[Nedsel]

Typically, if one is involved in a court case, they bring their best evidence into play. While I understand John's interest in trying to poke holes in whatever Haselrig and Wesselink have presented to prove their case, I remain more focused on anything that might shed light on, or be relevant to, the Paul Cunningham ownership allegations. I'm not going to speculate on the validity of the documents used in the 1992 court case because I believe sharper and more experienced legal minds have already done so. And I would point out that, just as John wondered why there was no Bill of Sale presented, one might ask, if what appears to be a beat-up Post-It scrap is the best these guys can come up with, why didn't they dummy up something much better? And the rational answer would be because the documents presented were legitimate and there was no attempt at entering phony paperwork into evidence. So it would be great if we could move off this particular line of thought at this point.