Anne,

Thank you for your confidences concerning Dan's illness. Please keep me
informed of events as they transpire, but only if it doesn't make matters
more painful. As an ophthalmologist, I was spared the anguish of having
to confront agonies such as you describe. Anything I might write in response
would sound - and would be - fatuous and foolish. Is it permissible to
comment that we survive by assimilating the catastrophes that beset us?

Thank you also for your criticism of my ideas. It's valuable to be set straight.The brief I sent you is a penultimate version which was refused by the
Appeals Court clerk because the footnotes were in 10 point rather than 12 
point type. The standards had changed since the last time around. I revised
the typescript with my word processor program which turned out to be 
incapable of translating one long footnote into the larger type and 
inserted it into the text. I neglected to proofread and didn't discover
the error until I had filed the Brief, - that was last February -. I decided
to let the mistake rest and not to ask for permission to file a corrected
version. Maybe they will hold my mistake against me, maybe not.

I'm going to try to think about, and proceed with my nonlegal writing;
if I succeed, I won't have any new thoughts on the Nov. 17 argument
to inflict on you. But I'm always pleased to hear from you what you think. 
That helps.

Best wishes to yourself and Dan. Good night.

Ernst