text: All right Sean. You said that "that proof, if it exists, is not yet before the court. And that proof may not get there!" If that proof is contained in the lawsuit, how am I misreading you? 
  
  Let me remind you of the comments that I based my response upon:
  
  "she is also and ipso facto a shill for the USCCB and its membership,"
  "She sounds a bit like a mole planted by the USCCB, which is and has been demonstrably anti-SNAP and anti-victim as well!"
  "In short, then, the US Catholic hierarchy is destroying our church. Chicago may become the hierarchy's Waterloo!"
  
  All you son. 
  
  So, by your argument, the Bishops case against SNAP is based on your commentary. Now since you and I both know that is not true, then it follows I am not arguing a case so much as asking questions about it.