evidence

Code section

350

lmproper

Opinion.

The

statement

is

defamatory,

with no facts

in

support, and does

not

comply with the

requirements

of

Evidence

Code section

800.

Grant

_

Deny


6/10

I

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

t4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

)*,

Page

and line

MATERIAL

OBJECTED

TO GROUNDS

FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Exhibit

B; Page

7; Iines

1-20

Begins:

There

is no

doubt that

this

activity

was

undertaken

to

silence Lynch ....

Continues

to:

...

Ann-

Di

amond-Article-Corrected-by-

KL-Leonard-Cohen-Criminal-

Cover-Up.

Relevance.

None

of

the

objected

to

material has

a connection

to

subject of current

motion.

Hearsay.

Content

attributes

itself to

or appears to

paraphrase

an

internet

gossip

article.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B;

Page

7; lines

21-28

Begins:

ln

June

2005, Neal

Greenberg,

IPlaintiff

's]

investment

advisor,

filed

a

lawsuit....

Continues to: ...

SWAT

team

descended on

Lynch's home

and arrested

her in her

bathing

suit;

later Lynch was

involuntarily

admitted

to a

psych

ward

and

Relevance.

None

of

the

objected to

material

has

a

connection

to

subject of current

motion.

Hearsay.

Content

attributes

itself to

a

lawsuit

but no

proper

request for

judicial

notice

or authenticated

document

produced.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

B;

lines

1-28

Begins:

drugged.

Lynch

supplied

documents

and

information ....

Continues

to:

...Kory

and

[Plaintiff]

vowed

to'crush her.'

It

goes

on

to

say

their'tactics

to

terrorize, silence, or

Relevance.

None

of the

objected

to

material has

a connection

to

subject of current

motion.

Hearsay.

Content

attributes

itself to

a

Maclean's

magazine

article.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B;

Page

9;

lines

1-8

Begins:

disparage

Lynch

included

threatening

her

that

she

would

go

to

'jail....

Continues to:

...These

Articles

continually

raise

IPlaintiff

's]

tax

troubles which

are the driving

force

behind

his

targeting

of

Lynch.

Relevance.

No

connection to subject

of

current

motion.

Hearsay.

Content

paraphrases

or

expands on

unidentified

internet

or

magazine

articles.

lmproper

Opinion.

The

statement

by

its

own

content

is

broad

opinion

with

no

facts

and no

basis

in

expertise to

support.

Grant

_

Deny


7/10

1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

14

15

t6

l7

18

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

)8

Page

and line

MATERIAL

OBJECTED

TO

GROUNDS

FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Exhibit

B; Page

9;

lines

9-28

Begins:

[Plaintiff],

a

man

with

access

to

the

news

media

is

an

expert

in manipulating

the

press

....

Continues

tor

...

his

unusually

articulate

and

quick

witted

sentences

bemoaning

his lack

of articulateness

and

sharpness

( 1'm

sorry.

You

get

this

kind

of spaciness

at

moments

in

retreats.

They

say

zazen bring short-

Relevance.

No connection

to subject

of

current

motion.

Hearsay.

Content

quotes

or

paraphrases

internet

or

magazine articles.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

10; lines

1-28

Begins term memory

loss.),

his

claiming

not

to

know,

after

twenty

years

in L.A.,

how

long

it takes to drive

to

Santa

Barbara.

These are

tricks

of

[Plaintiff's]

trade

and

they

work

well

in

courts

of

|aw....

Continues

to:

...In

fact,

one of

Canada's

treasures

is

unable

to

reside in

Canada.

Relevance.

No connection

to subject

of

current

motion.

Hearsay.

Content

paraphrases

a

magazine article.

Speculation,

Content

is

attributed

to

what

Declarant

believed.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

11

;

lines

11-26

Begins:

Dear

Mr. Westin:....

Continues

to:

...We

look

forward to hearing

from

you.

Relevance.

No

connection

to

subject

of

current

motion.

No Foundation.

Content

quotes

and

paraphrases

an alleged

letter with

no

authentication

in violation

of

Evidence Code

section

140011401.

Hearsay.

Grant

_

Deny

-6-

IPROP


8/10

1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

t3

t4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2t

22

Z)

24

25

26

27

)R

Page

and

line

MATERIAL OBJECTED

TO

GROUNDS

FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Exhibit

B; Page

11

;

lines

27-28

On

April 15, 2005,

Lynch

reported

IPlaintiff's]

tax

fraud

to

the

Agent

Bill Betzer of

the

lRS.

Agent

Betzer initially

advised

Lynch

to

Bring the

allegations

of

fraud

into

the

IRS

with

a

lawyer.

He then

Relevance.

No

connection

to

subject

of current

motion.

Hearsay.

