artist v. con-artist(s): an unhappy battle brewing

[linda_lakeside]

Hi,

There seem to be an awful lot of unanswered questions and many hypothetical scenarios, so we could speculate for a very long time.

Some of what's been published in these articles is just plain stupid: Arrested by a SWAT while in bathing suit? That is just bizarre. I can't, for the life of me, see Leonard being in the drivers' seat over that one. But, I don't know the man. I just love his music.

I doubt that we'll ever know the 'real' truth, but, in all fairness, I'm going to reserve any 'judgements' on Leonard and all involved until we see some kind of decision by the courts or an arrest, something tangible. So far, it's a case of he said, she said, so to speak.

Besides which, who am I to 'judge' anyone? But it's so puzzling. So much money and so little said. If it were my money, I'd be screaming from the highest mountain. But, as we don't have all the facts, it's still just gossip.

Linda.

[John K.]

Putting aside any personal feelings of who I would wish to be correct in this matter, my take:

1. If it is true that LC gave Ms. Lynch a power of attorney and a majority interest in the controlling corporation, then Greenberg was legally OBLIGATED to release funds on her say so. If the POA was complete and without restrictions, he would have been violating the law otherwise. This should be easily proven in court as long as Lynch and Greenberg have their copies of the documents, and if they probably do have copies if these facts are accurate.

2. If Ms. Lynch had a full POA, it actually is legally irrelevant where the money went. In a full POA, she would be acting as LC himself. If I go to the bank and make a withdrawal, I don't have to tell the bank what I want the money for. If I give Ms. Lynch a POA, she has the legal right to do the same.

3. If Mr. Cohen gave anyone a POA without conditions, then he proves himself to be book smart but naive. Very naive.

4. If Mr. Cohen and his attorneys did issue documents that are threatening to Mr. Greenberg, they will lose that lawsuit. This will be a matter for the court to decide based on how the documents are worded. Saying "if you don't do this, I will do that" is a very real threat.

5. The final issue I see is the moral culpability of Ms. Lynch. She claims to have proof that money was spent on Mr. Cohen. This is entirely possible and I will not pass judgment until I see one way or the other.

6. I like LC's music much more than this sadness.

[Dem]

John K. wrote:

The final issue I see is the moral culpability of Ms. Lynch. She claims to have proof that money was spent on Mr. Cohen. This is entirely possible and I will not pass judgment until I see one way or the other.

It seems that indeed the key person in this story is Ms.Lynch and we have to wait to see the evidence but how possible is that Ms.Lunch took the money on Mr.Cohen request, he then spent them in his "lavish" way of life and now he claims that his money have been lost?

What the heck is going on here?

Leonard just went crazy or he became the absolute "con-artist" at the age of 70???

[linda_lakeside]

Dem,

It's hard to say, as John K. so succinctly illustrated. At this point, it can only be speculation.

There is probably much that we don't know, and a lot of people may just be trying to cover their rear-ends. I know that speculating is just gossiping and I don't like to do that. However, the 'facts' as they are coming out, are so outlandish at times, and at others, seem plausible.

I don't think we're going to hear Ms. Lynch's side of the story until it goes to court, rather, if it goes to court. It is simply an interesting, albeit unfortunate, situation for Leonard to be in at this stage in his life.

I can understand that some may not want to talk about this, I have reservations as well, but this is the LC forum, and this is a big development in his life, it will be part of his next bio. I hope he gets a fair shake.

Linda.

[Young dr. Freud]

If Mr. Cohen gave anyone a POA without conditions, then he proves himself to be book smart but naive. Very naive.

That's what bugs me. I thought people only gave power of attorney when they were "in extremis." I don't believe Leonard is naive. I think he is one smart cookie.

The corporation sounds like a tax dodge. Legal but still dodgey. The thing is... did Greenberg set up (or advise LC) to set up this corporation and did Greenberg advise giving Power of Attorney to Lynch?

YdF

[Tchocolatl]

What is the "honest" solution? Roll over and give the celebrity client his "stolen" money?

Not exactly. Famous or not, the client, the truth should be the only law in force, and I add, especially for John K., POA or not.

There is a way with Law that is, let say, "by the book", which is only taking care of the papers and is blind (volontary or not) to the fact that they can or cannot be in accordance with reality. There is another way, which is Justice, that gives more importance to the reality of the case than to papers.

If the reality is that Ms. Lynch did what she was accused of having done, and if Cohen's capital was such in jeopardy that the firm felt he had to be warned, and if the firm did not more than to send some letters (that can easily be snatched by anybody before reaching the client) and never tried to talk to his client directly to make sure with him that things really were to his entire satisfaction... sorry, but then I think the firm has to use the insurance they have for this sort of case.

If it was Cohen himself, in person, that had done the withdrawals it would have been normal not to ask questions, but just warn him. But business persons know better or they should know better about POA. This is not the first time a POA is misused (for G_d sake).

