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.