For the last time, these are not separate issues and treating them as such is erroneous. Section 13 establishes the context in which the facts in section 14 were evaluated.
I'm exhausted trying to explain this and frankly annoyed that I've wasted most of my afternoon trying to provide legal insight to people who refuse to listen to reason that contradicts their preconceptions.
WHY do you think section 14 should be interpreted in isolation from section 13? Do you think that makes it like a new function or procedure in which all the scope rules are reset? Why are you ignoring 672.007?
It's really frustrating that programmers seem to think that working with logical constructs makes them lawyers. Maybe you would take me more seriously if I charged you $250/hour?
I'm exhausted trying to explain this and frankly annoyed that I've wasted most of my afternoon trying to provide legal insight to people who refuse to listen to reason that contradicts their preconceptions.
WHY do you think section 14 should be interpreted in isolation from section 13? Do you think that makes it like a new function or procedure in which all the scope rules are reset? Why are you ignoring 672.007?
It's really frustrating that programmers seem to think that working with logical constructs makes them lawyers. Maybe you would take me more seriously if I charged you $250/hour?