Post #15: Grant was given her RO against Parker

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley)

Note: the Minute Orders for November 9th, 10th and 12th are at the end of the post. 

Grant was given her RO against Parker.

I feel comfortable stating that the only way the Judge could have ruled in Grant’s favor is if she ruled that all of the social media accounts, while maybe not being Parker, were controlled and instigated by Parker. That she was the ringleader coordinating all the negative posts against Grant.

I have seen the posts on the named accounts while researching the RO filing - I do not agree with everything that is said - but I will agree that none of these people are ignorant sheep and that each could hold their own against Parker. NO ONE WAS LED TO POST ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEIR CONSCIENCE AND THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE.

I feel very comfortable stating that Parker never physically stalked Grant nor harassed her online and she was never a threat to Grant – it was the online posts by the other social media accounts that Grant feared.

And Parker never had any control over that. 

It was never Parker's sandbox and she was kicked out of it early on.

This RO will not stop the negative online posts against Grant; some of them will be nasty and vulgar and some of them will hit so close to home that Grant will be threatened and afraid of exposure. 

And the sandbox will get bigger.

On that note, I will say that I am very optimistic for the future regarding the story of this RO that Grant has used to manipulate the public narrative about her character, business practices and PR machinations. People will not be hoodwinked forever into believing that delusional or obsessed Keanu Reeves fans run all of these accounts, plus the other social media accounts that are critical of Grant.

I am not delusional. I am not obsessed with Keanu Reeves. Hell, after I read the transcript, I may not even be a fan anymore – because I’m one of those chicks who hates bullshit, abhors hypocrisy and is intolerant of bullies.

And I will continue posting, researching and investigating. 

Because Parker -- and every other vulnerable, marginalized human being in our society like her -- deserves a fair public tribunal.

The transcripts will tell a story, including why super-lawyer Mathew Rosengart a Partner with GreenbergTraurig (Mathew S. Rosengart | Professionals | Greenberg Traurig LLP) would be in Family Court on a RO for Grant. Seems Grant had the privilege and luxury of having two attorneys work on her case for the last 4 months – and both appeared in person each day of the hearing. 

The transcript will also answer questions about why the hearing lasted 3 days and perhaps why the hearing was moved at the last minute from the original judge's courtroom to a brand new judge unfamiliar with any aspects of the filings - for technical reasons to accommodate Grant's lawyers. This technologically superior hearing room was unable to handle even one witness for Parker who was calling in from another country to prove Parker did not run her social media accounts, Catharine1967 Youtube and Catharina Monica Facebook.

Shed light on why the evidence allowed for Parker was mainly online posts (REALLY?! She had to vigorously defend that she was not the 10 other accounts, WITHOUT the benefit of the information from the Facebook subpoena which would have easily proved Parker was not the 10 other accounts? Bit like going to a gun fight with a knife...).

 The transcript may explain WHY the evidence for Grant did not include supporting documentation for her claims, such as the cease and desist letter she claims E. Wood sent to Parker or a sworn Declaration or testimony from any witnesses who attended the public events where she alleged Parker confronted her and stalked her. Nor any testimony or sworn Declarations from any of the business colleagues Grant claims were relentlessly harassed online by Parker. Not one.

But then again, she did not have to provide evidence that what she was alleging was true - it was taken as fact on her word because she had the privilege afforded her by stating Keanu Reeves' name repeatedly in her filing thereby using his reputation to slyly support her claims and his power to gain her a super-lawyer who represents A-list Hollywood stars.  

STILL, facts have a way of showing up when one looks for them. So...

The facts will be known, as in she thought she could get away with it, but truth will out, and I'm sure she'll get caught. (All credit to Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.)    

Post #14: RO filing - to protect Grant from Parker OR to protect Grant from online criticism?

(Original post in Lipstick Alley)

The purpose of a Restraining Order is to protect someone who is in danger and legitimately afraid of another person.

The timing of the RO filing is critical because it gives you insight into what the Plaintiff’s fear is because logically it would coincide with a traumatic event that was the tipping point. In many cases, the Plaintiff knows the stalker.