As they are pro I guess they can not just wash their hands by saying that thay have no responsibility when somebody with a POA deals so badly, let say in total contradiction with the interest of a client without having checked with this client personally. The client should have a compensation for the lost. This is clear.

Now as this is not a Court Room here, I just wait an see.

Dem,

OK, I won't.

Oh! boy! Buddhism, buddhism, buddhism... A monk is a monk, Christian or buddhist or whatever.

Do you think that the Dalaï Lama lives like all the other monks? Tibetan monks have a strict hierarchy, they are very tough guys. In Tibet, the lower ranked monks were not so happy with this, and some say that Chinese had a good help from those unhappy ones. This is Earth, here. Perfection does not exist.

Besides monks have a reputation, you know. They have the reputation of having been, in some cases, the greatest "sinners" of the wold. Having sex with each other, with animals (yes, yes, male buddhist monks were having anal sex with each other in the monastery), eating like pigs, what else? So. Being a real or an unreal monk is just a matter of the ideal of the monk we have in mind. Better be a real person, in my mind, monk or not monk.

No he was not the little Jew who wrote the Bible.

He was and he is still a dream sailor. One of the best of our time and we need dreams as much as bread, sometimes much more than bread, to stay alive.

So maybe he is like YdF seems to think, like the Oz wizard. a little man, that had a great weakness which he tried to hide behind a big show machine. Or maybe not. Just wait and see. At this point I cannot see how we could say "yes" or "no" for sure. In any case, as I never have "the cult", I mean, as I never placed him in a place were he could fall, I'll still continue to enjoy what I enjoyed about his work, whatever.

[linda_lakeside]

Ha! Tchoco, dear Tchoco! That about sums it up, I'd say. I mean, I too, will watch with interest, I hope the sun shines down on Leonard, but, this is earth. Not so perfect.

This subject of religion, that is starting to creep into the conversation, is going to send me off to find a game thread, or something like that. I'd hate it if we were all too busy fighting over religion to notice that something had happened in Leonard's case.

See you all,
Linda.

[Young dr. Freud]

Choco,

When a man turns over power of attorney to someone...it means he's deliberately taking himself out of the loop. He also made Lynch the controller of this mysterious corporation. The investment firm dealt with the person Leonard TOLD them to deal with. My question is whether Greenberg advised this course of action in 1996.

Cohen has nobody but himself to blame for this mess. He wants his money back...he should get it from the gigolo.

In any case, as I never have "the cult", I mean, as I never placed him in a place were he could fall, I'll still continue to enjoy what I enjoyed about his work, whatever.

Choco, you so "have the cult" you don't even know you're brain-washed.


YdF

[linda_lakeside]

he should get it from the gigolo.

Really? What do these guy charge, I wonder? How embarrassing for Ms Lynch if it were true. Ah, but it's LA, I guess they all do it. But still, it sounds...?

Linda.

[Paula]

If you trust someone enough to give them Power of Attorney on your affairs (which he obviously did) would you think to be constantly questioning their actions. I think Leonard must have trusted her completely and she has abused that trust. Never mix personal life with business. Both Kelley and Leonard now have to deal with the consequences. I hope he can pin it on a corporation they will be insured for something like this if it was just an individual pilfering and they have no assets the money is lost no matter who was to blame. What goes around comes around Kelley it is a massive shame that this has happened. You don't need it in your golden years.

[lightning]

If he did give her complete power of attorney then she could do whatever she wanted with the money. The POA does not specify that she has to spend it on him. So what she did was not exactly cordial, but where is the crime? Isn't asking for it back Indian giving?

"Woman sweet, she take your money"
Belafonte/Burgess

"The law is an ass"
Dickens

[Tchocolatl]

Linda, and when I think that I even never gave you a POA to do this to me. I won't go into a baboon fight either. One baboon is enough and it takes two to tango. Oups... I think I just danced a little... who cares.

YdF thanks to say that I have a brain, I thought you had classified me in the stupid blond bimbo category. As I understand it, it must be "wash", like clean, not durty. Call it like you want, language barrier or whatsoever.

You guys are going with the law of jungle : If the firm is the more powerful, it can keep the money, than too bad for the truth and too bad for the mission of the enterprise, which is to keep and take care of the capital of their clients.

I don't agree with this way of doing business. The firm is there both for doing money and for the rest. If they felt the need to warn the client they should have done it properly not just for the form.

This is the same abuse that (if she did) Ms. Lynch did to him.

So he was stolen by everybody who he entrusted to manage his affairs.

Wake up, somebody.

Now, all those not-so-pretty-passes between lawyers are "the game" of the jungle law and they have to play it because nobody was honest and it continues in this way.

All those law codes, when we have just simple 10 to follow.

This reinforces my beleiving that any system would be rotten if people who are part of it are to the core.

I'm waiting for the miracle.

[lightning]

What if the "system" were that they money were there for whomever needed it? Not those who " tricked the masses for their private gain"?

