<HTML>What's done is done. I have stated publicly what my intentions are, and is in response to public admissions by Dr Edlin. I will refrain from continuing this further in public.
I hope that answers everyone's question about that part. Now about the legal issues, I mean no disrespect, but there's no need to appease anyone's conscience about what they are. Dr Edlin is fully aware of what legal action is pending, and that's all that matters. If you are insinuating I'm making this up, then that's your problem. If you think it's a game, again, that's your problem. What's happened is a very very serious issue, and I am by no means playing around.
I understand you concerns, but I'm sorry if I can't answer them right now. I will be able to in the future. In the new year, when I have other things settled, my lawyers will be in contact with Dr Edlin's.
Mike Brass,
That's not what I said, and is not what was meant. For you to try to paint it differently is quite frankly putting words in my mouth, thereby misreprsenting the meaning of my words. Keep it up, and you'll be along for the ride too. Dr Edlin knows what is meant, and in truth, so do you. You've read his comments about having contacted Dr Kate Spence with the intent of slandering my name and position (this is general and will be expanded in legal terms privy only to Dr Edlin and his council).
And if anyone was wondering if there is some sort of international boundary which provides innocence for Dr Edlin's actions, then you are sorely mistaken. On two counts, the laws are the same the world over. Prosecution also falls under the mutiple jurisdictions of e-source as well as multiple countries.
Why all of you suddenly back him is interesting to say the least - especially when you don't know the details. This goes far beyond what has already been seen on this webspace. I suggest you refrain from personal judgement until well after the proceedings have closed. Thank you.
Good Day.
R. Avry Wilson</HTML>