Original sentence: He therefore feels that while it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press was outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.He was a legal scholar whose research into the history of the writ of habeas corpus was approvingly referenced by the U.Oaks opined that while the destruction of the press itself was legally questionable, under the law of the time the Expositor certainly could have been declared libelous and a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council.Oaks, while a professor of law at the University of Chicago, and who is also currently a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Edited sentence: He therefore concludes that while it would have been legally permissible for city officials to destroy the actual printed newspapers, the destruction of the printing press was outside of the council's legal authority, and its owners could have sued for damages.Oaks concluded that while the destruction of the press itself was legally questionable, under the law of the time the Expositor certainly could have been declared libelous and a public nuisance by the Nauvoo City Council.Oaks while a professor of law at the University of Chicago.There he was a well-respected legal scholar and in fact his research into the history of the writ of habeas corpus was approvingly referenced by the U