310: It Is Time To Count Time For Me

Related to my issue at the top court,  I want to start counting the time here.

I know that I already declared this yesterday on another board but I need to fulfill This and also another thing I could have written related to where I would make this declaration.
And by the way here is a copy of what I wrote yesterday:

I hereby recovers all rights I relinquished to the court years ago including the right to be told only the truth about my case and to have time counted as with any other litigant and that starts from this day. Now as much as I have a right to do that, I demand a resolution  through the offer I made to the corruption guy if accepted for the part I kept for myself, or a response back and negotiation.

309

Continuing from the preceding post
And here is my brief which that order supposedly answered:
Brief to the US Second Court of Appeals 

308

The Second Court of Appeals has affirmed, by summary judgment, the dismissal of my case by the New York district court that sent me, twice, summonses not addressed to anybody to be served on the defendants. Here we go again with another petition to the final court. 
Second Court of Appeals Summary Order

307

I spoke earlier about the option of taking my Viking Systems Stock case, currently at the U.S Second Court of Appeals (#16-2478cv), together  with the case I filed to the final court (The Supreme Court). I don't know but the judges of the Second Court of Appeals could prefer to let that path continue. Therefore, for my right as a litigant, as it is with the final court, all the time my case remains at the U.S Second Court of Appeals does not start counting until I declare it does.

By the way, when it was at the district court, I never complained about when will the case move to the appellate stage.          

305

continuing from the post below

If you hire somebody to contact another person by phone and he does not leave a voice mail despite that his phone calls were not picked up, would you pay him for that because you think he deserves payment for it? Especially for this guy, do you think that what made the judges of the court deny my petition to begin with was that he only told them that I do not pick up his calls or also that I do not respond to his voice mails? So how much that would cause counting on him to perform at the same level he was complaining about? And remember the calling guy here did not leave a voice mail because he wanted not to leave a voice mail and not because he wished to complete the task of a phone contact but failed because he , for example, forgot or was too lazy.

As for what I described as essential dependency for the two weeks or so of the phone calls on my cell phone before I changed my number, I am far from believing that not receiving them would have made me initiate an offer for the guy or declare abandonment for my case .    

   

304

continuing from the post below.

I just noticed this. This is in addition to all other things. A big part of my essential dependency on the phone calls this guy was making after the denial of my petition happened later and was based on the continuation of those calls. But when I checked all the voice mails on my land line and all the voice mails all the way back to when I changed my phone number about two weeks after the denial of my petition on my cell phone, I found no voice mail stating anything about the matter. So even if the guy was following what he was being told in doing something he was not required to do, how much credit does he deserve given his intentional nonperformance of what could be as an essential requirement in executing what he was told to do as leaving a voice mail for his calls? In other words, regardless of how much I benefited from his actions, if he didn't do what he was told to do, how much credit does he deserve for it? 

There is absolutely no way somebody not connected to him was making all those calls to my cell phone. 

Even assuming he left serious message about the matter on my cell phone during the first two weeks before I changed the number, it is the continuity of the calls that sufficiently suggested to me that those calls are not part of conciliatory compensation the reason at least partly for which I changed my phone number as a response.      

303

Did I feel an essential dependency on something I heard from one of the Judges of the court to continue my case and stay on my position? The answer to that is no. 

Giving up on my case before going all the way to the end doesn't even have a word in my dictionary. 

But did I feel an essential dependency on the phone calls I received after denying my petition to continue my case and stay on my position? The answer to that is yes.

302

Since I wrote the post below I have been feeling uncomfortable about the understatement in using "taken on its face" there. Not only the denial of a petition is much stronger as evidence that a case has ended, it itself the end of a case. However, "on its face" there meant that I took the intention of the court according to that claim.   

301

One thing about denying a petition which could have appeared in terms of intensity may also be understood as a different thing. I am referring to how unlike all other things the court could have done, denying a petition, taken on its face, indicates the end of the case and therefore the time to render judgment about the process. 

300

One thing in which I feel very confident and strongly about is that I would have behaved no differently with or without whatever sign came from the court. At no time not seeking the final point was considered even a little bit and the behaviour of the guy was never anywhere close to encouraging abandoning that path.

299

Despite that I did not choose this path, I don't feel easy about taking away an extremely scares resource like this court from so many others in need for it and may not even dream about getting its attention. That is at least one of the reasons for what I wrote about time here so that it feel easier to make this case stay in the background away from affecting the work of the court.    

298

continuing from the preceding post

Let me expand that even further and say I accept to be included in the game any claim about the judges of the court and emphasize again that could be coming from part or all of the judges themselves or any other entity.

[(Added March 22, 2016) The  above part is about claims where, according to the claim, I am not required to make a choice the consequences of it may directly affect anyone other than the original adversary parties. That means one cannot, for example, make, as part of the game, a fake hostage situation demanding that I change my position] 

297

Continuing from post 295
On a second thought, instead of just claims related to stating that the judges of the court being equally divided, I am extending my acceptance for the game to include all claims about all levels of inclination. 

