5. Monday. Michele O’Leary. The witness tampering switch judge who fixed the Judgment in Adler Vs Broulidakis, April 2015.

admin / November 26, 2018 / Leave a comment / Letters to Byron

This is the original Letter to Byron page from when it was published Live.
All letters from the live blog have been migrated to a book., They are no longer published on this blog.

The entire content of the Letters to Byron blog is now available in Paperback or Kindle.

Selfie, 2010

My beautiful Byron,
Its Monday and I have two hours ahead to write to you and choose a few pictures I am so pleased to have this time to share with you even if it isn’t what we would have chosen, it’s certainly more than family court have allowed us. So let’s be grateful for that much.

At least I can write to you every week in a way that you will definitely be able to read one day. Unlike the letters I was sending through the post, that we now know were not getting to you. This then is our agreed visitation time although I don’t expect you to be able to reply at this time.

September17 letter to Byron

This past weekend was great for my work. As far as I am able to work since the accident in June when that truck hit us. I am always keeping busy with writing and swimming and physical therapy stuff, to get my back better. I have started a new album of my guitar music which is always good for me. Making guitar strings resonate in tune. Harmonious resonance. Even the words sound cool.

I started my morning today with emails and I saw that I sold three photo’s on Getty Images. (I sell pictures that I have taken, through the internet.) The company that sell my pictures pay me some money for their licensed use. That is for example like – a picture of an elephant – and a newspaper wants to use it? They see my elephant picture on the gallery of Getty Images and they want to put it in a story about elephants. But I own the picture? They buy the right to print my picture in their story, pay a sum of money to download it and then Getty Images pays me some money (my royalty) for that usage.

Getting some money from selling photos is one good way to replace my loss of income from other sectors since I lost my rental income source, my three rental properties that Michele O’Leary gave to Charlotte Adler in that disgusting court case.

Do you know, two years ago, I still had income from 7b. One of my Riverbank flats, where my tenants who you might remember, Adam and Ellie, were good friends of mine as well as really good tenants. Paying rent every month and treating it like their home because, of course, it was their home. It was pretty horrible to have to tell them they had to leave because Michele O’Leary ruled that my home and my rental properties had to be Force sold so that Adler and her lawyer could have the money.  

That decision also meant I had nowhere to live when I came to visit you in England. That decision to make me evict my tenants and then not allow me into my own home was not very nice. It created what family law call ‘animosity’ between the thieves and myself. The thieves in this case are Charlotte Adler, her Lawyer Tom Amlot, Her barrister, Simon Webster, and her famous lying Judge. Michele O’Leary.

I am more than annoyed with having my properties stolen in this way. Do you know, I bought that flat, 7B, in 1986, with Johns mum, Catherine. And when I bought the next flat, 7C five years later, I became a landlord. I have been renting properties since 1991. I had three properties. That cost a lot of money and it brought in money that I used to pay for the nice things that we did together.

Can you imagine how long a period of time that is?  I liked being a landlord. All my 3 flats were super nice, but 7B had the best space, and the best view. It always attracted super cool tenants. It is described as a ‘Luxurious riverside property with panoramic views over the Thames and Hampton Court Palace’. I spent a lot of money making it super nice. And I was always careful to only allow nice people to stay there.

I worked very hard after I moved there to pay off the mortgage completely. So I owned 7B with no mortgage. And it was worth a good amount of money. When it was valued in 2004, it was then £700,000.

I had two other flats, and in one of those, 7C, I housed (free for two years) a confused young lawyer in 2003 who couldn’t pay her bills and had a student loan still charging her even though she was 29. She usually didn’t have enough money to make it from paycheck to paycheck.

How nice for her to find someone like me to help her out of debt and give her a nice place to live in for free so she could rent out her flat and enjoy some passive income at the same time. For me it has always been nice to be able to help people who need help. I was taught that as a Greek boy. Philotimia. be kind and help people when you can.

I have been lucky enough to be able to help house quite a few people for little or no money. That is because I was lucky enough to own quite a lot. I felt grateful for the opportunity I had to help people who needed help.  

When I met Adler I wasn’t planning to marry her and have kids. I saw the mess her life was in and I thought I could help. Like showing her why smoking was bad, showing her how to advance her lifestyle in many ways; including with free housing, effective career guidance and loans that never were repaid. I enjoyed being a generous landlord.

