272

Notice that the same option I talked about in another blog related to communicating through other than this corruption guy for those with him was also somewhat open to the guy himself. In other words, unlike me in my position, he could have delegated the responsibility to a different face that acts appropriately and would only return to him for merit related decisions.What was that on the procedural part of the negotiation that could not be handled by anybody else and had to be done under his directions? And we are asking this question for someone who makes people do all those things we see. But again, it is clear that he was playing all sides.  

271

I think that the time from 23 august when I made that last offer to this day involved multiple extensions. My  guess about how that went on is that the guy initially took the first extension in  exchange for the 30 days for executing the offer I mentioned in it. He then used that time to work on dragging those inside beyond what they initially accepted to go to get further extensions later, which is a behaviour pattern of his I talked about before, by changing their view  about his reaction to the preceding offer that gave him the choice .

Also, if there are multiple extensions, do you think that he really intended to comply with them but kept changing his mind in this shallow way? Frankly speaking I hesitated to answer that and ignored it until I remembered how, when I suddenly decided to answer his messages, I did not find him taking the risk of really leaving a single related message which shows the depth of his handling to the matter. 

270

Notice that I did not change the word "corrupt" to "chaos" in the title of this blog because I changed from what I wrote earlier. But I wanted to use a more comprehensive description that also include a significant part that seems to be undertaken because of moral reasons. I had no such issue with the lower courts since the difference between what they did and what they could have done was nowhere like here.

269

Like I said before, this guy was never left alone to his actions like the ordinary person would have been even with much less of what this one did and continued to do. The ordinary person would have been much more left told those are your actions and you are responsible for them and only if he shows some significant sincerity in trying to correct and change path from what he did a new path could open. On the other hand, a new path was much more easily opened for this guy . Then, also like I said before, even with this path he did not show what is anywhere to being sufficient efforts indicating that no negotiation door was opened to him before taking this court on the path he took it with him. Yesterday, in addition to that, I noticed how his insistence and not giving up on the plans and games he plays in front of those inside this court may actively show the difference between when he really wants to do something from when he plays around and use it as an excuse. 

268

You would think that by now this guy should have learned a long time ago that I so often know when he is behind things that happen to or around me without showing that. But no, his dilution of control still pushes him to play on himself obvious lies. So, while what I write about him is publicly available for him to respond, he apparently adds to his capability of communicating with this court or others what I cant see to respond, conducting on me, ironically enough, tests for character or quality attributes that may not lead the way he like to use them because I know he is behind them and, aside from other consequences of that, I may not be willing to be restricted by the false world he tries to force on me. 

267

I think the corruption guy convinced that judge in New York to issue that order only after he made a promise to settle that case merely in exchange for the issuance of that order. So in case he is squeezing others because of some past compliance or performance issues he should know that if this case settles for less than the offer in post#250 then not only it would not settles the New York case with it but the demand for settling that case would be in total with this settlement more than that offer in post#250.

266

Back to the guy himself. It seems that he did not take the offer, at least partly, because he wants to act like God and not in response to a deadline or an offer not sufficiently submissive. This same control issue seems to be also a reason in his going to this court. It is not that he really found me unwilling to settle. His actions were far from sufficiently supporting such claim. He simply did not want to act in compliance with what he was required to do because it means he is under the control of something. So he cancelled the control of this court, at least to my eyes, with the denial of my petition, to put me in a helpless position while he makes his contact attempts like God not under the control of anything.

By the way, I still don't know how that plan of denying my petition was intended to work. Supposed that I settled because of the thought that I am powerless with that denial how would that be just? Or was it supposed to merely serve the extremely unneeded purpose of telling me that those inside do not like the position of being against other judges?  

265

Again, beside the lack of morality in being on the side of this guy, there also seems to be a sever lack of dignity in existing there not even as partners but much more like slaves following his wishes no matter how much there is believe in the lack of wisdom in his choices. This actually was one of the things that I thought about seeing when I changed the offer in post 245 to the one in 248. That post removed even more any excuse for the inaction to call on this guy to take the offer or no longer be supported by those on his side who believed it was relatively a good choice, and I think there were many of them, if they do not accept to follow like slaves. Yet, there was still support for him afterwords like nothing changed.

264

On top of everything else , I just want to know if those who kept conspiring and working for the service of this guy against me really think he made good choices in his response to the offers I made or are they just that shameless in showing the level of their being slaves to him? 

Aside from other things, earlier before giving this guy the choice of post 248, wasn't I who  wrote all that complaining about how he always given new options to avoid ends that are supposed to be the consequences to his choices? So what was encouraging the imagination into a different reaction from me toward his reaching this end? He even has access to my thoughts about my understanding to what is going on, which suggest what I could choose to do, published on this board.

In addition, my requiring no phone use unless necessary in the first option of post 248 did not even counter his choice of insisting only on that communication medium to play his games with one that is mine. Instead it only required the exclusion of one medium and that is not the same as insisting on one.      

263

Compare the choice given to this guy to how I was put in a position lacking clarity in even indicating how what was going in dealing with the matter after the denial of my petition should be counted as internal or external to the process let alone a visibility to the consequences that is anywhere close to the one provided to this guy.  

262

Just in case somebody had lost his calendar, here is a little reminder. 

This corruption guy has been where there is a clear choice provided to him to settle this matter since August 13 and of which only between four and five days it was required for him to deliver his acceptance not through the phone.

261

Continuing with the post below:

However, to be more sure that I am doing my part here, I responded back to that phone call by leaving a message on the number the phone call came from stating that the guy should only call me if he is representing the other side or trying to resolve the issue on their behalf.  

260

Continuing with the post below

The caller did not state his relationship to the matter or even just that he wants to take a role related to solving the matter in general let alone in the direction of a settlement. All what he said is that he wants to ask questions related to the lawsuit. So there is not here what sufficiently calls on a reasonable person to take that call as something that could potentially resolve the matter or that it represents the other side in a way that other side would stand behind. Therefore this call cannot be reasonably counted as a valid communication attempt from the other side requiring a response back from me.

