|
As per usual, your claims have no apparent basis in reality. The excerpts I posted are from 2008. It's clear, at that point, that there were no distinctions made between voids and intact venomous. As such, whatever you claim was said in 2004 or 2006, has zero relevance, even on the off chance that it does exist and happens to support the drivel you're currently spewing. The 2008 ruling would supersede that which came before it.
Now, back to the relevant topic: the 2008 ruling and your claims that it was overturned. Not surprisingly, I'm finding no records of this having happened. Surely, after such a monumental reversal of policy which worked in your favor, you'd be able to provide a link that backs up your claims. If such a thing actually happened, I'm sure that you'd have a huge printout blown up and framed. There'd have to be a public record of the law's revision, so let's see a link.
Oh, and you're in business simply because you're capitalizing on the public's ignorance and general love of buffoonish spectacle. You basically amount to clown shoes.
|