+68

I may have already conveyed this but I still want to do it in this form. How is it that if I were affected to believe more in one side of what the court intends to do based on probability about what is going to happen that couldn't be countered by also another probability about what is going to happen, let alone the certainty of a real action in the case with the finality of denying a petition?Where was all this creativity and readiness in playing and repeating deceptive games one saw later until it reached the top of his head? For example where were all the games insinuating grouping and bias inside the court he has been playing afterwords? Also, if any of the judges there want to help him in balancing that, was it really a hard thing to say something that could counter the call about coming to the court I heard? But not seeking to work at the probability shows his knowing that I was not depending on probability to see the thing through to the end.