259

I spoke earlier in POST 244  about the kind of voice mail this guy left and here we go again with THIS ONE  . Is this how one would show or state representation for the other side in order to get a response back?   

258

If those in this court really thinks that it is even a little bit probable that this guy was unable to know my cell phone number then that could show how they are dangerously in a different universe regarding the situation with this guy. The FBI and CIA may fail to know it much before he does. Not only he knows the number but I have been witnessing what very strongly indicate to me that my location gets tracked and reported to him based on my cell phone despite that I set that capability to off.    

257

The corruption guy did much of what he did in my second case in New York despite his situation here. Even at this stage of the case he apparently did not hesitate to make the district judge issue that order. What would one do in face of such arrogance and corruption? You saw what choice he made with the recent second chance I gave him. This whole thing of dealing with this case while the petition is denied is probably also a result of his arrogance and need to be in control to begin with. I said that five years ago when he did all what he did in the stock of Viking Systems. I even wouldn't be surprised to see, despite all what happened here,  not just in the district court, if the case in New York reaches the appellate court, he would play like he did here if he can do that. I probably would be surprised if he doesn't do that.  

However, while it may seem insufficient as deterrent, and although I don't think I need to do this, at least partly for the sake of those inside this court, who apparently tried to manipulate me externally like an object where I cant see the choices that could be counted on me and negotiate from the position of having my petition denied , I decided to make the settlement offer mentioned in post # 250 for this case also include settling my case in New York.

256

Aside from the question of morality and quality of persons running the government here, I just want to know, how legally is it acceptable to engage in the deceptive practices even those supposedly in law enforcement local, and especially, federal government have been doing in service of this corruption guy? What kind of a deterioration is this for these things to happen publicly like there is nothing there? If sinking low convert itself to mass this country would be a black hole because of these things. 

This is not just quality sinking but one that is related directly to justice and applying the law.How could false claims like those made about the attack in Chattanooga go without prosecution?

In addition, locally here, the FBI has been having fun, for months now, making false claims about the existence of a gang, apparently operating only here, that abduct or hold bank executives or their relatives and try to force them to draw from their banks. 

How could anyone tolerate such dirt?

     

255

The guy is still required to act within the generally accepted behaviour when making his phone contacts. That include leaving a clear message stating the issue to which the call is related and the contact back information if his call is not answered. That is only required once until a contact back is made to him in the same way described here.

254

That, in #253, was combined with how the guy was trying to bully and threaten me away from making high demands. Then I noticed the potential similarity to the game he played in the Viking Systems stock where he gave those inside the capability to sell shares based on market price no matter what it reaches (for a stock that moved from below a penny to over a dollar a share within probably around 45 days) while he himself kept the price under pressure there (Although that was with help of the agreement itself through the empowerment of the big competing sides to get shares through less competition). I realized how the guy might not even had the decency to come with a new plan but was simply recycling that one to be used with something involving me again.

But that is far from being the whole thing here because the guy's believe in his power to manipulate people to do what he wants them to do apparently took him far off. While he was threatening me (indirectly of course) not to make high demands to resolve the issue, it seemed that he was also encouraging me to continue to fight. Understanding that fight as being related to my reaction to his phone calls highly strengthened and made clear a very probable picture and plan here.  

253

I had to see through the meaning of signs like that of  how the corruption guy was trying to distract me to steal time in short periods which did not sound to me to fit any suitable level of desperation here for someone not having a time limit on his attempts, or pretended attempts, to make a deal with me resolving the case .    

252

He had all his choices in front of him. I, on the other hand, the best assumption for what happened to me from this court is that I was being manipulated externally like an object. 

251

From the beginning of this matter in the market, through the courts, and to this point, the path of this corruption guy was one of clear choice making one after another. Actually, the making of choices seems to fit him at least sometimes more in a way crossing that of just selecting them to entirely inventing those choices for himself.

It is hard to find something calling for holding someone responsible for his actions more than this pure path of choice making. I even gave him what could be a second chance for an earlier choice inside it with the offer that expired today.   

250

THE NEW OFFER

The offer in post #248 has expired and I did not receive the required acceptance response. The guy has made his choice.

The new offer, which can discontinue any time before acceptance at the will of this speaker, does not contain the phone condition attached to the expired offer but the amount number has every digit in it changed to nine ("9").   

249

I checked and found no message, voice mail or otherwise, already left from the corruption guy before I posted post # 248 declaring his acceptance to the offer in post #245. So the offer in post #245 was replaced by the offer in post # 248 without the offer in post # 245 leading to any implementation first.     

248

CHANGE OF PLAN 

Despite how I was put in the dark not knowing my choices in what happened here, I decided to give this corruption guy even more choices for him to use from his already seeing every thing position.

The settlement offer in post #245 has changed. The amount is still the same but he needs to clearly inform me of his acceptance of this offer through reasonably acceptable communication method except the phone (both landline and cellular). In addition not any required part in signing or executing the settlement through the phone will be considered done unless it is accepted by the other party for it to be done through that or because of its being the only reasonable way of communication available.

   

On the other hand, if he wants his voice mail messages to count, he wouldn't need to wait long for that. All what he needs to do is not to accept the settlement as I mentioned above and it will expire on its own by the end of Saturday 8/22/2015. Then, unless for some unforeseen reason, no later than Saturday 8/29/2015, I intend to provide another settlement offer where he wouldn't need to restrict himself by what I said above .

The choice is his.

In both cases the settlement should be signed and completely executed no later than 30 days from being accepted by both sides.

Again, reasonable and acceptable behaviour is required.

However, I still intend to restrict myself by the earlier settlement offer if there is already a message from him stating his acceptance of it in my voice mail.       

247

You can see how the one who really wants to deal with the matter sends messages that are directly about the main issue instead of dividing it into two stage communication and play on that. But apparently despite how it was proven that he was playing the game of leaving false voice mail signals (in relation to this matter) that count as real throughout all that time, he acts as if it is acceptable from him, assuming it was to begin with,  to insist on communicating through the phone rather than using all the methods he can to reach me which include Email.

Anyway, in addition to all that, as long as I am not changing the settlement offer I made, I have done all what is required from me regarding executing it.  

