you know, i might be able to win a case on reasonableness, anyways.

i would rather have the court consider correctness.

but, i guess the truth is that they're going to make that choice based on existing case law, and i don't even really get the benefit of a presentation. i'm going to throw all this shit down on the table, and they're the ones that are going to determine the correct standard of review.

reasonableness is supposed to provide for a lot of deference. but, it's not total. it needs to look at whether the ruling falls into a reasonable set of possible outcomes. the idea is that the court can set up a kind of multivalued function, but it's not supposed to pass judgement on the outcome, so long as it falls into the correct range it's defined in the mapping. but, it has to define the mapping, first. and, if i can convince the judge that the legislation is such that this outcome is outside of the proper mapping - because the adjudicator misinterpreted the evidence - then i could conceivably get the court to rule the outcome is unreasonable.

i should make both arguments.

1) the outcome is unreasonable, because the statue provides for minimal discretion.
2) the outcome is incorrect, because the statute provides for minimal discretion.

i guess the point is that the statute provides for minimal discretion, and she misinterpreted the evidence, producing a result that is both incorrect and unreasonable.

yeah.

ok.

i think i've got that clear in my head, now.