The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/michael.david/email/email.990418


From veritas.nizkor.org!cableinet.co.uk!David.M  Sun Apr 18 18:14:41 1999
Return-Path: 
Received: from veritas.nizkor.org (36772 bytes) by www.nizkor.org
	via sendmail with P:uucp/D:dotforward/T:pipe
	(sender:  owner: ) 
	id 
	for nizkor; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 18:14:40 -0400 (EDT)
	(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #1 built 1997-Oct-31)
Received: from jaguars.cableinet.net(jaguars-int.cableinet.net[193.38.113.9]) (36364 bytes) by www.nizkor.org
	via sendmail with P:smtp/D:dotforward/T:pipe
	(sender:  owner: ) 
	id 
	for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
	(Smail-3.2.0.98 1997-Oct-16 #1 built 1997-Oct-31)
Received: (qmail 13987 invoked from network); 18 Apr 1999 18:41:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cableinet.co.uk) (194.117.148.154)
  by jaguars with SMTP; 18 Apr 1999 18:41:10 -0000
Message-ID: <371A285E.805DBB06@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:45:51 +0100
From: David 
Reply-To: DavidM@cableinet.co.uk
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kenneth McVay OBC 
Subject: Response to Himmler challenge
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: kmcvay
Status: RO

RESPONSE TO YALE F EDEIKEN’S DRAFT HIMMLER CHALLENGE CONTRACT
(Posted to alt.revisionism and e-mailed to Yale F Edeiken and Kenneth McVay)


1. Preliminary comments

I wish to respond to the draft contract sent to me on 9 March by Yale F
Edeiken concerning the Nizkor/McVay Himmler tape challenge
(http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/edeiken-yale/draft-00.html). I begin
with some preliminary observations.

First, Kenneth McVay OBC has decided to publish the draft contract on his
‘Nizkor’ website together with some out-of-context quotations from my own
Usenet postings and a private e-mail
(http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/m/michael-david/). I now call upon Mr
McVay to publish this response in full on the same website alongside the
original draft contract so that his readers are not misled or kept in
ignorance of the response.

Second, Yale F Edeiken has indicated that the ‘basic’ conditions of the
original challenge should not be altered and that my response should deal
with the challenge as presented. Specifically, in his email to me of 9 March
(Message-Id: <199903100119.UAA25274@mail.enter.net) he stated:


The draft agreement will only restate and amplify
the ambiguous terms of the original challenge.

You may, of course, misinform and mislead your counsel by failing to
provide them a copy of the original offer.  The basic conditions set forth in

that original offer, and which have been accepted by you as you accepted the
challenge without reservations, will not be altered in any way.


Again, in a Usenet posting on 5 March (Message-ID:
<36e013a5.0@news3.enter.net>) Mr Edeiken has stated:


Ken McVay and Nizkor are proceeding in the manner set forth in the original
challenge


Accordingly, rather than providing a response in the form of an alternative
contract, which would doubtless lead to the criticism that we are changing
‘basic conditions’, I intend simply to make some comments regarding the draft
contract and invite Yale F Edeiken to deal with them in what one hopes will
be the final contract. My response will consist of three sections: (a)
consideration of some technical matters that have not been taken into account
in the formulation of either the original challenge or the draft contract,
(b) some general observations concerning the way in which the draft contract
has been presented, and finally (c) some comments on specific clauses.

Third, there has been speculation from pro-Nizkor posters in alt.revisionism
that I would not be serious about this matter. This speculation appears to
have arisen from a misunderstanding about my reasons for expressing an
interest in the Himmler tapes. I am genuinely curious as to what forensic
analysis of this material might yield.

I have to tell those who were anticipating a withdrawal that there are no
insurmountable obstacles to proceeding with the analysis.


2. Technical considerations

In his original challenge to Mr Giwer (Message-ID:
<4vl522$hv2@news.enter.net>), Yale F Edeiken indicated that he had spoken to
a voiceprint analyst. Specifically, he stated:



First: Feasability: The analysis is feasible. I talked with a private voice
identification firm and they would be able to make the analysis. I have never
used them for analysis but they were highly recommended to me by the
laboratory that I used to examine questioned documents. They have excellent
credentials and have been used by the government and law enforcement bureass
in New Jersey. They also have some experience with foreign language
identification. In fact, they have been used to verify a speech by Kruschev.

