Response To JamesDitomosso's Response To policetonyR

I don’t mean to get involved on the legislative duties, but seeing recent events in Congress has been surrounding me, I found this a good time to get involved.

During my time in this state legislator, I faced an investigation from the Congressional Government Oversight Committee for the accusation of crimes on an alternative account.

During this investigation, I was questioned by JamesDitomosso. During this questioning, which he describes as a “personal conversation” was a direct infringement on my rights as granted by the constitution to this State, being that he failed to mirandize me in an investigation.

To ensure that CGOC is required to mirandize people they investigate, I wrote a petition for a writ of certiorari. That writ was granted, and interpreted that CGOC is an Internal Affairs and thus must mirandize people they question, pursuant to their interpretation of 2 FSC 24.

Once the court finalized their ruling, I pressed charges on JamesDitomosso for violating my rights, and after a long fought court battle, the presiding judge ruled in my favor, agreeing that JamesDitomosso has violated my rights.

Following this event, likely as James didn’t agree with the ruling, he filed an appeal. His appeal, though still pending verdict, will likely be another fruitless attempt by him to undermine his opposition.

I urge all of Firestone to put an end to JamesDitomossos congressional term. It is unbeknownst to us whose else rights he may violate, and such actions shall not be accepted in the state legislator.

2 Likes

Could you link to the writ stating that they must be marandized?

1 Like
1 Like

Thank you good sir.

1 Like

Please show me at any point in time where I even showed at all I was acting in my capacity as the Chairman of the CGOC. Because you can’t.

1 Like

1 Like

Fair enough, I was incorrect, my mistake.

But that doesn’t mean that the testimony was illegal.

1 Like

Yes, the District Court ruled it, but until the Supreme Court says otherwise, I stand by my argument.

1 Like

The testimony is legal, its just that not mirandizing someone is illegal when its an IA investigation.

1 Like

Supreme court ruled CGOC is a IA, and IA needs miranda rights, not the DC.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

1 Like