What is this site?
This is maggiedesmond.net, a site that explores, for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, prosecutable crimes that a particular Maggie Desmond has committed or is involved in and that pursues positive societal goals in connection with the protected purposes in question.
The prosecutable crimes referred to here include, but are not necessarily limited to, the beating of women by men, sexual misconduct with children, abuse of process, extortion, threats of physical violence intended to terrorize (this crime can carry prison sentences of over a decade in length), DDoS (a highly prosecutable violation of CFAA), and stalking.
The Maggie Desmond whose prosecutable crimes are, or will be, discussed here is the one who is reportedly using SSN 571-80-5479. However, that SSN may or may not have originated with Maggie's husband, a man named Frank G. Desmond.
If a statement is made under oath, in a context that mandates the usual penalties for perjury, to the effect that the SSN listed above is Frank's and not Maggie's, this analysis will at least temporarily retract the implied assertion that the SSN is Maggie's.
This site is under construction. Links to relevant material will be added in due course.
Subsequent to the addition of further context, parties associated with Maggie Desmond will be asked, as part of a process of “gathering information” for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, to comment on Maggie Desmond's background, bringing, moral sense or lack thereof, and other factors that may explain her enthusiasm for and dedication to crimes such as wife-beating and sexual misconduct with children.
The term “gathering information” comes directly from a pair of gag-order legal cases that ran from 2012 to 2013 in which Maggie Desmond committed at least one prosecutable crime in an effort to conceal crimes of other types.
200313. International Women's What?
Happy Friday the 13th!
This post is the start, for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, of a separate Maggie Desmond section.
Content won't be fully segregated by person. But per-person sections will help to keep drill-down information and detailed analyses organized.
Recently, we've had International Women's day (March 08), Harvey Weinstein's sentencing, and other events which were supposed to remind us that women are precious, etc., and not there to be beaten up or otherwise abused.
But there are wealthy women out there, attorneys and paralegals in
particular, who are fine with a man's fist smashing into a woman's
face. They cry about it all the way to the bank.
Jim Kiraly, a violent wife abuser and guilty of sexual misconduct related to children, prepares to pass away of natural causes at unit 21B, 636 Atterdag Road, Solvang, CA unless he's skipped town again as he's done in the past.
The attorneys and paralegals who fought to impose a gag order related to Jim's conduct towards his wife and children are fine with that.
These people trust that Jim's death will close one of the uglier rich person legal stories out there, a story that dwarfs the Jeffrey Epstein case in some respects due to the involvement of some of the biggest names in the Silicon Valley legal pond.
But the story is unlikely to end with Jim Kiraly's death and his meeting with his new master below and his employment as lubrication for that master's erectus mentula.
Chris Burdick of the SCCBA, as the kids say, I'm talking to you, girl. :)
But, really, the point applies more to Maggie Desmond of Hoge Fenton and to the female attorneys at that firm.
The following information is disclosed for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws.
The purposes in question have been linked to numerous times since the Ms. Desmond that is of interest to society in general, and to district attorneys in particular, committed a prosecutable crime more significant than rape in 2012.
However, here's the link, just for fun, once again:
The short version of the situation is that two 2012 to 2013 legal cases intended to extort agreement to a gag order entitle me to "gather information", a term used formally in the cases, related to multiple parties for the legitimate and reasonable purposes documented at the link.
I'm entitled, as well, to disclose information obtained for the related purpose of gathering additional information for the legitimate and reasonable purposes in question.
I proceed in these endeavors cheerfully and with enthusiasm related to the positive social goals that a review by society of the decisions of the parties involved will promote.
Ms. Desmond's SSN, disclosed for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, is reportedly 571-80-5479. However, a man named Frank G. Desmond, confirmed to be this Ms. Desmond's husband, is said to use the same SSN.
It isn't clear what's up with that; there's no such thing as a husband-wife SSN. It's probably a clerical error.
Also odd, the same SSN is associated with somebody who died in 1993. But this issue isn't too uncommon. There are at least three people, for example, who are using my brother Ken Kiraly's SSN (573-45-7687). This can happen due to simple assignment errors.
It gets better, though. A woman named Elena or Eliana Berry or Barry uses the same SSN as this Maggie Desmond.
