Still Holded Up in TX

I continue to rewrite my epistolary memoir into a more inclusive historical novel. I am posting two letters. My question to all of you is this: Are both of this letters original, both AI written, or is one original and the other AI- if so which is which;, how would you know? Those of you who have a copy of my prvious books will be able to ascertain the answer. However I ask you to refrain from searching and base your response on only the two letters below. Use the comment section at the end of this post to register your answer. I will post the answer next weekend. (07/3-4/2025) in the comment section.
————————————-
Letter One

Ralph H. Peazant
Counsellor at Law
Paris

22 March 1954

Dear Mr. Freeman,

Further to our telephone conversation of some days ago, I have investigated your matrimonial status and find that an action for divorce has been commenced by your wife, but which is dormant for the moment. However should you be able to come to Paris I believe that a final judgment might be possible, service is necessary on you.

As your wife was plaintive in the action she has asked the court for custody of the child and received the same. Please let us have your instructions.
- Yours faithfully,
Ralph Peazant
—————————————-
Letter Two
24 March 1954
Frankfurt am Main

Mr. Ralph Peazant
Avocat à la Cour
Rue de Rivoli
Paris, France

Dear Mr. Peazant

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 22nd of March, enclosing a copy of the “Ordonnance de non-conciliation et de compétence” issued by the Tribunal de la Seine in September 1953. I must admit I was both surprised and disappointed to learn of this document only now—six months after its issuance.

This court order fundamentally alters the posture of the case. The French court has accepted jurisdiction and has officially ruled out the possibility of reconciliation—facts which, I believe, should have been known and addressed in our legal strategy long before now.

I do not understand how this escaped your notice, nor how Sophie was able to proceed in court without my knowledge or presence. Had this been brought to my attention earlier, it would have informed my filings here in the United States, where I have already initiated proceedings regarding both the divorce and the custody of our son.

As you know, Danny is now permanently in the United States. His schooling has begun, and I am working diligently to provide him with a stable home. The French order may now give Sophie legal grounds to press her own claims, which could complicate not only the divorce but also custody matters that I had hoped were nearing resolution.

I ask for a full explanation of the delay and a summary of what legal implications this development now carries for my case. What immediate steps do you advise to counter or mitigate this court order? Can we still contest jurisdiction, or must we now adapt our position to the French court’s lead?

Given the sensitive nature of the proceedings, I trust you will treat this matter with the urgency it demands. I await your prompt response.

Sincerely,

P. Frank Freeman