The court house have ignored what I had also raised of February 26,the 21rd year of Heisei[2009] though they had said what I had raised of January 30,the 21rd year of Heisei[2009] about my allegation to challenge. This contradicts. They don't admit my allegation to challenge of February 26,the 21rd year of Heisei[2009] . on the other hand, because the unlawfulness of dismissal before may allegation to challenge about case number:the 21rd year of Heisei[2009][code:Ra]No.88, was admitted on the same days and by the same presiding judge,it contradicts.
They have ignored what I had also raised of February 26,the 21rd year of Heisei[2009] as the above-mentioned though they had said what I had raised of January 30,the 21rd year of Heisei[2009]. This contradicts. They didn't admit my allegation to challenge of February 26,the 21rd year of Heisei. On the other hand, in the following:the 21rd year of Heisei[2009][code:Ra]No.88,because the cancellation of dismissal before my challenge was decided on the same days,it'slawsuit disturbance.