And this Maggie Desmond may possess or be using up to two additional SSNs or others may be representing themselves as her and using those SSNs to do so.
Surely people should have faith in the accuracy and robustness of the system.
Ms. Desmond has a possible but unconfirmed DOB of March 24, 1949, possible but unconfirmed phone numbers of 408-219-5178, 408-374-7616, and/or 408-507-7616, and a possible but unconfirmed residence address, noted for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, of 1491 Hack Ave, Campbell, CA 95008.
There's some irony in the name of the street "Hack". It's reminiscent, of course, of “Hacker”. Perhaps Maggie recalls the relevance of the term.
We'll come back to this point.
Technical note: Yes, it's perfectly legal to disclose SSNs online — provided that it's done for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws. No, CCPA doesn't apply in this context of the gag-order cases.
Does anybody question that the standard has been met in regards to any Hoge Fenton or SCCBA employee or associate who was involved in the 2012 gag-order cases or who has been involved with the gag order on an ex post facto basis?
Attorneys and others: There are, of course, strict rules and the details vary based on the States involved. Feel free to contact me to receive notes related to the subject. Remarks related to the accuracy of the notes in question are welcome.
Relatives include an older Frank G. Desmond (age 78), a younger man with the same name (age 40), and Heather and Adrienne Desmond, of the right ages (44 and 40) to be Maggie Desmond's daughters or daughters-in-law.
The older Frank G. Desmond is confirmed, based on property records, to be this Maggie Desmond's husband. This would make the younger Frank G. Desmond this Maggie's son or step-son. But it isn't clear where the two younger women fit in.
Adrienne Desmond and the younger Frank G. Desmond were apparently born one month apart (DOBs are said to be May 13, 1979 and an unspecified day in June 1979).
If the DOBs are correct, they can't be siblings by birth. So, who, exactly, is Adrienne?
The younger Frank could be this Maggie's son and Adrienne could be his wife as opposed to his sister. But the evidence seems to contradict this.
Or the three younger Desmonds, Frank, Adrienne, and Heather, could be siblings if Frank Jr. is a step-son or the DOBs are incorrect.
As a data point, the younger Frank seems to be a handyman with just a H.S. education. This isn't confirmed, but it's a possibility that needs to be checked for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws.
It isn't odd to skip college. These days, college simply isn't affordable for many people. In fact, I advise young people to skip it if the government loans are the only way. Those things are scams and nobody should go near them.
However, public records suggest that the younger Frank is on good terms with the older Frank and Maggie. In particular, he's living with them presently — at age 40 — or has lived with them in recent years.
Add to that the fact that the older Frank is well-off presently — he seems to own real estate in Illinois — and Maggie is certainly no scrub-woman.
Finances might have been different 2 decades ago. But my sense is that they probably weren't a bar to college. That period, the late 1980s to the early 1990s, was before costs skyrocketed to the current ridiculous levels.
So, it's not clear why Frank Jr. skipped college — if he did, in fact, do so. That is, once again, unconfirmed.
To be clear, this detail, the part about skipping college, is probably inconsequential. But I tried to explain to Maggie, 8 years ago, what I am and how I do what I do. This is part of the same thing.
No, I never had the ability to simply snap my fingers and materialize Gmail passwords.
That was something which Maggie and Michael tried to suggest in the Pleadings, but, as with everything else, they never made an allegation.
People have asked me, “What were the allegations?” But there were no allegations that legally justified the original filings.
I don't mean that it was a “he said-she said” situation. I mean that there were no relevant allegations.
But the cases were never going to be permitted to get to the stage where I'd be allowed to point that out.
The idea was to use illegal Discovery demands to drain my life savings until I agreed to sign a gag order related to wife-beating and sexual misconduct related to children.
It was actual criminal abuse of process. Not just fudging the rules.
Michael and Maggie should have been in prison years ago. But that and 50 cents won't buy a newspaper.
I do have, regardless, a minor but definite skill. It manifested at age 6. I buried it. If I'd spent the decades working on it instead, 2012 to 2013 would have gone differently.
Not that I didn't manage to f*ck Michael Bonetto's clients. And if I'd gone public immediately with the deal that John Perrott had cut with Michael, I think that I could actually have gotten the two of them disbarred.
