20161021.00
I've spent all morning meditating, ruminating on my appeals court argument
which is both in time and in content more, much more than the court wants
to hear; and how best to reconcile the discrepancy. I conclude I should
present my case factually, unemotionally, logically. There is no case
because the inspection report had the purpose of justifying the destruction 
of the system; it is one sided invention, exaggeration; a tract of untruthful 
propaganda.

I plan to write about the litigation. Optimally a book to be used in law school
to illustrate how law is applied, how it works, or how it fails to work. It
will be constructed with the documents that have been composed and which are 
immediately available to me, many of them already in the computer. I will 
comment on them and describe the situation from which they arose.