87

EVEN IF YOU THINK I ABUSED MY RIGHT TO ENTER OR NOT ENTER A NEGOTIATION FOR SETTLEMENT, I DIRECTLY OWN THAT RIGHT. YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, DO NOT DIRECTLY OWN YOUR DISCRETIONARY RIGHT TO TAKE OR REFUSE CASES. IT IS A FIDUCIARY RIGHT TRUSTED TO YOU FOR BEST APPLICATION.  

86

HOW STRANGE IS IT YOU TRY TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE ACCESS TO YOUR COURT? YOU MAKE TORTURING TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ON PEOPLE WHO HAD DONE NOTHING BAD TO YOU EXCEPT THAT THEY WANT TO APPLY FOR THAT VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF BEING HEARD.  

ALSO YOU ACCEPT THAT IN  SERVING A COMPLAINT ONLY SPECIFIC WAYS ARE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE EVEN IF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT CAN BE PROVIDED THROUGH OTHER PATHS AND REFUSE THAT FOR HERE? WHAT IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED IN SERVING A COMPLAINT IS JUST FOR THE SERVED PERSON TO KNOW ABOUT THE COMPLAINT. HERE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PERSON MUST BRING HIMSELF TO ACCEPT DEALING WITH THE OTHER PARTY.

I ALSO HAVE NOT DONE TO YOU OR FAILED TO DO LATER FOR A NEGOTIATION PROCESS CORRECTING THAT WHAT THIS GUY DID OR FAILED TO DO TO ME. I DID NOT DO ANYTHING BAD TO THE COURT TO BEGIN WITH. THE RELATION BETWEEN YOU AS A COURT AND ME AS A LITIGANT IS SIMPLY THE RESULT OF ESTABLISHED POSITIONS NOT POSITIONS  CREATED AS A CONSEQUENCE TO PRECEDING ACTIONS MADE WITH CHOICES.

FURTHERMORE,  GENERALLY ONE TAKES THE DECISION TO ENTER OR NOT ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION FROM THE SIDE OF HIS OWN BENEFIT AND WHATEVER HE CARES FOR. BUT IF YOU PERCEIVED ME BEING IN ARROGANT POSITION TOWARD SETTLEMENT, REGARDLESS OF THAT BEING TRUE OR FALSE, THEN THAT IMPLY PERCEIVING ME AS FAILING TO CARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OPPOSING SIDE WHICH IMPLY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WHO IS MORE ON THE RIGHT SIDE IN THE  CASE WHICH IN TURN SHOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU MORE REASON NOT TO DENY THE PETITION. 

   

85

AGAIN, YOU STUPIDS, WHY DID NOT HE SEEK CONTACT THROUGH MAIL, EMAIL OR IN PERSON? HOW IS CONTINUING WITH UNANSWERED PHONE CALLS LESS INSULTING THAN USING OTHER FORMS OF COMMUNICATIONS IF HE REALLY WANTED TO CONTACT ME? AND THAT IS NOT JUST FOR TRYING OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS, HE KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING THAT I PREFER EMAIL CONTACT.

MOREOVER DID HE TELLS YOU THAT MY NOT ANSWERING PHONE CALLS WAS APPLIED ONLY TO HIM? I DOUBT THAT BECAUSE , LIKE I STATED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT HIS TYPE, I KNOW THAT HIS DECEPTION WORKS ON A DEEPER LEVEL THAN THAT. AS FOR ANSWERING HIS VOICE MAILS, LIKE I STATED IN A PREVIOUS POST THE ONE NUMBER HE INSISTED ON USING HAD COMPLAINT ON THE INTERNET WHICH NOW I AM MUCH MORE INCLINED TO SEE IT AS PART OF HIS PLAN BECAUSE HE KNEW I VERY PROBABLY WOULD DO THAT.  IN ADDITION THE ONE TIME I HEARD IT I FELT INSULTING BECAUSE OF HOW IT SOUNDED LIKE A JOKE.

SPEAKING ABOUT NOT PICKING UP THE PHONE, I HAD THIS HABIT STRENGTHENED MORE AFTER I MOVED HERE AND THE KID NEIGHBORING ME WITH OTHERS MADE MY PHONE RINGS ALL THE TIME IN CALLS COMING JUST FOR HARASSMENT FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND FROM BUSINESS PLACES. THEY DID NOT KNOW ME OR REALLY MOTIVATED BY INTEREST IN DOING ANY BUSINESS WITH ME. THEY APPARENTLY JUST WANTED TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY BY BEING AGAINST THIS STRANGER WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE SAME REASON BEHIND THE CLEARLY UNJUST ACTION OF THOSE "JUSTICES" HERE. ANYONE WITH REQUIRED AUTHORITY CAN CHECK MY PHONE SERVICE THAT WAS WITH CHARTER TO SEE FOR HIMSELF. ALMOST KNOWN OF THE NUMBERS MAKING THOSE SO MANY PHONE CALLS HE WOULD SEE I KNOW OR HAD ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH.  

     

84

THE PROBLEM IS NOT THAT I AM I PUT MORE THAN REQUIREMENTS ON HIM; IT IS THAT HE CANT PUT HIMSELF EQUAL TO OTHER PEOPLE AND ALWAYS PLAY GAMES.

83

I GUESS IT NEVER ENTERED THE CRAPPY BRAINS OF THOSE RUNNING THAT SUPREME CRAP THE LEVEL OF WHAT THIS GUY HAS DONE TO ME AND HIS COMING FROM EVERYWHERE TO INVADE AND CONTROL MY RIGHTS AND PREVENT THINGS IN THE WORLD FROM BEING ACCESSIBLE TO ME WORSE THAN THAT IN A PRISON. 

82

IT HAD OCCURRED TO ME MANY TIMES THAT THE GUY COULD BE CONVEYING HIS PHONE CALLS GAME TO THOSE INSIDE THAT COURT BUT KEPT TELLING MYSELF THIS IS THE HIGHEST COURT AND, SUPPOSEDLY, THE BEST THEY COULD BRING HERE SO THEY WOULDN'T DO SUCH A THING.

HOWEVER, I ALSO THOUGHT THAT I TOOK SUFFICIENT PRECAUTION FROM THAT BY KEEPING SILENT. SO IMAGINE, IF STAYING SILENT WAS ENOUGH FOR THEM TO DENY MY PETITION, WASN'T I JUSTIFIED IN AVOIDING  NEGOTIATION IN ORDER NOT TO RISK MAKING A DEMAND THAT COULD BE UNACCEPTABLE TO THEM? THE GUY DID NOT TAKE OWNERSHIP TO HIS ACTIONS AND WHAT HE INDUCED LIKE A NORMAL PERSON FOR ANY NEGOTIATION TO OCCUR ANYWAY .

IN ADDITION TO ALL THAT, I THOUGHT THAT THE WORST REACTION FROM THEM THAT COULD OCCUR SHOULD STAY WITHIN THE LIMIT OF BEING JUST. I NEVER THOUGHT ANYTHING WOULD MAKE THEM GO FAR ENOUGH TO DENY MY PETITION EVEN IF THEY WERE ONLY VERY REMOTELY FIT FOR THEIR POSITION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.    

81

FIVE YEARS AGO I POINTED TO THIS PERSON AS BELONGING TO A GROUP I CALL DECEPTIVE PSYCHOTICS AND THEY NEVER SHOW THEIR REAL INTENTIONS TO ANYBODY EVEN THOSE ON THEIR SIDE. ACTUALLY, THE CLOSENESS TO THEM UNLESS ONE PROCEED EXTREMELY CAREFULLY IN INTERPRETING THINGS, IS MORE OFTEN A BIG DISADVANTAGE RATHER THAN AN ADVANTAGE FOR DISCOVERING THEIR DECEPTION. THEY PLAY FROM DEEP ENOUGH LEVEL THAT IS SO STRONG, IT CAN LEAD TO INABILITY TO SEE THE DECEPTION REGARDLESS OF THE CLEAR FACTS OUT THERE.  

