Thursday, June 25, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Emails to Ann Diamond & Criminal Stalker Stephen Gianelli

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Fw:
To: Ann Diamond <>, Stephen Gianelli <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Dan Bergman <>, Michelle Rice <>

Stephen Gianelli,

If you want to discuss Leonard Cohen's legal issues, please speak to Bergman and Rice directly.  Everyone else seems to think you're a criminal.  More gratuitous insults about Ann Diamond?  Are you working 24/7 on this matter?  You're not an attorney of record.  I'm sure LA Superior Court would love the way you would probably suck up to them.  From what I can tell, lawyers just need to lie and say "Your Honor" and that works.

Cease and desist, Gianelli.  

Kelley Lynch

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Hi Ann,

I posted your piece about Gianelli on my blog so I'll make the change that he wrote me in jail.  I have the letter.  He evidently lived in Greece but mailed it from Oakland.  Gianelli has a talent for criminal conduct.  Here's the response I received re. your writing.  It's a legal argument on behalf of Leonard Cohen.  I wasn't served and Cohen was not permitted to register the foreign fraud order as a domestic violence order in California.  I have emails with the Judicial Council about this matter.  

You thrive on sick exchanges?  This man, as everyone is noting, is a psychopath.


Leonard Cohen's tactics and motive for failing to serve Kelley Lynch: 
Date: Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: Your email of Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:09 PM
Ms. Lynch,

Setting aside your praise of “writer” Ann Diamond’s op ed piece published on your blog, I respond to your points in the order raised:

1. There is a concept called “res judicata”. It refers to the legal consequences of facts that are litigated to a final judgment; once determined, facts may not be relitigated.  This principal applies witn exual force to default judgments. Subsumed within the general legal category of res judicata is a legal concept known as “collateral estoppel.” In the context of the May, 2006 judgment for monetary ($7M), declaratory and injunctive relief entered in Case No. BC338322,  it means that your default had the legal effect of admitting all facts set forth in the August 25, 2005 complaint. It also means that unless and until the Los Angeles County Superior Court sets the 2006 judgment aside (which it has now declined to do twice and which it is expected order you not to request it to do  a third time on September 3), you may not contradict those facts in any subsequent legal proceeding or lawsuit initiated by you in state or federal court, including federal district court, federal tax court, and federal bankruptcy court. Rather, all facts pleaded in the Complaint and which are specifically declared to be true in the body of the judgment (e.g., Cohen has no obligations to Lynch; Lynch owns no interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC or any other Cohen related entity) are DEEMED TO BE TRUE.    In the context of your criminal conviction, , your 2012 criminal conviction is an absolute bar to any lawsuit initiated by you in state of in federal court (including any lawsuit premised on civil RICO) that in any way assumes your alleged false arrest, wrongful conviction, or innocence of the charges – unless and until a court sets that criminal conviction aside AND declares your “actual innocence” (not likely to happen at this stage, after the orders affirming your conviction on direct appeal and denying your petition habeas relief). In the context of the your two unsuccessful motions to vacate the 2006 judgment, it means that any federal or state court must henceforth ASSUME that you were properly served with the Complaint.  (I have previously provided you with on-point, binding federal and state legal authorities conclusively establishing everything set forth in this paragraph as a correct statement of immutable bedrock law and will not waste my time repeating them here.)

2. In view of the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel discussed above and with reference to your allegations that: “The expense ledger is evidence of financial fraud.  It willfully concealed corporate ownership interests, stock certificates, agreements, and the fact that the assets were owned by Blue Mist Touring.  Leonard Cohen's ledger proves that he is the alter ego of certain entities and feels entitled to keep income from assets belonging to BMT.  He also failed to address his loans/expenditures from TH totaling approximately $6.7 million.  Leonard Cohen's declaration, and those of his lawyers, are replete with perjured statements[,]”  all of that is irrelevant and superseded by the allegations of the Complaint and findings in the judgment which are all deemed true and may not be contradicted.

