This is classic. The article starts out all nice, with Roger Taft, the lawyer for the County being polite and deferential. "Erie County and the ECGRA do not have a clear understanding as to why this Honorable Court invalidated (county ordinances) which authorized the organization of ECGRA, in its entirety, if that was the intention of the Court," Taft wrote.
However, as you work your way through the article, you see that Taft is merely (as one of my business partners likes to say) "kissing Judge Dunlavey before fucking him." The article later goes on to say, "Taft's order 'questions whether the term 'unrestricted' gaming revenue was erroneously inserted (by Dunlavey) in place of 'restricted' gaming revenue" in some sections." In other words, he's questioning whether Dunlavey completely screwed up and wrote the opposite of what he meant to write! Whoops!, Wouldn't that be an error?
Of course, this is likely just a rhetorical ploy being used by Taft to publicize how ridiculous the County feels Dunlavey's ruling is. As if to say, "This ruling is so outrageous, we just assumed you got it backwards and you meant to say this when you wrote that. We understand, you're a busy guy and all..."
Condescending mo'fuckers. I hope Dunlavey's throws them all in Gitmo!