I'm with you. The absence of the Oxford comma drives me nuts. I have drilled it into my associates.
That said, this is a horrible, horrible decision and the 1st Cir Court of Appeals should feel very ashamed of themselves. The issue involved an ambiguity in the law. In that case, the law requires the court to look at the legislative intent to determine the meaning. The legislative intent clearly signaled that the last two activities were two activities, not one. That should have been the end of the analysis.
But, instead, they applied the wrong analysis. The Court of Appeals said if there is an ambiguity in the law, the law must be read in favor of the individual. That is normally the case with criminal laws because criminal laws must clearly identify the prohibited conduct. But, this is a civil law and reading the law in accordance with the legislative intent would not impose liability upon the individual.
Ridiculous. Three judges. One is 72, one is 77, and the third is 51. What do they all have in common? All went to Ivy League Schools, all have extensive time teaching the law, and all three spent minimal time actually practicing law. So, I guess it should be of no surprise they got it wrong.
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers
Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