In this case, Grant’s attempt to find the identity of the person stalking her first – this is what would coincide with the tipping point. What alarmed her and spurred her to action?

So when did Grant hire SISS? If that information is not available, then one could infer when they were hired by how long it would take to do the work they did and deduct that from the RO filing date.

SISS says they were hired to find the identification of the author (singular) of the posts. Grant needed the author of the posts because there were no events, no emails since 2019 and Grant was in Germany = nothing to hang a stalking charge on. 

So no legal grounds for a TRO against Parker.

Parker had a few posts – nothing rising to the level of harassment. And as far as Grant’s allegation that her whereabouts were being tracked online: that’s patently absurd since the purpose of having an online presence is to have followers who track you by your hash tags. If you do not want Keanu Reeves fans following you, stop using his hash tag and stop having others do the same on your behalf. This includes calling paparazzi that use Mr. Reeves name as click bait.

SISS does not say when they were hired and uses ambiguous wording so that one might erroneously infer that they worked for months -- they did not look at the social media accounts for months, the social media accounts posted for months.

Grant gave SISS emails she received from Parker and this is where their investigation would have started. So how long would this take for SISS to find Parker's identity?

Using the information from the emails sent to Grant, a friend who conducts investigations found Parker’s identity and the newspaper article in less than 30 minutes using three steps:

(1) Searched a publicly available database for information found in 2 emails: name Katherine Loo with a phone number of 213-378-XXXX and a tie to non-profit Harmony Services. Found a match.

Note: see that Parker signs an email with various names and then she misquotes a line from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet “a rose by any other name is still a rose” – meaning the names of things are just labels and that these names that Parker uses which she has listed here are not important to distinguishing who she is, they are just names. Therefore, when looking at the report, also look for these last names that Parker is clearly saying she also goes by.

(2) Looked online for Harmony Services and found a website online which has an address and phone number that matches the information in the public report. This confirms this is the person who sent the emails to Grant. Confirmed the match.

(3) Used the aliases in the public report for Katherine Loo and did an online search for each name and Los Angeles (since this is where the public events where Grant alleges Parker was stalking her took place) – and found the newspaper article with the photo of Parker that Grant says she used to identify Parker. Confirmed Parker is Loo.

One of the criminal history reports included in the filing has a date on it from when it was pulled – July 8, 2020.

Tracking the timing is simple even though Grant specifically declined to state in her Declaration when she saw the newspaper article saying it was sometime after the public events Parker attended that she, “became aware of the article published by the Los Angeles Times about Respondent, concerning Respondent’s criminal history.” There is a note that the article was last visited July 7, 2020.

Included with the criminal history reports are names also used by Parker, called Name Variations. Public reports include this same information under Possible Aliases and they also include Possible Relatives.

SISS would have clearly seen that Parkers aliases/name variations are all variants of the first name Katherine and the last names appear to be maiden or married names or relatives. These lists also match the names that Parker says she goes by in the email she sent to Grant.

Oddly, Catherina Monica was NOT listed as an alias even though it is identified with named social media accounts on Youtube and Facebook that supposedly belong to Parker - and it matches the nomenclature for the other aliases which are variations of the name Katherine.

Even more illogical is that ALL of the aliases were obvious variations of the name Katherine with the exception of one, Rose Plath.

When you have a piece of evidence being used that clearly does not fit logically with the other evidence, you should absolutely question it.

Why is Rose Plath being forced into Parker’s aliases? Why does Grant fear rosescented1?

Turn back to what was the tipping point. From the above and knowing how quick and easy it was for SISS to identify Parker, the timing of the event that caused fear in Grant is around July 5, 6, or 7, 2020. Grant was in Germany at this time so her fear was not from stalking. Posts made around that time from rosescented1 are below.

These posts may look innocuous but they are not because they state facts and show that other people are pontificating on these facts and this invites informed online discussion. 

Posts such as these during a pandemic when people are separated from loved ones, along with other media outlets looking into what is being posted by rosescented1 and making their own determination that it is accurate and then they in turn also post negatively about Grant – that can turn into a tweet that flies away and then takes on a life of its own. So from Grant's perspective, it is important to stop the online posts immediately.

