Quote:

I'm at home -- there is no court on Saturday -- but I have the transcript of a hearing in which I created such a verbal jumble that I am reluctant to share it with you ... were it not that it well illustrates my previous point.

JUDGE: Now, as regards this court's requirement that you not operate a motor vehicle wihout an approved and functioning ignition interlock device, I want to be clear that my order is co-extensive with that of the Department of Licensing, which can and likely will or has ordered the same thing under its administrative powers, such that, if they order it, I order it, whereas, if they do not, I don't, and, for as long as the department requires it, I require it. Is that clear? No? I didn't think so.



Sorry, padre, but that was very easy to follow. Measured against this mishmash, at any rate. (note the cunning avoidance of the compare to/with palaver, it being way too early in the year for me to sort that one out)

noho ora mai
http://maxqnzs.com/References.html