"It was a deep sense of personal rage that caused me to start this fight. I launched the fighting fund in Nov. 1992 in Ontario, when the Canadian Government, acting at the dictate of the Canadian Jewish Congress, ordered me deported. I had visited Canada for 25 years, ever since appearing on the TV show Front Page Challenge in 1967. Through the efforts of Canadian lawyer Barbara Kulaszka I established that the CJC had planted libellous reports on me in the Ottawa files. These had been compiled for the CJC by Michael Whinge, director of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. It turns out that, just like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in New York, the British BoD is compiling dossiers on people they regard as "dangerous" to their interests. (I complained to the Data Protection Agency about this infringement of the laws, but they escaped prosecution). The Canadian ban was a serious blow, but I have always fought back. When confronting these secretive organisations a new factor comes in: they do not spare with money when it comes to destroying people. The ADL has an annual budget of over $50 million, the other bodies not much less -- particularly since the global success of their "Holocaust" shakedown operations (Abe Foxman, the ADL chief, wrote laughingly of having "bludgeoned" the Swiss banks out of their money). In my action against their leading guru, Deborah Lipstadt, such organisations gave Six Million dollars to help her, believing that a British Court is impressed by money. "British justice," my father warned me in 1966, "Is the best that money can buy." Over the two years following the Canadian ban, the world-wide bans proliferated. Australia, which I had visited in 1986 and 1987, promoting my books on the 1956 Hungarian uprising and on Winston Churchill, suddenly refused me a new visa. Armed now with a Fighting Fund built up by hundreds of well-wishers in Australia, I was able to fight the Australian Government and I defeated them in the Federal Court of West Australia. The Judge declared the ban on me to be illegal. Coming under fresh pressure from the Australian Jewish Congress, in the person of multi-millionaire Mr. Isidor Leibler (as the New Zealand Herald established at that time), Canberra now secretly changed the law in order to legitimise a continued ban on me. I have subsequently fought them twice in the Law Courts of Australia, but without success. The Australian press is notably supporting me in this dramatic fight for free speech.   THE attempts at silencing me elsewhere grew more insidious. Always, it turned out that local Jewish organisations, networking with their international "umbrella" bodies, had provided the impetus. They don't like the phrase "international conspiracy," so I have coined for them the new phrase, the "traditional enemies of free speech." In South Africa, after I conducted three or four highly successful lecture tours, speaking in city halls and universities right across the country, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies persuaded Pretoria to ban any further lecture tours by me. That ban has now been rescinded. I now recognised what the initial letters SAJBOD, which I had first noticed heading a fax sent to the Immigration Court in Vancouver, which ordered my deportation, stood for. Simultaneously, in 1992-3, a far uglier campaign began in Germany. I had visited and worked there quite lawfully since 1959, and my books there were bestsellers, published by the leading German publishers. After I happened to declare at a Munich public meeting in April 1990 that the alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz I, the Stammlager, which the Poles like to show to world-wide tourists, is a post-war fake, I was arrested and heavily fined. The fine increased from a summary 3,000 deutschmarks penalty in 1990 to 7,000 in 1992, and then to 30,000 in 1993, around $20,000, as I refused to recant! In November 1993 I was intercepted in Munich as I was about to speak to university students, and handed a police order banning me from Germany in perpetuity.   Outlawed, but right The Polish Government has subsequently admitted that what I said was true -- they had actually built the Auschwitz I gas chamber on display in 1948 (see the Paris news magazine L'Express, Jan. 19, 1995). I initiated a lengthy lawsuit in Germany, aimed at overturning the ban; it failed, inevitably. Having expelled me, ironically the German government tried for ten years to extradite me from England, to jail me for having repeated this "libel on the memory of the dead" at a speech in Weinheim on Sept. 2, 1990. Mr. Günter Deckert, a teacher who chaired that particular meeting, was arrested and imprisoned for a total of seven years. The Germans tried once more to extradite me on the day my historic action against Lipstadt opened in London. That is how closely the "traditional enemies" work with foreign governments. In a public press release on Sept. 3, 2000, Germany had to admit failure, as the ten-year statute of limitations on my "crime" had run out. It was the very severity of these fines and prison sentences that convinced me that somebody must be hiding something. As the late Auberon Waugh once wrote, real history does not need such sanctions to survive. I commented in a letter printed in The Sunday Times that if President Clinton started imprisoning people for saying that Franklin D. Roosevelt knew in advance of Pearl Harbor, then people would surely start asking questions about the real history of that event too.   