8/5/14 - At my Kangaroo Court trial I responded to all questions with (as suggested by another person on trial): “My response has been submitted in writing and I stand by that written statement.” The president objected to that response. After she insisted on continuing with her questions followed by me again and again saying the same thing “My response has been submitted in writing…” I sighed and said my written response was mailed to SBPEA and e-mailed to each member of the Board of Directors. The president stated I would get something in the mail from them. How can a majority of the Board of Directors be so ignorant to vote yes to pass the identical resolution that was sent to each of 30 plus county employees cited to appear at trial? Didn’t anyone read the Bylaws? From my experience having been on a board most board members are too lazy to read them and even if they tried their reading comprehension is lacking. Didn’t anyone notice the Bylaws didn’t give them the authority to pass the resolution? Didn’t anyone who read the Bylaws discuss this fact during the meeting they passed the resolution? From my experience having been on a board most board members are either confused by facts or don’t care about facts. Of the 14 people across the table only two spoke. Even though the resolution stated we were cited to appear at a trial apparently both of them were clueless what their roles were at my trial. The president asked all questions but one and that was asked by the odd duck attorney who stated he was the prosecutor. The president not the prosecutor objected to my response to her first question. In a real trial the prosecutor asks the questions of the defendant and the prosecutor also objects to answers from the defendant. The judge rules on the objections. But I wasn’t at a real trial, I was at SBPEA’s Kangaroo Court where the rule of law doesn’t exist.
Posted on: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 02:53:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015