You keep searching for ways to read the mail in absurd ways. You've decided in advance that he must be wrong, and will always find a way to interpret his writing to support your preconceptions.

I don't believe Ted would be totally insane or demented. The parts of his mail under discussion can be read in a way that's totally sensible, except for one inaccurate sentence about the technical workings of law, which he could have plausibly missed himself. That interpretation is a lot more plausible than your absurd suggestions.

Also, basing your character assassination attemps on claims about his view on law makes them even less believable. It's one thing to claim someone has questionable attitudes, but even more ridiculous to claim that someone non-ignorant would actually have the most absurd beliefs about practical law that you've attributed to him.