The requirements are simple. They would need a good copy of the Posnan speech
(preferably done with a patch cord) and a copy of another speech by him. A
known copy from a movie soundtrack would be sufficient if it was of the same
quality as the Posnan speech. Transcripts of the sppech would be helpful.

For an effective identification there would have to be a minimum of twenty
identical words that could be compared. Since Himmler spoke at Posnan for a
considerable amount of time this should be no problem. Since the selection of
the words would be at issue and the laboratory does not have a German speaker
on staff, one German speaking represenative from each side could assit them..

Second: Price. The price I was quoted was $1,750.00. Which seems a reasonable
fee. The document analysis lab I use has a minimum fee of $2,500.00 and goes
up from there. Further the first $750.00 would be for a preliminary analysis.
If they found that a complete identification could not be done that would be
the total fee. The final $1,000.00 would include complete analysis and a
final report.


On 6 April 1999 I contacted Yale F Edeiken by private email (Message-ID:
<370A1B34.64D4@cableinet.co.uk>) with the following request, which was also
posted in alt.revisionism:


Please would you let me know the name and address and telephone number
of the laboratory you propose to use for the Himmler tape challenge
voiceprint analysis, together with the name of the contact person to
whom you have spoken?


His response, on 7 April, by private e-mail (Message-ID:
<001501be810f$70e68280$d29910cf@yawen>) was:


No decision has been made on the laboratory that Nizkor will propose to
perform the tests.  I contacted a laboratory in New Jersey for informational
purposes only.  When and if a contract is signed I will, with consultation
with the signer attempt to find a laboratory based primarily on the
following criteria:

    1.  Reputation and experience with foreign language analysis.

    2.  Price.

    3.  Proximity to Washington D.C. to facilitate any necessary on-site
copying.

    While the draft calls for the Nizkor Project to suggest a laboratory, I
would have no objection to consulting with you during the process as an
agreed laboratory would expedite the testing.  Further I have no objection to
your revising the contract to include this right of consultation.


Accordingly I contacted Charles M Salter Associates of San Francisco
(http://www.cmsalter.com/about.html). It will be observed from their website
that they specialize, inter alia, in this type of forensic work and that they
have provided evidence in major court cases. The contact person here is Dr
John Freytag (http://www.cmsalter.com/personne.html#freytag). Dr Freytag
stated that Charles M Salter Associates routinely carries out this sort of
analysis, and he has expressed an interest in working with us on the analysis
of the tapes.

In an e-mail to me dated 8 April (Message-Id:
<3.0.32.19990408151637.00de3d00@shell10.ba.best.com>) Dr Freytag raised the
following points (he subsequently gave me permission to post his words in
this forum):


1)  The authenticity investigation should not be limited to voiceprint
analyses.  Physcial, chemical and electronic examination of the recording
should be made to investigate the recording age, type of equipment used, tape
(or wire) composition, etc.  Additionally, the recording should be checked
for evidence of splicing, dubbing, etc. as we routinely do for evidentiary
tapes in criminal matters.

2)  The reliability of any opinions regarding voiceprint matching depends
upon the quality of the recordings being compared, the extent of matching
contextural materials (i.e., are the two recordings saying the same thing?),
speaker disposition during the two recordings, acoustical backgrounds, and
non-linearities in recording equipment.

3)  All voiceprint opinions which we develop carry a caveat.  The best of
results would be a high qualitative estimate of the liklihood of a voice
match.  The worst results would be inconclusive.

4)  It is very difficult to perform reliable voiceprint comparisions in
different contexts.  Speech may not be disassembled into phonemes and then
reassembled into another context for the purpose of voiceprint comparision.
We must compare word sequences and phrases to develop reliable conclusions.

5)  Our laboratory+engineer bills at US$200 per hour.  Voiceprint analyses
generally require a minimum of 10-times the recording length for analysis.
The 190-minute comparision is necessary because we must sort through two
recording samples to find matching context.  While the 5-minute section may
be of utmost interest to you, voiceprint comparison needs matching context
wherever we may find it.  We will also need to retain a German translator.


