I present as evidence the Hollister judge’s claim that a couple years’ worth of wages and benefits didn’t meet a $500 minimum limit for there to be enough at stake in the lawsuit.
Was that judge too incompetent to know that thousands of dollars exceeds the $500 minimum threshold? Or was he too crooked to obey the law?
I present as evidence the Hollister judge’s claim that a couple years’ worth of wages and benefits didn’t meet a $500 minimum limit for there to be enough at stake in the lawsuit.Yet you do not quote "the Hollister judge" making any such claim. You cannot.
Was that judge too incompetent to know that thousands of dollars exceeds the $500 minimum threshold? Or was he too crooked to obey the law?Reading of the Court's memorandum, and your claims here about what the Court said, makes clear who is incompetent or dishonest. Contrary to your reporting, butterdezillion, there exists no finding that "thousands of dollars" nor, "a couple years’ worth of wages and benefits", fails to exceed $500. That the fantasied damages did not happen may have been an issue -- though not what the Court primarily cited as dispositive -- but the Court simply never said what you claimed.
This is far from the first time, butterdezillion, that you have falsely reported what a court wrote. Right here on FR you wrote of Judge C. D. Land's order imposing sanctions in Rhodes v McDonald:
Judge Land was saying, 'I don’t need no stinkin’ precedents'We look at Judge Land's order and he cites precedent after precedent. What you claimed was just plain false, and you've excuse for it as an honest mistake. The Court's actual order was easily available to you.