Spoliation cites

[Sandy Sandfort]

Poor stupid James wrote:

> If you are making claims about
> what the law might become in
> future, your qualifications for
> undestanding laws and court
> precedents are irrelevant.

No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes
educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are
NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents.  You cannot
identify a trend without examining history.  This is not a touch concept;
there is an almost exact analogy in studying mutations in diseases.  (Insert
Santayana quote here.)

Are you just dull or simply afraid to back down when you are wrong?


 S a n d y