Several points follow from this:

a. Access to the original tape is necessary so that tests over and above
voiceprint analysis can be carried out. This is not an insurmountable
problem. Yale F Edeiken has stated in a Usenet posting dated 15 March
(Message-ID: <36ed3e18.0@news3.enter.net>):


In fact, when originally queried the NA stated they would allow on-site
analysis of the tape.  Formal
permission was not requested because the laboratory stated it was not
possible.  That the NA will not "release" the tape to some fruitloop in the
U.K. with no academic affiliation is reasonable.  That they will allow
on-site analysis when asked to do so by a member of the House of
Representatives sitting on the committee responsible for the NA is also
reasonable.


b. Great care will be necessary in the selection of a comparison tape. If it
is greatly different from the alleged Posen tapes then there is a risk of
biasing the study against the hypothesis that ‘it is really Himmler’.
Considerable thought needs to be given to the process to be used for the
selection of a comparison tape. Such selection, however, cannot be made
exlusively on the grounds of scientific convenience -- to compare a disputed
Himmler tape with another disputed Himmler tape (or one likely to be
disputed) would hardly give us a useful conclusion.

c. Dr Freytag’s opinion that:


All voiceprint opinions which we develop carry a caveat.  The best of results
would be a high qualitative estimate of the liklihood of a voice match.  The
worst results would be inconclusive.


requires that great care be given to the contractualization of the
interpretation of the response. As the lawyers whom I consulted pointed out,
there would need to be close liaison between the drafter of the final
contract and the laboratory carrying out the analysis to establish precisely
the form in which the results would be produced by the laboratory (which, I
should add, itself depends on the tests to be carried out) and then to
translate the results into a decision as to their implications regarding the
authenticity of the Himmler tape, who has won the challenge, and who pays
what to whom.

d.  The costs of this exercise are likely to be much, much higher than the
costs cited by Yale F. Edeiken, assuming that it is necessary to work on the
entire 190 minute set of tapes. Dr Freytag has given us a rough guide as to
minimum costs: 190 minutes is 3.17 hours; 3.17 * 10 * 200 = $6200, plus the
cost of the German translator, plus the cost of acquiring the tapes from the
National Archives. We would also have the costs incurred in obtaining the
comparison tapes, and bringing them to the analysts or, conversely, bringing
the analysts to the tapes, plus legal costs. The costs could be less if we
could restrict the analysis. I think that at a very minimum we need to
analyze the tape concerning the famous ‘ausrotten’ section and one other
tape.

Obviously, Mr Edeiken will need to take these points into account when
drafting what we hope will be the final contract. This will require some
liaison between himself and Dr Freytag or another similar individual


2. Legal drafting

The drafting of the draft contract appears to have been rather hurried.
Evidence of this can be seen by examining the garbled clause 12:


12.  In case of the breach of this contract and would be impossible or very
difficult to ascertain
accurately, because the actual damages that either party would sustain if the
other party breaches its obligations and duties under this agreement are
uncertain the parties agree in good faith that reasonable compensatory damage
for the harm done is is the party in breach of this contract shall forfeit
all claim to any funds on deposit with said attorney, pay as liquidated
damages the sum of Ten Thousand
($10,000.00) U.S. Dollars, and bear the incidental costs, including, inter
alia, reasonable attorney's fees of the non-breaching party or the named
attorney holding said funds, and the reasonable costs and fees of arbitration
including costs of transcription..


This clause simply does not make sense.

Particular concerns regarding the draftsmanship of the document are as
follows:

(a) Numerous important areas that require detailed contractualization are
glossed over. This could result not only in legal disputes but disputes as to
whether agreed procedure is being followed, disputes as to the interpretation
of the analysis, and disputes as to who is liable for what. These need to be
tightened up. Areas of weakness include, for example:

--  attribution of procedural responsibilities (who is responsible for what);

-- provision of a schedule;
--  itemizing and allocation of all potential costs and procedures for
dealing with unanticipated costs;
--  analytical procedure and interpretation (how shall the analyses be
conducted and interpreted, and by whom precisely shall they be interpreted);
--  translation of the interpretation of the results into a decision as to
who is liable for what;
--  dispute resolution procedures and procedures for dealing with
unanticipated issues that might arise;
--  legal systems to be invoked.

I elaborate on some of these areas below in discussing specific clauses.

(b) There is some vague and subjective language that needs to be tightened up
as far as possible in order to reduce the scope for misunderstandings and
disputes. Examples include:

-- a ‘recognized’ laboratory;
-- ‘good cause’;
-- ‘a reasonable degree of scientific certainty’;
-- a ‘known speech’ given by  Heinrich Himmler.



