Oddest of all, my Comrade had just spoken to the Ethics Comm. Mon aft. asking if any of that stable of various barristers and other legaleze scholars had an answer to what Judge Foster had intended when he kicked back our 'quo Warranto' writ asking that the OGC appt (non appt) by the mayor step back and reconnoiter.  To which HE sent that opinion back that we are beneath the station going back to Old English Common Law to entertain the idea that "we lowly plebeian members of the citizenry" and taxpayers could dare approach the bench with such a request for a writ of demand.

     Who knew?  Yet another Kafkaesque glitch in the laws.  Once again as Kafka Man personified we find ourselves in a penumbra, or crack or dead space in the law.  Going back to the Kings Quo warranto, was handed down from the sovereign above,king or whoever but a higher power, as question of justification when there might appear to be a usurpation of power by a public official. 

     Judge Foster browbeat us with the  elitist attitude that we had no standing for such a writ that only someone of the stature of the State Atty Gen. has that level of power. (Pam Bondi, FAG, at the onset bounced such request from John in a letter right back into our laps with pure disinterest.  So as I noted to the Ethics Comm. we have Kafka Man in perfect personification by appearances.   

     Our attorney then told us Monday eve. that that was why in the immediate note he had posted following the rebuke that there is in fact a writ that he did not want to use.  It is a "Writ Of Mandamus", which in “OEC” law was a Writ of Mandate by the King demanding proof of a questioned office holder or whatever cannot be resolved by lesser writ.  So we erred due to thinking, thanks to Judge Foster, of Nassau Cty., that he was placing us in a box of jeapordy with no recourse.  He in fact erred according to John in that he breezed right past "Mandamis" being the common citizens or anyone else's solution.

     It will be a filing of Writ of Demand that the Mayor fall back and rethink and realize he has not followed the precepts laid out in the Charter.  As my comrade told the Ethics Comm., in all 3@ of our (CTDC) current Lawsuits against COJ all we are in reality requesting is that this govt adhere to what it has carved in stone in that hallowed document of yore (45 yrs. now) and start following some of those routes guaranteed to the Public Trust.   

     Everyone my comrade encounters finds the very idea of this entity termed "The Public Trust" the most novel item they have ever heard  anyone try to put a name upon.  Just like the shadow world of Ethics questions (too many times) the average citizen (and public officials and the barristry) cannot grasp this simple guarantee that is our most basic going back to King John and the Magna Carta (and in reality preceding that in some of the proceedings that lead to the barony demanding that King John formulate that document) that we see the seed of our greatest guarantees.   

     So stay tuned we are supposed to be blowing the lid off once again when he files the Mandamis.  My comrade is not sure if we are calling a press conference for this one.  ....and if the city council voted this pathetic attempt at circumvention through last Eve, my comrade still hasn't heard the outcome, they should be inviting a highly resounding backlash.  The public trust and the agrieved citizenry have got to declare a point of esstoppel to this pattern of simply voting in total disregard of what is laid out in the law.