Italy joins in In June 1992 -- after I returned from Moscow with the exclusive Diaries of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister -- I was invited to address students in Rome. I flew into Rome International Airport; there I was intercepted by police refused entry, and sent back to Munich. It was about now that I decided that each such event was in fact a major victory for real history, because it was proof that the traditional enemies now accepted that in the whole of Canada, Australia, Africa, Germany, Italy, etc., there were no conformist experts able to refute me. This campaign increased in ferocity, initiated, sustained, and controlled by international organisations, as I have now established from documents I have obtained. I was subjected to death threats and harassment in London, and ambushed and physically attacked in my local restaurant one Sunday lunchtime by a gang of Jewish thugs. Although I have never written about the Holocaust, a subject which I find boring and tedious, I was being increasingly attacked by Jewish journalists as tho' I had.   Intimidating a publisher This particular aspect of the global onslaught on my reputation took a more concrete form in 1996. St Martin's Press of New York were under contract to publish my biography of Dr. Goebbels. Doubleday Inc. had named this book, the product of eight years' hard work, as their book of the month for May 1996. By coincidence, that was the month when the New York Jewish community was "kvelling" (rejoicing) as they put it, because a book by Daniel Goldhagen that was about to appear, Hitler's Willing Executioners. They admitted in one newspaper that the fact that my Goebbels would appear in the same month upset them : they had visions of my going face to face with Goldhagen on prime time television chat shows, and they decided to pull the plug on me. For this, they wheeled in their ugliest weaponry. Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, religious "scholar" of Judaism teaching at Emory University, Atlanta, wrote a book called Denying the Holocaust. We now know, from her private papers, that I was not mentioned in the original manuscript at all; but Prof. Yehuda Bauer, who had commissioned the book on behalf of the State of Israel, asked her to shoe-horn my name in. Lipstadt did a rapid cut-and-paste job -- appealing to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, the Institute of Jewish Affairs in London, the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, and to all the other usual suspects, for any dirt they had on me. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Toronto sent her a lengthy paper advising that my reputation as an historian was dangerously high, and that they would have to set about destroying it by hook or by crook. The result was a series of passages inserted at a late date in her manuscript, accusing me of stealing, damaging, and faking historical documents, distorting translations, "admiring Hitler," consorting with Hizbollah and Hamas terrorist leaders, cavorting with Louis Farrakhan, and a number of other lies: in short anything they could dream up to blacken my name. Lipstadt made no attempt to check anything with me: a true conformist "scholar".   Turgid and unreadable It was 1996 before I learned of these allegations although her book was published in about 1994. Very few appear to have voluntarily bought the turgid, and largely unreadable, book, and by 1996 it was enjoying what are known in the trade as "negative sales" (i.e., more copies were being returned to the publisher than were being sent out to the bookshops). But the enemy kept up their clandestine campaign, donating copies to universities libraries, for example, in the name of non-existent "Friends of the History Society." It turns out that Lipstadt was among the Jewish agitators who wrote to St Martin's Press in the Spring of 1996 demanding that they violate their contract to publish my Goebbels. After publicly refusing for several weeks to surrender, St Martin's Press capitulated early in April 1996. Doubleday Inc. had to follow suit, and few U.S. publishers will be eager to follow them. The consequences for me are serious, as the United States provided eighty percent of my income. The Goebbels book was published in England that month by my own Focal Point imprint (which I had set up with this contingency in mind fifteen years earlier. At the same time, vicious mudslinging against me began in the British press. This attack was led by the liberal and left-wing but otherwise respectable newspaper group, Guardian Newspapers Ltd. If Lipstadt had been an unattractive attack-dog in the U.S.A., in the U.K. this corporation chose an even less toothsome weapon. Gitta Sereny was a "chequebook" journalist -- the kind who pays £50,000 to a convicted serial child-killer to buy her story. She had had me in her sights ever since 1977. I do not know why. She is not Jewish (she is married to the Jewish photographer Don Honeyman); but she identifies closely with what might