Key legal question
Whether the filing could be treated as a admissible subsidiary constitutional complaint against the cantonal judgment
Extracted holding
It was inadmissible because it did not comply with the formal requirements and was abusive.
Extracted reasoning
The submissions were incomprehensible, lacked proper conclusions, contained no valid original signature, and did not satisfy Arts. 116, 117 and 106(2) LTF; they were also abusive under Art. 42(7) LTF.