I'm sorry you still indulge in this tone.
Well, that seems to make two then!
Even though I have tried as demanded by you to explain why I think the penalty in court would probably be unenforceable I see you have ignored it completely and instead continued with your rant.
Firstly, if you consider it ranting when someone (a) asks for clarification on a purported statement and (b) does not silently take it when you respond to that by means of personal attacks as opposed to civilised reply, then I fear you must get ranted at quite often.
I would have appreciated a more substantial response
at the outset rather than having to go through all kinds of drama first. With regard to the reply finally extracted after much toing and froing, I didn't really want to inflame the thread even more by disagreeing, but since you ask I am not at all convinced at this point. What I see is a lot of conjecture, by no means a solid and unassailable case or argumentation. Lots of assumptions in there. Now, there is nothing perse wrong with conjecture and pondering possibilities, but if in order to even get to that stage we had to go through this sort of painful process, then I frankly don't see much point in further exchanges.
My interest is not strong enough to go through the kind of painful and quite unnecessary hassle with every iteration of the "conversation". To be honest, there are more interesting things to do!