Re. current thoughts

[Ken in MD <seahawkman2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well put, Jon and Scott both.  Maybe a tad over 50-100
words, but persuavive nonetheless :-) You speak from
the heart.

And I, more today than other days for some reason, am
taking the opposite tack and assessing it for fitness
as as part of an argument for exoneration.  The left
side of my brain says "the two issues are separate"
while the right side says "this is part of the case." 


Things will out.  It will be highly interesting to see
what IWF and Mark Stephens in particular say, if
anything. They may hide behind their confidentiality
language.  I've been poking around and there is some
interesting elements - such as they're funded by the
telecoms and ISPs in the UK.  In fact they are
soliciting comments on a revision to their
constitution and "remit" which I gather is Brit-speak
for charter or mission. 

Here's a quote on IWF vice-chair Stephen's bio from
the IWF site: "Mark Stephens specialises in defamation
and has undertaken some of the highest profile cases
in this area in the country. "  If anyone can find a
quote where he actually says "I don't know what
Townshend is talking about, we never got any reports
from him," (and I have yet to find one), he might get
a little more experience in that field of law.

Off to crank my Encore House of Blues!

Ken in MD
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com