So, what does Elizabeth say? In her second paragraph she writes:
So, Tom. Is that what you believe? The judge was "sitting in fraud"? He had "no lawful jurisdiction"? "He was engaging in perjury"? Is that what you believe, Tom my old son? Because if that is what you really believe then it must follow that, in your opinion, the judge's decision ain't worth shit. So why would you claim that you won your court case, citing the judge's words as proof of your win, when you believe the judge had no jurisdiction to hear your case? Tom....you're trying to have it both ways now.which demonstrate that "Judge" godsmark was, alas, sitting in fraud without lawful jurisdiction or right of audience, having evidently abandoned his Oath of Office, engaging instead in perjury and an unashamed Abuse of the Court Process -