Disbarment happens, like, once in a million cases. But I think that I could have done it.
Or at least I could done something. But I was too passive due to the part about my life being shattered by a crime that I found it impossible to comprehend at the time. Oh, well.
I lost my home of 25 years, though. Most of my possessions, too. That was a wake-up call.
I did research and learned that what Maggie and Michael had done actually was a prosecutable crime. I was beaten up by transients and had to face a life of that type in middle age.
I started to evolve.
I learned that attorneys, the abusive type, tend to go so far over the line that they're vulnerable from a legal perspective. They assume that ordinary citizens aren't able to research even the most basic legal issues.
Michael Bonetto did this at one point. He claimed that a particular law prevented me from disclosing parts of the gag-order cases publicly.
Lowly non-attorney or not, I managed to embarrass him slightly on that point. But I doubt that the issue had his attention more than momentarily.
Over the years, I've learned how to address this sort of thing more effectively. Would you like to phone some of the attorneys that I've dealt with?
I'd start with Rebecca because that story is funny. She faced 30 days in jail. Not the usual State Bar penalty.
The usual State Bar penalty for minor transgressions is to offer attorneys a nice glass of wine served with fellatio or cunnilingus. But I documented the situation and noted that embarrassment, at the very least, was a more likely outcome in this case.
The attorney literally quit her job and ran. I didn't expect
that. I phoned her and asked,
“What's the matter, Rebecca? Cat got your tongue?” She
seemed less inclined to make threats subsequently.
Feel free to ask me for that attorney's phone number. Tell her that the Old Coder sent you. That I know she returned to her job later. And that it'll be best, in a legitimate and reasonable sense that is protected under U.S. laws, if she doesn't return to behavior that is not only prosecutable but smug and dismissive of the rights of U.S. citizens.
If you like, I'll tell you how I dealt with that attorney's replacement and offer you his phone number as well.
That one was a little boastful at first. He talked about how he argued cases in front of State Supreme Courts. Or SCOTUS. I don't recall.
He seemed a litle quieter after I sent some details to every member of the Board of his 37-office law firm and noted the embarrassment that his actions might lead to. But I don't know, for sure, that my letters were even read.
Regardless, I'm not as passive as I used to be, folks. :)
No, I wouldn't be able to “take” most attorneys as a Pro Per. But here's the thing: The Law isn't about the Law. What attorneys do to ordinary people, including their own clients, is bully, lie, cheat, and steal.
By the way, have I mentioned that John Perrott and Michael Bonetto, the latter a "rising star" attorney at Hoge Fenton, cut a deal that was intended to defraud Michael's clients?
In short, a lot of attorneys cross the line. It becomes second nature, part of their identity. They can't help it, because they don't even think about it.
And, when they do this, it's possible, in a legitimate and reasonable sense that is protected under U.S. laws, to f*ck them.
I've considered writing a book, "How to F*ck Attorneys", and asking reputable attorneys to offer suggestions. If it's off the record, my guess is that some of them will be willing to comment.
That's a serious proposal. If you're an attorney, take the possibility
of helping to f*ck the segment of your profession that needs to
be f*cked under advisement.
In regard to the Frank G. Desmond Jr. college issue, details matter.
I'm careless. I miss too many details. I need them to be able to see the truth. It's not possible to tell in advance what's important.
I don't see as much about Heather as I do about the other two.
Heather is known both as Heather Desmond and as Heather Inada. So, there's that.
As Heather Inada, Heather is related to a George Inada. She's involved, additionally, in a business with him under both names. George is probably Heather's husband as opposed to her brother, but this is unconfirmed.
Update: O.K., stuff is confirmed. Hoge-Fenton's staff includes an Andrienne Desmond who is believed to be my Maggie Desmond's daughter, daughter-in-law, or relative of other type.
This means that the two Frank Desmonds are related to my Maggie Desmond as well. The elder Frank is confirmed to be her husband and the younger one is probably her son or step-son.
It'll be, based on this information, a legitimate and reasonable step to communicate, for the purposes that have been documented, with third parties in Campbell or other geographic areas or personal contexts, such as Churches or advocacy or social groups, that are associated with this Maggie Desmond.
