I repeatedly had experiences such as these when I ended up in front of “the medical college “ for my endless “wrongdoings “ of not adhering to the playbook. I too have ptsd symptoms and still cannot go to the mailbox. I applaud your courage but it does seem abit of an act of self flagellation. You will heal.
You have an amazing mind and I’m so grateful that you are fighting on behalf of all of us. Your conscience is clear you are on the side of true justice and righteousness and you are indeed storing up treasures in heaven. We salute you and pray that you will get some good rest and get better to fight another day.
The ruling is unclear. It should have turned upon the standing of the parties and finding a fact with regard to this in the first instance before anything can proceed?
“the judge refused to rule on the matter of standing, let alone fraud, repeatedly putting the fault at my feet for suing a non-entity.”
If the other side were a non-entity then upon what basis were the costs awarded ?
Who were the costs actually awarded to ?
If the judge rebuked you for suing a “non-entity” then how could he have perversely or costs in favour of the non-entity ?
This seems absolutely absurd and without any basis in fact or reason
I repeatedly had experiences such as these when I ended up in front of “the medical college “ for my endless “wrongdoings “ of not adhering to the playbook. I too have ptsd symptoms and still cannot go to the mailbox. I applaud your courage but it does seem abit of an act of self flagellation. You will heal.
God bless. Wish you could be with Trump (UK-US-World alliance). It could come. . . . you'd be great =:-))
You have an amazing mind and I’m so grateful that you are fighting on behalf of all of us. Your conscience is clear you are on the side of true justice and righteousness and you are indeed storing up treasures in heaven. We salute you and pray that you will get some good rest and get better to fight another day.
The ruling is unclear. It should have turned upon the standing of the parties and finding a fact with regard to this in the first instance before anything can proceed?
“the judge refused to rule on the matter of standing, let alone fraud, repeatedly putting the fault at my feet for suing a non-entity.”
If the other side were a non-entity then upon what basis were the costs awarded ?
Who were the costs actually awarded to ?
If the judge rebuked you for suing a “non-entity” then how could he have perversely or costs in favour of the non-entity ?
This seems absolutely absurd and without any basis in fact or reason