Perhaps I should have reminded myself then that ‘a good turn seldom goes unpunished’. Although who knew this one would turn into a bad egg. I had previously housed seven girlfriends in the 22 years I was a landlord there before I met Adler in 2003. None of those tried to steal my house. Its just not something that normal people do.

Since I got divorced from Johns mother in 1991. I had at least seven girlfriends live with me before Adler.  I counted; seven lovely girls all lived for awhile with me in my lovely home and guess what? 

Not one of those girls left and tried to steal my house.  They all had a great time there and they are all (most) still friends with me to this day. In fact some read ‘Letters to Byron‘ and write to me with their thoughts about Adler. About parenting. And family court. And lawyers.

  Funny how it is possible for many people to separate in a relationship without starting a blackmail war. It is not normal to lie and steal in family court, but if you are going to lie and steal, family court is definitely the easiest place to go. Of course because I lived with a member of family law and saw the day to day operation from the inside of family law I am familiar with how family court works.

Two years ago, in 2016, Amlot/Adler and O’Leary passed a judgment in family court. Suddenly I no longer owned my home. Adler said it was hers and the judge agreed. Then she ruled I had to get rid of my tenants and gave Adler the right to force sell my home and my rental property. Based on a ridiculous lie. One so unlikely it doesn’t make sense even to an idiot. One member of family law, O’Leary, gave my home to another member of family law in a process that is described in law as larceny.

A family court judge awarded an horrendous amount against one parent, knowing it was going to fuel animosity between parents and knowing that this animosity is harmful to children’s rights to see both parents.

There is a Solicitors regulation authority and they publish an ethical code. It is clear that members should not foment animosity between parents because it is clear that when parents fight, children are affected. But I guess O’Leary and Adler cared less about the animosity rule in family law than about making money out of stealing from me by using your right to see me as leverage to get me into their family court.

In what is called ‘adding insult to injury’, as well as making a bad thing considerably worse, O’Leary awarded costs in her judgement, against me.  Awarding my home and rental properties to Adler, with costs (her legal costs with Amlot), attracting an 8% interest charge until payment. Costs that were in total above £500,000. That is a lot of debt. For a father trying to see his son?

Awarding costs by a family judge is in itself uncommonly out of line with family law guidance. After all, is it not important to minimize the animosity between parents in the child’s best interests.

As you can probably imagine, I am pretty certain that making me pay Amlot’s costs for abusing you and charging me 8% interest for not paying him was not ever going to be in your best interests or mine. But O’Leary thought so. Obviously. She made that judgment thinking. “Yes, that will be the best thing for Byron.” Michele O’Leary. Family court judge.

In family court guidance to members it reads ‘Avoid creating animosity between parents.’ Litigation increases animosity between parents which is never good for the child.

But not in your case, when family law is involved. Litigation and the punitive judgment by O’Leary could not have done a better job of creating animosity. Why would any members of family law, especially judges, take a child-centric view in family court, avoiding animosity, when they make much more money out of litigation – fighting in court. That’s where the most money is.

It makes good business sense. Family law is a very profitable business. A multi billion pound a year business. But it makes sense only if you don’t care about the child whose life is being affected.

Here’s a summary of Michele O’Leary’s idea of minimizing the animosity between separating parents. In this case your own mother and father.

Michele awarded a property that I bought in 1986, that was in my name, that I had paid the mortgage of on, that I had left to John in my will because he was born there, to a girlfriend of low repute. A lying girlfriend who claimed I ‘Promised her my home’ if she left me for a sexual affair with her boxing Instructor. Tomaz, ‘The Pole’, who she was enamored with at the same time that she instigated these legal proceedings. A dishonest lying girlfriend who was also the 8th girl to spend time with me in my home. Someone who was 14 years old when I bought that property soon after I arrived in the UK as a very hardworking musician. Someone who stayed in my home as a freeloading guest for over two years paying nothing towards any costs for living there. Borrowing many thousands of pounds from me to make her own payments because she was not earning enough to make it to her next paycheck. Loans that were never repaid. Commonly. She borrowed money regularly and never repaid it.

When she left, in that horrible ambush on fathers-day, intended to make me too ill to try and see you in court, she lied to claim she had an financial interest in my properties, at the same time as sending without prejudice letters demanding £100,000 from me in exchange for seeing my son.

