THE SITUATION SUGGESTS IN A WAY THAT CAN REACH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAD CONSPIRED WITH MY OPPOSING PARTY THROUGH DIRECT OR INDIRECT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.
ANYWAY, WITH OR WITHOUT THAT , THEIR ACTION IN DENYING MY PETITION IS, AND WITH OR WITHOUT THE QUESTION OF ABUSING DISCRETION AND SINKING THIS LOW MORALLY, IN VIOLATION OF THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR REQUIREMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT MEANS THEY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DENY MY PETITION AND DOING SO MANDATES REMOVING THEM FROM OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. (YES, BASED ON THE REASONING I STATED IN THE "FOLLOWING ON THE POST TITLED"CORRECTION"" POST I NO LONGER MAINTAIN THE DOUBTING POSITION I TOOK FOR A SHORT WHILE IN MY ORIGINAL POSITION WHEN I WROTE THE "CORRECTION" POST.
No comments:
Post a Comment