Dear Cyndy,

Thank you for your letter, which helped to persuade me
that I should indeed mail the document attached and give 
the Appeals Court a look at Mr. Gordon's letter. I completed
the assembly of the Motion this morning at 2:30 a.m., then
because of the chronological errors, hesitated whether or not 
to submit it.  If I were Mr. Pucci, I would pounce on 
them to impeach Gordon's testimony. However, I think at this 
juncture Mr. Pucci is demoralized, and will duck the issues
raised by Gordon. If given the chance, I would try to demonstrate
that Gordon's inadvertent fabrications are reflections of an honest 
mind with an imperfect memory. I'm fascinated by what Gordon's
imperfect recollections can teach about history and its relation 
to "wie es eigentlich gewesen."

I agree with your assessment that the judges' comments at the
hearing should not be construed as predictive of the Appeals Court's
decision. It's standard practice for the courts to make verbal 
endorsements of one party, and then give the decision to that party's
opponent. I think I'm prepared for all possible outcomes. A naughty,
naughty appeals court ruling would provide the book with a much more
persuasive ending. If the appeals court did ultimately rule in my favor,
wouldn't it throw a monkey wrench into my de-idealization machinery?
wouldn't I be forced to admit the existence of a Prästabilierte Harmonie?

Anyway, enoguh for now. The sun is shining here. I hope also in Hilliard.

Jochen