3. Regarding your vow to appeal Judge Hess’ June 23, 2015 order, there are a number of obstacles on the treacherous and uphill path from the filing of a notice of appeal through your goal of reversing  the order. First and foremost, although it may seem counterintuitive to you, your 2015 motion can only be viewed as a motion to reconsider your 2013 motion to vacate the judgment, as Judge Hess found. Under binding case authority cited in Leonard Cohen’s opposition, and helpfully posted by you on,  this is true because you seek an order vacating the judgment in both motions, you seek a dismissal in both motions, and in both motions you seek the alternative relief of being allowed to answer the Complaint and defend the case on the merits – EVEN THOUGH your motion bears a different name in the caption and even though it us supported by different legal theories. As I told you long before Cohen opposed the motion or Judge Hess ruled, this really is a no brainer for an experienced trial lawyer, experienced trial judge or a court of appeal justice. It is not a coincidence that I called this point correctly. It was not “luck” on Cohen’s part that Judge Hess agreed. Every young Californian lawyer has had the experience of filing a motion and getting hammered by the opposition because you are seeking, in part, the same relief as in a prior motion that was denied. Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 stands as a complete jurisdictional bar to the court EVEN CONSIDERING – let along granting – the motion, UNLESS the statutory requites are complied with, including a declaration that checks all of the boxes required by § 1008. You did not even try to comply with those procedural requisites. Instead you took the position that § 1008 did  not apply. For that reason alone your appeal will be dead on arrival. I therefore won’t waste my time extensively discussing the deferential standard of review accorded to the trial judge by the courts of appeal when reviewing a motion to vacate, let alone a motion to vacate a 9-year old default judgement arising from a suit filed 10-years ago that you learned about the week it was filed from a reporter for the New York Times, let alone a motion to vacate made under such circumstances that has already been fully briefed and denied 14-months earlier. Briefly, the standard of review of an order denying a motion to vacate is quite limited. A ruling on such a motion rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (County of Alameda v. Risby (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1431.) "The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court." ' [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Rosevear (1998) 65 Cal.App. 4th 767,  at p. 682.) The burden is on the complaining party to establish abuse of discretion, and the showing on appeal is insufficient if it presents a state of facts which simply affords an opportunity for a difference of opinion. (Ibid.)

4. Regarding your stated intention to try to set aside the California registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order and to expunge the order from CLETS on the theory that by using Judicial Council form DV-600 to do so the Los Angeles Court improperly “converted” the Colorado civil harassment order into a ‘domestic violence order”, nonsense. As a threshold matter, hearsay conversations that you purport to have had with the staff of the California Judicial Council and/or unidentified “commissioners” of the Los Angeles Court, are inadmissible hearsay, inadmissible legal conclusions  and as without foundation as to expert testimony. Moreover, California Family Code § 6401 quite explicitly INCLUDES civil harassment restraining orders within the statutory definition of “foreign protection order and § 6404 (a) goes further to unambiguously states: “Any foreign protection order shall, upon request of the person in possession of the order, be registered with a court of this state in order to be entered in the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System … “. The question of why the California legislature chose to require that BOTH civil harassment orders AND domestic violence restraining orders be registered with a California court on demand and then entered into the Domestic Violence Restraining Order System is better addressed to your state legislator that the court, because when a statute is plain on its face as this one is, a court has no choice but to enforce it. (In re Marriage of Dupre (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1517 at p. 1528 and cases cited.) In addition, California Judicial Council form DV-600 is the ONLY court form for use when registering an out-of-state or tribal protection order in California, either an out of state civil harassment order OR a protective order arising out of domestic violence,  so your belief that this was the “wrong form to use” is obviously in error. Finally, your motives in raising this issue now, AFTER you have been convicted of multiple counts of VIOLATING  the Colorado order in Los Angeles Superior Court 2012, and your conviction has been affirmed and is now final, is more than a little suspect – especially since you maintain that you have no “desire to contact Leonard Cohen”. If you never contact Leonard Cohen again, the Colorado order will never be a problem for you.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch []
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:09 PM
To: Ann Diamond; Stephen Gianelli; *irs. commissioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; : Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; stan.garnett;; mayor.garcetti;; Kelly.Sopko; Dan Bergman; Michelle Rice
Subject: Re: FW: Fw:


