It's written on Supreme Court paper--from the "Chambers of Justice John Paul
Stevens." Written on 1 July 2002, it is addressed to Streitz. Here's what it
says, "Thank you for sending me a copy of 'Oxford', a most interesting and
impressive pieces of work. Although I learned a great deal from it, and find
your central thesis fascinating, it seems unlikely to me that so many people
have been mistaken about the date of Edward de Vere's birth. You do, however,
provide strong additional evidence supporting the Oxfordian position on the
authorship issue. Sincerely, John Paul Stevens.
Even the signature is a laugh: it is much more illegible and compressed than any
of Shakespeare's, and I swear that "Stevens" looks like "A hole." The "S"
definitely looks like a capital "A." A space follows, then what is supposed to
be a "t" but with an attempt at a cross that doesn't reach it, so it looks very
much like an "h." Undecipherable letters follow, but one goes up high enough to
pass for an "l."
The body of the letter is more certainly symptomatic of an a-hole. Note that he
thinks Streitz provided "strong additional evidence supporting the Oxfordian
position on the authorship issue"; Streitz, of course, provided no evidence
supporting the Oxfordian position. Interesting, too, that the justice found
Streitz's central thesis fascinating, but I guess we all do--and I suppose one
can assume that he called Streitz's book is impressive simply to be nice. But
what about his lack of enthusiasm for Streitz's thesis on the grounds that "it
seems unlikely . . . that so many people have been mistaken about the date of
Edward de Vere's birth?!" Millions could have been mistaken about who wrote the
plays of Shakespeare over the course of around two decades, but the few hundred
who could have known or cared about de Vere's date of birth would not likely
have been mistaken about it.
Amazing how the minds of wacks work.
> As a member of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, I'm on Streitz's mailing
> list. Hence, I got his latest ad for his book. A copy of the Stevens
> was in it
> It's written on paper--from the "Chambers of Justice John Paul
> Stevens." Written on 1 July 2002, it is addressed to Streitz. Here's
> says, "Thank you for sending me a copy of 'Oxford', a most interesting and
> impressive pieces of work. Although I learned a great deal from it, and
> your central thesis fascinating, it seems unlikely to me that so many
> have been mistaken about the date of Edward de Vere's birth. You do,
> provide strong additional evidence supporting the Oxfordian position on
> authorship issue. Sincerely, John Paul Stevens.
> I suppose one
> can assume that he called Streitz's book is impressive simply to be nice.
> what about his lack of enthusiasm for Streitz's thesis on the grounds that
> seems unlikely . . . that so many people have been mistaken about the date
> Edward de Vere's birth?!" Millions could have been mistaken about who
> plays of Shakespeare over the course of around two decades, but the few
> who could have known or cared about de Vere's date of birth would not
> have been mistaken about it.
> Amazing how the minds of wacks work.
<<A naval officer assigned to a code-breaking team from 1942 to 1945. Some
of Stevens's critics believe his emphasis on fact, context, and balance
sabotages the higher calling of the Court of providing principled, moral
leadership for the legal system and the nation--"legitimizing nascent
aspirations [and] reinvigorating dormant ideals," as one put it. Further,
his irrepressible habit of writing more concurring and dissenting opinions
than anyone else on the Court, most years, has disturbed those who favor
Court unity. They cite cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), in
which the members of the Court set differences aside and joined in support
of one plain, powerful statement in defense of school desegregation. To
Stevens's admirers, the independence of mind, the rooting for facts and
meaning, the imaginative insights, and the assumption that neither life nor
law is simple, offer a fresh look at society's problems as an alternative to
old legal labels and familiar solutions.>>
> Paul Streitz (pseudonym for John PAUL STevens?) has probably already posted
> letter he got about his book from Justice Stevens, but I just came across it
> a pile I've mail I've gotten over the past few weeks and hadn't had time to
> open. As a member of the Shakespeare Oxford Society, I'm on Streitz's
> list. Hence, I got his latest ad for his book. A copy of the Stevens letter
> was in it. It's hilarious.
Oddly enough, even Oxfordians seem not to hold Mr. Streitz's book in
especially high esteem. Indeed, even among members of the Shakespeare
Fellowship, which Dave Kathman aptly characterized recently as "the
wack-job splinter group which broke off from the Shakespeare-Oxford
Society over a variety of issues, but mainly the Prince Tudor 'theory'
-- those in the Fellowship (including Roger Stritmatter and, I believe,
Dan Wright) are sympathetic to the Prince Tudor idea and think it
deserves to be investigated more, while those remaining in the SOS think
it's idiocy which makes Oxfordians look bad," Mr. Streitz's book does
not seem to enjoy universal acclaim, a state of affairs that Mr. Streitz
must find galling.
Intrigued by Dave Kathman's post, I visited the Fellowship's online
discussion forum out of curiosity:
It is indeed amusing. Among the more entertaining posts was a recent
one from a participant identified as "Anonymous"; it reads as follows:
"Most organizations eventually wind up most promoting the interests
of those at the top of the organization and exclude those with whom
they disagrees [sic].
[Has anyone guessed the author's identity yet on purely stylistic
"It is nice to see the Shakespeare Fellowship following the laws
of organizational behavior. To wit, Roger and the SF have promoted
his dissertation both on the SF website and by offering it as a
promotion item for signing up with the SF fellowship. All well and
good. But need the Roger [sic]
["The Roger"? I've heard Robert Bruce called "the Bruce" and Donald
Trump called "the Donald," but I had no idea that popular adulation of
Dr. Stritmatter had reached such a feVER pitch among Oxfordians, even
among those fringe Oxfordians of the Fellowship. In view of another
familiar sense of the word "roger," this choice is as unfortunate as if
intimates of Richard Nixon addressed him as "the Dick" -- if nothing
else, "Anonymous" exhibits exceedingly poor taste.]
"...and the SF exclude other Oxfordian authors? Here is the SF
"Yet somehow, perhaps it is a shortage of webpage space, there
is no listing for Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I, nor is there
any web listing or connection for The Shakespeare Conspiracy with
Sir Derek Jacobi.
Of course, the identity of "Anonymous" was never in much doubt, if only
on stylistic grounds. "Anonymous" follows up his post with another one,
"Sorry for the grammer [sic] errors, I tried to edit my post,
but pressed the wrong button because I could not figure out
which button to press. I guessed wrong...."
Although this post is signed "PFS," its content as well as its style
(not to mention its display of incompetence) would leave little doubt
concerning the identity of its author, even if it were unsigned.
Mr. Streitz is soundly rebuked in a followup by "Bassanio," who
appears on the basis of his idiosyncratic style and vocabulary to be Dr.
Stritmatter (or "the Roger," as Mr. Streitz would have it) for
Anonymous's embarrassing public attack upon the Fellowship. (As is
usual among Oxfordians, there is an open public discussion group and a
"members only" group restricted to dues-paying members.) "Bassanio"
"Paul, you seem to have done a rather good job of promoting your
own work yourself. You also have a well-deserved reputation of
behaving like a ten ton bull in a China shop, as illustrated by
this gratuitous public attack on the Shakespeare Fellowship."
Evidently "Bassanio" is familiar with Mr. Streitz's hilarious e-mail
If you're a member of the S.O.S. purely for entertainment, Bob, I
suspect that you would REALLY enjoy the Shakespeare Fellowship. This
seems even more likely if your interest in the S.O.S. is actuated not by
mere amusement but by a professional interest in abnormal psychology.