be called the Jewish cause: it is what some call having your matzos and eating it. At the Guardian group's behest, she wrote a gratuitous attack on me in their Sunday newspaper, The Observer, in which she accused me of cheating a friend and colleague, "borrowing" (i.e., stealing) the priceless glass microfiches containing the Goebbels diaries from the Moscow archives, distorting translations, and faking documents. The editor himself asked her to insert a concluding paragraph suggesting that I may be mentally ill (a neat idea for which she thanked him in a fax). She wrote that no publisher was willing to publish my works. She stated that Macmillan Ltd., my then publishers, had refused to publish Goebbels (in fact I had written Macmillan's already in September 1992 asking them to sell all rights in this book back to me, and they complied). It did however turn out, after I began building a dossier on Macmillan's, that from November 1991 on the Board of Deputies of British Jews had applied secret pressure to them, including the use of Oxford conformists like Prof. Peter Pulzer, to force Macmillan to tear up all contracts with me.   The Global Endeavour In the Lipstadt action in England last year, I compiled these dossiers into a courtroom bundle of documents -- Bundle "E," the Global Endeavour -- which I attempted to put before the Court to establish that Lipstadt had been part of a worldwide conspiracy to libel me: for reasons which you can surmise, Mr. Justice Gray was not eager to allow me to quote from these rare documents in open Court. By mid 1996 it was obvious that I had no option but to disregard the advice given to me thirty years before by my first English publisher, William Kimber -- never to commence a libel action (he was at that time, in 1963, deeply mired in the famous "Exodus" libel action). Acting as a litigant in person, as I was both entitled and capable of doing, I issued Writs in defamation against both Lipstadt and The Guardian Newspaper Group. I made it plain in the Lipstadt case that I was not seeking major damages. If Publisher and Author would pay five hundred pounds into a British charity for the disabled, I would end the action, covering my own costs, and that would be that. They could not withdraw, of course. They poured immense funds into the Lipstadt action and it dominated the High Court in London, and the press, for three months from January 2000. Throughout those months I attended in Court, alone, without lawyers and without Counsel, while Lipstadt and her unfortunate publisher, Penguin Books Ltd., funded a courtroom spectacle of forty mercenaries -- lawyers in wigs and gowns, Counsel, barristers, conformist historians, expert witnesses, and assistants, all linked by computer to each other and to the Internet, in the attempt to grind me down and defeat me (in which as you know they ultimately succeeded). That they succeeded has been a grim disappointment: but I am much wiser than a year ago. The Judge trying the case, without a jury, was a new judge at the start of his career: as Sir Charles Gray, Mr. Justice Gray had until recently been a sparring partner of Lipstadt's Counsel Richard Rampton. More significantly, Gray had as a barrister more than once sided with the establishment against the dictates of real history, i.e., the history which is plainly evident from archives.   Next time, no judge alone He had acted for Lord Aldington in the libel action which this wealthy financier had brought against my friend and colleague, the historian Count Nikolai Tolstoy; Tolstoy had proven in two books that in 1945 Lord Aldington, as Brigadier Toby Low, had been an accomplice of the later prime minister Harold Macmillan in the criminal deportation of Yugoslavs and White Russians from Austria to their certain deaths at the hands of Stalin's and Tito's murderers. Throughout the Tolstoy libel action, the one crucial War Office file which established that Lord Aldington was definitely lying was mysteriously missing from the British public archives; it was returned to the shelves on the day after the trial ended. Tolstoy was ordered to pay two million pounds in costs, and brought to the verge of ruin. It was the ultimate hypocrisy -- and Gray had been Aldington's Counsel. Tolstoy lost, but his reputation remains intact to all those aware of the facts (see Ian Mitchell's fine analysis, The Cost of a Reputation). Even so Judge Gray was, however, clearly in some difficulty during the Lipstadt trial. If you have read his perverse and vindictive Judgment, which I placed on my Internet website along with all the other documents, you will have noted a curious dichotomy in his findings -- e.g., he says repeatedly that I am quite entitled to be dubious about elements of history that are at the root of this case, only to declare a few pages later that it is wholly "unreasonable" for me to express such doubts. In one such paragraph, he agrees that he was surprised that there is so little documentary evidence of mass murder in gas chambers at Auschwitz, should the eye-witnesses be discounted; along with most people, he had always assumed that the evidence was there. He has heard from my cross-examination of the conformist expert witnesses that, while there is much archival evidence for the shootings on the Eastern