But at this juncture, Grant had no evidence that any of the social media accounts belonged to Parker, with the exception of uiamalgamated.

The few posts by Parker don’t even begin to rise to the level needed legally to make a RO stick.

And each of these other social media accounts individually do not rise to the level needed legally to make a RO stick - and she does not know the identities of the individuals running each of them.

So Grant lumped them all together as coming from Parker, then smeared Parker’s name by repeatedly making reference to her as a delusional and obsessed convicted felon in the filing.

Then she leaked the filing to The Blast to ensure she was able to use Reeves name yet again to accomplish what she needed – for the online posts to be dismissed as false because they were coming from a delusional obsessed Keanu fan.

I do not know how this case will end up in the courtroom.

A court of law, unfortunately, is not always where the truth comes out.

What I do know is that justice and fairness matters to people.

Wrongly accusing a marginalized member of our society – a nearly 70 year old former convicted felon with zero history of stalking or threats – and then misusing power and influence to railroad them into a wrongful conviction, this MATTERS.

I will be looking for the transcript of the hearing and the evidence submitted to the court to make available more information so people can make their own determinations.

And once you make your own determinations – you should post them online. It’s everyone’s right to demand justice and denounce manipulation and lies.      

Post #13: What a Response to RO filing Allegation #5 Might Look Like

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley)

What a response to RO filing allegation #5 might look like:

(5) Cyberstalking Ms. Grant, including prolifically posting thousands of false, threatening, and disturbing Statements on social media about Ms. Grant, including but not limited to Statements that Ms. Grant is "surrounded by daggers" and will be "crushed," and "the war has begun." Demonstrating her state of mind and consciousness of guilt, Respondent herself has acknowledged the necessity of a restraining order, stating, "f . . .K[eanu] put a restraining order on me, l [sic] gladly accept."

RESPONSE: None of the "false", "threatening" and "disturbing" posts came from Parker's Instagram account, uiamalgamated. The SISS Declaration, whose sole purpose was to identify Parker and then link all of the named social media accounts to her, is false and misleading.

I provided proof that the conclusions formed by SISS which were, “Based on the results of a comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of …the social media accounts at issue; correspondence sent directly to Ms. Grant; discussions with law enforcement and a review of her criminal history” – were false. (see Posts #4 and #5)

Parker could not have made social media posts while she was incarcerated. SISS used the same flawed analysis for the other accounts so it can be concluded that no confidence can be placed in their findings.

The one exception is the account uiamalgamated, which matches emails Parker sent to Ms. Grant, which included her name and phone number and non-profit Harmony Services, so no detailed analysis was necessary to link this account to Parker. She did it for them.

More issues with the SISS Declaration (see Post #8):

SISS mentions emails Parker sent to Grant and says that the names and email addresses (plural) match social media accounts – but there is only 1 match, uiamalgamated.

SISS stated that the name Gonsalves appears on posts at issue. There are no posts with the name Gonsalves and none of the named accounts use Gonsalves.

Note: To further mislead the court, SISS included an exhibit of the 2015 LA Times article with the photo that has the caption, “Cathryn Parker, a.k.a. Katherine Gonsalves, is accused of stealing multiple identities.”

SISS stated, “Although the posts were made from various social media accounts, the content, style, timing‚ volume, and identifying information of the posts also make obvious that the posts are authored by the same person‚ Respondent.” Therefore, SISS should have observed that all the accounts, with the exception of Parker's, uiamalgamated, have common grammatical errors found with people who speak English as a second language– such as issues with pronouns and plurals. Notably, some of the accounts post or comment in their native language at times – not English.

SISS states that they conducted a “comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of …the social media accounts at issue,” but they only included posts that they obtained from Ms. Grant’s Declaration. Worse, Ms. Grant’s Declaration was dated on July 14th, and SISS’s Declaration was dated July 13th.

Note: If SISS prepared and signed her Declaration on July 13, 2020 - how did she know what was contained in Ms. Grant’s Declaration, let alone what Exhibit # evidence would be, dated and signed a day later? Did SISS investigate, or did they base their evidence on hearsay from Ms. Grant’s unsigned Declaration? Parker was advised to file a Motion to Strike the SISS Declaration from the Exhibits as it brings into question the credibility of the investigation but she did not know how to do this.