Communication with parties of such types who happen to find this page in Google or Bing is hereby requested.
You, the fine people, at Hoge Fenton in San Jose, CA, obtained a sense of how I prefer to approach things in 2012. The short version, folks, is that I aim for meticulous.
I *told* you that I'd sought the advice of the Pismo Beach police before I sent the violent abuser Jim Kiraly of Solvang, CA, SSN 038-20-8134, postcards telling the abuser that his threats wouldn't stop work on a book.
A book that wasn't even an issue.
I was never going to talk about the events that Jim hired you to conceal, Michael Bonetto of Hoge Fenton, Maggie Desmond of Hoge Fenton, and others to be named, for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, in the decades that remain to us.
So, the whole thing was for nothing. Except for the six figures that I was told you'd gotten out of my father and my brother.
The Court refused even to be involved with a settlement and told you to get the t*rd off of its plate. That was an awkward moment, I'm sure, but it was just a moment. You cried, as noted previously, all the way to the bank.
When Jim Kiraly threatened me subsequently and engaged the services of a black-hat to DDoS me, hey, how could you have predicted that?
I understand and am sympathetic to the plight of busy and hard-working attorneys. I'm the kind and understanding type.
It's important, for the aforementioned legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, that confirmation of identity take place.
Is the Ms. Desmond in question the one who was employed by Hoge Fenton and who committed a crime more significant than rape of a person, a crime that amounted to the rape of the truth and of the Law?
Update: Based on Adrienne Desmond's employment by Hoge Fenton, the answer is "yes".
The Adrienne Desmond who is employed by Hoge Fenton — Adrienne Marie Desmond — attended Westmont High School in Campbell, one of this Maggie Desmond's cities.
But, even without that point, what are the odds that two Maggie Desmonds in the same small region would be closely associated with two Adrienne Desmonds?
Working backwards from Adrienne produces the result that the two Maggies share the same full name or seem to do so: Margaret Webster Desmond.
B-I-N-G-O was his name-O.
So this is my Maggie, the one who told me that she didn't know what to say to me. Well, Maggie, you've had time to think about it. Have the words come to you yet?
Say, you know that the violent abuser Jim Kiraly never denied a thing under oath, don't you? But, of course, Hoge Fenton's priority was to ensure that Jim never needed to do so.
Maggie, you wrote or contributed to the Pleadings, didn't you? Are you able to confirm or contradict this point?
The Pleadings are a funny story. I've written about them before, but I'd think that I'll approach it differently in the future.
I'll send annotated copies to citizens and ask them for their take on the documents. And their take on the type of person who'd submit them with a straight face.
Tell the truth, Maggie. The Pleadings were a prosecutable crime, in and of themselves, weren't they?
You know that I was never going to talk about Jim's fist, my mother's face, and Jim's conduct towards children, right? That all I wanted was for the enraged, violent, abuser who'd hurt my mother and me to stop threatening me and to go away?
And, most importantly, that you, sweet horror b*tch, were never going to force me to sign a gag order related to Jim Kiraly's fist and his sexual organ?
You know what you've done to abused women and children everywhere, Maggie Desmond of Hoge Fenton, right? But, sure, Happy Birthday.
Haggis Hell asserts the right to use the photo below of Maggie Desmond here and elsewhere. The photo is hereby relicensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Third parties are invited to use and distribute the photo under that license.
Any DMCA action attempted by any party will be contested. Photos hosted overseas aren't subject to DMCA, regardless. Attorneys and others are expected to go through the procedures that the host country has agreed to use.
On Friday afternoon, March 13, 2020, I emailed Adrienne Desmond to try to nail down some of the loose points. A copy of the letter follows below.
I didn't have a confirmed business email address for Adrienne, though I did have 2 unconfirmed personal addresses. I sent the letter to the unconfirmed addresses and to a few of her associates at Hoge Fenton and requested forwarding.
ATTN: Hoge Fenton (including Shev Rush, i.e., P.R.)
I don't see, at first glance, an email address for Adrienne Desmond, apparently a daughter or daughter-in-law of Maggie Desmond in the San Jose office who is employed there as an assistant to her mother or mother-in-law.