front, there is none -- none whatsoever -- for the existence of the homicidal Auschwitz gas chambers. Despite this, and despite the general unreliability of the five "eye-witnesses" he found that he had no choice in the matter but to believe them (even though one of the five had testified that the SS officers made sausages from human flesh in the Auschwitz crematorium!) As for the "scholar" Lipstadt herself, she "took the Fifth," and did not speak. Though even she had made no allegations against me of racism or anti-Semitism in her book, Judge Gray willingly allowed Rampton not only to introduce these disgraceful and irrelevant elements into her defence at the last moment, but to go into great and lurid orations on them. The press loved it, as you may have noticed. In his Judgment, Gray -- who had years before declared Lord Aldington totally innocent of the massacres -- danced with joy at being able to pronounce me both a racist and an anti-Semite (while simultaneously also admitting that I am "not obsessed with racism" and that I am "entitled to criticise" members of the Jewish community for what they have done to destroy me). More recently, in July this year, the Court of Appeal became even more convoluted in their eagerness to do me down. On one basic issue, whether or not I am a "Holocaust denier," they reached this conclusion: "We are not persuaded that the expression can be given any precise technical meaning or that 'Holocaust denier' defines a class of persons precisely. Having regard to the views expressed by [David Irving] about a range of events in the history of the Third Reich, we agree with the Judge that the applicant may be described as a Holocaust denier." Yes, the best money can buy.   IN April of last year, 2000, Mr. Justice Gray issued a damning and humiliating rebuff to my claims against Prof. Lipstadt. Throughout the trial, the British Press had behaved in a contemptible fashion, in the legal sense of the word "contempt": during the trial, the newspapers heaped denigration on me in a manner which in any other British trial would have seen editors committed to prison for contempt of court. In The Guardian they published one full-page photo-article about me during the trial, with the headline: "the monster of the nursery." The majority of these articles were written by well-known Jewish journalists; this aspect of the campaign becomes evident only to somebody who, like myself, was routinely supplied each day with every single press-clipping. I am not saying that these journalists received directives to write as they did: they were on auto-pilot, and that was enough. They were also largely ignorant of legal procedures. You may have seen occasional ill-informed news reports that I brought the libel action in England because it is easier to do so here than in the U.S.A.. This is nonsense. In England there is no Legal Aid for actions in defamation, and the rule is that the loser pays all. There are no "contingency fee" lawyers willing to fight on a no-win, no-fee basis.   How do I survive? I have been enabled by contributions to the Fighting Fund to sustain these actions, and to survive as a writer and as the father of a second young family. But I knew I would never be able to match the Six Million dollars which Lipstadt and friends poured into the London courtroom. Some of their "neutral" Expert Witnesses were paid a quarter of a million dollars each for their contribution against me. Far from being neutral, one of these conformist "scholars", Prof. Richard Evans, a Cambridge historian, was so hostile that after just three hours of opening cross-examination on Feb. 10 last year, I openly challenged him, and accused him of displaying open contempt for myself, my writings, and everything that I stood for. On oath, he denied this. In order to stay in the game in the High Court he had no choice. Had he admitted any bias I would have tossed him out of the witness box at once. Read this snatch of the cross-examination from the transcript: Evans: I have no personal feelings about you at all, Mr. Irving Irving: I had the impression from this morning's answers that you held something bordering between distaste and loathing towards me and the books I write, or the views that you perceive me to hold. Evans. Not at all. This, we know now, was a disgraceful perjury, as he was at that very moment writing a book attacking me, with the title Telling Lies about Hitler, in which he wrote on one page -- to cite just one example -- of "Irving's seemingly limitless capacity for telling lies, distorting the truth, and insulting the memory of the dead," and on the next: "For all of us he became someone with whom the least contact was defiling." The book was so libellous that even his own publishers, William Heinemann, a devoutly Jewish firm, have refused to print it.   We appealed and appealed Instead of dismissing this witness for his obvious prejudice, Judge Gray hung on his every word. That mattered, because it was Evans alone who testified that I had distorted documents or misread their importance. A subjective assessment like that is of value only if it is reached by truly neutral experts, which Evans clearly was not. Although Mr. Justice Gray had refused me leave to appeal his perverse Judgment, I applied straight to the Appeal Court to overrule him. The enemy immediately asked for immense costs, but I now had, thanks to our Fighting Fund, excellent Counsel -- Adrian Davies -- who is an expert on such legal issues. It soon turned out that all of Lipstadt's costs had been paid by Steven Spielberg, Edgar J. Bronfmann, and other leading members of the Jewish establishment. Therefore she was not entitled to her costs.   