Post #12: RO FILING: Just a refresher

(Original post in Lipstick Alley)

RO FILING: Just a refresher - in case anyone still believes Parker runs the 11 social media accounts and went to Reeves' house to stalk Grant. 

(2) Encroaching or trespassing on Mr. Reeves’s home and property (or coordinating with others to do so), to publish photographs of Ms. Grant's vehicle on the Internet.

RESPONSE: The first Exhibit attached to Ms. Grant’s Declaration is a screenshot of a post from the first social media account named as belonging to Parker – YouTube account Catharine1967. It is a photo of Ms. Grant’s car parked at Mr. Reeves’ home around June 2020.

For proof that this is Parker stalking Ms. Grant at Mr. Reeves’ home, Ms. Grant relied on SISS’s investigation that concluded all the accounts were run by Parker.


Even though SISS stated in their Declaration that they conducted a “comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of… the social media accounts at issue… and criminal records,” they failed to notice that the Facebook account Catharina Monica had posts made while Parker was incarcerated. This brings into question their entire investigation – Parker obviously could not have made posts while she was in jail so this social media account could not be hers. Copies of Parker's criminal record were included with the RO filing.

Below are screenshots of posts from the Catharina Monica Facebook account uploaded between June 5, 2015, and February 23, 2016.

Further, the YouTube account Catharine1967 has the same photo avatar as the Catharina Monica Facebook account, which is a strong indicator they are run by the same person.

Post #11: RO FILING: “The Opportunity for Good” from the Named Social Media Accounts

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley) 

The RO Hearing is tomorrow so I thought I would write about one of the posts at issue that Grant included as her evidence of being harassed to the point of feeling threatened and afraid.

The ability to get a Restraining Order against someone relies on how California defines harassment. The part of the code that appeals to me is where it says “and serves no legitimate purpose.” Essentially, for the online posts, you are making them for no other reason than to threaten, intimidate and harass the person who is targeted.

In looking at the RO filing, I read the posts at issue that were included as Exhibits to Grant’s Declaration – these were the posts that Grant personally chose, those that served no legitimate purpose except to threaten and make her afraid.

(Note: SISS also included posts at issue as Exhibits but they were a only a subset of Grant’s, nothing new or different.)

The post at issue below caught my attention when I read it because it involved an innocent child.

(Note: whitewitch2019 has 9 posts in total that Grant included in her Exhibits – some are reposts where the original account is not named in the filing or posts that do not have any mention of Grant in them. I will show each of them in a later post.)

A stolen tombstone? Kept for 11 years? Put on t-shirts to make money?

I dismissed these claims as being false, or at least taken out of context. It’s common to see inflammatory statements on the Internet. People post them to begin dialogue, find answers, and follow threads to what else is out there worth looking into. It’s a way we learn and grow using our thoughts and our emotions.

Frankly, I could not wrap my mind around why Grant would choose this post to define how she feels threatened and afraid. I assumed the claims were patently false and that is why she included this post.

The phrase, “Desecration of the resting place of the dead in many religions means the dead are not at peace,” struck me as poignant and deserving of attention because our world today is so divided by religion.

So I gave this post my attention.

To me, the purpose of this post was to touch a chord in people to be disturbed by the lack of compassion displayed by Grant towards baby Lena and anyone who has ever suffered the death of a child. Perhaps the person making the post had a tragedy in their life and was deeply offended at the mere thought of these events.

And I found the judgments of Grant’s actions in this post are accurate. My feelings are more mild but nonetheless affected and my morals affronted.

I am not going to split hairs on details – anyone can listen to Grant in, “Taking Lena Home” where Grant provides the proof that the tombstone was stolen and she kept it for 11 years -- Taking Lena Home.

This post at issue thanked rosescented1 for the photo so I checked out that Instagram account for more material on the veracity of the claim about the t-shirts to make money.

(Note: I found rosescented1 to have diverse and useful/sometimes not-useful information layered with spurts of emotion and peppered with pithy insults and dark humor. I will write a post on her account as it applies to the RO filing soon.)

