Correspondence to Peter Walsh today regarding his admission to collusion.

Dear Peter Walsh,                                                               April 6, 2006

Thank you for responding to my letter of April 5^th, 2006 and at least properly dating your newest correspondence the appropriate date. You may have had a temporary lapse of coherency yesterday or you just made another mistake. As for staff of the 17^th Circuit Court, they must only talk to you, because they have made no such contact with me via telephone, email, or postal email regarding your collusion. They do have my email because they frequently check out websites they believe are mine regarding other matters not related to the case at hand.

I want to thank you also for confirming that you have engaged in collusive conduct with the Judge’s employee in an effort to get something on the Judge’s calendar using back channel measures. I suspect that you have had other discussions with the Judge’s employees in your other matters backchannel as well, in an effort to give the appearance of due process where there are actually predetermined outcomes. Your conduct simply disgusts me Peter. However, your admission is appreciative for another matter that I am dealing with regarding the conduct of the Kent County Friend of the Court and the rest of their County and how as an agent of the court they conduct themselves inappropriately. You may or may not be involved in that issue, however I now am aware that you possess certain documents that I will be seeking from you in the short future, and you may be needed as a witness as well. Thank you for your expected cooperation.

Your position regarding the Motion for Summary Disposition should be abundantly clear when you submit a timely answer. Please do so pursuant to court rule and spare me your dribble.

Anything else that I have not responded to shall be deemed categorically denied and not worth my time to address with you at this time.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/ /s/

Lary Holland