Our fictional phone hacking saga continues. In case you missed, parts #1 and #2.
Phone call #3
F: S? This is F…
S: Hey F! How are you?!?... Sorry to have asked, man… you must going through hell…
F: You bet, you bet… things are not looking good, my friend… not good at all.
S: No? I thought that with M being caught… who would’ve thought, hey? M of all people… I tell you, that really caught me by surprise! One never knows who one is talking with, does one?
F: You bet you can’t… but you know, I think that M isn’t the one who did it. It appears that it was some lunatic of a woman who pointed him out, you know, people looking for publicity… and the only publicity I see is bad publicity for my business…
S: So you don’t think it was M?
F: No... we both know him, don’t we?… Can you see him pulling a stunt like this? Living with his mother and all?
S: No, honestly I can’t and it did catch me by surprise, as I told you, and now I’m really pleased to hear from you that he’s innocent… it just broke my heart when I heard the news…
F: Hey, I didn’t say he’s innocent. I just said I didn’t think he did it! Besides, the dogs that went sniffing about his place didn’t find anything... I also happen to think that all the digging they’re doing over there will lead to absolutely nothing… but if it does, I’m sorry to say this, but, hey, it would mean my problems would be over with this damn mess!
S: Sure, I can only imagine the hard time you’re going through…
F: You can’t imagine how much, man… Listen, can I ask you something?
S: Sure.
F: I heard that you were here on the night the kid was taken, is that so?
S: That's right, I flew here only the next morning.
F: Then I did good in calling you... Listen, as I told you, I think this whole M thing is a wild goose chase, I just think that he's not the one that the police should be looking for... and that the police needs to look into all possible clues, and not just M! They should be out on the field, asking questions, shaking collars, so to speak... I can't afford any more waste of time, and this is what accusing M boils down to right now... not intentionally, mind you, but it just is, you understand? As you might imagine I have personal interest that this case gets solved pretty quickly, so, to help as I can, I'm speaking with everyone that I know, in person here and by phone with who isn't here but was, like you, to check if they did see anything strange that night. Any help to the cops would mean an enormous help to me, you know... I just want to get this monster off my back…
S: Strange how? Like a car, a stranger, what? Are the police looking for anything in particular?
F: Anything, man, anything. It could just be anything... and anything is just anything, isn't it? Something out of the ordinary or something that it doesn't seem at first related with this but could mean a lot… you know, you never know if it’s that exact whatever that may help solve the entire case… I’m starting to get desperate here, man!… So I’m just calling on all the people asking that if they just happened to see anything, even if unimportant, not to hesitate and report it to the Police. I just want this solved as quickly as possible…
S: Sure, sure I understand… Hey, on my part you know that I’ll do anything that's in my power to help you out. You know that. I tell you what, I’ll talk to the whole family that was there, and check out if anyone saw anything suspicious, That day and the days before... If anyone saw anything, I’ll call the OC and ask to speak to you, how’s that sound?
F: Man, that would be just great… just can’t thank you enough. Do you have anything that you can write with? I’d prefer that you have my direct contact…
S: Sure, give a sec… here’s a paper… and a pen, shoot.
F: It’s xxxxxxxxxx
S: Got it.
F: Listen, do you know anyone else that was here then and like yourself went home? I’ve already knocked on all the doors here, and I’m running out of people to call on…
S: No, can't see any right now… hey, I tell you what, I’m going to call the family together on this like I said, and we'll clear that up also, ok? I’ll call you after it, ok? Even if we get to nothing, I’ll call you anyway, ok?
F: That would be great man, just great. Sorry have bothered you with all this, I hope you understand…
S: No problem, man… take care of yourself and I hope they find the little girl soon.
F: So do I, so do I…
S: Hey F! How are you?!?... Sorry to have asked, man… you must going through hell…
F: You bet, you bet… things are not looking good, my friend… not good at all.
S: No? I thought that with M being caught… who would’ve thought, hey? M of all people… I tell you, that really caught me by surprise! One never knows who one is talking with, does one?
F: You bet you can’t… but you know, I think that M isn’t the one who did it. It appears that it was some lunatic of a woman who pointed him out, you know, people looking for publicity… and the only publicity I see is bad publicity for my business…
S: So you don’t think it was M?
F: No... we both know him, don’t we?… Can you see him pulling a stunt like this? Living with his mother and all?