The rosecented1 account led me to look to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for Serial number 77753946, which is Grant’s file for her stylized LOVE symbol –

Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

I looked in the public trademark file to get a general idea of how Grant conducts business since she appears to funnel everything through her private for-profit grantLove project.

GrantLOVE project is a private business so there is no money trail. I have no idea how much money Grant made from selling t-shirts with baby Lena’s tombstone on it or what she did with the money. This is not illegal or fraud on Grant’s part.

I do find it tasteless and insincere to lack transparency for funds that were generated using Grant’s own PR where she posed herself as the benevolent caretaker of baby Lena’s tombstone.

I did NOT think I was going to find baby Lena’s t-shirt information in a trademark file.

Trademarks are for commerce – they increase value and allow a company or person to charge more money for their product – and explicitly guard an investment by preventing anyone else from making money off of the “trademarked product.” It’s the business equivalent of a dog marking their territory.


Below is from Grant's file showing dates she used her trademarked merchandise in commerce.

When I clicked on the specimen file links, expecting to see a t-shirt with Grant’s love mark, I was upset and offended to see a t-shirt with baby Lena’s tombstone on it. Both files had baby Lena’s t-shirt as a representation of how the trademark was being used in commerce. This gives the impression that Grant, not a family member of Lena, holds a trademark on her tombstone.

This prompted me to write an email inquiry to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to get clarification and some semblance of an explanation as to how and why this occurred. All consumers have a right to know what business practices are being used or exploited to sell products and how the USPTO may be contributing to any issues.

Grant's trademark file did not contain any commerce use of the actual trademark – the stylized love logo – except as a hangtag to put on merchandise.

The hangtag is confusing; shouldn’t it only be used in conjunction with merchandise that is trademarked – in this example a t-shirt with the love logo on it?

The other category that Grant has the trademarked love logo for is shopping bags. The specimen file links for the shopping bags were also not for the love logo -- but for Born to Love Not to Hate.

Thus, I also included a paragraph regarding Antigone as a commerce use for the stylized love logo. Again, because this is in the trademark file, it gives the impression that Grant, not a descendent of Sophocles, holds a trademark on a famous line in his Greek play.

It has been almost 60 days and I have not received a response back but find this understandable with Covid-19 and the U.S. election. I will check back in 90 days.

In the meantime, any consumer is deserving of clarification on policies and procedures of a federal agency that registers trademarks based on the commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

I invite anyone to write an email to the USPTO and question them in regard to this file and any other file you deem relevant to ensure their policies are not so ambiguous or flawed as to lead to consumer ethics questions and/or possible consumer fraud. 

Not all countries allow public or private criticism of their governmental agencies and institutions.

I know this to be true from being a veteran of the US Navy and the Iraq war.

It is a right we have in the US that we should not take for granted.


I consider exercising this right to question a federal agency and demand answers to possible questionable polices and practices to be “the opportunity for good” that came about from this post at issue by whitewitch2019.


For Grant, "the opportunity for good" here may be to understand that criticism is a perception that others hold about us and it can be valuable for monitoring self-awareness and for cultivating empathy.      

Post #10: Background and X Artists’ Books (XAB) Management

(Original post in Lipstick Alley)

 I apologize for the length of time between posts, been busy with the election and Barrett.

*** Please, all Americans VOTE & help others VOTE who need assistance ***

In this post, I include links for articles or videos – please use them to make your own determinations, do not rely on mine.

The following pieces are not plainly in the RO but they are germane to stalking and cyber threat allegations in the RO filing. The incident and posts at issue stem from inquiries concerning the management of X Artists’ Books (XAB), particularly the fair and equitable treatment of a female XAB artist.

Note: due to the limit imposed on the number of files that can be uploaded per LSA post, the incident and posts at issue will be addressed in a separate post.

(1) Reeves wrote a poem, Ode to Happiness that was edited by Janey Bergam and illustrated by Grant. Steidl published this collaboration in April 2011.

(2) Reeves wrote more poetry, Grant photographed him and again Steidl published this collaboration. Shadows came out in March 2016.