246

One uses public communication through the web to reach the other party because it is all what is available to him while the other plays around despite having all communication ways available to him. But guess who apparently went to the court to claim that the other side does not want things done here?

245

On a second thought, why am I wasting time with the games of this corruption guy? I have done everything publicly so why not this?

He wants to settle? What he could compensate with? Doing my yard? It is only money and for that I tell him you can settle this for

$300,000,000 (of course acceptable behaviour is also required) .      

244

A little while ago I checked the voice mail message he left and it was on my landline phone. This one, which seems to be the most serious one from him to which I listened yet, did not specify more than that the speaker wanted to talk to me. He did not mention the issue on a phone I use publicly and publish in SEC filings and over the Internet. 

I said from the beginning that despite the willingness he pretends this guy is far from seriously , even at this simple level of action, behaving normally. Here, he again was acting from high position of manipulating a person like a toy. In addition, the level of effort put in conveying the message did not do much to help support balancing that or suggesting its being an oversight. I in fact could have needed to repeat the message 4 or 5 times to get the calling back numbers left. On the other hand, that action seems to carry at least partly a similar purpose to that of making me check on unrelated voice mail messages in connection with this matter. Also, aside from me, would someone not trying to deceive the others pretend to try that hard to reach me with his phone calls and, actually, often chase me with those calls leave a message like this if he was serious in his effort?

Anyway, even for this situation as an option, as long as he is not behaving in acceptable manner at least for the purpose of conducting the required communication the ball is still in his court.

Not referring to the issue is like not leaving a message at all.          

243

Continuing from #241, just in case the corruption guy says otherwise, he, directly or indirectly, was making those phone calls on both my land line and my cellular phones. He was intentionally leaving voice mails that had no content related to this matter just to make it appear that he did or probably did leave a related voice mail. There is no one who could have kept calling my cellphone except him. Those calls numerous times, also, in no way that could be seen coincidental, appeared to have been timed to ring while I have my phone with me outside. No one has such power to track me except him. In addition, I changed the cellphone number probably around two weeks or less after the denial of my petition on 5/18/15. So there is no way that it could have become known to anyone else especially given how within a short time after changing the number calls started ringing again. The earlier cellphone number he was calling was also a changed number from before or at the beginning of September 2014 after I discarded my 2010 model cellphone. Also, if he continued to call the number from which I made this recent change, shouldn't he have received a message telling him that it is no longer in service? Or was it that there was a sudden shortage of cellphone numbers and that my number, very shortly after I left it, was given to another person who kept reacting the same way I did to phone calls from this guy?

However I did delete those voice mails belonging to the period of the previous cellphone number after I changed to this most recent one without hearing them.

As for cellphone text messages, except for possibly those from my carrier,  I don't remember I ever deleted one of them without reading it. 

242

When it comes to applying justice, it is even more important that people shouldn't be treated as a number. I am saying this because of what was done to lower the number of cases taken at the final level. I am not talking here about my case since I think that mine fits more than the current restrictions. What I am talking about is the issue of why would people  who have the power to rule themselves see it that easy to ignore the right of anybody and correcting injustice on him/her even if it happened despite good faith work by lower courts on an issue that is not of national importance and there is no constitutional obligation to take the case, in other words any case?

What could be more important than giving people their rights? What could be more deserving to have resources being spent on it than that? If two much cases would have reached the final level of courts if it was obligated to take all cases then you may need to consider adding another level. But ignoring all those possible injustices in this way seems far from being the right or respectable thing to do in a democratic system. Why is there only two levels of federal courts before the final court? How much would we lose if we add a third level in comparison to what we spend on much less important things? Is anyone convince that this level of attempting to give people their rights through a judicial system is the best we can do?

241

Connecting some of the things and remembering how in the case of Viking System this corruption guy went to those inside the company as someone who is bringing to them the opportunity to generate financing from selling shares based on market price while he himself kept pressuring the price inside the market, I decided to try not to give him the opportunity to deceive everybody again despite what this court did and his not owning to his actions even to the level of insisting on his choice of communication method. So, I have just checked my phones and just like how he was playing a game before this court deny my petition, there was not a single voice mail or message related to this matter.

240

Although it seems that people here created their golden calf dictatorship from the judiciary, the constitution, on the other hand gives me the impression that, despite the restrictions on the legislative branch, in comparison, the judicial one cannot even breathe more than permissible.  

239

So the constitution which provided a set of rights to protect people from the actions of those chosen by them to represent them, intended to leave, except for correcting the effect on the case itself as much as possible later, people helpless against the actions of any judiciary entity, which could be comprised of only one person, doing whatever it wants within its jurisdiction? Is this the same constitution available to the public view?

But such understanding could be another consequence to paying insufficient attention to the good Behaviour constitutional requirement and how it seems that it was intended to act on the judiciary taking the role like that of the direct rules constitutional constraints on the legislative branch.  

238

In other words, in my third point in #236 I was questioning those who believe that immunity for judges should extend to acting in bad faith how could they then tolerate the continuous risk in life that they could be indited and convicted all based on the judgment of people they don't even know? If controlling themselves from acting in bad faith seems more risky to them than things not in their hands then such people may need to stay as far as possible from occupying the position of a judge.

237

In addition to ignoring the good behaviour requirement, there is the issue of this level of immunity in the judiciary? Apparently it also did not take long here to have a golden calf and for the constitution to be abandoned.  

236

Arguments trying to support with a purpose the extreme immunity for judges from being sued  seems to be generally concentrating on freeing the judge from fear of consequences of those potential lawsuits. 

First, like I said earlier, that pressure applies in every profession but it was never an excuse for immunity. 

Second, why would having such a potential for accountability not be more of a reason for behaving correctly instead?   

Third why would any honest judge  need the level of  immunity being suggested which include allowing him to do his job not in good faith? If anyone does then he shouldn't be in a position of a judge to begin with. The moral dilemma in assigning such person to the position of a judge is like assigning to the position of being a guard someone who thinks that he may find it difficult to control himself from pulling the trigger for no reason.

