it's not that often when you are reading a case where a judge is discussing the intent of a legal definition, and then footnotes to the fact that he helped write the statute in question.
is it just me, or does footnote 3 of this case just seem like Judge Lifland's nice way of saying, "FOOTNOTE: I WROTE THE LAW. I AM RIGHT."?
needless to say, this case was affirmed by the district court on appeal.