I want to make one comment on your extremely enlightening piece on Stephen Gianelli.  Leonard Cohen didn't attach evidence to his fabricated Complaint narrative.  The expense ledger is evidence of financial fraud.  It willfully concealed corporate ownership interests, stock certificates, agreements, and the fact that the assets were owned by Blue Mist Touring.  Leonard Cohen's ledger proves that he is the alter ego of certain entities and feels entitled to keep income from assets belonging to BMT.  He also failed to address his loans/expenditures from TH totaling approximately $6.7 million.  Leonard Cohen's declaration, and those of his lawyers, are replete with perjured statements.  

I am filing an appeal once I am served the order Judge Hess evidently signed.  Cohen's lawyer failed to serve me the order previously and the January 17, 2014 order is not listed on LA Superior Court's website.  Cohen's lawyer then failed to serve me so I have no idea what happened there.  More tactics.

As for the fraudulent domestic violence order:  I spoke with the Judicial Council and their lawyer advised me that Cohen could not file that foreign order as a domestic violence order in California.  I also spoke with at least one Commissioner at LA Superior Court about this.  That is the order I was arrested over and the prosecutor was clear about that fact during the bail hearing.  So, I am filing a motion to vacate that fraudulent domestic violence order.

I am also responding to Cohen's pathetic Sanctions Motion and the sealing of documents that are my business documents, corporate records, publicly available on court sites, available through various state websites, and attached to Neal Greenberg's lawsuit - where no one argued a/c privilege.  I didn't have a/c privilege with Cohen's lawyer.  And these are corporate records.  

Stephen Gianelli is a lying operative with motive.  Period.  He targeted my sons for over six straight years.  He also targeted my sister and now has Paulette in his sights. In fact, he just helped Von Watteville defraud Paulette of $6,700 after Von Watteville received her rent demand letter and called Robert Kory.   

I have no idea where Gianelli is.  The man is a psychopath and profound liar.  He's now interested in my Tax Court Petition.  Well, that's none of his business.  I did speak with the IRS Chief Trial Counsel the other day re. Cohen's fraud refunds, fraud upon the Tax Court in 2002, and concealment of the fact that TH was to receive the $1 million prepayment Cohen personally received.  He failed to advise IRS that this income belonged to a corporate entity - and that entity would have ultimately been Blue Mist Touring.  

It is also important to keep in mind that Gianelli worked with Phil Spector's former assistant, Michelle Blaine, to target my email accounts and blogs.  

All the best,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Stephen Gianelli,

Stop lying.  I do think CIA should explain why they think Streeter believes she is on their disposition matrix.  It's frightening.  

Kelley Lynch

When Stephen Gianelli’s emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and unsolicited, they are so overflowing with repetitive accusations, misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts, undiluted rage, and general nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of them. My impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he seems to have unlimited energy  and endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not know in an attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of having an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as he's concerned, so he's barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under normal circumstances be a sign of mental imbalance.

He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful deductions. His tone is that of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me flashbacks of a courtroom where I’m being cross-examined by a vicious criminal lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the witness. Gianelli’s game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be overwhelmed by a word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his overuse of "copy and paste" --  he's in a hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to make a persuasive argument. He doesnt reread his emails to see what kind of message they actuall convey: that the writer is standing on some soapbox in his mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.

He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the truth, or looking beyond the various documents he "downloaded at his own expense"  -- and as anyone with common sense knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in 2004-5. 

They convey some of the evidence, all of it coming from one side.

Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since 2008, does not make sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him names on the internet, and in revenge he has totally immersed himself in her legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and friends, spreading false stories about her, making up quotes, “visiting her in jail”, posting photos of her residence and roommates on his blog – for the past seven years. Nobody in their right mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no material interest in this case, and is not a paid shill -- behaves like this. It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress leave' or in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing. Hiding behind the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long, especially not on the porous internet. His badly written and often illogical, emotional rants would embarrass and bring him close to  professional suicide.