How far could the judges in my case, for example, wonder in their mind in order to accidentally stumble on the bad actions they did? Unless they are acting in bad faith, it is hard to see a limit for that.       

235

Some public corporations even when it is just a doubt that some information was leaked unintentionally, immediately reveal that information to make people equal in their knowledge as soon as possible. This honorable court (and that still applies here in the sense that it can absorb so much honor because of sever deficiency of it) on the other hand, refused to even write an explanation for the denial order it made.   

234

In addition, we should pay attention to how the word "judge" apply differently on different sides here. Even for a litigant who himself seek a government court, the situation is not like that of empowering a person by choosing him to be a judge and then if you want to sue him later an objection may arise about suing him for his opinion and what you yourself empowered him to do. No, government judges to any litigant are only judges in the sense that they have the power to judge things. It is the government who chose them. So the actions of those judges are the responsibility of either of those parties or both but not the litigant.

Why should litigant's suing to a government judge (even for the side who chose to go to the court) be different from suing a police man for a wrong he did for example (regardless of whether that is being done by suing the government directly or through the police man, I don't know that yet)? Because a government judge has the authority to make a wrong? Since, the litigant did not empower that judge with that authority, to that litigant the government judge is just an applier of authority like a police man.

However, if that argument gets used for even mistakes committed despite good faith by judges then the argument currently used for the purpose of exaggerating immunity of judges would start to be more reasonable. So, it seems that those arguing for immunity of judges are who may need to start from a defensive position, instead. 

233

And it is not any official you are challenging there. Here is this from Wikipedia

[Historically, judicial immunity was associated with the English common law idea that "the King can do no wrong." (Compare Sovereign immunity.) Judges, the King's delegates for dispensing justice, accordingly "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King."^[9] ]

232

In addition supporting the judicial immunity thing with the history of common law argument has less strength than supporting other claims with similar argument. That is because for the pre - revolution part of the history dealing with issues about the opposing sides in general there is no reason to assume that one side is preferred over the other. In this case on the other hand you are talking about challenging a government official in a non democratic system, what else did you expect?

231

Did you see from the case mentioned in #229 how much that judges immunity thing was supported by history of common law claims? It is as if one tells them that the constitution requires that there should be a right to petition grievances and due process and equal protection  while they respond yes we know but still we prefer to follow the history of common law instead. They, however, are still supposed to be followers of the constitution. This  reminds me of  how , despite the Islamic image projected by society in many Muslim countries, how much of the bad things there had to do with culture not Islam.

230

This Supreme Corruption court should know that I shouldn't be manipulated like an object and that I have the right to know as much as the other side knows about its views and intentions regarding this matter at least so that one side would not have the advantage of being more able to fit his actions accordingly over the other. 

  

229

People in this country must win a prize for voting for those who do not deserve to be in the positions they occupy and lack the will to act as justice requires. They, being from this nation, are ready to act only if it is about satisfaction of the identity complex they have (and then probably more often than not, incorrectly) . Even if we assume there was earlier an excuse for not dealing with the issue of immunity of judges from being sued, the case of Stump v.Sparkman should have put an end to that. Preventing such abuse of power doesn't even need a constitutional change, just a legislation.

228

Two degrading things need to be changed here because they are bad to the level of being like an insult and there is no reason for free people to tolerate them. First, saying that individuals do not have the right to prosecute even for harms occurring on them and that right is owned by the state makes a person feels like an owned sheep not a human being. We criticize communist systems for considering that the material ownership of a person belongs to the state but we do that with one's self? 

The second thing is not far removed from this as it also relates to discounting the existence of a person by giving judges the capability to violate his rights as much as they want within their jurisdiction and still be protected by judges immunity from being sued. I wonder if those agreeing with such system recognize the difference between submitting to a judiciary system and that of submitting to the Gods in Greek's mythology where every God can do whatever he wants to you within his domain of power?  

227

Yes, because most of the time there is one side not pleased by the ruling of a judge they are more susceptible for being sued with claims of not doing things in good faith. But answering this by requiring some high level of likelihood and not mere plausibility before a complaint against a judge is accepted is much more fair than refusing everything no matter what. 

226

Everywhere in life and in every occupation, you could be sued for encroaching on the rights of others and life did not stop because of that. So I don't know why it should be different with judges even with actions not done in good faith.

   

225

Also about judges immunity:

Judges apparently interpret this part in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 

" in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable"   

for themselves as being applicable even on malicious actions by judges. 

Aside, from the question of constitutionality of such law, it still does not apply on malicious actions by the judges.

That is because the phrase "judicial capacity"  does not include actions intentionally made with disregard to the judicial role. If I tell you that you should follow what your doctor say then he tells you a medically bad advice while joking with you, does that mean I also told you to follow that advice? 

How could that law be understood in this way by Judges not interested in making their job that exclusive party for themselves?  

224

Like that of taking victims right to prosecute, don't get me started on the issue of "Judges Immunity". Two arguments in support of that, the one that the judge should perform his job without fear from such reactions and the one about how such thing could open the door for endless lawsuits, also apply with similar significance on medical doctors. However, doctors can be sued and their decisions could be evaluated by other doctors and those, in turn, could have their evaluation evaluated by other doctors and so on and all could be sued. So why the difference here? Or is it that the minute we find a wiggle room to stray away from justice we immediately use it?    

223

Even if I suddenly fall in love with those judges from this and lower courts, that could only affect my personal standing. The question would remain, however, about how could those who miss justice to this level be trusted as judges in the system. 

222

I used the expression "level of choosing to challenge" in #219, to include actions that  could be understood as being passively challenging, or, in other words, just done in spite of things .  For other actions, the challenging factor strengthening ownership of actions, is, in turn, strengthened by how the challenge itself is the only benefit those actions provide. The best, if not the only explaining purpose for those actions one could find, is to threaten the other side with bias and abuse of authority by those courts.  

221

Most of the wrongs committed here, because of the reprehensibility and audacity involved, very arguably deserves to be granted, by an honest court with integrity,  a petition in case by itself.

220

The ownership of the actions committed here is also not even open to the objection that those action were the result of being taken by surprise to decide things on the spur of the moment.

