[totalZero]

Seems like a clear violation of the First Amendment to use the force of law to prohibit a person from speaking an opinion.

[hytdstd]

Not to me. He acted as an engineering consultant or manager in the courtroom. Managers and consultants on engineering projects rightfully require licenses, even if they do nothing but talk in meetings.

[JoshuaAshton]

So you should be required to go through a government licensing programme to be able to tell the government they fucked up? :D

[hytdstd]

Yes, absolutely. How is that even relevant? Are you implying that it's acceptable to violate the rule of law when the government makes a mistake? Do you shoot your mailman when they mis-deliver a letter?

[eschaton]

Are you a lawyer? If not, then you have no standing to interpret the law, and perhaps you should be charged with a crime for doing so.

Does it make sense now how your reasoning is a bit circular?

[hytdstd]

The reasoning is not circular, full stop. Just because the government both (1) deals in licenses and (2) can be sued in court does not make the situation logically inconsistent. You're confusing collusion/corruption for circular logic.

[loki49152]

The reasoning is not circular because that would be devastating to your case?

Thanks, Yes man.

[JoshuaAshton]

I find it more amusing you don't see the blatant circular logic flaw in that.

[hytdstd]

Can you explain the circular logic flaw? I literally don't know what you're talking about.