>>thomas+Jc
I see this attitude a lot where legal is involved (which is a lot of places). It's a very peculiar sort of "if this then that" which seems to subvert normal human communication. E.g. in this case, a standard human train of thought would be that, because one of the reasons given for not pursuing it
is funding, the EFF might offer to fund this person, who,
circumstances now being different, might then agree to be the defendant. Now maybe there is a problem with that, but my point is that your response
seems to choose not to acknowledge it. I don't think it's malicious - I think there is just something about the way legal works that trains people to think and speak in this slightly non-human way.