Would you therefore be good enough to forward this short inquiry to the younger Ms. Desmond in that office? Oh, and Shev Rush, if you're P.R. for Hoge Fenton, you and I should talk.
The inquiry for Adrienne Desmond is as follows:
Adrienne, good day. I trust that the informal salutation is acceptable as your mother or mother-in-law [and I] are well acquainted. In fact, she's had a significant effect on my life. I'll never forget, honestly, the last words that she said to me.
I'm writing to request clarification of the nature of the professional and familial relationships between Maggie Desmond and yourself. In short, your DOB placed next to the younger Frank Desmond's DOB suggests that the two of you can't be siblings.
But, if that is correct, where do you fit in to the picture?
For context, which you'd obviously need and expect, kindly visit either of the following two identical websites:
One motivating factor for the inquiry is the growing realization on my part that mortality isn't simply a concept. I don't have a lot of time to waste.
My abuser Jim, the wife-beater that Maggie and, of course Michael Bonetto, are familiar with, isn't expected to last long. That is part of my own realization of the importance of Time. Jim may, in fact, have joined the choir invisible since one of my agents last spoke with him a few months ago.
Jim is going to escape prosecution. And your mother or mother-in-law took from me, not only my life savings, my home of 25 years, and the books that the boy loved, but any realistic chance that I'd be able to get Jim on the stand, even in a limited civil litigation context, before he croaked.
I think it's appropriate that I ask Maggie to expand on her final words to me.
Though she works tirelessly to protect child sexual abusers and wife beaters and to destroy the lives of their victims and so most likely forgets the details of individual cases, her words to me suggested a degree of reflection.
Maggie needs to state what she observed in the reflection. But that's a subject to be discussed with her. In your case, once again and respectfully, who, exactly are you?
Depending on the nature of your two relationships with Maggie, to be clear, I'm entitled to ask you, for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, additional questions related to your perceptions of Maggie's behavior as well as biographical information that may indicate whether Maggie chose to commit a prosecutable crime due to her upbringing or due to genetic factors.
Nature vs. Nurture is a thing, you know. For what it's worth, Jim became what he became due to both issues. His side of the family had been brutal and physically violent for generations, but the part where his father punched his mother through a glass door couldn't have helped.
Say, ask Michael and Maggie for me, how common is this level of abuse of process? I've tried to ask attorneys that I know on a personal basis about this. The one who'd be at the level of your most senior people turned and looked at the curtains. She wasn't able to look at me or respond.
But that doesn't prove that it's common or uncommon. Which is it?
One more thing. I'd like to remind Alison Buchanan, as I do periodically, that she doesn't deserve to be a Judge and that it would be inappropriate for her to move in that direction. It's odd enough that she's presumptuous enough to instruct others on ethics, of all things.
That part ought to be looked into. Aren't there rules about who's allowed to teach ethics? Or do they take just anybody who commits or contributes to actual prosecutable crimes?
Somebody who teaches ethics, and who may even have contributed to the County-level rules, rules that are stricter than at the national level, not only stood by while the rules were raped by Michael Bonetto, she declined even to comment on the role that the guidelines are, or are not, intended to play in the behavior of your firm.
Sure, that's great.
(This was the end of that letter.)
Photo below is of Olga Kerechanko, married name Olga Kmeta, mother to Anatol, Grace, and Eddie Kmeta. Grace married Jim Kiraly, who beat her up and sought a gag order out of fear that the fact would be discussed.
Olga was calm and steadfast. She had a wonderful dry sense of humor. She lived with cancer for decades before it finally took her in 1987. The photo here is probably dated circa 1975 to 1978. At this point, Olga was in her 70s.
I'm not sure of how much Olga knew about Jim's and Grace's marriage. Grace talked to me about everything, up to and including her sexual relations with Jim. But, in all of that, she didn't say much about Olga.
Looking back, that was odd. Grace and Olga seemed to get along fine. But their relationship might have been complicated by the fact that Jim was violent and controlling. It's difficult to imagine them chatting lightly about it over tea.
On Friday evening, March 13, 2020, I sent a follow-up letter primarily to past or present neighbors of Frank and Maggie Desmond.