Content

is

attributed

to

Agent

Bill Betzer.

lnadmissible Opinion.

The

statement

of

tax

fraud

is

a

conclusion/

opinion

with

no

facts

and

no

basis/

foundation to

support.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

12; line

1

advised

her

to

phone

the

IRS

Fraud Hotline

which

she

did.

Lynch

also

reported the

tax

fraud

via

an

IRS

website

....

Hearsay.

lnadmissible Opinion.

The

statement of

tax

fraud is a conclusion/

opinion

with

no

facts

and

no

basis and

no

foundation

in

declarant's

expertise

to

support.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

12;line

I

-27

Begins:

41977

memo,

prepared

for....

Continues to: ...All three

countries

tax

income

from

a

source

within their

respective

jurisdiction

paid

to

non-

residents; there are,

however

several

exceptions established

by

treaty.

Relevance.

No

connection

to

subject

of

current

motion.

No

Foundation.

Hearsay.

Content

quotes

or

paraphrases

alleged

memos

with

no

authentication

in

violation

of

Evidence

Code

sections 14AU14O1.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

13; lines

1-28

Begins:

Because

of

the

facts

of

IPlaintiff's]

case

....

Continues

to:

[Plaintiff]

planned

to

return

to

Canada as

a

resident. He

Relevance.

No

connection

whatsoever

to

subject of

current

motion.

Grant

_

Deny

-7

-

I

PROP


9/10

1

2

1

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

11

t2

13

t4

15

t6

t7

18

19

20

2T

22

Z)

24

25

26

27

)R

Page

and

line

MATERIAL

OBJECTED

TO

GROUNDS FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Exhibit

B; Page

'13;

lines

1-9

Begins

abandoned

his

green

card ....

Continues

to

...The

stamp

in

[Plaintiff's]

passport

was

dated

July

4,

1993.

Relevance.

No

connection

whatsoever

to

subject of

current

motion.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

14; lines

10-17

Begins

ln

the

fall

of

1988

....

Continues to

...University

of

Toronto.

Relevance.

No

connection

whatsoever

to

subject

of

current

motion.

Lack

of

Foundation.

Hearsay.

I

nte nt

o

n

a

I

d

efa

m

ato

ry

statements made

for

improper

purpose with

no

connection

to

current

matter

before

the

Court.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B;

Page14;

lines

19-28

Begins:

Letter

From

F. Van

Penick

to

Kelley Lynch

....

Continues to:

...the

residence

status

is

crucial;3. Residence

is not

a

Relevance.

No

connection

whatsoever

to

subject of

current motion.

Lack

of

Foundation,

Appears

to

quote

a

letter

with

no showing of

authenticity in violation

of

Evidence

Code sections

140011401.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

15; lines

1-13

Begins:

defined

term

but

will

be determined as

a

matter

of

fact....

Continues

to:

...Yours

very

truly

Relevance.

No

connection

whatsoever

to

subject of

current

motion.

Lack

of

Foundation,

Appears

to

quote

a

letter

with

no showing of

authenticity in violation

of

Evidence

Code sections

1400

11401_

Grant

_

Deny


10/10

1

2

a

)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

t4

15

t6

T7

18

T9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

)8

Page

and line

MATERIAL

OBJECTED

TO

GROUNDS

FOR

OBJECTION

RULING

Exhibit

B;

page

15; line

14

According

to

[Plaintiff],

the

risks

he faced

with

respect

to

Canadian

tax and residence

issues were

Belevance.

No connection

whatsoever

to

subject

of

current

motion.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B;

Page

16; lines

14-23

Begins:

[Plaintiff]

decided

that

returning

to

Canada was

simply

too

risky....

Continues

to:

...

Conversation-

With-Steven-Machat-Leonard-

Cohen-and Phil-Spector

Relevance.

Lack

of

Foundation.

Speculation.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B;

Pagel

6;

lines

20

resolving issues

with

respect

to

[Plantiff's]

numerous

social

security

numbers

Relevance.

No connection

whatsoever

to

subject

of

current

motion.

Lack

of

Foundation,

Hearsay.

lntentional

defamatory

statements made

for

improper

purpose

with

no

cannection

to

current matter

before

the Court.

Grant

_

Deny

Exhibit

B; Page

17; lines

9-15

Begins:

As

of

1991

,

Cohen

had

abandoned his

green

card....

Continues

to:

...social

security

number

and

yet

he

personally

had

done so.

Relevance.

Materiality.

No

connection whatsoever

to

subject of

current

motion.

Lack

of

Foundation.

Hearsay.

lntentional

defamatory

statements made

for

improper

purpose

with

no

connection to

current matter

before

the Court.

Grant

_

Deny

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	odzer-chenma
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

OBJECTIONS PART 1 - Served 01.16.14 - Not Filed With Court

Documents