On the recordMay 4, 1994
No. You just gave me the facts. You told us the first time the reason you went to that event was those morning events, and that then those other events, were not the principal reasons for your going. Now you are saying there was not a principal reason for your trip. There are three principal reasons, and the words you used were that a substantial reason for that trip was recreational. Under this approach, you then have made the judgment because you said it was substantially recreation. You do not need a lawyer. You now have made the judgment under this approach that you could not have that paid for by somebody else. You have answered your own question.
Source
govinfo.gov