S: No, honestly I can’t and it did catch me by surprise, as I told you, and now I’m really pleased to hear from you that he’s innocent… it just broke my heart when I heard the news…
F: Hey, I didn’t say he’s innocent. I just said I didn’t think he did it! Besides, the dogs that went sniffing about his place didn’t find anything... I also happen to think that all the digging they’re doing over there will lead to absolutely nothing… but if it does, I’m sorry to say this, but, hey, it would mean my problems would be over with this damn mess!
S: Sure, I can only imagine the hard time you’re going through…
F: You can’t imagine how much, man… Listen, can I ask you something?
S: Sure.
F: I heard that you were here on the night the kid was taken, is that so?
S: That's right, I flew here only the next morning.
F: Then I did good in calling you... Listen, as I told you, I think this whole M thing is a wild goose chase, I just think that he's not the one that the police should be looking for... and that the police needs to look into all possible clues, and not just M! They should be out on the field, asking questions, shaking collars, so to speak... I can't afford any more waste of time, and this is what accusing M boils down to right now... not intentionally, mind you, but it just is, you understand? As you might imagine I have personal interest that this case gets solved pretty quickly, so, to help as I can, I'm speaking with everyone that I know, in person here and by phone with who isn't here but was, like you, to check if they did see anything strange that night. Any help to the cops would mean an enormous help to me, you know... I just want to get this monster off my back…
S: Strange how? Like a car, a stranger, what? Are the police looking for anything in particular?
F: Anything, man, anything. It could just be anything... and anything is just anything, isn't it? Something out of the ordinary or something that it doesn't seem at first related with this but could mean a lot… you know, you never know if it’s that exact whatever that may help solve the entire case… I’m starting to get desperate here, man!… So I’m just calling on all the people asking that if they just happened to see anything, even if unimportant, not to hesitate and report it to the Police. I just want this solved as quickly as possible…
S: Sure, sure I understand… Hey, on my part you know that I’ll do anything that's in my power to help you out. You know that. I tell you what, I’ll talk to the whole family that was there, and check out if anyone saw anything suspicious, That day and the days before... If anyone saw anything, I’ll call the OC and ask to speak to you, how’s that sound?
F: Man, that would be just great… just can’t thank you enough. Do you have anything that you can write with? I’d prefer that you have my direct contact…
S: Sure, give a sec… here’s a paper… and a pen, shoot.
F: It’s xxxxxxxxxx
S: Got it.
F: Listen, do you know anyone else that was here then and like yourself went home? I’ve already knocked on all the doors here, and I’m running out of people to call on…
S: No, can't see any right now… hey, I tell you what, I’m going to call the family together on this like I said, and we'll clear that up also, ok? I’ll call you after it, ok? Even if we get to nothing, I’ll call you anyway, ok?
F: That would be great man, just great. Sorry have bothered you with all this, I hope you understand…
S: No problem, man… take care of yourself and I hope they find the little girl soon.
F: So do I, so do I…
Now I'm getting confused. So F told S that he wanted the girl to be found soon? Death or alive? Is F playing a fooling game with S by not showing that he knows who took the girl and how was the physical condition of the girl?
ReplyDeleteS was innocently used by F? When S calls the police saying the guy who was going down the plane holding his child, was the same he saw carrying Maddie away on the fatal night, he was not aware that by bringing G into the saga, he was ruining F&G inicial plans?
ReplyDeleteSOSNOWIEC: The kidnapping of 6-month-old Magda. Magda is the Polish Madeleine McCann, 28 January/03 February 2012- at Mccannfiles
The similarity between the 2 cases is...........
I can imagine the pink man spinning around with Carter R lost in translations, trying to revert the direction/ connections made by the newspapers in Poland.
Acho o Vosso trabalho muito interessante acerca destas conversas telefónicas imaginadas já que fazem despertar o interesse pois as informações ficam mais leves.
