I see now.
That will be a nice court case.
if you didnt make the letter sound so stupid id support ur cause
thank you for the reminder - this loophole needs closed. The privacy of whistlerblowers is important, quite disgusted by your letter here.
I still love you.
you told me you didn’t like me the other day and im still crying
No offense, saying it makes more sense when you read it in a way it’s not written doesn’t show anything. IF it was meant to be interpreted that way it’d be written that way. Adding your own parenthesis and wording means nothing as it’s not how it’s written into law. It’s possible to change how things are written yes, but not by adding something in the comment section of a forum post.
The way it’s written is the way it’s written.
I only deployed literary devices to help him understand what it meant, not what I wanted it to mean.
No you actively removed words and restructured a sentence, language is vital to legislation as a single word can effect the entire legislation and what it does. None the less this does specify that the information is meant to be collected to be released I don’t see you winning a court case in which an anonymous report is what you’re seeking as it’s not actively collected to be released. But then again, the judges unfortunately don’t always rule based on what’s written in firestone law. I’ve seen them come to decisions based on U.S law and cite wiki among other things so i suppose you have a chance.
Just realized a grammatical error in the section as well that now will bother me, the last sentence starts with a lower case.
I appreciate your input, nonetheless.
You realize every court precedent on FOI quotes it as ‘information that is actively collected to be released’ and nor however you phrase it.
Again, the way I phrased it was to emphasize the way I interpreted the order of the words, which is a matter of context and should be taken to the Supreme Court. I did not intend to bend the BoR.
As a judge, and seeing this will be an SC matter, let me give my legal opinion: you are wrong. The whole point of an anonymous complaint is that the submitter’s information isn’t actively collected for release. Having served on the Supreme Court and hear cases similar to this, I can tell you that you aren’t winning this, and are just going to make yourself look like ass. The BOR is clear in that the information must be actively collected in a releasable fashion: incident reports, court documents, disciplinary logs, etc. These are set, well defined, and properly collected materials that are releasable. But the name of an anonymous submitter is something inherently not meant for this purpose. You have no legal ground to stand on.
Your honour, your thoughts on the topic are appreciated, but I think it will please the crowd to know I’m not going to sue for this.
In addition, you can close this thread now, seeing as how it’s past due and long answered.
Yes pls
What a shit ending
hard to find out who recorded
big meme lol
OP Request