JTT wrote:contrex wrote:More JTT silliness.
More Contrex unable to discuss the pertinent language issues.
I see some measure of independent adjudication is called for here.
The bench finds contrex's remark pertinent and helpful.
JTT's remark was arch, unnecessarily disputatious, and compounded by an attempt at cover-up.
The bench finds for contrex in this case, with costs awarded against JTT.