Lee Hollaar wrote: [...] > The short version can be summed up by this sentence from the opinion: > "This does not assist Williams, however, because his legal theory is > faulty substantively."
EASTERBROOK's "quick look" (or rather utterly drunken) interpretation of Wallace legal theory (note that it's Williams legal theory not Wallace legal theory he's talking about :-) ) is certainly faulty substantively, I agree. To me it appears that EASTERBROOK invented a theory (derivative of Wallace legal theory) and ruled himself on its validity affirming that it's faulty. How fascinating. But that's not what Wallace paid 455 bucks for. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
