DECODE ON "WHAT I SAY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT"
Law/History/PoliticalScience/MastersDegreeFag here - First a few words about CAL -
These cases are civil cases. A State AG can initiate CAL as can private attorneys on behalf of a "lead plaintiff(s)" who will represent the class. RICO (racketeeering) and other criminal laws do not apply here.
CAL are governed by Rule 23 of th Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Most states rules are the same. CR23 requires threshold findings by a trial court to"certify" a class including: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; and (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.
Next, the trial court must make determinations of another set of legal and facutal issues, the central one being whether or not "… questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." OK you get the idea. Read CR 23 of you want more. These threshold proceedings are very involved and hotly contested. Of course this is becase there are typically huge sums at risk. The trial judge has a huge say in all aspects and can easily allow or torpedo a CAL.
My first instinct was shared by other anons - a CAL against MSM and/or social media companies. Such a claim could be supported by a large variety of theories beyond the scope of a post here. However, Q appears to have provided a huge clue on this question.
On March 3 Q posted:
"Misspellings matter."
"Sentence formation matters."
"What I say a class action lawsuit?"
First two posts REPEAT what Q previously posted - that every detail is INTENTIONAL - Then Q offers an example of that method by generously providing an OBVIOUS AND DELIBERATE example (third post) with glaring syntax error. (Should read "What is a CAL"?)
Is there any connection or correlation between this clue and the possibility of a CAL against MSM/Social Media. Does anyone see one? I don't. I also have not seen any other sensible interpretation. Here are the other decodes i lurked on: code for CIA to avoid sniffers? bad chinese (No tickee no londly) bad english (What I (Q) Say (will be) a CAL) Did I miss any? I don't think so. None make the connection between the "error" and a CAL.
So I followed the rabbit hole/clue of the mis-shapen sentence. (cont)