I called the conditions of visitation back then blackmail. It was sent ‘Without Prejudice” so my lawyer, Graham Coy from MUNDAYS in Cobham explained to me that “We cannot use this in court as it was sent without prejudice.” I can though share it here.

She blackmailed me for your visitation by demanding money. You were prevented from seeing me unless I gave her this enormous payment. The Judge, O’Leary, knew that this blackmail happened. By a member of family law. But she ruled that this fact was not going to feature in her court hearing. That doesn’t mean this blackmail never happened. It did. Adler demanded £100,000 from me before she would let me see you.   She wouldn’t even give me the address where she moved you too. That was horrible parenting by a horrible person. I couldn’t even write to you. And I received emails explaining “Until you pay me the £100,000, £10,000 for every year I was with you, you will not see Byron.”

She told Chris the same thing. Chris was set to come to the court case and that evidence was what he intended telling the judge. Along with the emails Adler sent that show “£100,000 then you can see Byron. Not before.”

So what did the Judge do with that information?

Nothing. Because Chris couldn’t give evidence.
Why? Because O’Leary cancelled all the witnesses.

The O’Leary hearing was what boxing people often call a ‘fix’. Decided before she even opened the courtroom door. Michele had made her judgment in a court hearing in which she was not even supposed to be the judge. That was a different Judge.

D.D.J. Burles was the Judge the Family Court service gave this hearing to. But for reasons of transparent corruption relating to family law members Tom Amlot, Charlotte Adler and Simon Webster, Michele O’Leary appointed herself judge in the Adler claim by switching with the court appointed judge (Burles) in a hearing that should not have been in family court in the first place, that was only being heard because Adler promised she would ‘Bring witnesses”.

The fix judges very first decision was to cancel the witnesses I had waiting to give evidence to discredit the lies being presented. Another way of describing it in law is, she obstructed the witnesses.

In addition to believing that Adler now owned my properties, seized by the O’Leary judgment, she also awarded Adler ‘sole conduct of sale‘.  So – sole conduct of sale?

What’s that? And what other sensible aspects did this judge include in her judgment?

As if the theft of the property and the award of legal fees in this process with 8% interest is not clear enough, by O’Leary’s judgment, I am not allowed to set foot in my own flat.   

That is why when I came to visit you (18 times in two years) we stayed at the Four Seasons in Hampshire and not in my lovely Riverbank flat. It was nice hanging with Oliver the dog, almost like home, and I reviewed that Hotel many times for being a fantastic home from home for our time together there, but lets face it, we would have preferred staying in my home, which was also your home.   

7B was vacant and furnished and would have been an ideal place for me to travel to meet with you in England. But O Leary put into her judgement that “He shall not enter 7b.” This is because they wanted to force the sale and Adler indicated that I might not move out if I was in 7B. Compounding her reputation as the most dishonest lawyer I have ever met, surrounded by lawyers and judges who are also members of that similarly dishonest group. Not only stealing my home, but then preventing me from staying in it when I was visiting you int he UK, forcing me to pay a lot of money to stay in Hotels for our time together.

Meanwhile, the other flat of mine that appears in O’Leary’s award, 7A, has a mortgage. A huge mortgage. And it is flooded. Until it is repaired it will not be worth the mortgage it owes. When I pointed out that it was flood damaged and not repaired as Adler assured the court it was, I was called a liar by O’Leary and told that the flood damage had been repaired.
But it had not.
The liar in this story was not me.
But there is a big liar in this story and that lie has cost a great deal of money and caused a great deal of animosity that has affected your opportunity to see me.

When a judge lies about a verifiable fact, you would think the Law Society would notice. I reported this lie. Nothing happened. The Law Society simple glossed over it as if O’Leary was telling the truth and I was not. Even though the smell from the flood rot was stinking up to the road outside, the stink of O’Leary’s dishonesty did not warrant any attention from the Family Court.

That was about 2 years back. No more income and plenty of mortgage to pay plus the maintenance on my building. Buildings cost money to maintain. Especially when they are empty for years. Things would fall down, as they do in empty houses, and especially flood damaged houses.

The judgment was that the house had to be sold – but the house could not be sold – because it was flooded.

All the while, thanks to O’Leary’s judgment still I was required to keep paying the mortgage and maintenance costs that ended up being so much money – I can compare it to the cost of your entire education in private school.   

