Spoliation cites

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 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.

And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents.

In any case, you are backpeddling like mad.  Having dug yourself into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of existing laws and courts precedents is 
none too hot.

What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into something like your original claim.

How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass?

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i
     4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86