3. Specific clauses

I will not discuss the finer points of draftsmanship here -- that is
something that the lawyers can sort out towards the end of the negotiation
procedure. I just wish to raise a few general points.

CLAUSE 1


The Nizkor Project (hereinafter "Nizkor"), an
unincorporated organization based in Canada and David
Michael (hereinafter "Michael") a citizen and resident of
the United Kingdom hereby agree to jointly have the
recording of the  speech made by Heinrich Himmler before
officers gathered in the Polish city of Posen in October
1943 and entered into evidence at the trial before the IMT
of major war criminals at Nuremberg and currently held by
the U.S. National Archives analyzed by a recognized
laboratory specializing in voice print analysis to determine
whether the voice on said tape-recording is that of Heinrich
Himmler.


We feel that the counterparty should be Kenneth McVay, not ‘Nizkor’. It has
been stated that ‘Nizkor’ is ‘merely a website’. In this regard, we draw
attention to a Usenet post apparently made by Mr McVay on 21 April 1998. The
post has, interestingly, been cancelled from Dejanews, but I take the
following citation from a post by Mr Anthony Sabatini dated 17 March 1999,
Message-ID. :


Re: Grosvenor's Millions
Author:   Ken McVay 
Date:   1998/04/21
Forum:   tor.general
Posted on:   1998/04/21
Message-ID:   <6hj6m1$5ft$1@nanaimo.island.net>

< begin quote >
Nizkor has never paid Mr. McCarthy a cent. Nizkor is a web site,
Mr. Sabatini. Mr. McCarthy received one cheque (for a rather small
amount, considering the massive amount of dedication and long
hours he provided, but the amount is, frankly, none of your businss)
from a registered charitable society.

Of course, even if Nizkor _did_ have a bank account, and _did_ accept
donations (it doesn't) and _did_ employ people using those donations,
it would have absolutely no bearing on my statement, which was, need
I remind you, that Nizkor is a web site, and does not - and will not -
generate a profit, nor was it ever intended to do so.

< end quote >

It is clear from the above that Mr Edeiken’s draft would require me to enter
into a contract with a website that has no bank accounts, does not accept
donations, and doesn’t employ people, whereas I would prefer to enter into a
contract with a real individual, who can be sued, who does have a bank
account (preferably containing money), and who cannot simply wind himself up
overnight.

Second, I should point out that the original Nizkor challenge to Mr Giwer
dated 22 August 1996 (Message-ID: <4vikjj%2446u@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>) was
made in Mr McVay’s own name. It seems strange that, now that he has been
called on the challenge by me, Mr McVay should wish to be replaced in the
challenge by a website. Mr McVay’s words to Mr Giwer in the original
challenge were ‘put up or shut up’. I am putting up. Mr McVay appears to be
disappearing behind his website.

Third, Mr McClelland has raised the interesting possibility that I should set
up a website (http://www.cuddleskor.co.uk) and that the website should accept
the Nizkor challenge. If Mr McVay wishes his website to be the party to the
contract, is there any reason why a website of mine should not be the
counterparty?

Fourth, surely if Mr McVay is man enough to taunt people with ‘put up or shut
up’ taunts it is not unreasonable to expect him to ‘put up’ himself when
called on those taunts rather than hiding behind his website and his
attorney. If I am prepared to put my own name and money to a negotiated
contract, why should not Mr McVay do likewise?

In a post to alt.revisionism dated 30 March 1999 Message-ID:
<7dpp1v$2oma$2@hub.org>, Mr McVay has indicated that he would ‘consider’ this
option. I trust therefore that he will pluck up the courage to ‘put up’
himself in due course and that this matter will not be an obstacle.


CLAUSE 2


The analysis of the said tape recording shall consist only of a voice print
analysis of the tape recording
at issue.  Any other analysis shall be done only at the expense of the party
wishing such further analysis.


Here I simply again draw Yale F Edeiken’s attention to Dr John Freytag’s
comment:


The authenticity investigation should not be limited to voiceprint
analyses.  Physcial, chemical and electronic examination of the recording
should be made to investigate the recording age, type of equipment used,
tape (or wire) composition, etc.  Additionally, the recording should be
checked for evidence of splicing, dubbing, etc. as we routinely do for
evidentiary tapes in criminal matters.


Anything less would bias the study towards an inconclusive result.


