We are saying the same thing my friend. In my post I stated:

For me, intent, context and spirit of the language is of the utmost importance. Do you think that the average individual would interpret her testimony as the first or second definition? Most of us would use the first, but the court used the second. How ethical and moral is that?

As you supported in your argument, it is the "intention of the ruling parties". Ethics and morality play a huge role. The courts get caught up in the letter and completely miss the spirit! I agree with you and what you shared. Thank you for backing up my point!