In June 2016, at the UNAIDS Gala in Switzerland, Reeves and Grant were Event Chairs. Media prior to the event highlighted that Reeves would be sharing his poetry, “The dinner will be punctuated by a special reading of “Shadows” by Keanu Reeves, based on his collaboration with artist Alexandra Grant.” Photos of the event showed Grant on stage with Reeves reading Reeves’ poetry from Shadows in tandem with the accompanying photos on a large screen behind them.

Note 1: there is nothing untoward with Grant being on stage with Reeves reading from Shadows since she collaborated with him, plus her photos of Reeves were shown while the reading was taking place.

a. It would be untoward for Reeves and Steidl to be on stage, even though Steidl has name recognition and is the founder of the publishing house for Shadows.

b. The only scenario more ridiculous and insulting than above would be if Reeves and Steidl were on stage reading while Grant sat in the audience. That would have turned into a flock of tweets haranguing about male power and privilege, asserting domination over women and attempting to subjugate them and their creativity. And if this had happened, I would have supported Grant and berated Reeves and Steidl, soundly.

Note 2: UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) is a remarkable organization and proceeds from this GALA helped them in achieving their vision of zero new HIV infections, zero discrimination and zero AIDS-related deaths. This was a noble choice and a good PR decision for the book. Reeves’ name recognition is well used here.

(3) In 2017, a close friend of Grant’s, G Christensen, opened her own business - Christensen is a luxury branding specialist who focuses on increasing client’s sales NOT by highlighting the worthiness or quality of the product but by inventing a story that the product sells that generates a media buzz and attracts press.

Note: How intertwined are Grant and Christensen: Grant became an ordained minister in June 2019 so she could officiate Christensen’s wedding. Grant’s comment on her IG account where she posted the photo of her online license, “It’s official, I’m the marrying type.

Christensen scheduled a PR event and she interviewed Grant around the topic of “being a woman in publishing” where Grant explains why and how her book, The Artists’ Prison came into existence. The relevant point in the conversation comes around the 30 minute mark --https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BKxyZh7154.

Grant’s version of XAB’s inception in her own words:

“I hadn’t intended to start X Artists’ Books. I wrote a book called The Artists’ Prison in 2013… E. Wood who is a wonderful writer and she does these very dark but like wonderfully twisted, vivacious drawings and I asked her to collaborate with me interpreting the book in a way that I could never have imagined. So we put this package together and we got a book deal and then the issue of the film and TV rights came up.”

“So I, of course, to solve an issue around that said, “I’ll just start a publishing house.” So I came up with the name X Artists’ Books. I went to Keanu and I said look I’m going to do this thing X Artists’ Books. I liked X because Keanu and I had done a book called Ode to Happiness where the last page had an X and I thought that had sort of become our signature when we did artists books together and so much of my confidence of learning what’s possible in terms of publishing came from working with Gerhard Steidl and doing the artists books that Keanu and I published. So I had this idea for X Artists’ Books and the next thing I knew J. Fleischmann who was designing The Artists’ Prison said I have a secret book called High Winds. High Winds was a secret collaboration that she and S. Oswald had been working on for three years.”

Note: there are a few aspects here worth noticing.

First, Wood not only illustrated the book with Grant, but she also helped put the book pitch package together that got a book deal.

Note: Literary agents (which nearly all major publishing houses require) normally put together your pitch packet for you and then shop it to the publishers.

Logical question: if you already got a book deal, then it is a moot point about the film rights then coming up, right? Simply tell them, “no” on the film rights and let them publish the book.

More likely, the book, TV, film and play rights were all negotiated at the same time in one contract (standard for major publishing houses) – so there was no book deal and then an issue of film rights coming up.

Second, Gerhard is the founder of Steidl and Grant says she worked directly with him, plus Steidl had already published two books of Grant (with Reeves). So it is conceivable she was able to pitch a book idea without an agent or put together the pitch with Wood because she knows what Steidl would like.

The most likely scenario is that the publisher believed the book was not good enough to make money so they passed unless they could retain TV/film rights that they hoped they could work with Reeves on and make money.

Bottom line: the book would not sell without Reeves attached to it – and Grant would have learned this the hard way when she tried to get a book deal without him. No film rights (colloquially known as Reeves rights here), no book deal.

