>>1571602 (lb)

wrt

>>1571572 (also lb)

wrt

>>1571532 (ibid)

anon, i did read your schtick a couple of times. I am a lawfag and your lines of reasoning are basically legit. the formatting hinders because it looks like an A-student shill's perfect formatting and that emphasis makes it look like tabloid or advertising, not a legal presentation. Can you communicate the same ideas clearly without formatting?

If you're right, cool beans, there is no doubt a platoon of lawfags working every angle. You illustrate the key challenge to parallel construction: how to get evidence admitted. Myself, hoping that WL will simply dump it all before it's obsolete. Is it usable evidence if it simply drops?