219

Moreover,  ownership of actions can hardly, if at all,  be more established than where they involve the level of choosing to challenge and audacity like here.     

218

The guy needs to take ownership of his actions and those of whom on their behalf he is standing. He could do much more than insisting on his communication way and that would still not allow him to throw that ownership on me and escape that responsibility except probably in the eyes of the slaves of the corruption.   

217

Yesterday, while I was reflecting on how this guy find his way creating something from nothing by bringing what seems totally unrelated and sneak it into the equation of the issue, I suddenly realized how that was conveyed in an expression I used to hear where I came from but never understood how it fits its purpose. The expression states that someone "digs a well with a needle" and despite how it may seem to be about perseverance and dedication, its use comes with expressing somebody as having a very wicked and deceptive personality. 

216

Like I said earlier, if this court has that special connection to this guy, as it seems to be an unavoidable conclusion here, then it has even less excuse to corruptly support him afterwards the way they did here. That is because it could have instead used that connection to warren and emphasize more to him the seriousness of the situation beforehand.  

215

Like how adults may warren children when they are about to leave home for a while to protect them from going with evil persons, I probably needed to put more effort to protect those "justices" from having their minds taken on a molestation path by this guy. The problem, however, is that I did not expect them to be accessible to the guy the way he appears to be permitted.  

214

While referring to the story of the Viking Systems stock recently, I remembered, like he did with this court, the astonishing way he appeared to have manipulated those inside that company to take his side against me despite what he did to their own stock.  

213

In addition, although I spoke earlier about the level of audacity and disregard to the system involved in doing what was done in this case despite how I made things public and even emailed the senate, before this filing of the case, about strong enough suspicions to make me dismiss my first filing of the case (Did not know at the time it is a system problem much more than it is an individual problem), there is another related argument based on the same set of facts targeting those who are standing with this guy and his group now. With their knowing about the case, wasn't there enough time for them to take away this guy and those with him from the path they followed or give sufficient warnings not to do what they did, instead of choosing to give their support afterwards as if things came out of the blue to them? 

        

212

He may also defraud people for things not related to the market but his action inside the market is like a 24 hours multi output concurrent processing volume defrauding machine. 

For example, while I complain in my other case, about Viking Systems stock, that his actions caused me to unjustly lose the value my investment reached and probably was on the path of reaching, other people lost the capital they invested because of his game. Some even probably bought the stock at around a dollar a share and ultimately even if they held to to the end they got years later was only 27 cents a share when this guy finished his game by buying the company.  

211

In addition, that self subjugation is reserved for the serves of only the guy who defrauds people, in volume, left and right in the market. 

   

210

All this support is for a guy who, from the start and continued, generally did not even need to do the outrageous things he did or induced others to do and was playing things from his high position.

Who would have thought that he would see a slavery like this where there is a choice?   

209

Looking at the actions of the media with these conspiracies, could the shortage of independent news sources with integrity be any bigger? It is a disaster.      

208

At least leave something for the movies. How am I supposed to be exited watching a movie about, for example, bad guys conspiring with the cops of the city when I myself live in such a nationwide publicly participated and tolerated conspiracies like this? 

207

Moral values aside, how about the laws? When it was about lower courts I wondered first why would I need to go to the "Supreme Court" first. However, after reading the related part of the constitution more carefully I realized that it, like congress, seems to also have the power to remove lower federal court judges applying the good Behaviour requirement. That is because that requirement on the judiciary itself is part of the constitution and this court has the jurisdiction over everything "arising under this Constitution". So one could see the economical point in preferring that as an alternative to actions from congress while the later remains exercising direct responsibility in applying that requirement on this court. 

But what point there in congress's seeing all this potentially illegal activities and not reacting to that. Even if we assume that there could be some give and take regarding reacting to an issue like that of disrespecting or interfering with the business of federal courts to the level of singling out my brief for delivering to an appellate court at 10:30 in the night, how about all those claims and games coming from the FBI? Does those in congress really have no doubts in all those claims or is it just that they don't care about violating the law by an entity like that? Isn't this supposed to be a nation of laws? When was that replaced with being a nation of jokes?

         

206

Again, conspiracy here seems to serve the purpose of identity, or self defining through isolation of another entity. I still continue to experience how it seems that all you need here is just to bring an opportunity for identity creation and you would hardly be able to find where moral values do not evaporate for no reason.

This is to help see better the somewhat deeper reason behind the actions. Otherwise, I don't need this kind of talk here. The actions and positions taken are bad and outrageous on their face. 

205

Although this still wouldn't occupy the front page as the main conspiracy in my life, I never thought that one day somebody would conspire with a NATION against me.

204

I mistakenly mentioned  "head of house committee on foreign relations" in POST 197 instead of the head of the house committee on homeland security.

203

Was there any other nation in the entire history of humanity which had done a public conspiracy like here? Like I said before, look , again, at how that identity complex is motivating the crossing of moral lines and the toleration of that.  

202

The alleged attacker in that city first only fire bullets from the outside in one place then supposedly went to another place to do his killing. I wonder if that was a militant or a Hollywood actor promoting a show with a preview?  

201

The guy take the senators, judges and "justices" in sets. Remember the last time you obtained u.s senators individually how much your decor was messed up when they mismatched?   

200

Forget about corruption. I demand application of antitrust laws so that this corruption guy take some instead of everybody with him.

199

The identity complex seems to have made corruption here not even buy one get one free but buy one get the whole package free.

198

Look at the showing of effect and control the corruption guy made by taking with him not just what is sufficient for the task,  but almost every authority connected to the alleged matter there at the city, state and federal levels.

Elsewhere corruption happen through one or two entities. But corruption here is so strong that it sounds like it needs to be regulated by being taxed entity wise so that the like of this guy leaves something for the less fortunate.  

197

Seems that we have another big corruption show here.