Can you imagine what kind of thinking goes into making court order like that? Enough of a punishment financially to ensure many years of animosity. Wasting so much money that could have been used for your education.

What happened next became the longest running stale listing on Rightmove. Added 17 September 2017.
Adler/Amlot and O’Leary allocated a sales agent called Savils. And off they went – selling my properties.

I was not involved in the process because, obviously, O’Leary ordered that ‘Sole conduct of sale‘ be awarded to Adler. O’Leary set a minimum target price for the sales of 7a and 7b. Once they achieved that amount then I had no say in them selling. That target amount was low. 25% lower than I could have sold them for myself. Like a fire sale price. 

Here is a picture I snap-shotted off the interweb just now. It is a sales listing on Right Move, where UK properties are sold. It went up on 17 September 2017.

It is a ‘stale listing’. Savils have not sold either property, despite offering them at significantly less than the valuation O’Leary accepted, in over 14 Months of trying.

I will explain why O’Leary’s judgment has increased animosity between the separating parents. That property, where you were born, belongs to me. In my sole name. I bought it in 1986. (With John’s mother.) I paid all the costs on it and eventually paid off the mortgage completely on 7b, the flat I used as a rental income property. And for housing people I liked and wanted to help.

It was left in my will to your brother John. It is where he was born in 1989. It was also my first home. The first home I ever owned. Adler had and has no claim to that flat. To win it in family court, she and her lawyer Tom Amlot lied. After a switch of judge at the last minute, her family law friend O’Leary awarded her ownership based a bald faced lie for no reason other than to win money in family court, where perjury and larceny followed which did not support your right as a child of separating parents and did not respect the ethical code of the SRA.

The flats are empty and running up real costs including Council tax (About £600pm) Their value drops as they are left empty and aging in the dust of neglect. The Judge’s judgment only makes sense if your looking to create animosity. Otherwise, I don’t see how a family court judge gets away with it. And she is getting away with it because I have already informed the President of family law about her conduct and although he is a very smart and capable man he has not taken any action towards enforcing the checks and balances that protect a judiciary from this level of abuse by a liar of the type O’Leary represents, perverting the course of justice from a Judges position.

Our correspondence though will be interesting for you one day. My letter to Sir James Munby. And his reply. (He is no longer in that job now. He retired.) Both of these documents appear in full in my book about this case called Who Lies Wins

If you add to the overall consequence of the O’Leary judgment the 8% interest that I have to pay on the six figure costs award that O’Leary gave Adler and Amlot and then ask if it legally appropriate to give the ‘sole conduct of sale‘ to someone who can profit more by not selling than by selling. In other words, O’Leary’s judgment enables and encourages Adler to not sell, and still get 8% interest on a six-figure sum that compounds with every passing month. At the same time costing me a ton of money and adding debt to my financial position to make sure I will not be able to afford any legal representation. Obviously the intention is that I cannot then use family law for your right to see me.

Do we think that might increase animosity between the child parents. Not to the thinking of Michele O’Leary.   Meanwhile, let’s look at the value of just my flat 7B.   Savils, appointed by Adler following O’Leary’s judgement, offer it, unsuccessfully, at £550k.  During the court order process with a fresh coat of paint I could have sold 7B for £750,000. Its market value in 2016.

I had a buyer for the entire property. Freehold and three leases. But instead of agreeing to my proposal to sell as a ‘going concern’ Adler/Amlot and O’Leary prevented me selling it in the way best suited for maximum return. A freehold with three leaseholds as a rental-income going concern. Instead they ordered it be sold according to the O’Leary judgment. (Two leasehold flats giving away 50% as beneficial entitlement.) And they decided to sell 7b for £550,000. That is comfortably £300,000 less than I could have sold for ‘unflooded’. And, even at that low price, Savils have not sold it in 14 months. At the same time forcing me to end my income generating tenancies.  Which invited the question Why? 

Either Savils are the worst sales agents on the planet, or shenanigans have occurred. After all Judge O’Leary agreed the value and set a date for a sale and set an amount. The date was 15 October 2015. You would expect, at that low price, £550.000, that lovely flat would have sold in two weeks. But it did not. 