[Tchocolatl]

Hello Lightning! Nice to see you again. I was thinking of you after having read all those weather reports that were giving news about you and your friend thunder (that is very silent here for such a guy). She will appear, I thought.

So this is it? To be millionaire is "bad" and he should be punished and he was and he should keep quiet now and end of the story.

Oh! Maybe it is when a certain amount of people (when a critical mass will be reached ) will understand that it is not possible to be "equal", that it is just possible to be fair, that "you shall not steal" will be easy to follow. Who knows?

If you talk about his lawyer, I think that it takes somedody like this to play the game with peers. Until everybody understands that the only way to win the game is to stop playing it. It is not for tomorrow, i guess. Baboons are so funny to watch.

[~greg]

What a sorry mess. But he has only himself to blame.

YdF

That is the first thing a defense lawyer would reach for:
To try to find the way to blame the victim.

I'll have more to say about that later.

For now:

I think you are breaking down the case very well for us.
Thank you.


But you're doing it from the rational point of view.

And things like this just don't happen to completely
rational people.


---


Presumably you admire, or have admired, LC's art.

Presumably you can appreciate that it took an extraordinarily
sensitive individual (,perhaps with concomitant neurosis,)
to have created it.

And yet you fault him, and don't see the contradiction in it,
for his not being the Uncle Scrooge McDuck, with nothing
better to do than make, guard, and count his money!

But these things are incompatible.

Perhaps you do handle your own finances exceedingly well.

(Because often pointing out other people's faults is felt to be
the more socially acceptable way of draw attention to our
own too little recognized virtues than is directly boasting
about them.)


And, after all, artistic creativity,
and financial cupidity, ARE inversely proportional.
(wouldn't you admit?)

Power of attorney? Majority ownership? What was the man thinking?

Well, he wasn't thinking with the coiffured head.

However how can you fault him (--LC!--)
for not being a hard boiled cynic about women?

I mean, how can YOU???

There certainly are lines in LC that appear to be crass or even misogynist.
And, just as you found "it hard to believe Leonard didn't know what
his finances were," so too there are people who find it hard
to believe that Leonard isn't just a cold-hearted gigolo.

But any psychoanalyst who can't see through that
- who doesn't know the difference between the defense mechanisms
of a true bleary eyed idealistic romantic that never could
"grow-up" in the real world (- however furious that makes you at him)
on the one hand, and the affects of a brain-stunted sociopath on the other
- had better turn over his couch, and get a job as an expert
tv commentator psychologist instead.

I find it hard to believe Leonard didn't know what his finances were.
This is a man who keeps meticulous records about his life.
All those legendary boxes and boxes of minutia detailing his every thought.
I remember the scene in the Mt. Baldy video where he is packing his suitcase.
(You can tell a lot about a person by the way they pack their suitcase.
That's the first thing I make my patients do. Very revealing.)
He was packing the case very, very carefully.
The man is obsessed with detail. And with keeping things orderly.
You don't pack a suitcase like that and then get careless with your life savings.

That is a very interesting point.
(And thank you for all them, by the way. )

However, you could have given it a little more thought.

As a psychoanalyst, you shouldn't see any inconsistency
between neatness-fetish, and financial indifference.

They are after all both simply alternate neurotic responses
to early toilet training. (Neatness gets mother's approval.
Sloppiness gets mother's attention.)

--------


But my most important point is this:

As a Jew you should be particularly sensitive to LC's
subconscious guilt for being a Cohen of the tribe of Levi.

It's what's behind all of his self-destructive behavior.

It is the meaning of his vegetarinanism, for example.
(Read Leviticus.)

And it's why he lost his money.

--
He himself always lived a Spartan life.

And so it should come as no surprise
that his subconscious would use chance
- that is to say, G-d's will
- via exposure to pilfering
- as an effective way to bypass his rational consciousness
- in order to make - in effect - out of the offerings
and wealth given him by the people -

an heave offering unto the lord

For the Levites are to have no other inheritance than that.

Numbers --- Chapter 18


20

And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance
in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I
am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of
Israel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21

And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth
in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they
serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22

Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the
tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23

But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the
congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be
a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the
children of Israel they have no inheritance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24

But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as
an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites
to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the
children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26

Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take
of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you
from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an
heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the
tithe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27

And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as
though it were the corn of the threshingfloor, and as the
fulness of the winepress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28

Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of
all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel;
and ye shall give thereof the LORD's heave offering to Aaron
the priest.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29

Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of
the LORD, of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part
thereof out of it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30

Therefore thou shalt say unto them, When ye have heaved the
best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the
Levites as the increase of the threshingfloor, and as the
increase of the winepress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31

And ye shall eat it in every place, ye and your households:
for it is your reward for your service in the tabernacle of
the congregation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32

And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, when ye have heaved
from it the best of it: neither shall ye pollute the holy
things of the children of Israel, lest ye die.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

~greg