Starring:

The corrupt two senators from Tennessee
The corrupt governor of Tennessee
The corrupt mayor of Chattanooga
The corrupt head of house committee on foreign relations.
The corrupt FBI director
The corrupt local FBI director
The corrupt representative from Chattanooga in the house

and

The corrupt president of the United States

Executive Producers:

The corrupt FBI director
The corrupt local FBI director

Directed by:

This corruption guy

((Added 7/26/2015) I mistakenly mentioned  "head of house committee on foreign relations" here instead of the head of the house committee on homeland security). 

196

Even without the issue of a publicly tolerated and participated conspiracy, no one, especially those in the government would allow the system to be made a joke if he has respect for himself or the system.

  

195

I had already suspected that conspiracy on me is accepted and tolerated publicly. Look at how far down that identity complex seems to have dragged this nation.     

194

I remember as if I had previously heard the name of one of the persons alleged to be killed in this alleged attack reported on the local news to be killed in action in Afghanistan or Iraq.   

193

And if that was coincidence, add it to the other "coincidences"  that seem to happen also with that branch of the FBI and can hardly not sound fabricated.

192

Look at POST 179. Was it coincidence that alleged attack happened two days later? Or was it that the corruption guy, with the help of this FBI director, wanted to show me his power? He always like to come to me through what I believe or suspect to be true. There are other signs in reporting the thing and the thing itself and even the performance of those who sounded like bad aspiring actors. 

For example, why would the attacker first show himself attacking by firing from outside then drive to do his killing at another place? That strongly fit with what I am saying here and that it was intended for showing. That is also seems to be emphasized by all what sounded like an attempt to take advantage of that through eye witnesses and the concentration of reporting from there despite that the alleged killing happened at the other location. 

But this unavoidable theory, despite all the signs on its side and how things sounded like a very badly arranged and acted movie, still cannot answer how the alleged death of four person happened. Did the corruption here, including the toleration of corruption, had reached the level of even accepting fabrication in such issue?

Still the effect of the inability to answer how those deaths happened could be offset a little bit considering the objective of the corruption guy being showing how he can pull things in the government. Also, first the names of the four persons were not revealed and even an answer to a question regarding that did not indicate an intention to reveal this information in the near future. Then suddenly the next day that information started to be announced. That could suggest an arrangement of things that it was not clear how long it would take or an inclination to play the game without going into this details at the beginning which also provide additional support to the purpose I mentioned above about making a public attack in a public place first then the alleged killing somewhere else. Even the release of those names was started by the release of one name first as if someone was doing some task and feeding whatever he can create to the outside as soon as possible to avoid suspicion. Finally, an additional time needed to make that arrangement or the attempt to play a game without it first, fits with how the alleged attack happened shortly after the post to which I referred at the beginning.

Of course it could be just a coincidence or someone taking advantage of a coincidence. But I wanted to show that I am not basing things on air here. I certainly have more than enough of what show me the connections of this guy and what he can pull. 

191

It is unbelievable. Corruption has its effect here similar to how one would expect everybody to be on the dictator's side in a dictatorship because there is no choice.  

190

What kind of sewer is this? Because I continue to see only RATS.

189

Aside from others, did the corruption guy convince not one but both senators of that state to participate with him in his game? Are those the people who would rule on what their supreme court had done to me even if I assume I was able to make the house agree on initiating an impeachment process?

188

Did this recent attack on military recruitment station really happen? Do those in congress really believe it happened or do they, as they probably were with the Sony hacking story, know it is fake but tolerate the corruption?

Hard to see how could anyone be without at least significant   suspicion about these incidents?    

187

The same court of that level of refusing and being ready to refuse cases regardless of the level of injury unless there is a special reason, couldn't find it in itself to tell this corruption guy you are on your own for what you clearly chose to do.

186

Continuing from the post below

I spoke previously about this guy confusing control with dignity and this situation provides a strong support for that. He kept tolerating not receiving a response from one communication method on which he insisted without trying the other communication ways, sacrificing dignity for the sake of wining.

185

Continuing from the post below

The first of those two probabilities can be served this way while the second can only be served in this way. In addition, the guy did not get to this stage directly. Instead he reached it while creating friction supporting the second possibility along the way. He may slap a person with one hand then go complaining about that person refusing to shake his other hand. Like I said earlier, I would be surprised if he is sufficiently honest even with those allowing him to ride them.

184

The game of phone calls played by this corruption guy seems to give a special illustration to his level of deception and manipulation. In addition to the pretending of trying to do something more than he really wants to do it which I spoke about previously, there seem to be another kind that serves like an illustration from another dimension. That is because if one looks closely he may find that while it may not be hard to give other examples of pretending something different from what is inside, it is much harder to do the same with manipulating others even at the level of trying to understand what is that which is being pretended. He kept communicating for, supposedly, negotiation and settling while insisting on only his choice of communication method. So even at the level of his pretending, it was not clear what is that he wanted to reach the other side as being his intention, inviting for a negotiation or a power challenge. 

   

183

Even for the mere accessibility of this guy to the court, somebody should have told this "Supreme Court" that beyond the formal means of accessing the court, it was not suppose to access or allow itself to be accessed by one party through means that are not available for the public view. 

182

As if tolerating that the lower courts have a relationship with this guy capable of inducing actions,regardless of the kind of actions that were induced,  is not bad enough in itself for the highest court. But why would that bother it if it was itself accessible to the guy in the same way?   

181

Even if one assumes it is a good excuse, I wonder what in the character of this guy and its behaviour could have distracted those nine at the highest court of the country from the merits of the case and all the outrageousness in it?     

180

Corruption has control and take effect publicly in this country to the level that it looks as if it was a forth government branch mandated by the constitution.

179

I wrote against approving this director for the position and we did not need to wait long to see from him what supports my view. Although the former director could be criticized for other things, did he ever make such a suspicious claim like that of who is behind the cyber "attack" on Sony?

There are other corruption games that seems to be played by the FBI under this director. Although he seems to have later delegated the responsibility to a more local level.

178

The level of publicly tolerating corruption here is unbelievable. One of the examples for that is how the FBI director made claims that are ridiculous and sound fabricated on their face in front of everybody and those in congress did not bother themselves to question him about that and based on their behaviour one can hardly expect them to have arranged for real investigation of the matter. However, I don't know if that is part of the general corruption of the system or if it was also part of a wide game playing tempted by the desire to establish identity using someone different as a target.    

