John VanSickle wrote:
> That's easy.  You pretend the law requires "interpretation," and issue 
> the interpretation that fits what you wish the law said.

Why would it be in front of the judge if it didn't require interpretation?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message