296

Continuing from post 293

It felt surprisingly unfair that despite all what I have shown earlier in my behaviour, it looked like it was understood to be much more of working on the likelihood of success and much less of simply revolting. And this came in a place where some may claim that the popularity of an actor prevented them from attempting to come out with their big allegations against him. What is next? Yao Ming fails a job test in China because he is not tall enough?

Aside from being counted on me as if they were direct communications, I also never expected that not taking as more than readiness to look at the case and making the court accessible, whatever signs judges in the court probably shown, to be counted on me as a bad thing. That is especially true for people holding positions involving thinking like there and their familiarity with how much thinking could pass through various stages before making a decision or reaching certainty. 

But even before all of that, it is hard to see how some may struggle with not generalizing on others here the actions of some they may not have ever known or probably even been in the same country before but it was supposed to be easy for me to count on people in the same system coming from the same profession despite all that which happened to me earlier. 

295

continuing from the preceding post

In other words, for as much as its effect on me is the measure, claiming untrue things about those matters I mentioned doesn't count against the person making those claims, no matter who that person is. That is because, aside from how good or bad the intention would later appear, I am allowing this to be on me like a game where the other side doesn't have to restrict itself to the facts. 

As an analogy, I am trying to make this similar to that game played on the Tonight Show where two opposing sides have to guess the truth from fabrication in the claims of each other. No participant is considered to have done any bad or undignified thing for stating untrue things there. The only difference here is that permission is given, by choice, to only one side instead of both .      

294

This applies to everybody without any exception. Any claim, direct or indirect, made or will be made until this settles, about the alleged death of Justice Scalia and/or how the court is equally divided on my case, is to me like watching a movie in how it does not affect any right I have regardless of its being true or false and the purpose.  

293

By the way, while I believe the guy has a duty to carry his responsibility regardless of what he may have claimed to the court on me, I have noticed recently that I left with the court what suggests the contrary to such claims. If I was in so much confidence about what the court will do, why did I need to write such a relatively long PETITION and for clear things like those I was complaining about? Instead, the petition was not merely showing pointing out the obvious but also trying to explain it. That behaviour, strengthened even more by facing the denying behaviour of the lower courts, suggests a state of being worried of also facing another denying behaviour from this court. My petition was like that of, for example, someone complaining about being counted as a fish instead of a person. But instead of leaving it at that he goes on to list the difference in shape and how a fish cannot breathe outside the water and other differences between the two for a thing as direct as that of recognizing a human from a fish.

292

Continuing from the preceding post

Second, take this scenario. The corruption guy made the judges inside the court agree that I need to have my faith or certainty in the outcome of my lawsuit be reduced. Then they agreed to deny my petition. Now, doesn't this suggest that originally the contract was to achieve the purpose described above and that the denial of my petition became part of the contract only as the implementation form to achieve that purpose? If so, then wouldn't realizing, through my reaction , that the intended result is there pushes outside the contract all remaining things that were in the implementation part ?     

291

Continuing from post 289

First, a correction or clarification to what I said in post 289. The difficulty or ease in seeing a breach of contract there may very much depends on how long or until what event the denial of my petition was supposed to look to me as I described there. 

290

This time I prepared myself much better financially.  

289

Continuing from post 288

I intend to dedicate and concentrate more thinking on that issue.

288

The beauty of a contract is that it makes one rule on himself and thereby help make a ruling person avoid that very hard measuring of things involved with tort ruling in order not to cross into an unjust outcome. Here, however, if the original contract with the corruption guy was that I should have taken the denial of my petition as a real thing with no arrangement behind it like any other denial then it is hard to see how making the corruption guy call my phone(s) starting that early and then continue with that intensity and timing after it (despite that it was done for me) was not at least on its face a breach for that contract. On the other hand that may need to be balanced against misleading and fraudulent representations from the guy about himself and me in relation to the matter.  

It is even harder to see how the first thing mentioned above could be corrected by a similar process given the difference of how much I see a connection for arranging things now.

287

It is hard for me to imagine what would make me change my position here. It is even harder to imagine a change to something that does not also passes through the judges of the court.
I also find it hard to see how having part or all of the judges being new would change me. As for not deciding anything until after having no vacancy left, I don't even know if such thing would make me start counting the time later.

286

It is very important to me and of high priority that a settlement I receive does not leave the judges of this court feeling they left a standing argument against them.

No, I am not in love with the court. I am just trying to account for the good like I accounted for the bad especially given that without that good they wouldn't have felt the need to do that bad.

285

I use the expression "the judges of this court" instead of just "the court" because we are not talking about formal issuance of orders here or at least not limited to that. Otherwise that expression means exactly the same thing as the shorter version following it above.