Wrong to act in person? My own legal costs have been diminished by the fact that I did not engage Counsel for the main trial last year. I do not accept criticism for making this choice. You choose in such litigation between having a lawyer who is a bad historian, or an historian who is an indifferent lawyer. Questioned by The Guardian in a lengthy interview last year on precisely this issue, Judge Gray said that I had acquitted myself competently as a "barrister"; the journalist Don Guttenplan, who has compiled a first-rate book on the trial, says much the same, and even historians like Dr. David "Ratface" Cesarani afterwards wrote that I gave their Witnesses very anxious moments indeed under cross-examination. Before a different court, before Mr. Justice Morland for example, I would probably have prevailed. But this became a "Holocaust" trial, and we were up against The Holocaust Industry (the book by Norman Finkelstein of that title was published only two months after the trial was over). The courtroom was awash with their dirty money. The intimidating effect of the money-rich Holocaust lobby was felt by everybody, from the Judge and the press gallery down. And not only that. The Israeli ambassador attended court on the last day, flanked by gun-toting bodyguards.   Difficulties begin We had some unusual difficulties in finding lawyers to act for me before the Court of Appeal (I am not so arrogant as to believe that I could act in person at that level, where the law is what primarily matters). Nikolai Tolstoy had recommended to me the law firm of Goldsmiths, despite an obvious drawback. They acted very competently in the initial one-day hearing on costs, but then had to withdraw when one of their senior Partners objected on religious grounds. This not-very-English behaviour, I am afraid, attracted unfavourable Press comment; altogether, it has to be said that the Lipstadt action opened a proverbial can of worms, and worms are still crawling out. Simultaneously with fighting this action in the High Court, I maintained my increasingly popular website. Even Mr. Justice Gray was following it, we now know. It provided complete libraries of most of the Press clippings on the trial, regardless of their tone, and -- most damagingly for the enemy -- the daily verbatim transcripts. Students around the world contact me, at times two or three a day, asking about the real history of the Holocaust.   THE appeal -- or rather, our application for permission to appeal -- was heard for four days during June 2001 and it was, frankly, a disaster (see my Radical's Diary). If anybody needed convincing that I had been right in not relying on lawyers in the lower Court, here it was. I had hired Nigel Adams, a one-man British law firm. The barrister who recommended him has since apologised, but it is too late: this attorney was beset with personal problems; he could not even type or send a fax or e-mail; he proved to be verbose, negligent, lazy, indolent, inefficient, and ineffective. In no time at all he had angered Master Venne -- the judge in the preliminary hearings -- so badly that the judge for a time refused to deal further with him at all; I only found this out much later. Adams did not reply to the opposing lawyers' letters for weeks, and sometimes months, at a time. Adams attended a conference with my Counsel in January this year, but drafted no conference-note until May -- the most elementary kind of attorney work. We asked him to obtain expert evidence from a crematorium manager. He did not. We commissioned and paid for a full-length technical affidavit on hydrogen-cyanide from Germar Rudolf. This impressive document went to Adams. He did not supply it or the many appendices to Counsel until a few days before the Appeal began (by which time I had sacked him). We had located in Scotland an elderly Odessa-born survivor who was willing testify that she had had the run of both Auschwitz camps in 1943 and had seen nothing of "mass gassings." Adams did nothing to take a proof of her evidence, her Affidavit was never sworn, and he informed us by letter two days after the Appeal began that the lady was now too ill to testify. (I was having nagging doubts about her anyway). It is of course obvious in retrospect that I tolerated this inefficiency for too long -- in fact I dismissed him twice last year, but had to relent each time because of the sheer cost of instructing a third new law firm to replace him and Goldsmiths.   