Your words ring hollow. You know that is nonsense. For Roberts to have falsely claimed that the book was a summation of the work of the Pennsylvania Supreme court, and were it not true there would have been an instantaneous and immediate uproar.
People valued their reputations in those days, and it is nonsensical to think that a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would not have taken steps to dispute any false reference to him and his colleagues.
The ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA knew who Roberts was. They knew those Judges. They Knew that book. Rawle even knew that book. It was impossible to be *IN* the Pennsylvania legal system without being aware of that book.
The existence of that book is just a contrary fact which you want to go away. Well it's not going away because it is part of history and a telling piece of evidence.
ROBERTS NEVER CLAIMED THAT HIS BOOK WAS THE WORK OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT.
How could anyone say it any clearer?
ROBERTS' WORK WAS HIS OWN COMMENTARY ON THE PREVIOUS WORK OF THE PA SUPREME COURT.
The Supreme Court wrote out a LIST of laws. They gave a LIST, with the TITLES of the laws, and a reference as to what book the laws could be found in. THAT'S IT.
YEARS later, Samuel Roberts took their LIST, and wrote out a book that contained not just a list, but the ACTUAL TEXT of each law. All in one handy book. And he added some of HIS OWN commentary.
It is clear from his Preface that the work was entirely his own.
Only a complete moron, or a simple liar, would claim that Roberts' book was the work of the PA Supreme Court.
If I put together a book writing out the text of all of the real estate laws of the State of California in a single volume, and add some commentary on those laws, I AM THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK. NOT THE LEGISLATURE, OR THE SUPREME COURT, OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, neither of which has a damn thing to do with it.
You need some help. Seriously.