Part Two

Dear Cyndy,

The letter I just e-mailed had so soporific an effect on me that it
put me to sleep. When I awoke, I glanced at my watch which told 1 p.m.
Not for many months, I said to myself, have I slept so late. Then I 
realized that I was not in bed, but slumped over the computer keyboard.
Now I remember what I was about to tell you.

The appeals court docket sheet stipulates March 24, 2016 as the due date
for the Briefs of the Appellees. This day is now history, six days old, and
no appellees' briefs have been served on me or filed with the appeals court.

A new legal issue arises: Is it proper for the Appeals Court to substitute
its sympathies, a.k.a. prejudices, for appelles who are silent, or does
"justice" require that these silences be deemed concessions. The Romans
said: Qui tacet consentire videtur.

I can only conjecture what's going on. Mr. Pucci has enlisted an associate,
Ms. Megan Bayer, to assist him in the defense against my claims. Have they
decided not to dignify with a response arguments that are trivial, or to
shy away from responding to arguments that are unassailable. Are they so sure
of the Appeals Court's loyalty to Nantucket, that they consider a response
to be a waste of time? Or has the Nantucket Board of selectmen come to its
senses and decided not to pour any more money into the case? Stay tuned.

Stay well and happy.

Jochen