AND SPECIFICALLY, FOR THIS GUY, THE STUPID CRAP OF THAT COURT SEEMED TO BELIEVE IN THE HONESTY OF SOMEONE 24 HOURS PLAYING DECEPTION IN THE MARKET AND STOCK RELATED MESSAGE BOARD. 

HE CREATES SO MANY DIFFERENT PROFILES ON MESSAGE BOARDS AND MAKE THEM ARGUE OR AGREE WITH EACH OTHER LIKE DIFFERENT PERSONS. HE IS ALWAYS IN A CONTINUOUS DECEPTION AND MANIPULATION MODE AS IF REALITY ITSELF IS THE ENEMY AND THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE A REAL EXISTENCE EVER.

IN ADDITION WHAT MORALITY COULD HAVE CONFUSED THE SUPREME CRAP FROM HIS SIDE IN THIS CASE ITSELF AND THE WAY IT WAS PLAYED THROUGH THE COURTS THAT COULD HAVE SUGGESTED TO IT A POSSIBLE HONESTY IN THAT PHONE CALLS GAME HE PLAYED?

MOREOVER, ISN'T THE SINKING LEVEL HE SHOWED WITH THE KIND OF RUMORS HE SHOWED HIMSELF WILLING TO SPREAD IS NOT BY ITSELF A BIG RED FLAG AGAINST SUCH CHARACTER? 

    

80

I ACTUALLY NEVER THOUGHT STAYING SILENT COULD BE TAKEN AS A NEGATIVE THING BY THIS SUPREME CRAP. 

79

WHAT KIND OF LACK OF DEPTH IS THIS?  HOW CAN SOMEONE THIS SHALLOW BE IN SUCH POSITION?

ALSO, INTELLIGENTLY, THIS IS NOT EVEN THE FAILURE OF ONE MIND. IT IS THE FAILURE OF THE WHOLE GROUP OF MINDS WORKING TOGETHER.   

78

ASIDE FROM EVERYTHING ELSE, IF THAT IS THE REASON, THEN LOOK AT HOW THEY BUILT A CERTAINTY,  JUDGED, AND APPLIED PUNISHMENT WITHOUT EVEN GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. THOSE ARE JUDGES? WHAT WOULD THE COMMON PERSON DO THEN?

    

77

CONTINUING WITH THE ISSUE OF THE PHONE CALLS GAME BEING USED AS THE REASON FOR DENYING MY PETITION, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHICH ONE IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THOSE PUT ON THE TOP ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THE LACK OF MORALITY OR THE STUPIDITY IN BEING DECEIVED BY SUCH A GAME. 

76

REGARDING POST 71 , IT SEEMS THAT THEY WERE SO DESPERATE TO DISTRACT ATTENTION THAT THE ACTION ON THE FORMER CONGRESS MAN WAS NOT EVEN ABOUT BRIBERY.

ACTUALLY, WHENEVER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TAKE ACTION AGAINST SOMEONE THEN IT IS A BIG POSITIVE SIGN FOR HIM THAT HE IS NOT  PART OF THE BIG CORRUPTION PROBLEM. AS FOR HOW THINGS GOES AGAINST THOSE, YOU CAN SEE WHAT I AM IN HERE.

[(Added 5/30/15) Of course that assumes that the accused himself is not part of the game]

75

HEY CONGRESS, GOT ANOTHER COURT?! BECAUSE THIS ONE ALSO TURNED OUT TO BE CRAP.

74

SO, AS YOU SEE, IT SEEMS THAT I WAS HOME WHILE THE EFFECT OF A WHOLE BUILDING OF A PLANNED PROCESS OR CONSPIRACY WAS GOING ON AGAINST ME INSIDE THAT COURT.   

HOWEVER, IT SEEMS TO BE STILL FAR FROM THE STRENGTH REQUIRED TO CAUSE ANY PERSON WITH NORMAL LEVEL OF MORALITY TO STRAY AWAY FROM JUSTICE AND GOOD BEHAVIOUR AND TAKE A BIASED POSITION LIKE THIS WITHOUT THAT IDENTITY COMPLEX.

73

HERE IS HOW THE DENYING OF MY PETITION BECAUSE OF THE REASON I MENTIONED IN THE POST BELOW SEEMS TO BE DECIDED.

THE GUY INSISTED ON USING ONLY THAT PHONE CALLING PATH AS A WAY TO REACH ME BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LEADING TO CONTACT, IN ORDER TO USE IT AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ME. THE GUY ALSO ESTABLISHED A CONNECTION TO THOSE NINE THROUGH SOMEONE WITH WHOM HE SHARES A GROUP IDENTITY AND THAT PERSON KEPT CONVEYING TO THE REST HOW I AM NOT PICKING UP THE PHONE SUGGESTING THAT ARGUMENT TO THEM. THE EXISTENCE OF THAT CONNECTION IS SUPPORTED BOTH WAYS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PICTURE BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY LITTLE PROBABILITY THE CORRUPTION GUY INSISTED AND CONTINUED ON THAT PATH TO THAT DEGREE WITHOUT SOMEONE FROM INSIDE PROVIDING FEEDBACK ABOUT ITS EFFECT ON THE REST. GRADUALLY THE IDENTITY COMPLEX OF THE REST CAUSED THEM TO JOIN THAT MEMBER TAKING A BIASED POSITION AGAINST ME. THAT WAS ALSO HELPED BY THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT TOWARD THIS EVEN ASSUMING HE DID NOT DIRECTLY CALLS ON THEM TO TAKE THAT STAND WITH HIM.

72

ALTHOUGH THOSE IN THE SUPREME CRAP ARE NOT GIVING ANY EXPLANATION TO WHY THEY DENIED THE PETITION THINGS SEEMS TO BE INCREASINGLY SUGGESTING USING THE ISSUE OF NOT ANSWERING THIS GUY PHONE CALLING ME AS AN EXCUSE. SO, I INTEND TO TALK MORE ABOUT IT.  

FIRST LET ME SAY HERE THAT EVEN IF WE ASSUME SUCH REACTION WAS CORRECT IT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY DENIED MY PETITION WHICH HAS  SO COMPELLING FACTS THAT ITS DENIAL IS WITHOUT DOUBT A PUNISHMENT. DENYING MY PETITION IS NOT THE SAME AS DENYING EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR DENYING THE PETITION. THAT EXPLAINING , AS I SAID IN POST 66  IS SUPPLIED EVEN WHEN THE VICTIM LACKED IT AND IS NATURALLY APPLIED WITHOUT A NEED FOR EXTERNAL THING CALLING FOR IT.      

71

LOOK AT HOW " CORRUPTION" CASES ARE JUMPING ON US NOW FROM SOCCER TO THE ISSUE OF A FORMER CONGRESS GUY IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM THE REPREHENSIBLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION THIS COURT COMMITTED BY REFUSING MY PETITION.

LIKE ALL NEWS OF THIS TYPE THEY CONTINUE TO BE ABOUT THAT OLD AND CRUDE TYPE OF CORRUPTION THAT IS NOT THE EPIDEMIC THIS COUNTRY IS DYING FROM. NOW, WE ARE MUCH MORE INTO RELATIONSHIP CORRUPTION RATHER THAN DIRECT ACTION CORRUPTION.    

