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.       

144

Just by looking at even only the content of that ORDER one would question how could that court seriously issue the order on  6/10 and require the summons to be served by 6/26. Also, what kind of a court ignores why a motion was entered as a letter instead of a motion in addition to how that motion was not answered but still fault the litigant for not following a third party legal advice?According to what rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) someone without authority from the judge can rule on motions or issue orders? Actually that unsolicited responding letter itself stated that it was a response to my "letter" not my motion. Nevertheless I already commented on the merits of its contents here so there is no need to get into that again.       

143

It is not hard to detect that "received by the court" was supposed to be "received form the court" or "sent by the court". Here is the entire objection I sent:

My objection to "Report and Recommendation"

And here is the "Report and Recommendation" 

"Report and Recommendation" 

And here is the letter to which the order mentioned below referred:

The letter

142

AGAIN, AS IT SHOWN FROM THE ORDER IN THE POST BELOW, THESE COURTS SEEM TO REFUSE TO EVEN TAKE ME  SERIOUSLY LET ALONE TREAT ME JUSTLY. 

LETS ALSO ADD IT AS FRESH EVIDENCE TO THE THICK FILE OF ACTIONS INDUCED BY THIS GUY AND  PROVING HIS TYRANNY.

141

CONTINUING FROM # 138

AND AS IF WE NEEDED MORE AND FRESHER THINGS OF HIS INDUCING OUTRAGEOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE ACTIONS FROM THE COURTS, YESTERDAY  I FOUND A LETTER IN MY MAIL BOX CONTAINING THIS ORDER FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTHERN NEW YORK WERE I FILED MY SECOND CASE AGAINST THIS GUY. HERE IS THE CONTENT OF THAT ORDER WRITTEN DIRECTLY IN THE DOCKET SHEET.

ORDER  

EVEN WITHOUT WHAT I ALREADY WROTE ABOUT POSTS ABOUT THIS CASE IN  ONTCPOSTS.BLOGSPOT.COM FINDING THE OUTRAGEOUSNESS AND PRETENDED STUPIDITY COULD BE EASIER THAN FINDING THE HIDDEN FIGURE IN A TODDLER PICTURE GAME. SO I AM GOING TO LEAVE MY ARGUMENT FOR A SEPARATE POST.

140

CONTINUING FROM THE POST BELOW

IT SEEMS THAT I MISTAKENLY THOUGHT THE STATUTE RELATED TO THE SECOND CASE APPLY TO THE FATHER WHEN IT APPLIES TO BOTH PARENTS. HOWEVER, THE END RESULT REMAINS THE SAME. IT IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A LACK OF SUFFICIENT SUPPORT, AT LEAST WITH CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK, TO TAKE THE STATUTE AS GIVING THE RIGHT TO ONE PARENT TO PUNISH THE OTHER BECAUSE IT WAS INTENDED AS AN ANSWER TO A VIOLATION OF HIS /HER RIGHT BY THE OTHER PARENT'S VIOLATION TO THAT STATUTE OR ON BEHALF OF THE BABY.

139

CONTINUING  FROM # 137

ONE ADDITION TO THE ISSUE OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION OR FORCING JUST PROSECUTION ON THE GOVERNMENT BY THE VICTIMS.

WHILE ONE SHOULD CORRECT INJUSTICE NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPORTED BY PAST COURT RULINGS, EVEN AT THIS LEVEL THE SUPPORT I FOUND YESTERDAY FROM THIS COURT'S RULINGS TO THE NOTION THAT PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION CANNOT BE CHALLENGED SEEMS TO HAVE FALLEN SHORT OF EXTENDING TO THE LEVEL OF BEING APPLIED ON DIRECT AND CLEAR HARM FROM A CHALLENGING VICTIM EXCEPT FOR ONE CASE Leeke v.Timmerman . HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF STATING ORIGINAL THINKING, THIS COURT SEEMS TO HAVE BASED ITS RULING FOR THAT CASE ON Linda R.S.v.Richard D. . I THINK THAT WAS WRONG. THAT IS BECAUSE IN THE FIRST IT WAS CLEAR THAT WHATEVER PUNISHMENT APPLIES BY THE LAW ON THE GUARDS FOR THEIR ALLEGED BEATING TO THOSE INMATES  HAS VERY STRONG SUPPORT FOR IT BEING A RESPONSE FOR VIOLATING THE PERSON'S RIGHT IN NOT GETTING BEATEN UNJUSTLY. SO ONE MAY DEMAND EQUALITY BY PUNISHING THE ONE WHO ENCROACHED ON A NATURAL RIGHT LIKE THAT.

BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME WITH THAT SECOND CASE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THE LAW THAT STATE PUT FOR PUNISHING FATHERS IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS TO THE GUY IN THE CASE WAS TO ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT ON THE RIGHT OF A MOTHER IN SIMILAR SITUATION TO THE ONE IN THE CASE. YES, ONE COULD SEE IT AS BEING PUT FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE BABY. BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT READILY ANSWER THE PROBABILITY THAT ITS ARRANGEMENT IN THAT MANNER WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE MUCH MORE THAN THE MOTHER AND THEREFORE THE MOTHER DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT RIGHT TO PROSECUTE THE FATHER. FOR EXAMPLE, AND THIS IS PROBABLY WHY THE LAW WAS ENFORCED ON MARRIED COUPLES ONLY, THE STATE COULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT  THE FATHER AND MOTHER OF AN OUT OF MARRIAGE BABY WITHOUT A CHILD SUPPORT FROM THE FATHER ARE BOTH RESPONSIBLE BUT IT CHOSE THE PATH OF PUNISHING THE FATHER FOR ITS OWN INTEREST BECAUSE OF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT CAN BE MORE EASILY APPLIED SINCE THE BABY NEEDS TO BE WITH HIS MOTHER. ALSO, HOW COULD THE MOTHER ACT ON BEHALF OF THE BABY IN DEMANDING PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATING THE BABY'S RIGHTS TO THE FATHER IF SHE IS ALSO PART OF THAT SAME VIOLATION?

TO MAKE BOTH CASES SIMILAR TO BASE ONE ON THE OTHER THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING IN THAT SECOND CASE SHOWING HOW THE LAW WAS ADDRESSING ENCROACHMENT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE MOTHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH HER BABY BUT I DID NOT SEE SUCH A THING.

SO BASED ON THAT I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE MORE POTENTIAL TO CHALLENGING IN COURTS GRAND JURY DECISIONS LIKE THOSE IN FERGUSON OR NEW YORK THAN  ONE MAY THINK AND THAT HE MAY NOT NEED TO EVEN BE IN AS MUCH AS HE THINKS IN CONFLICT WITH THE LEGAL PRECEDENCE TO MAKE A STRONG CASE. 

138

CONTINUING FROM #135

EVEN FOR JUST THIS CASE THE SITUATION IS THE FURTHEST FROM THE LIKE OF A MADE UP SLIP AND FALL CLAIM. ONE CAN SEE IN THE COMPLAINT THE LEVEL OF OUTRAGEOUS ACTIONS HE STARTED WITH. THEN HE MADE THE DISTRICT COURT DOES WHAT IT DID  TO COVER FOR THOSE ACTIONS IN THE MARKET. AFTER THAT HE MADE THE APPELLATE COURT DO ALL THOSE REPREHENSIBLE AND UNJUST ACTIONS TO COVER FOR WHAT HE MADE THE DISTRICT COURT DOES. HE NEVER SHOWED THAT HE CARES OR ACCOUNT FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS ALL ALONG THAT PATH. INSTEAD WHAT HE SHOWED FITS SOMEONE WHO IS  CARELESSLY PLAYING AROUND AND ENJOYING HIS POWER TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE. HIS ACTIONS ACTUALLY GAVE THE HARD TO AVOID IMPRESSION OF SOMEONE WHO IS CHALLENGING THE SYSTEM AND NOT MERELY TRYING TO ESCAPE ITS CONSEQUENCES. HE KEPT REPEATING THINGS AND COVERING THE BAD WITH WORSE. THIS KIND OF NOT ONLY CONTINUING A BAD BEHAVIOUR BUT ALSO FOLLOWING A PATH OF CARELESS REPETITION OF SIMILAR ACTIONS COULD SHOW A HIGH LEVEL OF ARROGANCE AND TYRANNY EVEN FOR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT MISBEHAVIOR. SO HOW ABOUT COMBINING IT WITH THE KIND OF ACTIONS THIS GUY WAS DOING?    