ReplyDeleteSão muito curiosas visto descreverem as marionetas envolvidas: as principais; as ajudantes dos principais; as secundárias, mas mesmo assim com papel na representação da trama.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_Md8w2pvqt8w/SCRCUdys0EI/AAAAAAAAACA/_j3ZimzZAUU/S1600-R/DSC00202.JPG
Following the strategy adopted by F and G since the beginning -sights- now not fictional. Well spotted by Dr. Martin Roberts:
ReplyDelete"As previously observed (see article, 'Just Like That,' McCannFiles, 22 March 2011), according to the advocate concerned, evidence suggesting Madeleine is still alive usually took the form of sightings, implying that on occasion it might take some other form. Whatever form this 'evidence' took however, the McCanns were not responsible for generating any of it (an inference followed by a deduction wouldn't you say, Ms Duarte?). Curiously this defence of the McCanns appears to have been in rebuttal of an accusation that had not even been made."- Inferences and deductions by Dr. M Roberts at Mccannfiles
ID numa grande argolada, ' meteu a Pxxxx na poca' e denunciou o que e pratica corrente dentro do grupo.
The last post from Dr. Martin Roberts at Mccannfiles is excellent and highlights well what most of the public was suspecting since the first sights. He, like Textusa and sisters, has an eye to spot the cheese and smell the rats
ReplyDeleteWhere they tend to appear. I look to his posts as a complement to Textusa posts. All make sense and is probably not far from the truth.
First they fabricate sights of an abductor, because that was the immediate business after 3th May 2007. After, they fabricated sights of persons of interest and Madeleine, to keep the aura of an alive girl under the hands of a bad guy, who by magical managed to not hurt the child. That was imperative to keep asking donations used to pay lawyers like Isabel Duarte, who under a desperate circumstance, slip on the mud they created.
It is all there to be seen. Only a pathetic judge, under a special blindness could leave that stones unturned.
JH is reporting on his Forum that the Tapas 7 will be interviewed by SY on their attempt to review the case. If that is true, is a huge mistake done by SY because such steps must be done in a quite way, out of the eyes of journalists and the general public. The Tapas 7 must be caught in a surprise. This are steps that should be announced after happening, not before. If the report is true, I can imagine some meetings in a secret hotel to prepare the answers, exactly like what happened before the rogatory letters.
This case goes from shame to shame.
Bom dia! A very nice day!
ReplyDeleteI like very much Your´s revision based on the files, the facts and in Thy deductions for me, brilliant.
Thank you.
I agree that S was pushed into this. No sane man would involve his entire family if he was aware that something fishy was going on.
ReplyDelete"....One theory they (SY) are examining is that if someone abducted Madeleine they could have had a copy of the key for the holiday apartment at the Ocean Club in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz. "- JM, Sunday Express
ReplyDeleteNo... Millions of pounds allocated to work on that theory? What a joke SY becomes if they waste money looking at another fabricated theory ( made by Kate).
Here is the real purpose of the lady book. When you don't have evidences to bake your theory, you need to fabricate them and shake your theory a little to re-adapt it. How long will take to see the S Express making front pages with Kate conversation near the pool, informing a worker about the way they left the kids inside the flat.
Even, if the abductor went the flat trough the door, using a key, he was not only wearing special gloves( didn't left any fibers), but he was flying, since no strange footprints were recovered. Or the footprints were not strange at all? I mean, they belong to somebody allocated to the flat or related to who was using the flat? Not a worker or a furtive guy, I believe.
The gender of the abductor, is also something that always amazes me: a male. I never heard that bunch of liars keeping the hypothesis of being a female. What makes them so sure that was a male? F and G, any idea?...
Cover up ahead? Article saying SY looking at possibility abductor had a copy of the key.
ReplyDeleteG always going on about a key.
You did say watch out OC staff , the finger is pointing at you.
After he opened the door with a key, he decided to leave by a window after drugging the twins. Then he planted cadaver and blood traces. Oh no ...GA team smeared it around and M had a nosebleed.
ReplyDeleteYour predictions on a postcard please !
It is possible that the Sunday Express is writing about the key, suggesting an abductor, only because they are afraid to be sued again. They got to write something in favor of the McCanns.I believe this key story is made up by that news paper. The Met never said that, imo.
ReplyDeleteNow the Sunday Mail is in on it too.
ReplyDeleteSY will of course ask these good people to accompany SY to PDL and enjoy the reconstruction they dodged years ago, costing the british taxpayers vast heaps of money?
