My order of suspension might be not valid for yet another reason - they cannot even suspend people in a coherent way

A non-attorney reader pointed out to me a fatal flaw in my order of suspension that, I admit, I missed with the emotions of the last couple of days.

My order of suspension said that I "should be suspended", but does not say that I was actually suspended.

There is a difference to say that a person should be beheaded rather than that the person was actually beheaded.

As the order was worded - by people for whom, unlike me, English is a native language - my head is still on.

Can these klutzes even suspend people properly?

And - thank you for the tip! (I will not disclose the reader's identity).