137

CONTINUING WITH THE SIDE NOTE BELOW, APPARENTLY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TREATED AS HAVING THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE, MOST CHALLENGES TO A PROSECUTOR'S DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE BY THE VICTIM COULD FAIL. TALK ABOUT INJUSTICE!

THE EXCUSE FOR THAT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING PEOPLE MADE UP THEN USED IT TO CONFUSE THEMSELVES CALLED "SEPARATION OF POWER".

WHERE DOES IT THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS ABOUT A "SEPARATION OF POWER"? THE CONSTITUTION IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS. THERE IS A SEPARATION OF POWER AND THERE IS ALSO NO SEPARATION OF POWER. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH CAN MAKE WHATEVER LAW IT WANTS TO OVERRIDE THE JUDICIARY AND CAN ALSO FORCE THE EXECUTIVE WITH 2/3 OF THE VOTES.

THIS IS A JOKE. JUST LIKE YOU CAN OVERSTEP YOUR AUTHORITY, YOU CAN ALSO UNDER PERFORM YOUR JOB. THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNED TO CONGRESS THE TASK OF APPLYING THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR REQUIREMENT ON THE JUDICIARY? IT SHOULD DO THAT. THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNED THE TASK OF ADJUDICATING OF ANYTHING ARISING UNDER IT AND A VICTIM COMES WITH A STRONG CLAIM BASED ON THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AGAINST A PROSECUTOR'S REFUSAL TO PROSECUTE? THEY SHOULD RULE BASED ON THAT NOT ON THE THING MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE CALLED "SEPARATION OF POWER".

BUT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE SEE THAT IT IS NOT JUST IN RELIGIONS SOMETHING CAN GET USED AGAINST ITS INTENDED PURPOSE AS DEMONSTRATED HERE BY  HOW THE SEPARATION OF POWER WAS MOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF PREVENTING TYRANNY THROUGH INTERFERENCE OF POWER TO THAT OF EMPOWERING TYRANNY BY REFUSING TO APPLY POWER TO INTERFERE WHEN REQUIRED. 

ISN'T IT FUNNY WHEN A COURT TELLS THE VICTIM THAT HE LACKS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PROSECUTOR? HEY, COURTS, IT IS CALLED "JUSTICE SYSTEM" NOT "THE WORLD YOU LIKE TO CREATE SYSTEM".   

   

136

ONE SIDE NOTE ABOUT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM HERE , AND I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH THIS IS SUPPORTED BY HISTORY HERE AND COMMONLY PRACTICED ALL OVER THE EARTH, IS ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE VICTIM'S RIGHT TO PROSECUTE.  TO TELL A VICTIM THAT THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE A HARM INFLICTED ON HIM BELONGS TO THE STATE NOT HIM IS AT THE TOP SCALE OF OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS BECAUSE IT IS AT THE LEVEL OF DIRECT DENYING TO THE EXISTENCE OF THAT VICTIM. DID EVEN ANY RELIGION, DESPITE BEING CLAIMED TO BE FROM THE CREATOR WHO OWNS EVERYTHING, TELL A VICTIM THAT THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE BELONGS TO GOD NOT TO HIM? 

YOU WANT TO ADD A RIGHT TO THE STATE TO PROSECUTE OR TO KEEP CIVIL ACTIONS FOR THE VICTIM? THERE MAY STILL BE AN ARGUMENT FOR JUSTICE IN THAT EVEN WITH THE RIGHT FOR THE VICTIM TO PROSECUTE. THAT IS BECAUSE EVEN WITH THE EQUALIZING OF ACTION AND REACTION THE PERPETRATOR IS STILL THE ONE WHO CHOSE THE DEAL NOT THE VICTIM. 

I DON'T LIKE TO ACCEPT, EVEN FOR MUCH LESS OBVIOUS THINGS, UNJUST OUTRAGEOUSNESS BECOMES SO COMMON AND EVERYBODY PASS ON IT WITHOUT POINTING OUT HOW WRONG IT IS.