Why? Ask yourself, did the judge stop me having any say in the sale of my own home and award ‘sole conduct of sale‘ to Adler, who then has not sold it in three years.  Meanwhile the sale price went lower because by delaying the sale political events overtook the market value at the time I wanted to sell. That is Brexit happened and the market demand decreased. Making the prospect of sale worse.

The last letter you sent me. In 2016. When we had hoped to spend summer together before – well – Amlot, Adler and O’Leary.

Imagine, if, as seems likely, I do not receive any money from the sale of my property by O’Leary’s court order. Then these three have stolen a £2 million+ asset from me and left me paying all the costs in upkeep while expecting to receive not one penny. Along the way awarding me a half million-pound legal debt. (At 8% interest.)

That is legal in British family law?

At home in California. 2014

I hope you know I did not give up on you and just disappear from your life because of anything you did.   Family law literally made me homeless in the UK, seizing my home in a way that means I never received a single penny. To this day.

Can you imagine how wrong that is. Stealing someones home is one thing. That’s just a £2 million pound theft. But add up the other costs. £500,000 in legal costs (at 8% interest). The loss of earnings from the three flats I had. And the added £100,000 of costs I paid to keep the property maintained in good repair while the forced sale went through. Which it never did.

Twice, since Adler and Amlot started blackmailing me for visitation with you, they with held your address from me when Adler moved you. So I could not even write to you.

Once for a month in 2013, then for nine months in 2016. A total ten months where I asked “Provide me with Byron’s address’ and they did not.   She could do that legally you see because what was I to do about it?   It is not an offense in family law when it comes to you and me.

I wrote to my lawyer, Mathew Spring about it. But, as with every other misconduct by Adler, the same outcome followed. They just did nothing and although by law she had to give me your address, she did not. 

Now I no longer come to England at all. I have nowhere to live and thanks to the judgment, no money for a hotel to house you in and most significantly, no way of arranging visitation with you because of Tom Amlot’s excellent letter writing. Which I am sure you will enjoy reading one day to see just why Adler, a family lawyer, chose to retain a lawyer like Amlot when she left with you.   He did a really good job of making sure animosity stays at a level that means I am not likely to keep running up legal bills trying to arrange visitation with you that is clearly obstructed for financial penalty.  Even if we put to one side the list of nonsense family law has placed between you seeing or even speaking with me that has stolen five years of your life with me that can never be valued in a damages claim against the culprits, what has happened makes the way forward quite clear.

Tom Amlot

Either family law is right – and I am a liar who is better off out of your life, and fined the proceeds of a lifetimes work in a completely legal process by a good judge – or this cabal of family law is a corrupt mess, who must answer to an accountability process.   And pay reparations. To both you and to me. 

While all this was going on, and by all this, I mean the subject of the Amlot/Adler/O’Leary representation of the SRA ethical code, I had a very expensive and seemingly capable property lawyer from a top London firm negotiating the sale to make sure I at least received the 50% of my properties.

Even at the lower price that Adler/Amlot offered them for sale through Savils. Making the best of a bad deal.   I couldn’t tell on her to the Law Society or report her to the Family Court abuse system. Because, as you will see later in the story of Amlot/Adler and O’Leary, they are above any law. I did report them to the head of Family law, Sir James Munby, so that’s about as far as I could take it. He said “Yes the O’Leary judgment is wrong.   You can Appeal it.” But no Appeal process exists, so that was a waste of £80,000.

Imagine a legal system that has no appeals process. Where a judge can lie freely. Then when the lies are reported, the system says, you can only appeal if the judge gives permission for the appeal. But they first take £80,000 from you to pretend there is an appeals process.

I am very aware of the position you are in. You have already been used as leverage, first in a £100,000 blackmail for visitation claim, and then with every letter Amlot and Adler wrote pursuing their disgraceful dishonest claim for Beneficial Entitlement in family court, where Adler perjured herself repeatedly while O’Leary patted her on the back. Lying O’Leary was never called to account for the multiple lies documented in her own judgment.

To this day you continue to be denied all communication with me, even by telephone.

I will tell you what I think? 

If there was no criminality happening here, first there would have been no win for Adler in the O’Leary hearing because it would never have happened. her claim of Beneficial entitlement is a nonsense.  She said “He promised me half his home like we were married” No evidence. No emails. Not even any plausible possibility I would say such a thing.

