I am entirely unsure on how to respond to this, but I'll give it a try. First, I'd like to state clearly that while WMF legal department did ask to be kept informed no assistance was given to me beyond a simple, "it is probably in your best interest to take legal counsel with you when you are questioned".

The feeling I got from the responses received was that it was entirely my responsibility to procure adequate counsel. A feeling that was only heightened by not only the refusal to ask WMF employees to speak about Wikipedia's very basic rules but also by the request to stop copying a few friends that are also WMF employees on the emails.

In fact I was told on no uncertain terms that due to the case taking place in Brazil WMF and its employees could not "directly participate in the process". Leaving a seemly empty promise to "work behind the scenes to support" me. My response to these statements remained unanswered, all of witch contributed to my statement that I did contact WMF's legal department and got no assistance from it.

Furthermore, I do not even see in you statement, Mr. Brigham, anything that would speak to the contrary. What I do see are justifications on why the correct procedure is to not give a person in my situation any assistance, primarily due to me not being (yet) cited as a defendant on a legal action.

Of course, WMF is not answerable criminally to this situation as I am; and the license is very clear in trying to remove all civil liability from the foundation as well. I did however, expect a higher standard from WMF and I was undoubtedly disappointed by the lack of assistance.

If my view of the situation is mistaken and WMF in fact intends on assisting me in this case I offer my deepest apologies for the misunderstanding.

With warm regards,

Chico Venancio (discussão) 22h01min de 2 de dezembro de 2012 (UTC)

ps: Pretendo traduzir a colocação original e minha resposta em breve (se ninguém o fizer antes).