ACTUALLY, ANY ARGUMENT DENYING THAT RIGHT TO THE VICTIM, BECAUSE IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT EXISTENCE, IS MORE LIKE A HYPNOTISM EFFORT RATHER THAN AN ARGUMENT.

BY THE WAY, GIVEN THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION PRECEDE PROSECUTOR'S DISCRETION, WHAT PREVENTS SEEKING A COURT ORDER COMPELLING THE GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE WHEN IT UNJUSTLY REFUSES TO DO THAT?

135

AND HOW IS IT THAT THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND HAS A CONNECTION TO THE LIKE OF THIS GUY TO BEGIN WITH? DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH BAD THINGS AND DEFRAUDING TO PEOPLE THIS GUY DOES? YOU WANT TO TAKE THE SIDE OF SOMEONE WITH WHOM YOU SHARE AN IDENTITY AGAINST THE RIGHT SIDE, AS BAD AS THAT IS, AT LEAST PICK SOME NORMAL GUY NOT THIS ONE.  

134

GOOD HAVEN! THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND COULDN'T RESIST FAVOURITISM AND SPECIAL TREATMENT WITH AN ISSUE LIKE THIS. WHAT WOULD HAVE THEY DONE HAD IT BEEN AN ISSUE OF LIFE OR DEATH?  

133

HEY "JUSTICES", WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN OF MORE PRIORITY TO YOU THAN SHOWING YOUR REFUSAL TO THE WAY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WAS MADE A JOKE THROUGH THE ACTIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS HERE?

132

EVEN IF ONE ASSUMES THOSE "JUSTICES"  WERE RIGHT IN DENYING MY PETITION, GIVEN THAT ON ITS FACE THE PETITION DOES NOT GIVE ANY REASONABLE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH DECISION TO BE CORRECT, THERE ARE TWO CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS ON REQUIRING THEM TO EXPLAIN THAT DENIAL. 

THE FIRST WHICH WAS POINTED OUT EARLIER IS MANDATED BY THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT ON THE JUDICIARY. 

THE SECOND ONE SEEMS TO BE MANDATED BY THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS. EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT WOULD NOT FIT DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THE DISCRETION IN TAKING CASES, THAT DISCRETION PROBABLY WOULD NOT EVAPORATE THE INDIVIDUAL DUE PROCESS POTENTIAL. INSTEAD THOSE DUE PROCESS POTENTIALS CAN COME BACK BASED ON THEIR PRIORITIES AS OBLIGATORY DUE PROCESSES FOR THE NATION AS A WHOLE.

131

LOOK AT THE IMPROVEMENT I GAINED HERE. THE LOWER COURTS WRITE BAD OPINIONS. THE HIGHER ONE DOESN'T EVEN BOTHER ITSELF TO WRITE ANY EXPLANATION. 

130

HEY, SUPREME CRAP , YOU COMMUNICATE AND ARRANGE THINGS WITH ONE SIDE BUT REFUSES TO EVEN REVEAL YOUR REASONING AND YOUR STAND TO THE OTHER? 

129

I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF COURT , ANY COURT LET ALONE THE HIGHEST COURT IN  A NATION, PLAY THINGS FROM INSIDE AND HIDES ITS VIEW LIKE THIS "COURT" IS DOING HERE?????????

128

EVEN OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO, WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL IN IRAQ, I DID NOT RESIST BEING REGISTERED WITH THE BAATH PARTY (I DON'T KNOW WHERE ALL THOSE WHO APPEARED THERE AFTER THE ENTRANCE OF THIS COUNTRY CLAIMING THAT THEY REFUSED TO JOIN THE BAATH PARTY HAD COME FROM. I DON'T REMEMBER IT BEING DISCUSSED AS AN OPTION IN ANY CLASS OR SCHOOL I WAS IN. THOSE WHO TOOK THE RISK OF REFUSING TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE BAATH PARTY WERE PROBABLY VERY VERY FEW AND UP TO THIS MOMENT I DON'T KNOW ANYONE FROM MY TIME. UNLESS THINGS WERE DIFFERENT EVEN IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE I WAS IN SHIA AREA BUT I DON'T SEE THAT VERY PROBABLE AT LEAST TO THE LEVEL THAT FITS ALL THOSE CLAIMS). HOWEVER WHEN THEY FORCE US TO GO MARCHING FOR THE DICTATORSHIP, I WAS VERY CONSCIOUS NOT TO LET MY ACTIONS TO CONTINUE BEYOND BEING FORCED AND SURRENDER TO BEING ENSLAVED BY WILL. WHEN THEY LOOK AT ME I WOULD CLAP BUT AS SOON AS THEY LOOK AWAY I WOULD STOP.  

