Remember the game of confusing responsibilities the actions of the Eleventh US Appellate court suggested being played on my case which I talked about here?
http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2014/03/confusing-responsibilities-is-being.htmlIt seems as if a game of the kind was played by the New York District Court to misdirect the general public using the technique of direct circular reference. I am referring to the point I raised in the previous post that requiring the pro se litigants to send their initial pleading to the Pro Se Intake unit is illegal. While those who wrote that part on the website may argue that this is how they understood the order, the district court could argue that its order is not unconstitutional because the "pro se" term wont apply until the pro se litigant start his litigation and that would mean that the order does not extend to the pleading that starts the complaint. So through that process they could have intended to establish a no responsibility for creating something that has been misleading and misdirecting the public since 1994 (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose/pro_se_litigation.pdf).
No comments:
Post a Comment