That letter is pasted below. I've omitted a copy of the earlier letter to Adrienne Desmond, which I included in the letter to the neighbors to provide context.
Recipients included the following past or present neighbors: Susan Gorman, Jaqueline Yamaguchi, Kevin Yamaguchi, and Clark Cardoza. One co-worker, Dianne Bogart, was Cc'd.
Susan Gorman: You seem to be a past next-door neighbor of Frank and Maggie Desmond. I'm writing to ask you to (a) indicate whether Adrienne Desmond is Maggie's daughter or, instead, a daughter-in-law and to (b) tell me what you can about how Maggie views herself.
In the Holocaust, many "Good Germans" considered themselves upright citizens even as they committed crimes that were unimaginable in scale prior to the 20th Century. But prior centuries saw the same things all the way back, on a smaller scale, because denial is what people do and what they are.
Does Maggie stand out as a kind and generous citizen?
If this is the case, if Maggie Desmond is kind and generous, what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that she's committed a prosecutable crime that is more serious than rape and is no more troubled by it than you are when you trim a fingernail?
It's consistent, at least, with the theory that most people are pack animals, content to nuzzle the other rats in the nest pleasantly but eager to rip apart passerby rats because that is what rats do.
In short, we can say that people, as a rule, lack ethics or morality in any true sense of the word and that Maggie's behavior and the behavior of her associates is simply an example of that fact.
That conclusion obviously has implications, but it's trite. All that I've got with that is a picture which, relevant or not, most people will simply ignore as they bumble about their automaton ways.
If I'm going to use Maggie in a productive way, if something positive can be made to come out of the multiple prosecutable crimes that she's involved in -- including wife beating, DDoS, extortion, sexual misconduct with children, and physical threats as well as the crime of abuse of process that she and her associates committed directly -- I need to go deeper with this analysis.
Tell me what you can about Maggie's upbringing and religious beliefs. Or what you yourself believe about ethics and morality and the fact that the typical person practices neither; the fact that anything which appears to be altruism or kindness is usually genetically programmed pack behavior.
Jaqueline Yamaguchi: See the remarks below to Kevin Yamaguchi, who I gather is your son or relative of other type.
Kevin Yamaguchi: You seem to reside just a few doors from Maggie Desmond. However, you're about half her age. You've probably seen her but don't know her well. OTOH You live with your parents or another elderly couple. If the story and the purposes involved are interesting, ask your parents to comment on Maggie. The purposes in question are listed at the link which is provided further down.
Clark Cardoza: You reside on the same block as Maggie. Offer such information as you can. Of course, neighbors don't actually know neighbors in the modern world, and you may never even have met Maggie. However, the possibility doesn't render this letter pointless. It's part of a complete picture. One must cross the T's and dot the I's.
The following is a letter that was sent to Adrienne Desmond earlier today. Note: The text contains a typographical correction and should be considered the latest updated copy. The letter to Adrienne provides additional context, including a link that itself provides a link to a list of legitimate and reasonable purposes.
Attorneys and others are advised to review the purposes list before electing to comment in a peremptory manner. As it happens, the remarks about Maggie committing a crime that is both prosecutable and more significant than rape aren't hyperbole. The woman did exactly that.
I'd like to ask you a related question.
If the system is designed so that most wealthy and powerful people not only don't face consequences for doing whatever they wish to do, if the truth is that it's designed so that consequences aren't even theoretically possible through legal actions — the Jeffrey Epstein case notwithstanding — is it possible to address the crimes committed by wealthy and powerful people in a productive manner?
If you feel that it's possible, what, exactly, is the avenue that you'd like to point to? Let me guess; your answer will be the pablum that we feed to children, the nonsense that I, as an especially naive child, believed for a lifetime.
Maggie Desmond and her friends sacrificed my life on an altar that was half a century tall. An altar dedicated to the worship of wealth and violence; in particular, the wife-beaters that Maggie fights for. My life was worth more than the pile of dust that remains. I'll make something positive come of this.
Get the facts before you presume to judge.
The Friday evening March 13, 2020 letter to Maggie Desmond's neighbors included a copy, at this point, of the letter that I'd sent to Adrienne Desmond earlier in the day.
The copy is omitted here as text that is identical save for one typographical correction is posted higher up.