Which money, Tapas 7, 9, 10 or however many, will of course be very happy to reimburse said taxpayers with (text after CM)
Portia
SY should not forget that the abductor came back, after the alarm being already raised, using the same key to pick up the blanket pictured by GNR. What a professional. Again, he managed to pass unnoticed trough a pile of guests, workers, the all Tapas 9, the nannies who had already setled the OC searching procedure, and the local residents who didn't resist to have a close look at the place where everything happen to realise in locus why the shutters were not damaged. They were too old, too fragile and impossible to be open from outside. But wait a moment, from inside they could be open and if you have a door key....the cherry on top of the cake. Dammm, Dammmm, Dammm, DAAAmmm... the only fingerprints the police found on the windows, belong to Kate Mccann and the position shows that she openned the window from inside. Nothing strange, if the lady had not told the police that she never open that window during the holidays and if she didn't had that sensation of a fresh air blowing the cortines. What a Karma...
ReplyDeleteVery many people are convinced that Madeleine died as consequence of paedophilie, sleeping pills killed her after they were given her in order to make her unconscious during the abuse she was about to suffer. Fingers are pointing to David Payne, on the first place, because he went to the apartment at 6.30pm. Those fingers are also pointing to Tapas 6. Who knows Madeleine was already dead before Gerry left to the tennis court and he sent Payne to 5a, in order to put him in trouble, in case it would be necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe couple had time enough to plan what to say to the police, 30 seconds or 30 minutes(Payne in 5a)and I think Gerry said "30 minutes" on purpose.
There is no difference between the McCanns and a group of reporters: they are nobody's friends.
If I'm right, this would explain why Payne disappeared. On videos, on the 4th, he is not walking beside his best friend Kate, nor beside his best friend Gerry.
Oldfield is the one who is putting his hand on her shoulder. And on the evening of the 3rd Payne was the only one with a monitor.Not because he killed the child but because he didn't want to get involved in its death.
Now we all know he is a paedophile and probably he has nothing to do with Madeleine's death.
Portia,
ReplyDeleteWhat a brilliant suggestion!
Now, they can't claim that the SY is doing the reconstruction to frame them, can they?
There's absolutely no reason for them to refuse to come to Portugal and do the reconstruction. And if need be, they don't even have to come to Portugal. The 2 million should be enough to build an approximate replica of Tapas and the Apartment, in Britain, so that we can all understand the goings and comings that they say existed, and we would all finally understand what was exactly the "abductor" took advantage of to "abduct" the girl.
Portugal spent taxpayers' money to research, which was prevented from continuing, although it was about what happened to a Child
ReplyDeleteNot for the money but because the truth does not matter to many characters in Uk and Pt
The June 3, 2007 the Maddie case was the most expensive investigation of the PJ.
The reply and reconstruction: in my opinion UK should do as the Japanese architects:
a replica of ........ Algarve.
To All; pay close attention: Sunday 21.49 hrs
ReplyDeleteSunday Mail parallel article to Expresses' pulled from Mail Site.
Cold feet anyone?
How come?
Portia
After having written the Advocatus post, we received the Anon comment on Feb 5, 2012 5:08:00 PM, published above:
ReplyDeleteIt’s a “text-book-clutter” post. Allow us to remind you what we’ve defined as the use of clutter in : http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/11/clutter-from-here-to-timbucktoo.html
“Very many people are convinced that Madeleine died as consequence of paedophilie, sleeping pills killed her after they were given her in order to make her unconscious during the abuse she was about to suffer.”
Two favorite clutter issues: “paedophilia” and “drugging”. Note how “are convinced” quickly becomes fact: “Now we all know he is a paedophile”.
Read through the comment and see how the writer writes the exact opposite of what he really wants you to read. He vilifies DP, but who he’s condemning is the couple. The message is “Sure, DP is a paedo, but other than that, he’s a rather nice bloke”.
Everyone is entitled to supposition, but based on what is Maddie supposedly dead before Gerry leaves for tennis?
I won’t go into the various cluttering data of the comment, such playing with times, and videos that I don’t remember seeing, and even if they are correct, saying that DP doesn’t appear beside KM or GM, to extrapolate that that means anything by itself to justify a supposition just made, has one word to it: clutter.
Finally, let me reiterate this blog’s opinion that any and all sexual relationships in the period involving the death of Maddie, happened between consciously consenting adults..
To our new readers, let me inform you that,
About David Payne (DP), our opinion of this individual at this point in time is that “Sure, DP is NOT A PAEDO, and other than that regretful episode of losing his temper, he’s a rather nice bloke”.
