Re: Legality of Pete's research

["John Hughes" <pureneasy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lela, re

> > If it helps Pete to believe he was caught under a retrospective law then
> > fine, but the simple facts are that he wasn't.
>
>   Any idea why Pete might think this, then?  He does seem very convinced,
as
>   he's mentioned it several times.  Do you suppose his lawyer (or some
other
>   legal source) gave him poor advice at the time?

Who knows why he thinks it? My guess is that he has listened to his lawyers
and heard or interpreted what he wanted to to suit his own self
justification of what he did. As I said, if he wants to believe it, and it
helps him, fine.

> > Maybe everyone should write to Pete and give him the correct
information.

Why? He won't want to read it and it looks like he wouldn't want to believe
it.

You know, something like

Matt    "Pete, look, some geek from the internet has e-mailed you and
confirmed what the lawyers told you, you weren't done under a retrospective
law"

Pete    "Yeah, yeah, so some geek on the internet says that, so what, I know
it was a retrospective law and because I know it it must be true!"

Really, this is reminiscent now of flogging a dead horse.

Pete has made an incredibly foolish mistake for which he has been punished.

Let's let this whole ghastly episode be what it is, bad history.

John