Dear Cyndy,

Thank you for your letter. This morning I feel I need
more than borrowed memory; I need in fact a new set of
borrowed brains. Day before yesterday I had finally
decided to interrupt my compulsive preparations for the
Supreme Judicial Court proceedings which may never come off,
Margaret had said she could be ready to set out for Konnarock
this morning. Then in the course of preparing the older of
our cars to be left behind for Klemens' use, I took it to
have the oil changed. On the way back from the service station
in a stream of traffic on Concord Avenue, the brakes started
to fade. By the time I pulled into the driveway, the pedal
was limp, and went to the floor with only minimal pressure.
Obviously, the trip was off. I went back to duplicating 
legal papers. The counter on the printer now reads 10129.
Many of those sheets of course were defective in one way
or another and have gone, or will go out tomorrow morning
with the recycling. Last night, about 11 p.m., when 
Concord Avenue was largely deserted, Klemens and I took 
the old car, now almost brakeless, back to the shop.
He drove ahead of me as buffer, on the premise that if I 
couldn't stop, it would be best to slam into my own car.
However, we arrived at the service station at Fresh Pond
Circle without incident. Just now they telephoned to say
that the repair would cost $325. That's worth it if the
life of the car is prolonged by only six weeks. 

Now I must resume preparations for the trip. I find that
as I get older, my mental inertia increases. Interruption
I find very disconcerting. I very much want (and perhaps need)
to continue with what I am doing and to complete my project,
lest I forget what it was all about.

You ask about Kimberly. I think she's rattled by me. She's
a junior member of a sizable law firm, and is probably
getting some flak from her colleagues for failing to
intervene, a serious, but I think not uncommon procedural
error which Judge Macdonald chose to overlook when he
ruled against me. What the Appeals Court will say,
remains to be heard. But Kimberly's lapse gave me an
opening to re-introduce the 2005 case, as I laid out in
one of the Memoranda I forwarded to you. As you can see
from the Appeals Court docket sheet, the URL of which
I attach, Kimberly's name is not listed as an attorney
in the case. What this means I don't know.

I feel quite sorry for her. From a conversation we had
two years ago, I fear she may be one of the victim's
of the Womens' Liberation movement. I suspect, but don't
know, that she's divorced, without children, and nothing
more than a sick cat on which to lavish her affections.
Largely out of concern for her, I've suggested to her
several times that we should settle. But Nantucket won't
let her. She's trapped in the case. But then, of course,
at this point she has prevailed. Whether her victory 
reflects merely an aberration on the part of this trial
court, or whether it is an expression of the prevailing
legal climate remains to be seen. Whatever the outcome,
it will reveal the truth (about the system), and as
Jesus said: Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free. That's what it is all about.

Please, as always, give my best to Ned. As you may
have inferred, my letters have always implicitly been
addressed to both of you.

Jochen