"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
computer chess eliminated from this message.

"samsloan" wrote in message

...

Today, Susan launched into her usual rant of late. What I find
interesting is that today Susan complained that Jerry Hanken had
leaked confidential information to me and I in turned had used that
confidential information in my opposition to her attorney's motion to
dismiss.

However, I am unaware of any confidential information, either in what
Jerry Hanken leaked to me

Ah! So Jerry Hanken did leak something to you?

Apart from the most obvious questions of what that was,

You are now 'aware' of Jerry Hanken leaking 'something' to you?

the other equally
obvious question was how come Hanken was involved at all, and who
'involved'
him? )

Phil Innes

I am now aware of Jerry Hanken leaking anything to me,

Good! You are now 'aware' of Jerry Hanken leaking 'something' to you.

confidential or
otherwise. However, I speak to him from time to time.

However you speak to him or however occassionally?

Last week he was
at the Foxwoods Open and I was there too so naturally I spoke to him.

Is that a crime?

I did not raise the issue of your conversations with Hanken from time to
time being a crime.

You did. Is it? Or, are they crimes? Its hard to tell since you merely
reference the conversation rather than their content.

I would ask Hanken himself, but you know, he will either offer to kill me,
or dismiss the issue of your conversations as meaninless.

I am afraid he is thereby isolated in mutable scope [he can't get to any
point of what passes betwixt his own ears and others] whatever sense he has
of whatever you now say [twice] in this message about your conversations
together.

Of course the important conversation I spoke of is that you admit above, his
involvement in the Truong/FSS affair with yourself, and the provenance of
how he was involved in that, as a context I ask how come he was involved at
all?

Cordially, Phil Innes

Sam Sloan