Order says 93-page complaint lacks specificity as to violations of the constitution, which must be facially shown to get hearing in special anti-corruption court
Where did my other two comments go? They are not here.
I said, basically, you cannot implicate constitutionally guaranteed rights, you can only implicate THE VIOLATION of constitutionally guaranteed rights. And you didn't say constitutionally guaranteed rights were ABROGATED/ repealed, cancelled, you said they were VIOLATED.
One of the missing comments says I find it Notable and troubling that he does not seem to want to use the word VIOLATE/D but instead substitutes other words that have a different meaning, and completely leaves the meaning of your Case out: that your rights were VIOLATED; and then requires that you explain to him meanings of words that he alone used that you didn't even say, and tells you to explain his own words to him, before they will hear your Case.
It's ridiculous-- if I understand what his requirement is.
He is paid with Public Funding isn't he? ...to "Judge" Constitutionally- related subjects/matter? Don't tell me he is unaware of the Fourth Article of the Bill of Rights???
BOR Article Nine seems like it would be a good place for him to start learning the answer to the questions he asks you to explain.
Really, David, to make such a requirement, perhaps he needs to be removed from the Panel? He needs/ wants/requires it to be condensed, but perhaps it would make more sense for him to show exactly, point- by- point, what it is that he doesn't understand, you know, in order to expedite your Case.
I mean, you've already done the work; put it before the Panel; and you likely have opening and closing paragraphs that summarize your Case. You no doubt also likely have your points enumerated somewhere, have examples or exhibits attached so forth, don't you? If yes, then what would be for him or others to not understand? Another "Hoop" for you to jump through would be redundant, wouldn't it?
Jan, I see two comments here altogether. Checking email, you have a third one. Did you actually send it? It does not appear on Substack.
Where did my other two comments go? They are not here.
I said, basically, you cannot implicate constitutionally guaranteed rights, you can only implicate THE VIOLATION of constitutionally guaranteed rights. And you didn't say constitutionally guaranteed rights were ABROGATED/ repealed, cancelled, you said they were VIOLATED.
One of the missing comments says I find it Notable and troubling that he does not seem to want to use the word VIOLATE/D but instead substitutes other words that have a different meaning, and completely leaves the meaning of your Case out: that your rights were VIOLATED; and then requires that you explain to him meanings of words that he alone used that you didn't even say, and tells you to explain his own words to him, before they will hear your Case.
It's ridiculous-- if I understand what his requirement is.
He is paid with Public Funding isn't he? ...to "Judge" Constitutionally- related subjects/matter? Don't tell me he is unaware of the Fourth Article of the Bill of Rights???
BOR Article Nine seems like it would be a good place for him to start learning the answer to the questions he asks you to explain.
jan-marie 🌈🤍✝️🩸⚖️🕊️🙌
Really, David, to make such a requirement, perhaps he needs to be removed from the Panel? He needs/ wants/requires it to be condensed, but perhaps it would make more sense for him to show exactly, point- by- point, what it is that he doesn't understand, you know, in order to expedite your Case.
I mean, you've already done the work; put it before the Panel; and you likely have opening and closing paragraphs that summarize your Case. You no doubt also likely have your points enumerated somewhere, have examples or exhibits attached so forth, don't you? If yes, then what would be for him or others to not understand? Another "Hoop" for you to jump through would be redundant, wouldn't it?