70

AND YOU KNOW WHAT SIGNIFICANTLY ADDS TO THE INTENSITY OF THAT CRAP? IT IS THE FACT THAT NOTHING OF WHAT THEY DID  FROM THE MARKET AND THROUGH OUT ALL LEVELS IN THE COURTS WAS REALLY NECESSITATED BY ENVIRONMENT OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ANY NORMAL PERSON. IT IS JUST THAT THEY DID IT BECAUSE THEY CAN. 

69

WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS CLEAR AND DIRECT INJUSTICE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IN THE CRAPPIEST PLACES ON EARTH.

68

JUST LIKE HOW VERY EASY CHOICES EXIST THAT CAN LEAD TO TAKING THE CHOOSER DEEP DOWN BUT HE WOULD STILL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM, THOSE INSIDE THIS COURT HAS MADE AN EASY CHOICE BUT ONE THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRES REMOVING THEM FROM OFFICE.    

67

THIS IS AN IN YOUR FACE INJUSTICE COMMITTED IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY AND  THOSE COMMITTING IT ARE NOT EVEN TRYING TO JUSTIFY IT. 

IF THEY ARE DOING THIS TO INDIRECTLY PLEAD INSANITY THEN IT EMPHASIZES MORE THAT WE NEED TO RELIEVE THEM FROM THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.

66

EVEN APPLYING THE EYE FOR AN EYE PRINCIPLE DOES NOT SEEM TO EXTEND TO NOT EXPLAINING THE REASON TO THE GUILTY. A VICTIM CAN DIE WITHOUT KNOWING WHY HE WAS KILLED BUT STILL I DON'T KNOW OF ANY JUSTICE SYSTEM ON EARTH THAT REQUIRES CARRYING THE PUNISHMENT NOT TO TELL THE KILLER WHY HE IS BEING SET TO BE KILLED BEFORE KILLING HIM TO MAKE THINGS EQUAL WITH THE VICTIM IN THAT REGARD. ACTUALLY, IT SEEMS TO BE A NATURALLY REQUIRED THING TO DO IN ALL SYSTEMS FOR CARRYING OUT  JUSTICE FROM THE BEGINNING OF HUMANITY.   

SO ON WHAT BASIS DID YOU FIND IT ACCEPTABLE NOT TO EXPLAIN WHY DID YOU REFUSE MY PETITION DESPITE ITS COMPELLING CONTENTS?

65

EXPLAIN WHY IF YOU ARE NOT AFRAID THAT ARGUMENT TO ARGUMENT THIS LAYMAN COULD WIPE THE FLOOR WITH "JUSTICES" (ALTHOUGH THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE A GOOD IDEA CONSIDERING THAT IT WOULD MOST PROBABLY MAKE IT DIRTIER). 

64

STILL NO ONE OF THEM SEEMS TO HAVE THE DECENCY TO EXPLAIN THEIR DECISION.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders.aspx 

YOU ALL AGREED BUT NO ONE WANTS TO EXPLAIN WHY? YOU ARE JUDGES AND STILL HIDE YOURSELVES FROM SUCH NEEDED ARGUMENT CHALLENGE? WHY ACT LIKE SUCH LOW LIVES IF YOUR DECISION WAS BASED ON SOUND REASONING JUSTIFYING REFUSING A CASE THAT SEEMS TO SCREAM BEING VERY DESERVING TO BE GRANTED TO ANY HONEST PERSON?

63

ALSO, ASSUMING THAT YOU TRIED TO AT LEAST PARTLY JUSTIFY YOUR DENYING TO MY PETITION BY REQUIRING THE GUY TO SETTLE THE CASE, HOW IS THAT NOT A FRAUDULENT ACTION? HIDING A REQUIREMENT ON THE GUY TO SETTLE THAT STEMS FROM THE SAME FACTS OF THE CASE FROM ME CONSTITUTES  MISREPRESENTATION OF MY POSITION TO ME THAT HELPS  IN BENEFITING HIM TO GET A BETTER DEAL FOR HIM.   

62

EVEN IF YOU HAVE ARRANGED WITH THE GUY TO SEEK SETTLEMENT DESPITE YOUR DENYING MY PETITION, IN WHAT DISFIGURED MORALITY WORLD DID YOU FIND IT ACCEPTABLE TO MAKE US SWITCH POSITIONS REGARDLESS OF THE ACTIONS THAT BROUGHT EACH TO HIS POSITION?  

61

YOU ARE THE HIGHEST COURT AND YOU ACCEPT THE COURT SYSTEM BEING USED LIKE CRAP THE WAY THIS GUY USED IT AND INDUCED IT TO DO?

SHOULDN'T YOU BE EVEN MORE THAN ME CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM?

60

ACTING TOWARD SOMEONE LIKE THIS AS IF HE CAN JUST PRESS A BUTTON AND CHANGE EVERYTHING MAY WORK FOR SLAVES LIKE YOU BUT NOT MUCH FOR ME.

59

WHAT A SYSTEM! THE ORDINARY PERSON DOES NOT GET HELP BUT THE GUY CONTINUOUSLY MANIPULATING STOCKS AND DEFRAUDING EVERYBODY IN THE MARKET GETS A SPECIAL TREATMENT LIKE THIS.  

58

ACTUALLY, BEFORE THAT, DID YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HIS RESPONSIBILITY IN THE REACTION HE GETS THROUGH THE REPREHENSIBILITY OF HIS ACTIONS IN THE CASE AND THOSE HE INDUCED THE COURTS TO DO LATER? 

57

IN ADDITION HOW MUCH HAVE YOU TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT HIS OBLIGATION TO WORK HIS WAY THROUGH REACTIONS TO HIS OWN ACTIONS TOWARD ME? HAVE YOU TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT HOW THIS GUY DEFRAUDED ME IN THE MARKET? EVEN FOR JUST THIS STOCK DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH HE REDUCED THE PERCENTAGE AND VALUE OF OTHER STOCKS OF MINE IN REACTION TO MY SUING HIM FOR THIS ONE? WHAT ABOUT HIS TOTAL INVASION TO MY PRIVACY AND HIS 24 HOURS LIVING IN MY COMPUTERS AND NETWORK?
HOW ABOUT WHEN HE PREVENTS OR RESTRICTS MY INTERNET ACCESS AND DIRECTS ME TO A DECOY WEBSITE INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL? IT IS HARD TO ESCAPE THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS GUY INFILTRATED EVERY ASPECT OF MY LIFE AND THIS IS WHAT BOTHERED YOU AS BEING A REACTION? 

56

IF HE REALLY TOOK OWNERSHIP OF HIS ACTIONS AND WANTED TO SETTLE WHAT HELD HIM FROM DOING THAT? HE CAN PARK A CAR BESIDE THE ONE JUST ACROSS A NARROW GRASS SEPARATE FROM MINE IN A GROCERY STORE PARKING AREA FACE TO FACE WITH THE WORD "INFIDEL" AND ITS ARABIC TRANSLATION PRINTED ON THE SPACE FOR FRONTAL LICENCE PLATE BUT HE CANT DELIVER A MESSAGE TO ME? IN FACT, EVEN IF I WERE TO REFUSE ACCESSING MY MAIL OR EMAIL OR TALKING DIRECTLY, THE CAPABILITIES HE HAS SHOWN BY INFILTRATING AND CONTROLLING MY COMPUTERS AND NETWORK INDICATES THAT HE COULD STILL FORCE RECEIVING A MESSAGE ON ME BY MAKING IT APPEAR ON MY SCREEN WHILE I AM USING ANY  COMPUTER OF MINE.

