[Al Simmons]

Well, nice stunt there, doug, but in all fairness what did you expect he would say? He's representing a client in a case - he has no obligation to talk to y'all, and indeed, if he did, he might well be prejudicing his client's case, getting cited for contempt by the judge for doing so (if the judge ordered them not to discuss it outside the courtroom), or malpracticing his client's case.

So while I stand second to no one in my low opinion of "she who must be obeyed", I see little purpose to this type of thing....now if you had asked HER those questions, that would be a different story (especially if any Toonian goons reacted)....but her lawyer is not really a fair target, no matter what we may think of his client...

[doug from upland]

I appreciate your thoughts, Al, but maybe you have missed part of the story. For over five years, Kendall has been calling Peter a liar. He he been falsely claiming that his client fully cooperated with the FEC and FBI. He claimed accurate FEC reports were filed. He claimed the case had no merit, even after the Cal Supreme Court ruled otherwise. He deceived the court by adding to a Peter quote to make it appear to the court that Peter was sorry for being responsible for SLM's collapse. That is not what the court said. He was not specifically not responsible for the collapse.

Kendall has refused to answer questions. We offered him a chance to get his side in the film, but he has refused to return phone calls. His lying to the public for over five years has to be exposed.

On July 11, 2001, Kendall was served with the civil suit. It included documentation for $1.6 million spent by Peter. Nevertheless, Kendall allowed his client to file a third false FEC report on July 30, 2001.

He will get away with it no longer. And, we have some footage for the film.