With that as background context, this LTE opened:
Dear Commissioner Look, as one of your constituents, please exclude anger or other emotional factors in any upcoming decision in the court case Ricky Johnson vs. Anoka County.
What has Matt Look to do with that litigation? Surely a $420,000 judgment is news; but how is Matt Look a factor? What might he be saying or be doing that would cause an LTE about the litigation to open with a focus upon Look? (Or what might he have said or done?)
In any event, one thing seems clear within normally accepted notions of the English language:
"All" in my life and studies has always meant "all," and not "some," "a fraction," "a majority," or "most." Certainly "all" does not mean "a diminishing fraction over time." On the surface of things, it appears only an idiot would contend "all" does not mean "all." Yet it did go to the Court of Appeals, so, should I modify the "only an idiot" thinking? Or, with the situation arising in Anoka County and possibly arising by some action of the county board, should I not? The online appellate opinion is sixteen pages long so it looks as if every conceivable assertion against the deerman's written contract saying "all," aside from mentioning the rule against perpetuities, was thrown against the wall to be at issue.
Any reader help via a comment to this post would be most appreciated. Was Matt Look in some unusual way involved in the instigation of the situation, or otherwise have cause to show anger over a judicial outcome?
A separate question: Is the deerman a Democrat?
Could the watchdog bark me some help? If watching.
(See top sidebar item.)