BUT HIS ACTIONS NEVER SHOWN SERIOUSNESS IN THAT REGARD AND THE ACTION OF THIS COURT EXPLAINED WHY BY SHOWING HOW MUCH HE IS FAR FROM AND CAN ESCAPE  SERIOUS ACCOUNTABILITY TO HIS ACTIONS AND THOSE OF OTHERS INDUCED BY HIM.

55

IT SEEMS LIKE THIS GUY KEPT ACTING TO THIS COURT , LIKE HE DID TO THE LOWER ONES, FOR A LONG TIME THAT HE IS TRYING TO SETTLE BUT I KEEP REFUSING HIS HONEST ATTEMPTS UNTIL HE GOT THEM TO DENY MY PETITION IN SUPPORT OF HIM. IF SO, THEN ASIDE FROM HOW THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT EVEN IF THE CLAIM WAS CORRECT, THEY STUPIDLY JUDGED THINGS HERE. 

NO ONE WANTS TO REALLY REACH A PERSON WOULD ACT THE WAY THIS GUY DID. HIS ACTIONS WERE MUCH MORE FOR SHOWING THOSE WITH HIM A VERY EXAGGERATED LEVEL OF HIS TRUE READINESS TO SETTLE. THE IDIOTS DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS GUY KEEP MANIPULATING AND DRAGGING THINGS IN THE MARKET FOR YEARS AND YEARS WHILE HIDING HIS TRUE INTENTION. IN FACT, ANYONE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF THINKING WOULD HAVE SEEN HOW HIS CONTINUOUS PHONE CONTACT ATTEMPTS ACTUALLY SUPPORTS WHAT I AM SAYING HERE RATHER THAN HIS CLAIM. FOR, IF I, FOR EXAMPLE, WANT TO CONTACT SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT PICKUP HIS PHONE AND FELT INSULTED BY THAT I WOULD EITHER STOP MY ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT HIM OR TRY ANOTHER FORM LIKE THE MAIL OR EMAIL. BUT HIS INSISTENCE ON SELECTING THAT INACCESSIBLE PATH SHOWS AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE FROM ITS INACCESSIBILITY RATHER THAN ITS ACCESSIBILITY WHICH SHOWS HOW MUCH HIS REAL OBJECTIVE IS TO SHOW WILLINGNESS TO SETTLE RATHER THAN REALLY SETTLE.

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT HIS ATTEMPT TO STRETCH DEALING WITH THAT REFUSED PATH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY FIRST REFUSING TO LEAVE ANY MESSAGE EMPHASIZES MORE THAT INTENTION OF HIS.

AFTER HE PLAYED HIS GAMES IN THE DISTRICT COURT HIS INTEREST FOR THE REMAINING PATH BECAME TO COVER FOR WHAT WAS DONE FOR HIM IN THAT COURT. SO, DID THAT MARKET GUY, IF HIS READINESS TO SETTLE IS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO WHAT HE CLAIMS, MISSED THAT PERIOD AND STARTED TO HAVE THAT DESIRE TO SETTLE AFTER HE UNNECESSARILY ADDED ALL THE BAD ACTIONS FROM THE APPELLATE COURT?   

54

MOREOVER, IN CASE THAT IS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF, HE MAKES THEM RISK WHAT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THEM WHILE HE IS JUST PLAYING AN ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY GAME  

53

CONGRATULATION TO THIS CORRUPTION GUY, EVERY TIME YOU THINK THAT HIS DECEPTION TRIP SHOULD END NOW, YOU SEE HIM ON ANOTHER MULE EVEN WHEN THE REMAINING ONES (FROM YOUR VIEWING SIDE) ARE OF THE KIND HERE. 

52

IT CERTAINLY SOUNDS LIKE  NOT BEING AN ARRANGED THING, RIGHT? THERE ARE NINE OF THEM AND NO ONE DISSENTED FROM THAT DENIAL WHICH SOUNDS OUTRAGEOUS TO EVERYBODY. EVEN DICTATORS WHO WIN VOTING WITH 99.99 PERCENT WOULD SAY COMMON, AT LEAST MAKE IT MORE BELIEVABLE. 

51

IT IS HARD TO AVOID SEEING THAT THIS COURT AND THE PRESIDENT AND THIS CORRUPTION GUY ALL CONSPIRED TOGETHER IN MAKING THIS DENIAL TO MY PETITION.

I HAVE WHAT TO ME STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT THIS GUY KNEW ABOUT THE RESULT OF THE CONFERENCE OF 5/14/2015 REGARDING MY PETITION BEFORE RELEASING IT ON MONDAY. TO A LESSER DEGREE, THE PRESIDENT ALSO SEEMED LIKELY TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE END RESULT NOT ONLY BEFORE RELEASING IT BUT ALSO BEFORE THE CONFERENCE OF 5/14/2015 IN DAYS.

BASED ON THE SIGNS I SAW,TO THINK THAT THIS DENIAL TO MY PETITION WAS NOT ARRANGED WITH THIS COURT SOUNDS LIKE A VERY UNREALISTIC EXPECTATION HERE. YES, CONNECTING WITH AND INFLUENCING THIS COURT COULD BE MUCH HARDER THAN MOST OTHER COURTS IN THE COUNTRY BUT IT SEEMS TO BE FAR LESS IMMUNE FROM WHAT PEOPLE MAY EXPECT FROM A "SUPREME COURT" FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. IF YOU FOUND OTHERWISE THEN YOU PROBABLY DID NOT TEST IT WITH SUFFICIENT WEIGHT.

ALREADY BEFORE ANY OF THIS HAPPEN I WAS SHOCKED AND QUESTIONED THE MORALITY OF THIS COURT WITH REGARD TO THE GUNS CASE OF 2008 AND KEPT STRUGGLING NOT TO SEE VOTING POSITIVELY ON THAT WEAK OPINION AS CORRUPTION.    

50

THE SITUATION SUGGESTS IN A WAY THAT CAN REACH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAD CONSPIRED WITH MY OPPOSING PARTY THROUGH DIRECT OR INDIRECT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.

ANYWAY, WITH OR WITHOUT THAT , THEIR ACTION IN DENYING MY PETITION IS, AND WITH OR WITHOUT THE QUESTION OF ABUSING DISCRETION AND SINKING THIS LOW MORALLY, IN VIOLATION OF THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR REQUIREMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT MEANS THEY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DENY MY PETITION AND DOING SO MANDATES REMOVING THEM FROM OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. (YES, BASED ON THE REASONING I STATED IN THE "FOLLOWING ON THE POST TITLED"CORRECTION"" POST I NO LONGER MAINTAIN THE DOUBTING POSITION I TOOK FOR A SHORT WHILE IN MY ORIGINAL POSITION WHEN I WROTE THE "CORRECTION" POST.

49

IN A PREVIOUS POST I SAID THAT EVEN WHEN THIS GUY FOLLOW THE MARKET LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE SEC HE DOESN'T DO THAT FROM THE SAME POSITION FROM WHICH I AND THE OTHER ORDINARY PERSON DO THAT. WE DO IT LIKE THE PERSON WHO IS ON A FIXED SALARY AND KNOWS IF HE SPEND IT UNWISELY HE WOULD HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. THIS GUY ON THE OTHER HAND, IS MORE LIKE A SPOILED SON OF A RICH MAN. SPENDING WHAT IS IN HIS HAND UNWISELY, WHILE IT MAY CAUSE A LITTLE EMBARRASSMENT, IS STILL FAR FROM BEING THE END OF THE STORY.

IT SEEMS AS IF, THAT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE SEC AND GUYS LIKE THIS CAN PULL ANYTHING ANYWHERE IN THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM OF THIS COUNTRY. THE AMOUNT OF RESISTANCE HE PUTS BEFORE MOVING TO THE NEXT LEVEL COULD BE MUCH MORE BECAUSE OF RELUCTANCE TO REVEALING THE SUPPORT HE HAS OR CAN HAVE RATHER THAN ABSENCE OF SUCH SUPPORT.

