When I made the decision to write my book, I became confronted
with writer’s block. It was not the traditional writer’s block, it was more
related to the threats of the opposing attorney to file a separate litigation
against me concerning my attempts to eventually make this case more
public. The opposing attorney may not have shown much restraint in
filing litigation against me. However, I would like to thank the opposing
attorney’s law firm for having possibly restrained their associate, thus
avoiding the filing of a separate lawsuit while I made my pursuits to
contact our public representatives to have this case investigated. By the
lack of restraint of the petitioner’s case, I can only assume that the
restraint over their associate had taken place, so I would like to formally
give thanks to the opposing counsel’s law firm for the perceived controls
of restraint over their associate anyway. Although counsel may not be
able to openly declare to the public that it had the legal right to initiate
the judicial system because of possible fraud relating conditions, the
public has the right to understand how its hands may have been forced
into the unnecessary complications of its court. As a result of counsel
alleged misconduct, there may exist a general illusion of legality. The
use of certain pronouns such as the legal counsel or counselor, client’s
attorney, petitioner, or any other pronouns or nouns may not actually
exist legally, but for the purpose of having this book intelligently
understood, there must exist a pretense of legality. However, due to the
possible misconduct of the counsel toward itself, toward its alleged
client, and toward the judicial system, the dilemma before you may not
have any easy answers. Never the less, no counsel and/or counselor have
the privilege to alter or to change the legislation in order to make the
judicial system possibly more convenient or possibly prejudice in order
to avoid initiating certain legal processes. To do so is unconstitutional to
everyone.