177

The system where the law is applied this discriminately between those with power and privilege versus the week unprivileged is not worthy of any respect. 

176

Contrast the reaction to the outrageous actions of this guy and those with him despite all what I did trying to make him realize his actions being seen with how that TV show called Bait Car shows us what could happen to the unprivileged person despite intentionally trying to make him see an opportunity to do the bad thing without being discovered. There the guy slips once and that is it. There is no going back. Here, as if in different universe, this guy and those with him freely skate and slide over everything while knowing they are seen publicly 

175

And one also needs to keep in mind how all that which this guy and those with him did inside and outside the judiciary system happened despite how publicly I went with the case and complained about what is going on and what could happen. So it is not like I wanted to trap this guy to do what he did or even remained passive to that. On the contrary, I posted extensively on public mediums telling the outside about what is going on in order to stop and prevent further outrageous and unjust behaviour. And this started even before this filing of the case which is actually, as I mentioned before, a second filing. I made a filing for the same case about half a year earlier but after I noticed that things sounded like he was preparing things from inside that court I decided to use my right for one time voluntary dismissal without prejudice and dismissed my case a week later hoping for a less potentially unjust court the  second time. I wrote to the senate (specifically the committee on judiciary) about that a month before this filing of the case. Then, I wrote to them again after I filed the case and the district court made the first two orders truncating the service time and the misleading one. He knew about all that. Nevertheless, neither he nor those with him cared enough to abstain from doing what they did.

174

And the judiciary was itself sought as a solution to the outrageous lack of prosecution and, in fact, support by executive entities toward the like of this guy. Even aside from other things he has done, the fact that he was able to make the U.S. post office singles out my brief to be delivered to that appeal court at 10:30 in the night by itself shows the level of immunity from prosecution this guy has.    

The whole country is a joke in that regard and this final court refused but to extend that joke to itself.   

173

No matter what intention one may assume behind the action of those nine, and aside from how that could have been built on incorrect and unjust ground, there is nothing that should have higher priority to them than establishing and showing the integrity of the judiciary system.

There is much less reason for anyone who cannot bear such responsibility to be in that court than it is for someone to be a top chef in a kitchen he cannot take its heat.      

172

This was the reaction of the highest court to what is directly on its face one can hardly, if at all, find something even close to it in reprehensibility and outrageousness in the judiciary here.    

171

Or was there in the joking behaviour of the guy what suggests sincerity to those nine beyond what their corruption makes them see?

170

Isn't it strange, to say the least, if that, even with limiting our view to the technical aspect, the contact efforts of this guy were seen sufficient by those who are accustomed to the process serving rules?

And by the way, wasn't it in this same case that defendants tried to refuse the case because of the technicality of the contact effort despite the fact that sincerity is not an issue there? 

    

169

FYI, stupid nine, couple or several times when things happen to fall where it could lead to the path he claims genuinely seeking and I was about to check his messages, it appears that he deletes those messages before I can get to them, unless those deleted messages served no other purpose other than being part of the game to begin with  (Yes, manipulating your voice mail is a big thing but considering all the other things this guy is allowed to do to me, deleting his own messages from my voice mail seems like a minor offence). 

Another question for you stupids, if his communication attempt involve the action of insisting on one form to do that, why shouldn't that be taken by the other side as part of the negotiation and not merely an invitation to it? Or is it that you also allow him the special privilege of intending something while counting it on the other side as a different thing?

Is anything of what I said on this board regarding this guy's phone calls applicable here or is it that you are just corrupt and do not even need an excuse for that?          

168

If one thinks about it, I thought he was playing a game through his phone calls and it turned out as it seems that he was communicating that to those nine injustice league members to divert the issue from the merits of the case and make that the main one. On the other hand, when I was trying to serve my complaint, I was much more concentrating on trying whatever path I can find to reach the defendants with reluctance to spend my time explaining why I couldn't reach them, instead. That is because I was trying to reach my target in a real way so success not failure was my first priority and therefore where more effort in trying to create or make use of was applied. Here it was the opposite to the level of insisting on one form of communication.    

167

How funny is this? The guy can do whatever he wants ignoring and refusing you and your rights through the most outrageous actions but still maintains the privilege of being capable of initiating a communication that you should accept and regardless of a sincerity (or lack of it) level that is even disputed by insisting on a communication method of his choice.What kind of slave mentality doesn't mind that?

166

In any case, the guy did not show a genuinity that is even in the same galaxy to be fit for the reprehensibility of his actions. 

165

How could denying a petition be based on refusing to a negotiation for settlement, assuming there is an acceptable effort to do that here, not be in violation of the constitutional due process at least because of the level of lacking to what would have made the petitioner expect that? 

164

The violation to the good Behaviour requirement committed by this court apply through two paths: The behaviour itself and the intention behind it. For example, had the senate approved actual monkeys as justices, not granting my petition would have also made the good Behaviour requirement obligates removing them from office. Nevertheless those monkeys would still lack the corruption that seem to have caused the behaviour here.

163

Notice that because the judiciary, like the other two branches, is obligated to carry out its constitutional role and duties, what was mentioned in the previous two posts can apply independently of the good Behaviour requirement.   

162

In addition due process and the right to petition the government for grievances directly required this court to grant my petition. That is because those rights require being more than just a court in name and much better neutrality than the way those courts acted toward me and this court is the final point in the judicial power of this country.  

161

Also, even if those "justices" can expand the view in taking or refusing a case to a wider domain, can that also extend to things that happen in the future after submitting the writ? How does that fit with legal constraints including the constitutional due process given that the petitioner had no opportunity to take into account those events when he wrote his petition? While a petition to this court may be denied, the filing of the petition is still subject to the due process requirement.

A similar point could be made regarding expanding the view in taking or refusing a case to events that are not part of what is in the case but are reactions to it.    
Both these points clearly apply to the issue of taking the phone calls this guy was making as a reason to deny the petition.   