REMEMBER HOW HE RESISTED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WHEN HE WENT TO THE LEVEL OF MAKING THE MAILMAN DELIVER MY PACKAGE AT 10:30 IN THE NIGHT TRYING TO AVOID GOING TO THAT LEVEL. YET YOU CAN SEE WHAT RULING THAT COURT ISSUED WHEN IT WAS PUSHED TO TAKE THE CASE. 

IT IS NOT LIKE SUCH THOUGHTS HAVE JUST OCCURRED TO ME. BUT DESPITE ALL WHAT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED TO ME, WHAT SUCH THOUGHTS COULD HAVE SUGGESTED ABOUT THIS COURT BEFORE ITS ACTION HERE WOULD HAVE, AT LEAST SOUNDED, VERY UNCALLED FOR. 

48

I ONCE TOLD THIS GUY FOR HIS CONVINCING DECEPTION THAT EVEN THOSE WHO CAN RECRUIT SUICIDE BOMBERS CONVINCING THEM TO KILL THEMSELVES MAY ASK HOW HE CAN TAKE PEOPLE THAT FAR. EVEN THAT SEEMS LESS THAN ADEQUATE FOR WHAT HE WAS ABLE TO PULL HERE.

47

DESPITE WHAT HAPPENED FROM LOWER COURTS I SAID THAT I AM NOT GOING TO JUDGE THIS FINAL COURT AS BEING LIKE THEM BEFORE  I TAKE MY CASE TO IT. 

IN ADDITION, THE CORRUPTION GUY AND OTHERS WITH HIM WERE SENDING SIGNALS THAT THIS COURT IS ALSO CORRUPT BUT I SAID THAT I AM NOT  GOING TO PREJUDGE IT. ALTHOUGH INSIDE I KEPT WONDERING COULD IT REALLY BE THAT THOSE NINE  ESCAPED THE CONNECTIONS  TO CORRUPTION FORCES?

ANYWAY, I FULFILLED MY OBLIGATION (DESPITE THE SHOCKINGLY  UNUSUAL AND DIFFICULT FILING REQUIREMENTS ESPECIALLY FOR FIRST TIME FILERS) AND THEY CHOSE THIS PATH.

46

STILL THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR WHAT THE SUPREME CRAP DID TO MY CASE PUBLISHED HERE

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders.aspx 

YOU GOT NINE WORKING THERE BUT STILL THERE ISNT ANYTHING NIETHER IN SUPPORT NOR OPPOSING THAT DENAIL TO MY PETITION. LOOK AT THE OTHER CASES. DO YOU THINK THAT THEY DESERVE EXPLAINING A POSITION OR DECLARING STANDING AGAINST A POSITION REGARDING GRANTING OR DENYING A PETITION MORE THAN MINE?   

FOLLOWING ON THE POST TITLED "CORRECTION"

Here is what that part states:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Here are two points in support of my original taking from the above that those in the judiciary only hold their offices during good Behavior.

The first one comes from keeping focus on the intention of that section. The constitution was in the constructing mode while making that good Behaviour statement. Therefore one can assume that the reference to the holding of offices was about the whole holding of offices. It was not in the process of talking about reacting to a good or bad Behaviour of a judge.  

The second point is about how if the good Behaviour part allows continuous holding of offices while violating it then why a diminishing in compensation is not allowed? It does not make sense to allow both the keeping and removal from office when committing a violation to the good behaviour requirement but forbid a diminishing in compensation as a middle point in between. That means "Continuance in Office" at the end was used interchangeably with "good Behaviour" which imply that judges can hold offices only during good Behaviour which imply that removing them from office when they violate the  "good Behaviour" requirement is a constitutional obligation and not a matter of choice.    

44

THE THOUGHT ABOUT LOW LIVES WHO GIVE THEMSELVES LIKE TOYS IN THE HANDS OF PSYCHOTICS LIKE THIS GUY  ENABLING THEM TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO THE WORLD  IS ALWAYS AGITATING TO ME.

THIS GUY DID THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE THINGS IN THE MARKET WITHOUT THE SEC OBJECTING TO ANYTHING EVEN IF YOU SPEND ALL YOUR TIME COMPLAINING TO THEM. THEN WHEN I SOUGHT REFUGE IN THE COURT SYSTEM HE DID THE SAME THING. AND NOW THE TOP CRAP OF THE SYSTEM GAVE HIM FREE PASS FOR WHAT HE DID. 

CORRECTION

DEPENDING ON HOW YOU INTERPRET THE RELEVANT PART IN ARTICLE 3 SECTION 1 MY CLAIM THAT THEY CANT VIOLATE THE GOOD BEHAVIOR REQUIREMENT COULD BE WRONG. HOWEVER IN BOTH INTERPRETATIONS IT WOULD BE CORRECT TO REMOVE FROM OFFICE JUDGES WHO VIOLATE THAT REQUIREMENT EXCEPT THAT IN ONE INTERPRETATION AS OBLIGATION WHILE IN THE OTHER AS AN OPTION.  

42

EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IN DENYING THE PETITION FITS THE GOOD BEHAVIOR REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE MERE FACT OF THEM NOT PROVIDING AN EXPLANATION FOR AN ACTION THAT APPEARS TO BE THAT MUCH UNJUSTIFIABLE COULD BY ITSELF CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THAT GOOD BEHAVIOR REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. IN ADDITION THE LONGER THEY STAY ON THE PATH OF NOT PROVIDING THAT EXPLANATION THE MORE THEY AUGMENT THE POTENTIAL OF REACHING THEN EXCEEDING A VIOLATION TO THAT REQUIREMENT.

41

HERE IS WHERE THE OPINIONS RELATED TO ORDERS ARE DISPLAYED ON THE SUPREME CRAP WEB SITE:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders.aspx

AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY DID NOT MAKE ANY ARGUMENT TO EXPLAIN DENYING MY PETITION (14-1099).

AGAIN, THE CRAP CHIEF - I MEAN SUPREME CRAP- HIMSELF SPOKE ABOUT HOW THEIR JOB NEEDS THEM TO EXPLAIN THEIR REASONING. IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE MORE NEED TO DO THAT THAN FOR WHAT THEY DID HERE.  

40

IT SEEMS THAT THE CORRUPTION GUY ASKED THE SUPREME COURT , MOST PROBABLY WITH THE HELP OF OR THROUGH THE PRESIDENT,  TO DENY MY PETITION SO THAT HE REPLACES ME IN BEING IN THE CONTROL POSITION  FOR A SETTLEMENT MAKING AND THE WONDERFUL GUYS THERE SAID YOU GOT IT, AS IF THE POSITION IN WHICH HE FOUND HIMSELF IS NOT A CONSEQUENCE TO HIS OWN ACTIONS. 

39

AS FOR YOUR FBI DIRECTOR, RETURN HIM TO CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY AND ASK FOR EXCHANGE OR REFUND.

38

HEY, NATION, YOUR SUPREME COURT IS CORRUPT. YOUR PRESIDENT IS ALSO CORRUPT.   

37

THEY GOT NO TIME? THEY COULD HAVE RELISTED OR JUST RESCHEDULED THE PETITION THEN DONE THE SAME THING FOR THE NEXT CONFERENCE THEN THE NEXT AND EVEN TAKE IT TO THEIR NEXT TERM. A PETITIONER ALWAYS HAS THE OPTION TO DISMISS HIS CASE WHILE WAITING.   