CLAUSE 3


The voice print analysis will be performed by a recognized laboratory
specializing in forensic voice print analysis to which the parties to this
contract mutually agree, Nizkor shall propose which laboratory shall perform
the analysis subject to the approval of Michael.  Rejection of any proposed
laboratory shall be only for good cause shown including, inter alia, lack of
competence, a poor
reputation within the profession of voice print analysis, demonstrated bias,
or conflict of interest.  Should the laboratory proposed be rejected for good
cause, Michael will then propose a laboratory located with the continental
United States, subject to the approval of Nizkor on the same
basis.  This process will continue until a laboratory is selected.


The laboratory would need to be selected before the contract is finalized so
that the precise procedure to be used, the form of the results, and the
interpretation of the results can be contractualized.

The selection process seems onerous and unnecessary. The vague terminology
regarding the use of a ‘recognized’ laboratory, ‘good cause’, and so forth,
could lead to endless disputes. Moreover, a laboratory could meet all the
criteria specified above but might still be unacceptable to revisionists, for
example, if it had strong political connections with Zionism.

I would propose that we use Dr Freytag’s team and that this be specified in
the contract.


CLAUSE 4


The voice print analysis shall be done according to the standards of the
laboratory chosen and the
scientific principles of voice print analysis who will then, as experts in
voice print analysis, make a report as to their findings as to whether the
tape recording is the voice of Heinrich Himmler to a reasonable degree of
scientific certainty.  Said report shall be considered in the public domain.


Needs tightening up as specified above.


CLAUSE 5


The analysis shall compare the said tape recording to a known speech given
by  Heinrich Himmler.  The selection of control specimen shall be determined
by the laboratory performing the analysis from the archive of speeches and
other public statements made by Heinrich Himmler maintained by the U.S.
National Archives  Either party has the right to reject any such alternate
proposed specimen for good cause which, for the purpose of this agreement,
consists only of a showing that the suggested
speech is not suitable for analysis or of clear and convincing evidence that
the speech was made by a person other than Heinrich Himmler.


As indicated above, selection of the tape would need careful thought. It
would need to meet the scientific standards of the lab, but it would also
need to be undisputed -- and not reasonably disputable -- by revisionists. It
clearly needs to be selected up front and specified in the contract. Failing
that, disputes could drag on interminably. I suggest Mr Edeiken give this
some thought.


CLAUSE 6


If the named laboratory is unable to perform a complete analysis due to the
length of the tape recording, the minimum analysis shall consist of the
portions of the speech dealing with the Final Solution of the "Jewish
question" and two other portions selected at the discretion of the laboratory
performing such analysis.


I would say that this ‘ausrotten’ section, which should be cited in full in
an annexure to the contract so that there is no dispute about the section in
question, should in any case be the absolute minimum section analysed.
Moreover, at an absolute minimum, in addition to voiceprint analysis,
analysis would have to be undertaken to ensure that this tape has not been
spliced or dubbed, as Dr Freytag has indicated.



CLAUSES 7 AND 8


        7.   Nizkor shall pay all fees required by the laboratory.

        8.   Prior to actual payment of any such fees, Michael will deposit a
sum equal to those fees with an attorney licensed to practice law in
Pennsylvania to be placed in an attorney's trust, escrow, or IOLTA account
pending the expert report of the laboratory.  Nizkor agrees to provide the
names of three (3) such attorneys.  Should Michael insist that another
attorney holds the funds as described above, he shall bear the sole cost of
any legal fees which are incurred as a result of his decision.


This differs from the original challenge as presented to Mr Giwer by Yale F
Edeiken. I cite Message-ID: <4vl522$hv2@news.enter.net> posted in
alt.revisionism by Yale F Edeiken:


Third. Trust account. There is no need for any special account. Every lawyer
must maintain (or have access to) a trust account for the deposit of clients
funds. Withdrawals cannot be made from such an account without notice or,
depending on the agreement, permission of the client or a court. If Giwer
does not trust the account that I maintain or the one our firm maintains
either his attorney could hold it or we could name a neutral attorney to do
so.


Is there any reason why Yale Edeiken has backed off from the original
challenge in this respect? I found the original proposal put to Mr Giwer far
preferable in this regard.

CLAUSE 9


 Should the laboratory require additional fees, Nizkor will advance said fees
to the laboratory upon deposit of a sum by Michael equal to those additional
fees with the named attorney  to be placed in the attorney's trust, escrow,
or IOLTA account as aforesaid within thirty (30) days of being notified by
mail that such additional funds will be required.