But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a comfortable tax haven on Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his childish fantasies and catty remarks with his tiny circle of  cronies. It’s fairly obvious he uses alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g. “Mongochili,” to make it appear others read his blog and share his ‘obcession’ with Lynch. His sheer extremism indicates he is either a “rogue criminal lawyer” gone slightly postal, or a paid agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team.  I think the latter.

I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the one intended: it can only make people suspicious of the case against Kelley Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its course? Why subject her to endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared guilty? This kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to be both the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.
Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A single-paragraph response from my end always leads to a flood from his. Each exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of  irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which might be worth discussing, if they weren’t drowned by high-volume invective. Of course this could be a tactic:  if he really was ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an insufferable bully. Or maybe most of his cases involved low-life criminals or people with little or no education.

He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing -- but then so could I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's one of the reasons, including the 10-year series of precedents, that I am not surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.

If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments to these legal matters, and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He would have no need to bring up my "past" - or a wacked version of it that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's disinfo team. He draws from a psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from other Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, I’m no stranger to slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where anyone can read what I have to say. Much of what I have written on Cohen was initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours that were circulated (and believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much more detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop idol in our celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with people who base their opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive tactics have not really evolved in the past twenty years, since he used them on me.

I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman' who never got over her passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy clichés say much more about him than they do about me or my writing, or why I became interested in what really happened to Kelley Lynch.

And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging Gianelli. But in my experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone Cohen places in charge of his 'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's private entourage that I have met over the years, he may not even realize he's being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable. It's a fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen skirts with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at home, and knows his place, in that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and put the audience into a deeper state of trance.
I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium of Cohen associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived next door to Leonard Cohen, and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I might believe differently. But the essence of what happened to Kelley also happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower stakes. It was relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then – my reputation was damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard Cohen, as Kelley's was.

I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the corruption that is sinking the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree with that. He would only disagree with the idea that we all have an obligation to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and even profit from it. 

Ann D.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

I want to clarify this.  Gianelli wrote me in jail.  I reported that as harassment to the Sheriff's Department and later discussed this, at Paulette Brandt's, with two LAPD detectives.  I don't have a kill list.  The CIA evidently has a disposition matrix related to terrorists.  For some reason, Sandra Jo Streeter thinks she is on that list.  My Valentine's Day card was sent to FBI and DOJ.  It was sent as an example of the type of false threats people in LA are prosecuted over.  Meanwhile, Paulette's colleague's ex sent a true threat to the DA and City Attorney and was not prosecuted.  I wasn't in the psychiatric wing and there is no women's psychiatric wing at Twin Towers.  Gianelli is a bald faced liar.  I was in the education dorm.  I intend to sue LA over the two false arrests related to a fraudulent domestic violence order.  I will be filing a motion to vacate that fraud order in the next week or so.  This psychopath, who people are preparing declarations about now, has a wife?  Imagine the woman married to someone obsessed with another woman and her sons, family, friends, etc.  

Gianelli's also interested in my Tax Court Petition.  It's none of his business.  He's not Cohen's attorney of record but certainly spends 24/7 on Leonard Cohen matters and has for over six straight years.  I think your piece on him really summarizes Gianelli perfectly.  


Kelley's Email to FBI/DOJ

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Ann Diamond <> wrote:

He has a real talent for ranting hyperbole that probably served him well in the courtroom --
So I made a mistake. I'll correct it -- I must have been really taken with the idea of him visiting you in prison -- a charming scene from some Dickens novel --

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 25 June 2015 at 17:21
Subject: RE: FW: Fw:
To: Ann Diamond <>

No, that is just one example of a “fact” that you fabricated, just like Kelley Lynch fabricated several declarations out of thin air.