160

Does the "court" allow anyone who had committed bad actions to escape having a case against him granted on the basis of his efforts to settle, let alone playful efforts from far like these and when the issue in question involves that much reprehensibility?   

159

Even describing that as "changing the issue" seems like an understatement to what happened here. This is more like creating an issue from scratch and superimposing it on the original one.

158

Aside from the issue of communicating with one party while not even giving the other the opportunity to respond to whatever believe resulted from this communication, is this opportunity to change the issue from the merits of the case to some other thing like the phone calls issue this guy brought open to everybody? Or is it some special treatment the "justices" gave because of their corruption and/or stupidity and allowed this diversion off the issue? Even assuming it is open to everyone, is a communication path through which to change the issue like this guy have with this court also open to everyone? 

157

Still signs suggest previous build up against me inside that "Supreme Court" using his phone calls game and continued communication and arrangement with him afterwords. 

156

Instead of explaining their position and telling me what they want as a human being, the "justices" have been trying to externally manipulate me like an object. 

155

This is how the highest court chose to react to the level of corruption and mess in the judiciary when it was given the opportunity to invoke its power.The stupids, because of their position they should stand like the sharpness of a sword against actions like these. Instead  they chose to be part of it. What a showing of a stand against abuse of the judiciary and an encouragement for others to come forward? Right?  

154

And this is all just from the district court in that New York case. By the time that case moves to the forefront and takes its turn after this one, imagine what it could have more.

Anyway, with or without that recent order I had already intended to cite the case here as an additional argument against the action this court took in this case. 

  

153

As for the recent order from that district judge despite her initial effort of avoidance to showing involvement, like I said in a previous post, as usual, this guy takes those with him much beyond what they initially agreed to go with him and probably didn't really intended to restrict himself to that limit as much as they thought.      

152

From the start this district court of southern New York clearly took the most direct path in siding with this corruption guy by trying to refuse and impede the process through refusing to accept taking the complaint from the onset and everything that followed fit with that. From not entering the complaint until the day I began complaining publicly about that to the time it took to assign a district and magistrate judge, to the time it took to issue the summonses and how that gave an excuse (because Rule 4(m) starts the counting from the filing date) to issue an order for serving the complaint in order to apply (although still legally wrong) Rule 41(b) and hold me in violation of court orders so that the complaint can be dismissed with prejudice, to how from the beginning that order was warning me from failing to prosecute as if I was even partly to blame for any of the unexplainable delays, to how the district judge delegated the responsibility to handling the pretrial issues to the magistrate, to how that delegation preceded the issuance of that service order and those summonses, to how that technique to escape responsibility with letting those with lower ranks do the bad things fits with the early unexplainable delay in processing my complaint by the Pro Se Intake Unit, to the unusually long time taken throughout and in between all these steps which fits with resistance to be involved which fits making that delegation arrangement to avoid responsibility, to the sending of those unusable summonses, to the entering of my motion requesting new summonses as a letter and reapplying that delegation game at that second level by the Pro Se Unit, to how that motion was treated as if it was not there by both the district and magistrate judges, to the hardly avoidable impression of resistance to accepting and entering anything I send, all fit together with refusing my complaint.  

Docket Sheet up to 2015-06-23

151

The judge noted that letter despite the fact that it was not entered into the docket sheet. On the other hand she left without questioning why the complaint was not entered until after two weeks from it was filed or why the summonses were not issued until after more than five weeks from that filing date. She clearly also did not question why the motion mentioned in the part she quoted of my objection was entered as a letter and why the same magistrate judge who wrote the dismissal with prejudice recommendation and whom she assigned for "General Pretrial" did not rule on that motion. She did not question any of that despite that all these events were documented directly, or in case of the absence of ruling on the motion indirectly, in the docket sheet of the case.      

150

In case, receiving such a deceptive and clearly lying letter volunteered by the court staff as a response to a still not ruled on motion was not enough, you got the judge of that district court herself not only issuing an order based on her agreeing with  the content of that letter but also accepting it as having the authority I was required to follow and faulting me for not doing that.    

149

Also, assuming I was wrong, that court did not show that I submitted my motion  for correcting those summonses, with an affidavit submitted later in support of it, in bad faith or even what I could have gotten from doing that. It did not show any of that to support why I deserve being held responsible for not serving those summonses despite my believe that those summonses were invalid and without my motion being ruled on. The motion was received by that court within about two weeks from the date it issued those summonses. So clearly gaining more time is not a probability.

Actually, even assuming the motion was submitted in bad faith, courts grant, deny, or even deny with sanctions but they do not ignore motions. 

148

As if things were not already outrageous enough, the advice in the LETTER  which the judge supported is not just legally wrong but it did not even explain how to do that technically.  The summonses were supposed to be filled by the Pro Se Intake Unit itself according to the court's own instructions as stated here:

"As a pro se litigant, you may pay the filing fee and deliver the complaint to the Pro Se Office in person. In this situation, you must also submit a complete civil cover sheet and summons. For cases submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit by mail (whether the fee is paid or a fee waiver is requested) or cases delivered to the Pro Se Intake Unit in person in which a fee waiver is requested, the Pro Se Intake Unit will complete both documents."

LINK

In my situation, where they were required to fill the summonses themselves because I mailed my complaint, they not only did not fill the place directing the summonses to the defendants with the names of those defendants but, as can be seen in the "To" section of those SUMMONSES, they did not even leave it empty for me to fill that myself even if I wanted to accept the legal risk of changing a summons after being issued. They printed the instruction itself ("(Defendant's name and address)") in that space.

In addition,how can one sealed summons be returned with proof of service for multiple defendants?   

147

How could any judge look at a summon like THIS  and publicly state that it is acceptable?  

146

She ignored the legal reasons I raised in my motion and instead talked about me being "not entitled for summonses in the form" I requested, as if a summons is something one may seek in various degrees of quality beyond doing its purpose and I was requesting the ones I can decorate my chandelier with.   

145

Also, how about that the Judge ruled that I should serve those summons without ruling on my motion requesting new summons first?  Does that constitute part of the new court system she was making or an acceptance to the recognition of that motion as a letter? Actually, in both cases she is making her own court system.