About drugging, it’s the conviction that the only child not to be drugged, was Maddie.. It’s our opinion that the children were drugged on one night only, and that was on the night the child was unfortunately dead.
Portia,
ReplyDeleteI would say, that after so much time and resources wasted, they simply don't know how to handle this. They've tried various options already, but none seems to result.
It seems that the offended (us) are not willing to forgive and forget that easy.
Also, between "them", although of the intense negotiations that I'm sure that are ongoing, it's still very unclear on who's to take the fall.
I have a feeling that by now Cameron is not very happy, now, of having been convinced to go ahead with this review thing... and he certainly must have other important things to draw his attention to besides this uncomfortable thorn by his side.
Portia, could the articles have been pulled out just because of your suggestion? I mean, that's something nobody thought about. The T lot can't cooperate with the Met because then they won't have any excuse not to do the reconstruction, and the SY not to order one to be done! If I'm right, and it's a real possibility, congratulations to you and Tex and her team!
ReplyDeleteThe Anon Feb 5, 2012 5:08:00 PM comment is just another DP whitewashing attempt. We've seen many before, and will have to put up with them again, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteI too, i' m not convinced DP is a Paedo. That is a too easy extrapolation coming from that saga to be true. Who that story benefits? The Mccann's only. Who drove the story in to a Paedo world? The Mccann's. Is largely known who started disseminating the duality Abduction/ paedophilia- the Mccann's and their spin man. That is enough for me to suspect that that trio is behind the Gaspars statements to frame DP and send a red light to the other Tapas 7 to tie their mouths and keep moving inside the track. Intimidation and persecution is what they do best and they have the Fund and a huge absence of character. Under desperate circumstances, they will not think two times, before going over of any of their friends.
ReplyDeleteDP, probably that late afternoon was caught by his " work". As a dr. He joint the rescue of the little girl but the situation was irreversible. Remember Fiona talking on her statement about medical procedures to help?
Why the Gaspars got their names on that? To avoid the avalanche effect the scandal will assume in Uk, if the story behind the holidays of that group, was uncovered.
Imagine, if the police arrives to the conclusion that the swing is what connects all that group during their holidays... All with children. Even if the child's were not involved on the adults world, other holidays will be looking at, and of course who shared them with the Mccann's will be under the public criticism. Is a fact, the society in general, is too hypocritical and deals very badly with wha
t goes out of the " common behaviour", special on sexual issues.
See what Pat Brown is saying about the articles, on her blog. According to her, the articles regarding the interview of the T7 by SY, could be published because she is going to Portugal. She put the hypothesis of being used to take the attention of the media out of her.
ReplyDeleteI have no opinion regarding the real objectives of that lady. I prefer to keep my mind open because sometimes I read what she says with a pinch of salt.
Something is a fact for me: any private investigation or criminal search in Portugal , is illegal and if her work was to help GA and PJ, her trip will be kept under secrecy, in a very quite and incognito way. Then, why all that publicity? To ring Mccann's bell saying " hello, Have you noticed I'm here?" Sorry to be so sceptical.
'Helping the cops Unterdenteppichgekehrt'
ReplyDeletePosted by Johanna at 12:06
Sunday, 5 February 2012 - Mccannfiles
'Questions:
To Matt:
Are you being treated for your colour blindness (regarding fabrics), your inability to count (windows) and your problem identifying shapes (of tables)?
To Russell:
How did Matt react when you entered his apartment with his key on Sunday evening to check on his daughter while Matt was inside with his tummy bug?
To Jane:
Did you hear Rachael snoring when you listened at her window on Wednesday evening to check on her daughter?
To Rachael:
Didn't it feel odd to watch a group of children at tennis on Thursday when none of the group's children took part but were instead out on a boat trip at the beach?
To Fiona:
When you collected Maddie together with Kate from the creche on Thursday at lunch time, was she as drenched, cold and wet as yourself from sailing on the rough sea?
To David:
How did it feel to get thrown in the deep end when your buddy claimed that you checked on his daughter on the WEDNESDAY alone inside the apartment?'
Enigmatic questions or not? Is that the same Johanna who used to post here more or less in simultaneous with Insane? For me look like the same person. If my suspiction is correct, I had always the impression that that person knows something about the fatal day in PDL. The questions could be a message endorsed to the Tapas 7?