Third, and this is the most telling: Grant came up with the “X” in XAB before she even approached Reeves because she saw it as her signature with Reeves and a way to form a collaboration with him where none really existed – he had nothing to do with writing, illustrating or designing her book. But she needed his money and his name. Wood illustrated the book and Fleischmann designed it.

Fourth, the obvious way to solve the issue of retaining rights would be to self-publish. Grant is disingenuous when she says her solution to retaining her film rights was to start a publishing house. The publishing house – with Reeves - was to solve the next issue of how to get people to buy her book.


(4) Also, in 2017, Reeves gave an interview to Men’s Fitness where he was quoted as saying he did need to work for money because he had wanted to help a friend and had signed something which turned into something else that had come back to haunt him. Reeves does not say it is XAB, but financing a publishing house is very expensive and his other expensive venture, ARCH, came about from Reeves approaching Hollinger. And the timing fits, XAB opened in 2017.

Note: according to Reeves at another XAB PR event that appears later in this post – the PEN event -- XAB was started in May 2016.

(5) Co-founders of XAB are Reeves, Grant and Fleischmann. Grant is the Manager for XAB and files the California state paperwork. The address she uses for XAB on the paperwork is 1610 West 7th Street, *****.

Note: this address is part of an allegation lodged by Grant in the RO filing.

(6) As mentioned in the XAB inception paragraph earlier, Grant asked artist E. Wood to collaborate with her. “The suite of images by E. Wood really are autonomous parallel companions rather than illustrations.” Grant says, “It’s why we focus on collaborations…”

(7) October 2017 was the European launch of XAB. The European launch was centered around the co-founders – Grant, Reeves and Fleischmann -- and the coolness of “a publisher focusing on artists’ books and collaborations.” Collaborators Oswald and Fleischmann read from High Winds. The XAB artist who collaborated with Grant on The Artists’ Prison, E Wood, was not included -- instead of Wood reading from the book with Grant, Reeves did the reading – and the book signing.

(8) February 2018 is a PEN XAB PR event. An hour long video is available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7ypaVBUzao. 

The first few minutes of the video show Reeves at a book-signing table seated between Grant and Oswald. After Grant finishes signing her book, instead of handing it back to the book buyer, she slides the book in front of Reeves for him to sign.


At 8 minutes into the video, Grant says hello to Wood in the front row.


Wood is present at the book signing of The Artists’ Prison, which she collaborated on and illustrated – but Reeves was in her place at the artist’s table seated next to Grant, signing her book.


The stage is set with a large screen, similar to the UNAIDS Gala, for illustrations that accompany the text being read. The next portion of the event is Reeves and Grant reading from The Artists’ Prison while the actual XAB book artist who collaborated with Grant on the book sat in the audience.


Grant and Reeves read from the book until 25:00. The reading is punctuated by “redacted” since many words are blacked out and the illustrations are not visible on the video so it is slightly boring listening to Reeves and Grant read.


From 26:00 to 37:00 Oswald reads from his book, High Winds, which he collaborated with Fleischmann on. Oswald actually says the images by Fleischmann are the vehicle for the words. Again, you cannot see the illustrations so it is not as enjoyable but it is easy to follow and interesting – it’s a bedtime story about a trans guy who can’t sleep.


Around the 1:02 mark in the video, Grant says, “Keanu and I launched X Artists’ books in Paris in November.”


In tandem with this verbal mistake by Grant to exclude Fleischmann as the third person who launched XAB in Paris, the XAB person assigned to sending bio information to PEN for the write-up did a horrendous job with the facts and fair play-- co-founder Fleischmann was not recognized for her artistic and creative endeavors in founding XAB, instead she received “with images by” alongside her name while Grant had an entire paragraph dedicated to herself.

(9) In August 2018, Grant spoke on Art, Publishing, and Philanthropy where she was interviewed by Christensen – the link to this hour-long conversation is provided in a previous paragraph above about “women in publishing.” (the completed PR video was not uploaded until February 2019).