This creates a legal obligation for me to pay any additional fees that the
laboratory might demand. I would need to have a right of refusal should I, at
my sole discretion, consider the additional fees excessive, unreasonable or
unnecessary.

CLAUSE 10


Should either party fail to make the payments due either to the laboratory
performing such
analysis or to a licenced attorney for deposit in a trust, escrow, or IOLTA
account, it will constitute a breach of this agreement.  As liquidated
damages, as set forth below, all sums already deposited in the said account
shall be returned to the non-breaching party and the breaching party shall
pay the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) U.S. Dollars as liquidated damages.


We don’t see the necessity for this. It could lead to lengthy disputes and
litigation. If there is a breach of the contract it will be obvious for all
to see and that will be sanction enough. Consideration should be given to
deleting this clause.


CLAUSE 11


Except in cases of breach of contract or as otherwise provided herein the
attorney shall release and
distribute the sums held in said account following and pursuant to the expert
report of the laboratory chosen.  Said distribution shall be made as follows:

        a.      If the expert report finds that voice print analysis confirms
that the voice on said tape recording is that of Heinrich Himmler to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty all funds held in such account
shall be released and distributed to Nizkor.

        b.      If the expert report finds that voice print analysis confirms
that the voice on said tape recording is not that of Heinrich Himmler to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty all funds held in such account
shall be released and distributed to Michael.

        c.      If the expert report finds that voice print analysis is
inconclusive in that it is unable to confirm or deny to a reasonable degree
of scientific certainty that the
voice on said tape recording is or is not that of Heinrich Himmler Nizkor and
Michael shall split the costs of the analysis equally.  To this end all funds
held in such account shall be released and distributed to equally to Michael
and Nizkor.  Any rebate or refund from the laboratory as a result of their
failure to be able to perform the analysis shall be divided in the same
manner.

        The parties agree that, in all cases, the decision of the attorney
holding said funds shall be final and no liability shall accrue to said
attorney by reason of his acting in conformity with the report of the expert.



Two points.

First, I have a problem with this decision being made by ‘the attorney
holding the funds’, especially since Yale F Edeiken has proposed that Yale F
Edeiken (or someone nominated by him) might be the attorney holding the
funds! We propose that the contract, which should be drafted in close liaison
with the laboratory responsible for producing the results, should specify
precisely the form in which the results should be produced by the lab. We
further propose that the contract should specify precisely which results
should constitute a ‘win’ for myself and precisely which results should
constitute a ‘win’ for the counterparty.

Second, I draw attention to Dr Freytag’s words cited above:


All voiceprint opinions which we develop carry a caveat.  The best of results
would be a high qualitative estimate of the liklihood of a voice match.  The
worst results would be inconclusive.


This implies that the contingency described in clause 11b of the draft
contract could not arise -- it could not be proven that the speaker is not
Himmler – and hence, irrespective of the outcome, I would be obliged to pay
half of the costs. Indeed, it seems that the best we could hope for are
varying degrees of inconclusiveness ranging from ‘a high qualitative estimate
of the likelihood of a voice match’ downwards – in other words variants of
the scenario described in clause 11c. I think, therefore, that there is a
strong case for reconsidering the entirety of clause 11. The drafter of the
final contract, working in conjunction with the laboratory chosen to carry
out the test, should contractualize all possible outcomes and indicate which
outcomes would constitute a ‘win’ for me, and which outcomes would constitute
a ‘win’ for the counterparty. We suggest that the basic principle to be
followed here would be that if, in the opinion of the laboratory, the match
is of such a high standard that there can be no reasonable doubt that the
voice is that of Heinrich Himmler, this would constitute a ‘win’ for the
counterparty. Any other result would constitute a ‘win’ for me. If it is
possible to quantify this, then such would reduce the scope for controversy.


CLAUSE 12

This is cited above and, as we have indicated, does not make sense, despite
having been sent to Mr McVay and apparently approved by him.

CLAUSE 13


Any dispute under this contract shall be submitted to binding arbitration by
the American Arbitration
Association, pursuant to their Commercial Arbitration Rules or, at the option
of the party bringing such action,  binding common law arbitration pursuant
to the statutes, rules and practices  within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.  The loser of said arbitration shall bear any costs of
arbitration, including, inter alia, fees paid to the arbitrators, incidental
costs of the arbitration including, inter alia, transcription fees, and the
reasonable attorney's fees of the non-breaching party.  Nizkor and Michael
agree that any decision of this binding arbitration may and shall be reduced
to a judgment in a form
valid under the laws and jurisprudence of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the
Republic of South Africa.  Notification of the decision to initiate the
arbitration process shall be by mailing a notice of such intent to the other
party or his representative.