Second, it would never have got to court with no evidence unless Adler/Amlot had ‘multiple witnesses’ to prove their claim without any evidence. They did promise that at the preliminary hearing to determine whether the case could go to court. “We have multiple witnesses to prove that he said it.”

With their reassurance of multiple witnesses, the hearing went ahead. Then, exactly as I said at the time, when the court case arrived they had no witnesses.

Even worse, the judge set down for the court case was switched on the morning of the hearing. O’Leary was not set down as judge. No doubt Judge Burles who was set down for the hearing would have allowed my witnesses, exactly as was set down by the Court Service. He would have noted that Adler had no witness, that she and her lawyer Amlot had lied about that. So many lies. So obvious. And not one of her lies was able to be used against her in O’Leary’s family court thanks to O’Leary not allowing any evidence from my witnesses. That’s how easy it is to fix a decision in Family court. My witnesses were there and ready to show the lie by Amlot and Adler.

There is no doubt that in an honest judiciary that claim for ‘beneficial entitlement’ would have been thrown out. It only progressed beyond a preliminary hearing because Adler claimed she would ‘bring multiple witnesses’ to give the evidence that she did not have. Surprise surprise, at the actual hearing, she had not one witness. Obviously – because who would go to court for her to be witness to a lie?

But even accepting the O’Leary judgment and making the best of it, if I had been allowed to sell my property to the buyer I had in 2016, we would have moved on even despite my disgust at the judgment of Michele O’Leary.

I would still have had enough money, if the figures had been real in the judgement, to clear over £600,000. Enough to start the legal application to have you with me. (All I had to do is play a deposit of £100,000 to take the matter forward with British Family law.) But that never happened either. They gave the sale of the property to Adler and she never sold it. While my costs rose and the property’s value tanked – because it was flooded and not repaired by Adler. Who lied in court saying she had repaired it. SO many lies. All recorded in the O’Leary judgment.

Byron enjoying a roof down drive in August 2013

It remains now, as it has been from the outset, my view that you would enjoy a far superior life experience and education with parents there for you all the time, with some ethical character to show, instead of your current reality; two members of family law with the ethical standards they represent.

  I continue to believe the climate here in California and the opportunities for outdoor activities and the quality of life I know you would have here would represent a better choice for your education than the cold rainy gloom of New Malden. Even without factoring in the advantages of considering your choice in this matter, as you told me when we discussed who you wanted to live with, being considered.

Meanwhile, once the judgment prevented me from selling and discounted me from involvement in the sales process, the market kept trending down. And as that trend continues, the property gets older, day by passing day, and will cost more to make it shiny for sale at top dollar. 7a Riverbank remains flood damaged. That will never achieve the price O’Leary judged that it will.   While they delay for year after year, with the interest on the costs award ruling up at 8%, without rental income I was no longer able to pay the mortgage and associated costs of the property I own but that they switched into Adler’s name. They literally went to the Land Registry and used a Court Order by O’Leary to transfer the titles of my properties into Adler’s name. And then ensured I never received one penny. It is no secret that I have called them lying thieves for lying and thieving as they have done. When it’s true that people lie and steal then it is true that they wear that title, thieving liars, in an honest representation.

That is a factor of why Adler doesn’t allow you to talk to me. So she can hide her grubby little secret. But did she really do what I say she did?

You can bet your bottom dollar.

2012. Byron, 1976 Fender slimline Tele, and a handmade Juras

So, it’s almost two hours now, my beeper says ten minutes to wrap up today’s letter. Which is a little bit longer than usual. That is because I wanted this to be written down for you to read at some point when you are older.

To date the lies in the Amlot/Adler and O’Leary’s action against me has cost me north of £3,000,000. Which leaves me with two thoughts. 

I would have liked spending that money raising you and secondly;  O’Leary has a case to answer, whether that’s to you, or to her conscience.

You couldn’t make up stuff like this. Yet it happened. And continues to happen every passing day while these dishonest liars of family court continue their family law practice.

I have recorded many of the documents in this case, including the O’Leary Judgement in a book. I call it Who Lies Wins.

Miss you,
 Love you, 
Daddy xxxxxxxxxxxx

The full story of how witness tampering judge Michele O’Leary impacted Byron’s life as well as mine by breaking laws that would have anyone other than a family court judge jailed is in the book.
Letters to Byron available on Paperback or Kindle.