I could understand how once could forget an event, but I cannot understand how you could “remember” something as significant as me traveling all the way from Crete, Greece to drop in on Kelley Lynch unannounced at the Twin Towers jail psychiatric facility in Los Angeles California only to have Lynch refuse to see me – when in fact that nothing resembling this was reported to you, and you claimed that it happened last year. That is not a “misrecollection” – it is one of many malicious fabrications you included in a guest post on Kelley Lynch’s blog, including but by no means limited to your lie that I admitted being motivated by “revenge”.

I noticed something else as well, even your email signature blog seeks to trade on your (alleged) association with Leonard Cohen, which was 40+ years ago.

Say what you want about my career as a lawyer (you have made up all of your conclusions out of whole cloth to serve an agenda anyway), but unlike Ann Diamond the “writer” was financially successful, I practiced my craft well, and I was no hack. You should “look things up” before you publish them on the internet.

No, PLEASE do not write me further. You are a damaged and dysfunctional woman who thrives on sick exchanges.

From: Ann Diamond []
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Fw:

Thank you, Stephen, for looking that up for me. I've been busy all day writing an article.
So you didn't visit her in jail, you just followed every detail of her case from a great distance, and contacted me to make sure I knew that she was incarcerated and no one had visited her. That was very kind of you.

On 25 June 2015 at 11:36, STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <> wrote:
Here is the email thread referenced and quoted in my earlier email to you of today.

From: Ann Diamond []
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Fw:

Thank you, Stephen. Crete must be beautiful.
On Feb 15, 2014 9:39 AM, <> wrote:
I meant to type that I moved to Greece in April of 2013. 

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 19:06
To: Ann Diamond
Subject: Re:

There is a Los Angeles County Sheriff website where you can find. An inmate's location and booking number, release date and other information (e.g. visitor status). There is also a Web page where you then enter the inmate's booking number to schedule a visit. The visiting schedule for the facility where each inmate is housed is also linked. 

Kelley's release date is April 13. 

In April of 2014 I retired; closed my trial practice sold my city and country homes and my wife and I moved permanently into a home we built 15 years ago on Crete.  

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: Ann Diamond
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 18:55
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Re:

If I ever get down to L.A., I'll try to visit her.

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Ann Diamond <> wrote:
Hi Stephen
Yes, I am aware of all that.

On Feb 15, 2014 1:46 AM, "Stephen Gianelli" <> wrote:
Don't know if you heard:

On January 17 Kelley Lynch's motion to set aside Leonard 7.9M judgment on the theory she was never served was denied; it turns out that she emailed Cohen's litigation counsel Scott Edelman that same day she was served to complain about the "emotional distress" she was suffering and would sue Edelman for if he pursued her further.

It also turns out that Edelman's office informed Kelley of the time, place and date of the default hearing by email, attaching all of the supporting papers - to which email Kelley replied.

To cap a really bad month for Kelley, on January 22, 2014 - following a hearing demanded by Kelley and continued several times at her request - the Los Angeles Court revoked Kelley's probation and ordered her to spend six months in the LA jail; she was handcuffed in open court and taken to the woman's jail in Lynwood, CA.

After 7 days at Lynwood, Kelley was transferred to the 4,000 bed psychiatric wing of the LA jail located in downtown LA and known as Twin Towers.

Her projected release date is April 13.

She has had no visitors since her January 22 re-incarceration.

Her probation was revoked for sending hundreds of abusive emails to her trial prosecutor Sandra Streeter including an email telling Streeter she was on Kelley's "kill list".


Ann Diamond's The Man Next Door (Bootleg edition)

"A wonderful memoir of life with Leonard Cohen in Montreal and Greece through the heady 60s, spiritual 70s and cynical 80s - the music - the lyrics - the drugs - the government's mind control experiments - brilliant table talk by a woman who knew him well. Cover art by Tigana."

Ann Diamond's The Man Next Door (Bootleg edition)

"A wonderful memoir of life with Leonard Cohen in Montreal and Greece through the heady 60s, spiritual 70s and cynical 80s - the music - the lyrics - the drugs - the government's mind control experiments - brilliant table talk by a woman who knew him well. Cover art by Tigana."