36

AND WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT MY DILUTION CLAIM IS DERIVATIVE? DESPITE HOW I AM SUSPICIOUS OF DERIVATIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SHAREHOLDER OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE IN GENERAL AS BEING THE RESULT OF CORRUPTION, I , NEVERTHELESS, DO THINK THAT ITS APPLICATION HERE DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL PRACTICE ENOUGH FOR MY CASE TO BE GRANTED. THE USUAL PRACTICE FOR SUCH ARGUMENT IS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A COMPANY WITH A FIXED NUMBER OF AUTHORISED SHARES SELLS SHARES THAT WORTH $200 EACH AT A PRICE OF $100 AND A SHAREHOLDER COMES COMPLAINING DILUTION. IN THAT CASE A COURT MAY ARGUE THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ACTUALLY ARGUING FOR SOMETHING THAT BELONG TO THE COMPANY FIRST NOT HIM. BUT FOR MY CASE IT WAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATION. 

LETS START FROM THE BEGINNING. IF YOUR OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE GOES FROM 2 PERCENT TO 1 PERCENT YOU CLEARLY SUFFERED A HARM. THE QUESTION THAT MAY REMAIN ARGUABLE TO COURTS IS WHETHER THAT HARM REACHED YOU DIRECTLY OR DERIVATIVELY THROUGH THE COMPANY. THE COURTS BELOW ARGUED THAT MY DILUTION CLAIM IS DERIVATIVE. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS NOT ONLY THAT THE DIRECT PATH TO  HARM SEEMS STRONGER BUT, IN ADDITION, YOU CANT FIND A DERIVATIVE PATH BECAUSE YOU CANT FIND OR PROVE A HARM TO THE COMPANY TO BEGIN WITH.  BECAUSE OF THAT RULING BY THE COURTS BELOW I CAN NOW ONLY BRING THE DILUTION CLAIM AGAINST THE MAIN DEFENDANT DERIVATIVELY.  SUPPOSE THAT I WANT TO FOLLOW THAT, HOW WOULD I BE ABLE TO PROCEED AGAINST THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT?

HOW CAN YOU PROVE A HARM HAPPENED TO THE COMPANY FROM THE SELLING OF SHARES AS LONG AS THEIR IS A WILLINGNESS AND CAPABILITY TO CONTINUE THE SUPPLY OF AUTHORIZED SHARES AS NEEDED WHICH IS ,IN FACT, WHAT YOUR COMPLAINT ITSELF SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTING?  HOW WOULD IT HARM THE COMPANY IF IT WAS HELD THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, A BILLION INSTEAD OF A MILLION SHARES?

YET, ALL THAT APPARENTLY WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THIS COURT TO GRANT THE PETITION.

35

NOTICE THAT THE ARGUMENT FOR TAKING MY CASE, ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE SUPREME CRAP, BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF DEPARTURE FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL PRACTICE COULD BE, AND PROBABLY IS, UNDERSTOOD AS A RELATIVE THING. SO IF MY CASE WAS REFUSED BECAUSE IT DID NOT REACH THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR THAT TO APPLY THEN WHAT WOULD THAT SAY ABOUT THE SYSTEM AND WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THOSE WORKING IN THE SUPREME CRAP NOT CONVEYING SUCH WIDE SPREAD DEPTH OF INJUSTICE TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND ESPECIALLY CONGRESS AND ACTING AS IF EVERYTHING IS OK?

HOWEVER EVEN WITH THAT THEY STILL SHOULD HAVE TAKEN MY CASE BECAUSE THE GOOD BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS NOT A RELATIVE THING. 

34

I CONTINUE WITH THE POINT RAISED IN THE POST BELOW THE MOST RECENT ONE.

LOOK AT THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE APPELLATE CRAP STARTING FROM ITS OPINION PAGE 12. YOU CAN SEE THAT INSTEAD OF FINISHING ITS ARGUMENT FOR EACH POINT BEFORE GOING TO THE NEXT, THAT COURT FIRST SPOKE ABOUT HOW THE FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ACCORDING TO RULE 12B6 SHOULD BE APPLIED.THEN IT DID THE SAME FOR 10b-5. THEN IT ALSO DID THE SAME FOR THE PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT OF RULE 9b. THEN IT DID THE SAME FOR THE ISSUE OF DIRECT VERSUS DERIVATIVE. AFTER ALL THAT IT STARTED ITS ARGUMENTS ABOUT THOSE ISSUES AGAINST MY CASE BUILDING ON THE GROUNDS IT LAID ABOVE.THAT CLEARLY CONFUSES THE READER IF THE GROUNDS LAID ABOVE SHOULD BE TAKEN IN COMBINATION OR SEPARATELY AND IT IS HARD TO THINK THAT ONE WITH HONEST INTENTIONS TRYING TO CONVEY A POINT WOULD USE SUCH TECHNIQUE. HOW MANY OTHER COURT USED SUCH TECHNIQUE IN THEIR ARGUMENTS THE SUPREME CRAP CAN POINT TO?      

33

IT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO FIND SOMETHING EMANATING FROM WHAT IS CONTRADICTORY TO IT LIKE THE BEAUTY THAT COMES FROM  MY CALLING THINGS "CRAP" HERE. WHAT IS THE BEAUTY IN THAT?THE BEAUTY IS IN THE LEVEL OF EQUALLY HOLDING EVERYONE  TO HIS OWN ACTIONS.

32

ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE COMPLAINT, BOTH LOWER CRAPS ARGUED IN A WAY THAT NO ONE ON EARTH WHO HONESTLY HAS A POINT HE WANTS TO CONVEY WOULD ARGUE LIKE IT. READ THE SECTION ABOUT ONTECO IN THE OPINION OF THE APPELLATE CRAP AND READ DOCUMENT 40 FROM THE DISTRICT CRAP AND SEE THAT FOR YOURSELF.

DISTRICT CRAP ONTECO ORDER

APPELLATE CRAP OPINION 

ONE CONFUSING TECHNIQUE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS IS THE SPINNING  THAT MAKES YOU UNABLE TO HOLD ONE THING AT TIME TO RESPOND TO IT.  ANOTHER, IS THE MIXING OF  THINGS TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT UNCLEAR IF THOSE THINGS WERE INTENDED TO MAKE SEPARATE ARGUMENTS OR A COMBINED ONE WHICH MAKES FOLLOWING ON WHAT THAT ARGUMENT MAY IMPLY TO RESPOND TO IT VERY CONFUSING. FOR EXAMPLE THE APPELLATE CRAP CLAIMS THAT I DID NOT STATE A PLAUSABLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT SHOULD BE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE OR THROUGH ITS CLAIM THAT MY DILUTION CLAIM IS DERIVATIVE. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OTHER COURTS ARGUING LIKE THAT. YET THAT WAS ALSO NO GOOD ENOUGH REASON FOR THE SUPREME CRAP TO TAKE MY CASE.

31

YOU POINT THEM TO COMPANY FILINGS SHOWING EXTREMELY OUTRAGEOUS COMPENSATION AUTHORIZED TO ONE PERSON THEN YOU POINT OUT THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHICH AUTHORISED THAT WAS COMPRISED OF ONLY THAT PERSON HIMSELF BUT STILL THEY PRETEND THAT THEY MISSED THE POINT AND QUESTION WERE THE "MISSTATEMENT OR OMISSION" IN THOSE FILINGS WHEN APPLYING THE 10B-5 AS IF THE INTENTION IN CITING THOSE FILINGS IS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT MISLEADING IN THE WAY THE ACTIONS REPORTED IN THOSE FILINGS WERE CONVEYED NOT THE ACTIONS THEMSELVES. HOW COULD THE SUPREME CRAP'S ACCEPTANCE TO THAT ACTION CONSTITUTES A GOOD BEHAVIOR? 