The first few frames of the video include a shot of a neon sign Where Love Lives and shots of XAB books The Artist’s Prison and High Winds on a table for sale. It’s a PR branding gig for Grant set up by Christensen as evidenced by the design of the set – Grant is framed between a LOVE print and the Where Love Lives neon sign. It’s not subtle.

(10) August 16, 2018, the NY Times ran a piece called, “Keanu Reeves is Doing a New Thing: Publishing Books.” Keanu Reeves Is Doing a New Thing: Publishing Books (Published 2018).

The inception of XAB in the article is different from Grant’s in her interview this same month. This PR piece gives the impression that Reeves launched XAB with Grant as a natural progression of their long-standing business relationship of collaborating on book projects– and for Reeves to publish Zus which he had been working on with Benoit.

Takeaways from this article:

Co-founder Fleischmann is mentioned once –

“Three X Artists’ Books releases, clockwise from top: “High Winds,” by Sylvan Oswald and Jessica Fleischmann; “(Zus),” by Benoît Fougeirol and Jean-Christophe Bailly; “The Artists’ Prison,” by Alexandra Grant, with images by Eve Wood.”

And never as a co-founder –

“The actor and his business partner, the visual artist Alexandra Grant, have created X Artists’ Books, an imprint full of esoteric titles.”


XAB has a chic business office (not the address used by Grant in her filings) –

“Keanu Reeves at Los Angeles’s NeueHouse, a coworking space that he and his business partner use as their office.”

From NeueHouse’s website: NeueHouse is the private workspace and cultural home for creators, innovators, and thought leaders.


XAB is alluded to as an offshoot of the Shadows collaboration; Grant’s publishing solution for her book The Artists’ Prison is never mentioned –

The exhibitions for Shadows “prompted Grant and Reeves to consider the experimental capabilities of book publishing. ‘Part of the genesis of X Artists’ Books was that these projects might become a performance or an exhibition,’ Grant says.”

Reeves is hands on with XAB --

“Not that Reeves is simply X’s money man. He and Grant make most business decisions together, including what to publish.”


(11) In May 2019, XAB hired a Project Manager/Editor named A. Rabinovitch who graduated from California College of the Arts, the same arts college as Grant. To further blur the lines of professionalism, this XAB Project Manager/Editor also works/volunteers at Grant’s private for profit venture grantLOVE project pop up shop and took a photo for Grant’s social media posts.

(12) In January 2020, an article about Grand Central Arts Center and XAB reported the co-founders of XAB as Reeves, Rabinovitch and Grant. This error has not been corrected as of October 25, 2020.


Yet -- on February 25, 2020, an article on California art presses was instructed to remove Fleischmann as a co-founder of XAB from the piece.

In my experience, co-founders are only removed from history in instances where they have committed horrible acts of moral turpitude (not likely here). Conversely, in some instances they themselves ask to be removed because they find it unbearable and embarrassing to be associated with the organization. The latter is not the case according to Fleischmann’s website (about — still room) where she says she is “co-founder of X Artists’ Books – a publisher of high-quality artist-centered books.”

Unfortunately, this leaves the unmerited correction to remove Fleischmann as a co-founder to have come from XAB, which would be from co-founder and Manager Grant, Project Manager Rabinovitch who was hired by Grant, and/or co-founder Reeves.

(13) With regard to Reeves’ showing up at events – I applaud him for taking the time out of his busy schedule to use his fame for the good of XAB. He is known for his kind and generous nature. However, there is a difference between supporting a friend and showing favoritism to the extent that a pallor of degradation seeps in.

Reeves may not be the Manager of XAB but he is RESPONSIBLE for what goes on at XAB. He finances XAB so the only way Grant manages XAB is with him signing checks. XAB does not exist without Reeves’ fame and fortune – it gives him power.

Reeves by all public accounts, would never abuse power. Sadly, partiality is a means of giving someone else power by proxy.

Note: mis-treatment of an XAB artist by someone in power is the key underlying component of a stalking and harassment claim in the RO filing.

In the final analysis, anyone responsible for a company should be able to discern the difference between helping out a friend and providing inappropriate preferential treatment to a colleague in a professional environment.

One is an act of kindness and the other is a form of exploitation of others who put their trust in you to be honorable and fair.