You're wrong.
I cite the entirety of Supreme Court decisions, where "conservative" judges and "liberal" judges are deemed to be different and rule differently (and consistently), despite the fact they are hearing the same case and applying the same law. If they were, in fact, applying the law, then there wouldn't be the massive divide there is. Instead, they apply their personal beliefs and nothing else. They then do all they can to apply the law. Only if they can't find any possible way to twist the law to fit their beliefs do they vote against their beliefs. That's the way it's been done for hundreds of years.
Yes legal opinions are "facts", but prosecutors do not issue factual statements saying that they will not prosecute a crime. They state that they decline prosecution at this time, however the acts make be entirely illegal.
You aren't addressing what I said. If the prosecutor says "I've reviewed the law, and not only will I not prosecute this one case, but I have found that the actions taken are not in violation of any law." then that is a fact and does, in fact, evoke estoppel. The only successful application I know of it is in relation to speed limits where one prosecutor carelessly said something to the effect of there existing a grace speed, and someone going to court used that statement to get off. But then, that was in TX when tickets were crimes. They've recently demoted them to the infractions they are in most places, so legal protections no longer exist.
Do you really want to learn anything about law in this discussion or do you just want to remain an ignorant about this shit?
You are chiding me rather than informing me. You are whining "citation needed" when you cite nothing. You are being a bitch about it, then whine that I'm not properly listening to your superior knowledge? You don't even keep your comments on topic. "legal opinions are facts" is what I said, then you said they are, but it doesn't matter because no prosecutor will ever give a legal opinion. I know of one case where that's not the case (and no, I can't cite it), so I know you are 100% wrong. Why should I bow to you when I know you to be giving incorrect information? Why should I bow to you when you demand cites and cite nothing yourself? Why should I bow to you when you complain about me not listening when you don't listen to me?
Apparently, despite your comments otherwise, you are more interested in "winning" an argument that to actually have a discussion about the topic at hand.
It is not illegal to train a 12 year old to drive, when it is illegal for that 12 year old to drive. So why is it illegal to "train" a 12 year old in safe sex when sex is illegal? And by the logic of teaching someone safety causes the act, they should stop giving fire safety classes and make fire alarms illegal because that encourages playing with matches. After all, if you give them a condom, the fuck, so if you give someone a fire alarm, they'll start fires. You seem to be flipping back and forth between whether you think it's justified, whether you think he's justified, whether you think he's right and such. To me, it seems dishonest to pick multiple independent perspectives and switch between them depending on which makes your stronger case. If that's not what you are doing, then please identify the one and only one perspective you've been representing, as it isn't clear to me.