30

REGARDLESS OF HOW WEAK THE ARGUMENT THAT NOT DEALING WITH THINGS LIKE REDUCING THE TIME TO SERVE THE COMPLAINT BY THE LOWER COURTS COMPLIES WITH THE "GOOD BEHAVIOR" REQUIREMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL DO YOUR THING, THE ACTIONS OF THOSE COURTS ON THE MERIT SIDE INVOLVED DIRECT DENIAL OR WRONG THE PLAINTIFF CAN FIND NO WAY AROUND IT. SO HOW THE SUPREME CRAP NOT DEALING WITH THAT CAN BE SEEN AS A COMPLIANCE WITH THE "GOOD BEHAVIOR" REQUIREMENT EVEN IF IT WANTS TO APPLY ITS DISCRETION LIKE CRAP?    

29

AGAIN, EVEN IF THERE WAS NOTHING THAT CAN APPLY ON MY CASE IN ITS REASONS FOR GRANTING A PETITION, THE CRAP SHOULD STILL HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION. WHY? BECAUSE THEIR DISCRETION IN TAKING CASES CANNOT SUPERSEDES OR OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO ACT WITH "GOOD BEHAVIOR". SO ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION: DOES REFUSING A CASE WITH THAT LEVEL OF DIRECT OUTRAGEOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE ACTIONS BY LOWER COURTS CONSTITUTES A GOOD BEHAVIOR?  

28

BACK TO THE PURE MERITS ISSUE. YOU CAN SEE ON THE WEB SITE OF SUPREME CRAP THAT SOME CASES GETS GRANTED AND RETURNED BACK TO LOWER COURTS WITH AN INSTRUCTION TELLING THE LOWER COURT TO CORRECT ITS DECISION "IN LIGHT OF" SOME OTHER CASE. SO WHY THAT WAS NOT ALSO USED WITH WITH THE DENIAL IN THE WAY 10B-5 WAS APPLIED TO MY CASE?   

27

SPEAKING ABOUT PROCEDURAL HANDLING THERE IS A CASE ALSO WITH THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT IN WHICH THAT COURT DID NOT GIVE PERMISSION FOR SOMEONE TO UPDATE HIS FILING AFTER KNOWING ABOUT NEWLY RELATED RULING FROM THE UPPER CRAP THAT MADE A RELATED RULING FROM THAT COURT NO LONGER APPLICABLE. THE PETITION WAS DENIED. HOWEVER 2 OF THOSE WORKING IN THAT CRAP VOTED TO TAKE THE CASE WHILE THREE OF THE OTHERS WROTE AN OPINION IN WHICH  AFTER ARGUING FOR THE PETITIONER SIDE AND EMPHASIZING HOW THAT ACTION CAN HAPPEN ONLY IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT THEY STATED THAT THEY PREFER TO LEAVE "for now" THAT ISSUE FOR THAT COURT TO CORRECT ITSELF. HERE IS THAT OPINION:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-10639_q8l1.pdf

HOW ABOUT ALL WHAT THAT COURT DID IN MY CASE AND WHY SUCH FLEXIBILITY IN THINKING WAS NOT APPLIED TO IT?

26

CONTINUING WITH THE PROCEDURAL HANDLING OF MY CASE, HOW ABOUT HOW THE DISTRICT  COURT ISSUING ON ITS OWN ORDERS FOR ME TO SERVE THE COMPLAINT AFTER ITSELF HAD MADE IT UNUSABLE BECAUSE IT RULED THAT I BROUGHT  DERIVATIVE CLAIMS IN A DIRECT WAY THEN DISMISSING MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE OF THAT WHICH WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF RULE 4 EVEN IF ISSUING THOSE ORDERS MADE REASONABLE SENSE? THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT SEE ANY THING SUSPICIOUS IN THAT AND IN FACT  AGREED THAT IT WAS CORRECT FOR THE LOWER COURT TO DISMISS MY COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO OBEY THOSE ORDERS EXCEPT THAT LOWER PUNISHMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED FIRST. 

HOW ABOUT STARTING MY CASE WITH ORDER TRUNCATING RULE 4 TIME TO SERVE THE COMPLAINT? HOW OFTEN DO YOU SEE THAT?  AND THE APPELLATE COURT HAVING NO PROBLEM WITH WHY THAT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN THE FIRST PLACE? DID THE APPELLATE COURT SUFFICIENTLY HOLD THE DISTRICT COURT RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ACTIONS OR WAS IT COMPLICIT AND TRYING TO UNFAIRLY COVER FOR IT AND JUSTIFY THOSE ACTIONS?  NOTHING HERE CALLS ON THE SUPREME CRAP TO GRANT THE PETITION?

25

HERE IS WHAT THE RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME CRAP SAYS ABOUT ONE REASON TO GRANT A PETITION:

"a United States court of appeals has entered a decision ...  or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf

AND ALL WHAT HAPPENED IN MY CASE DID NOT FIT THAT? IF SO WHY DON'T THOSE WORKING INSIDE THAT CRAP SHOW ENOUGH ACTIONS BY OTHER COURTS IN KIND AND CONCENTRATION?   

24

EVEN ASSUMING THEY DID NOT FIND SOMETHING OUTRAGEOUS ENOUGH IN THE MERITS RULING OF THE CASE TO GRANT MY PETITION, HOW ABOUT THE PROCEDURAL HANDLING? HOW ABOUT THE WAY THE APPELLATE COURT KEPT GRANTING THE TIME EXTENSION MOTIONS TO A DEFENDANT WITHOUT ANY REAL JUSTIFICATION AND DESPITE THE VERY SEVER REQUIREMENTS ITS OWN RULES PUT ON GRANTING SUCH MOTIONS (ACTUALLY AT SOME LEVEL(S) WHICH WAS/WERE ALSO GRANTED ITS LOCAL RULES DID NOT EVEN GET INTO THAT) ? DID NOT ANY THING SOUND SUSPICIOUS IN SUCH BEHAVIOR AT LEAST BECAUSE HOW MUCH IT CAN SUGGEST TO THE OPPOSING PARTY BIG POTENTIAL BIAS TOWARD THE PARTY GETTING ALL THOSE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES OF THE COURT IN ADDITION TO THE RULES OF THE  FRAP ?WASNT IT IN ANY WAY WORTH LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL CORRUPTION IN A COURT MAKING ITSELF LIKE A TOY UNDER THE CONTROL OF ONE SIDE TO THIS LEVEL?  HOW MANY CASES ARE THERE SHOWING BEHAVIOUR AT SIMILAR LEVEL BY OTHER COURTS?

THEN HOW ABOUT THE MOTION GRANTING THE INDEFINITE EXTENSION UNTIL RULING ON AN EARLIER MOTION FILED BY THE SAME DEFENDANT ASKING TO DISMISS MY APPEAL BECAUSE I FOLLOWED THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF WAITING FOR FINAL RULING TO FILE MY APPEAL TO THAT CRAP?GRANTING INDEFINITE TIME  EXTENSION UNTIL RULING ON THAT MOTION WAS AGAINST THE LOCAL RULES OF THAT COURT EVEN IF WE WERE TO ASSUME THE EARLIER MOTION STOOD ON ACCEPTABLE GROUNDS IN ITS CLAIM

23

SHOW ME ANY OTHER SECURITIES CASE WHERE COURTS MADE ARGUMENTS LIKE THE COURTS BELOW THE TOP CRAP DID IN MINE. NO MATTER HOW YOU DESCRIBE THEM AS WEAK YOU WOULD STILL FEEL SOMETHING MISSING BECAUSE THEY WERE ALMOST LIKE WHEN SOMEONE SARCASTICALLY MOCKS ANOTHER PERSON BY PRETENDING INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND CLEAR THINGS HE IS SAYING.