Johanna always show up here to foccus the case on the Mccann's and the Tapas 7 and reacts everytime the posts pointed to gests of the OC. Was she a guest?
I think, that questions need to be looked with an insight eye.
Anon, Feb 6, 2012 9:49:00 AM
ReplyDeleteAgree, Johanna's questions appear to be the Guest-BHs putting on pressure on the T9-BHs...
Anon Feb 6, 2012 10:33:00 AM
ReplyDeleteThe wooshing of the articles surely has also to be about that war that is taking place between the sides. If that is so this means that we don't know what it will be, but there will be a closure on this issue soon.
Seems to me someone in SY is trying to pre-empt a whitewash by leaking to the Express/Desmond, thus forcing SY's hand: what now, if they DID NOT hear Tapas 7?!
ReplyDeleteSunday Mail followed suit, but, receiving at least 14 comments on sunday immediately whooshed the article. This in itself speaks volumes: either the Expresses' article was a canard and/or a SY in-house attemot to force the matter out into the open, or it wasn't and the Mail was 'convinced' of the wisdom of ignoring it.
Byzantium upon Thames!
What a utterly fascinating story this has turned out to be.
And, all Brits on board: do write to your local MPs! After all, shoudn't the SY bill be footed from the declared profits of the Fund Ltd and from the Book? Isn't that precisely what these profits were earmarked for in the first place?
Portia
At Feb 6, 2012 9:49:00 AM
ReplyDeleteThe question I would like to ask Matt is what side the hinge was on the door of the children's bedroom?
If he believes it to be hinged on the left so opening it slightly would not have allowed him to see the bed immediately behind it then he needs to check the photograph which shows it hinged on the right so even the slightest opening would show the purported bed and not the twins in cots.
"Mr Oldfield saw the twins in their cot but did not push the door open wide enough to see Madeleine, although he was happy all was well."
What a blunder!
Although Kate did try to convince everyone the door was hinged on the left when she did her home made video reconstruction showing the way she closed the door.
If SY yard miss that basic fact then we should all be worried in the UK about the quality of our police force.
And to think the PJ were called bungling Keystone Cops!
Re: Gaspar paedo statement. Why would GM incriminate himself in the Gaspar Statement along with DP if it was manufactured to keep T7 et al toeing the line? An awful smear for MCs to place upon themselves? In that case it would mean that someone higher up in the food chain manufactured it? Nah, it doesn't make sense at all, unless they prefer to be thought of as paedos as opposed to swingers...
ReplyDeleteAdvocatus,
ReplyDeleteQuoting you from one of your 13 unpublished comments (up to now and not counting the 8 we published with the post), “…please you do not need to suggest me other sites that share the same ideas as mine”, I’m afraid we must.
Do take your comments to some neglect theory site, where, as you say you know, your views will find a warm welcome, as we have already let a couple through and you’ve exceeded your quota of Black Hattery. We won’t publish your comments because we don't want you to get paid on a pro rata rate for every comment published by BHs. It would further strain the Fund, which as we’ve been told by those responsible for it, is not exactly in a flush for unnecessary expenditures.
By the way, it was lovely to reread your “ad hominem attack” stuff again.
And it was also nice to read, from the same comment, that “I was thinking about your posts and the only thing that must be acceptable (but you do not have a prove): is that a swinging activity may have been running during that week in May 2007.”
As you’ll soon see, swinging is not the only thing that you BHs and our blog agree on…
Hello All!
ReplyDeleteThe Judge in TBs case has been named as Michael Tugendhat.
Quote:Described by The Guardian as "Britain's leading expert on privacy law", Tugendhat told the Commons' select committee on Culture, Media and Sport:[12]
"We must never underestimate the asset we have in the free press and I am afraid a free press is bound to be one that occasionally gets it wrong either by malice or mistake".
So, Tony, which is it ging to be: malice or mistake?
Can there be malice in spending years of your life to finding a missing child? I think not.
As for mistake: which mistake could conceivably land you in prison in the UK, if not the mistake of leaving three small minors in a dark room in a strange place in a foreign country?
Ok Ok, I know, I stand corrected: not even THAT mistake.
So, Tony, enjoy your day in Court!
Portia