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?