You have some proof that they met legally for illegal purposes or illegally met for legal purposes? Your proof of a conspiracy requires proof of the statement above.
And we have none.
Was there an ongoing case before them?
Was the meeting ex parte?
Who called the meeting?
Was there precedent for the meeting?
How did the case that was before them work out for the
litigant who was not at the ex parte meeting?
Q.E.D.
You said — “You have some proof that they met legally for illegal purposes or illegally met for legal purposes? Your proof of a conspiracy requires proof of the statement above. And we have none.”
Now, come on..., don’t start talking common sense to the Obama Derangement Syndrome mentality... :-)