22

JUST TO REFRESH THE MEMORY OF ANYONE WHO HAS FORGOTTEN HERE IS THE LINK TO MY PETITION TO THE SUPREME CRAP AGAIN:

THE PETITION I SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME CRAP

21

I VERY MUCH  ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO THINKS HE CAN SUCCESSFULLY ARGUE FOR AND DEFEND THE SUPREME CRAP IN DENYING MY PETITION TO DO SO BY CLICKING THE COMMENTS LINK (WHICH WHEN THERE IS NO COMMENTS APPEARS AS "No comments"). IF SUCCESSFUL YOU WOULD AT LEAST RE INSTALL SOME FAITH IN THE SYSTEM BACK IN ME WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RESULT OF ONE CASE REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH IT MATTER TO ME     

20

REMEMBER HOW I SPOKE ABOUT THIS GUY TAKING THOSE WITH HIM MUCH FURTHER THAN WHAT THEY INITIALLY INTENDED TO GO AND ULTIMATELY DO THINGS HIS WAY? HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE. HIS ACTIONS WERE PROBABLY FOR SHOWING WILLINGNESS TO SETTLE TO THOSE ON HIS SIDE AT A LEVEL MUCH HIGHER THAN HE IS REALLY WILLING TO GO. AND EVEN FOR THE LOWER LEVEL THAT PROBABLY SHOULD STILL HAVE COME WITH HIM ACTING FROM A HIGHER POSITION REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE REALITY AS IF TREATING THE OPPOSING PARTY SARCASTICALLY.

ANYWAY, THAT IS IN NO WAY AS IMPORTANT AS THE SUPREME CRAP SHOWING HOW CORRUPT IT IS.

19

AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT THE CORRUPTION GUY DID NOT EVEN BOTHER HIMSELF TO OFFER ANY SETTLEMENT. HE JUST KEPT ACTING IN AN INSULTING WAY BY LEAVING VOICE MAIL MESSAGES THE FIRST OF WHICH SOUNDED LIKE RECORDED UNCLEAR GENERAL MESSAGE FROM A NUMBER TO WHICH I DECIDED NOT TO CHECK ITS MESSAGES AGAIN AFTER I SAW OTHER   PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT CALLING THEM ON THE INTERNET WHICH WAS SOMETHING HE PROBABLY KNEW I WOULD DO. 

18

I NEVER FELT I HAVE NO RIGHTS LIKE I THE WAY I AM FEELING NOW.

17

EVEN FOR ME IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THIS CASE OF MINE BUT ALSO ABOUT HOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE MEANS THAT THE LIKE OF THE CORRUPTION GUY HERE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO ME AND I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO THEM. IT IS LIKE YOU DON'T EXIST AND DO NOT OWN ANYTHING. NOT EVEN THE WILD WEST IN THE WILDEST IMAGINATION CONTAIN THIS LEVEL OF MESS.

16

EVEN IF YOU WANT TO IGNORE MY RIGHTS AS A ONE PERSON, HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL SYSTEM ALLOWING SUCH THINGS TO HAPPEN IN IT? WHAT SIGNAL YOU ARE GIVING ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM WHEN YOU ALLOW SUCH CLEARLY REPREHENSIBLE ACTIONS TO HAPPEN? COULD THINGS BE ANY MORE CLEAR FOR YOU TO PUT YOUR FEET DOWN AND AGAINST THE CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM?

15

THIS LEVEL OF CLEAR INJUSTICE CAN BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ONLY IN THE CRAPPIEST NATIONS ON EARTH.

14

THE OUTRAGEOUSNESS OF THE ACTIONS FROM THE COURTS BELOW THE TOP CRAP WAS SO OBVIOUS THAT I FELT WHEN ARGUING TO POINT THEM OUT AS IF I AM EXPLAINING SOMETHING AS BASIC AS HEARING OR SEEING SOMETHING.  

13

I CALL THEM CRAP BUT IF CRAP CAN TALK IT WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED SAYING "WHAT HAVE I DONE TO YOU TO CALL ME THAT?". IF TALKING TO CRAP SOUNDS INSULTING TO ME IT IS STILL A FACT BECAUSE, AGAIN, I NOT ONLY TALKED TO A SUPREME CRAP BUT HAD TO PUT ENORMOUS EFFORT SATISFYING ITS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT JUST TO ACCESS IT. 

12

IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT A PERSON WITH EVEN ANY RESPECTABLE AMOUNT OF HONOR OR HONESTY ON THIS EARTH WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT MY CASE AND WOULDN'T DECIDE TO USE WHATEVER POWER HE HAS TO PUNISH THE LOWER COURTS FOR THEIR ACTIONS HERE LET ALONE PASSING ON IT.

11

ALTHOUGH THE CRAPPY JUDICIAL SYSTEM LEFT ME WITH ONLY A COURT WITH A DISCRETIONARY POWER IN TAKING CASES AS A LAST RESORT TO CORRECT ALL THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED FROM THE COURTS BELOW, THEY STILL SHOULDN'T HAVE REFUSED MY CASE EVEN IF THEY ACCEPTED FOR THEMSELVES TO ACT LIKE CRAP BECAUSE DOING SO FOR A CASE WITH THIS LEVEL OF THE OUTRAGEOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE THINGS DONE BY THE LOWER COURTS WOULD NOT FIT THE "GOOD BEHAVIOR" REQUIREMENT ON THE JUDICIARY IN THE CONSTITUTION.  

10

IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN ITS RULES, YOU SEE ONE OF THOSE WORKING FOR THE SUPREME CRAP SPEAKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF COMING TO THEM. I CAME WITH A CASE CONTAINING THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THINGS FROM THE LOWER COURTS AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. THE CHIEF OF THE CRAP - I AM SORRY- THE SUPREME CRAP IN ANOTHER VIDEO SPEAKS ABOUT HOW THEY NEED TO BE CONVINCING IN THEIR OPINIONS. OK, TRY TO EXPLAIN THE DENIAL TO MY PETITION. 

9

AN HONEST READER CANNOT EVEN AVOID THE IMPRESSION THAT I WAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE LOWER COURTS.

8

WHAT? THE REPREHENSIBILITY OF THE ACTIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE SUPREME CRAP? READ THE OPINION OF THE APPELLATE CRAP. IT NOT ONLY CONTRADICTS AN ENDLESS LIST OF OTHER APPELLATE COURTS BUT ALSO CONTRADICT THE MOST BASIC SIMPLE THINKING AND RECOGNITION. MUCH OF IT WAS A DIRECT DENIAL AS IF YOU ARE TALKING TO SOMEONE WHO CANT HEAR.

7

THE NUMBER IS 14-1099 IN CASE ANY ONE WANTS TO CHECK THAT HIMSELF ON THE SUPREME CRAP WEB SITE. 

6

SORRY, BUT A CRAP CAN HARDLY SMELL WORSE THAN THIS.

5

THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO ME IN NORTH KOREA AND I WOULD STILL USE IT TO POINT OUT THE LEVEL OF CORRUPTION OF ITS JUDICIARY. 

4

I REACHED THE FINAL END AND HEREBY COMPLETED MY PROOF FOR THE CRAPNESS OF THE WHOLE JUDICIARY.

3

I CHALLENGE  ALL THOSE AT THE SUPREME CRAP TO EXPLAIN WHY MY PETITION WAS DENIED.

2

Can anybody explain why my petition was denied?
What happened to me with the courts below was not enough for the one at the top to apply its supervisory role? 
It was not even sent back for correction but simply just denied. 

1

My petition was DENIED