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.