Thank you, Ron! There are indeed two sides to every story. I do not know either of them, and neither does anyone who has posted to this thread so far. Just because you read it on the Internet does not make it true. I agree with Joe Offer that having this posted anonymously makes this thread's existence even more egregious.

What I DO know is that the "press release" has been widely circulated on folk-music-related Internet lists, without a date, contact person, or contact phone number. I am the public relations director of a major national association. Rule 1 of PR: every press release should have date, contact person, and contact phone number so that interested parties can verify its content. The fact that these are missing raises immediate red flags. Ron's information that the release was circulated by the plaintiffs' lawyer makes me VERY suspicious that someone is trying to make this into a cause celebre, rather than properly allowing the justice system to decide who, if anyone, is at fault.

Matters currently in litigation are things that the immediately involved parties will probably not be discussing--and properly should not.

And I agree with Kendall. Statements made by any of us on this thread, if they turn out not to be true, could be considered libel. This is dangerous territory. Nuff said, I hope.    Kathy