We are not happy with this. I am not familiar with Pennsylvania law, nor
would it be easy for me, as a resident of Great Britain, to obtain counsel to
advise on such law. The costs of travel to, and accommodation in,
Pennsylvania, and the fact that I would be obliged to be away from my
business for a lengthy period of time, would make this process onerous.

CLAUSE 14


The parties agree that the validity and construction of this agreement and of
the rights and duties
of the parties shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that the jurisdiction for any such
litigation not subject to binding arbitration will be the U.S. District
Courts which shall be the sole jurisdiction for the resolution of any such
dispute.   Nizkor and Michael agree that any decision of a court of the
designated jurisdiction,  may and shall be reduced to a judgment in a form
valid under the laws and jurisprudence of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the

Republic of South Africa.


The above reservation concerning clause 13 applies equally to clause 14.

CLAUSE 15


For the purposes of this agreement notice to a designated agent of a party
shall constitute notice to a
party.


In my case notice should be communicated directly to myself, unless this is
subsequently waived in writing by myself.

CLAUSE 16


This agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the written
consent of the other party to the proposed assignment.  Each party shall
designate one person and/or firm to act as a designated agent.


We do not see the necessity for this clause.

CLAUSE 17


This agreement is indivisible as to all of the rights, duties, and
obligations stated herein.  Breach of
any duty or obligation constitutes a breach of the entire agreement and give
rise to a cause of action for termination or breach of contract as set forth
above.  No partial invalidity of this agreement shall effect the validity and
enforcibility of the remainder of the agreement.


OK, with the reservations expressed above.

CLAUSE 18


This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
concerning the voice print
analysis of the speech made by Heinrich Himmler in Posen in October, 1943, as
preserved on tape at the U.S. National Archives.  This agreement supercedes
any prior written or oral agreements between the parties regarding the
subject matter of this agreement and contains all covenants and
agreements between the parties with regard to the voice print analysis of the
speech made by Heinrich Himmler in Posen in October, 1943.  Each party to
this agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises,
or agreements, oral or written, have been made by any party
or any person authorized to negotiate for any party, other than those
embodied in this agreement, and that no other agreement, statement, or
promise not embodied in this agreement shall be binding or valid upon the
parties to this agreement.


First, we need to designate the speech precisely -- the one made on 4
October.

Second, as indicated above, the analysis would need to go beyond voiceprint
analysis.

Third, the final sentence appears superfluous and could cause complications.
Suggest delete.



4. Concluding comments

Mr Gordon McFee, a prolific pro-Nizkor poster, appears to be contemplating a
career as a prophet. In a Usenet posting of 29 March 1999 (Message ID.
<371349c3.17259386@news3.ibm.net>), ‘Mystic Meg’ McFee informed me that he
foresaw the following response from me:


it won't be a signature or the offer of a signature.  It will be a long
treatise, that I doubt you will post,
establishing at least 10 "conditions", all of which will be impossible to
meet, and all of which you will insist have to be met, or you will decline
the challenge and declare it null and void.  You are so
predictable, David.

Remember folks: you read it here first.


Mr McFee would do well to stick to his civil service career, to put away his
crystal ball, and to leave prophecy to the likes of Psychic Psmith. I have
not laid down any conditions. I have posted the response in full in
alt.revisionism and have challenged Mr McVay to do likewise on the Nizkor
website. I do not insist that any conditions ‘have to be’ met – everything is
open to discussion and a collaborative approach. I have not even provided an
‘alternative’ contract, thus depriving Yale F Edeiken of the opportunity to
accuse me of ‘changing’ the basic terms. I hope that the suggestions that I
have made will be seen as constructive, and that they will enable Yale F
Edeiken to move swiftly to prepare a document that Mr McVay and I can sign on
Mr McVay’s visit to England or shortly thereafter.

The money is in the bank. My pen is poised. Where are you, Mr McVay?


(Dr) David E Michael
18 April 1999

Posted in alt.revisionism
E-mailed to Yale F Edeiken and Kenneth McVay OBC



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.