Sunk by our own lawyers What was most damaging was that we learned, only after the Appeal Court hearings began on June 20 of this year, that Adams had taken none of the proper legal steps to apply for formal leave to introduce our new evidence, which was vital for the Appeal. In particular, he had not applied for permission to put before the Appeal Court the book written by Prof. Evans, Lying about Hitler, from which (as we saw above) it is plain that Evans had perjured himself in the witness box. Had the book been put before the Court of Appeal, it would have been plain that Evans's evidence was polemical, malicious, subjective, and worthless. We already knew this from the findings of a university Tribunal in New Zealand, where the same Evans had been hired by Jewish bodies to "put the boot in" on an academic, Dr. Joel Hayward, who had angered them by his findings in a Ph.D. thesis on revisionism; they demanded that his doctorate be revoked. The New Zealand report confirmed that Evans was prejudiced and lacking in the objectivity called for in an Expert Witness. We had obtained the printed record of those findings, but we were unable to put them before the Court of Appeal in London, because Lawyer Adams had not given the court notice of this in advance.   JUST eight days ahead of the scheduled start, as I reveal in the Radical's Diary, I informed the Appeal Court that I had dismissed him; unfortunately, they refused the brief adjournment for which we asked to instruct new solicitors, and the appeal had to go ahead on this unsatisfactory basis. Adams had in my view sunk our chances by his negligence. I have paid him a proper sum, and will pay him not a penny more. I told him that my Fighting Fund has been scraped together from the contributions, sometimes made in two- and five-dollar bills, of thousands of hardworking supporters; and that I have personally signed some 20,000 letters in the last twelve months, raising the fund, since the trial began. My barrister (trial lawyer), Adrian Davis, put up a brave fight. Two of the three appeal Judges were sympathetic, including the presiding Judge. But the third, Lord Justice Buxton, was intellectual, shrewd, liberal-leftwing, and deeply opposed to me, to my writings, and to everything I believe in. On several occasions, when they withdrew for consultations, he quite obviously succeeded in talking his colleagues around. By the second day, it was plain that we could not hope to win leave to Appeal. We were not allowed to introduce any new evidence whatsoever. The Court of Appeal is bound by strict rules, the so-called Ladd vs. Marshall guidelines, which lay down precisely the circumstances under which new evidence can be put before them. We might even have had difficulty in introducing the new 1,000-page Rudolf affidavit, as we did not introduce him in the lower Court (I had reason, as Rudolf was a "wanted man" whom the German government were also trying to extradite; he is now in safety in the United States and applying for asylum there, which does not make it easier). I have been vigorously criticised, I know, for not calling him in the lower Court: but the fact is that under the Directions for evidence for this trial both sides were limited to calling just six historians and six political scientists. There was no provision for a forensic chemist, or any other such scientist; nor did it seem obvious why we should need one in a libel action. Prof. Robert Jan Van Pelt, the Dutch writer, was admitted by the court as an expert historian, and to our surprise Mr. Justice Gray quite willingly listened to his vapourings on such subjects as chemistry, toxicology, crematorium technology, document authentication, and architecture. On none of these subjects was he a qualified expert. After a month's deliberation, on July 20, the Court of Appeal refused our application for permission to appeal. Legally, there can be no appeal from this, as it was a procedural decision -- a piece of legal trickery which friendly lawyers have since pointed out to me.   A Pyrrhic Victory for her Defeat for me in this first action, however humiliating, does not mean Victory for Lipstadt: hers is a Pyrrhic victory. It has cost the traditional enemies of the truth Six Million dollars; we have smacked right into the twin towers of their fantasies. Lipstadt had always declared that they must never debate the issues on the Holocaust with anybody. We, that is you and I, have forced them to do just that. Millions around the world are now openly talking about, and questioning, these matters of history. Publishers have learned the lesson that if they smear us, it can prove a very costly endeavour indeed, as we bite back.   On to the next battle I shall now carry forward the battle against the next of these enemies, Guardian Newspapers Ltd. It is to be fought over much the same ground, still littered with the tanks and broken artefacts of war left by the earlier skirmish; and once again the same enemies are clanking onto the battlefield. I shall show the same vigour and energy in pursuing these new actions. My enemies have boasted that they have injured me financially, but it is not a mortal injury. I must admit that living without the royalties from publishers, and under the threat that these Shylocks will strip me of everything I own, including our family home, is something of a worry. But you and I never anticipated that this would be an easy fight. It is knowing that I have such loyal friends around me that has given the strength to continue this battle. At this milestone in the fight -- a mere milestone, which is by no means a turning-point -- I want you to know that I am in good spirits, and that the battle will continue until we prevail."