127

EVEN IF THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE MATTER WAS BRINGING CERTAINTY IN THE OUTCOME, THAT WOULD STILL NOT PREVENT THAT CERTAINTY ITSELF FROM BEING SEEN AS A REASON CLOSING EXCUSES NOT TO ACCEPT BEING ENSLAVED BY CHOICE. IN ADDITION, EVEN IF I HAD A CERTAINTY AND FOLLOWED IT FOR THE REASON THEY MAY THINK I FOLLOWED IT, I STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE SAME POSITION I TOOK ABSENT THAT CERTAINTY  BECAUSE OF THE REASON I MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING POST.     

126

IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE AT THE SUPREME CRAP THOUGHT I TOOK MY POSITION BECAUSE OF A CERTAINTY IN THE OUTCOME THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE MATTER WOULD BRING. I WONDER WHAT COULD HAVE CONVENIENTLY SUPPORTED SUCH FAITH FOR ME? WAS IT THAT I AM ORIGINALLY FROM SADDAM'S IRAQ AND THE NOTION OF REAL COURTS THERE IS NOT SOMETHING ANYONE CAN TAKE SERIOUSLY? OR IS IT BECAUSE OF HOW ALL MY EXPERIENCE AND INTERACTION WITH COURTS , OTHER THAN TRAFFIC COURTS,  IN THIS COUNTRY WAS IN THIS CASE? 

NO, WHAT THEY APPARENTLY FAILED  TO COMPREHEND IS HOW I  TRY TO MAKE  USE OF WHATEVER I CAN RATHER THAN SURRENDERING TO BEING ENSLAVED BY CHOICE. THAT WOULD CLEARLY APPLY WHEN THE ISSUE INVOLVES SOMEONE WHO ACTS WITH THIS LEVEL OF BEING ABOVE THE RULES AND DEALS WITH THINGS LIKE BEING TOYS TO HIM.

125

AS I SAID BEFORE, IT SEEMS THAT THE GUY KEPT CALLING ME IN ORDER TO SHOW THOSE NINE ,WITH HELP FROM INSIDE,  HOW ARROGANT I AM IN IGNORING HIS PHONE CALLS. HE TRIED TO USE EVERY THING HE CAN TO EMPHASISE THAT. HE CALLED SEVERAL TIMES WHILE I AM CARRYING MY PHONE (YES HE KNOWS WHEN I AM TRAVELLING WITH MY CELL PHONE BECAUSE THAT IS BEING REPORTED TO HIM BY THE CELL PHONE COMPANY I AM WITH AND/OR THROUGH CREDIT CARD COMPANIES REPORTING MY TRANSACTIONS IN REAL TIME TO HIM WHICH WOULD IMPLY I AM OUT AND THEREFORE MOST PROBABLY CARRYING MY CELL PHONE WITH ME). LATER, HE APPEARS TO HAVE EVEN USED THE SIDE OF THE KID NEIGHBORING ME HEARING'S TO MY ACTIVITIES INSIDE MY HOME, ESPECIALLY WHEN I APPROACH THEIR SIDE, TO DETECT AND CALL AT ,OR WITHIN VERY CLOSE TIME PROXIMITY TO WHEN, I AM THERE TO DO A SIMPLE THING, OR EVEN BETTER, WHEN DOING THINGS LIKE JUST PICKING SOMETHING FOR FURTHER PROOF THAT I WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANYTHING WHEN HE CALLED,   SO HE CAN SHOW THOSE IN THAT COURT EVEN MORE CLEARLY HOW BAD I AM BECAUSE OF NOT ANSWERING HIS PHONE CALLS AND MESSAGES.

BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH THE LIKE OF THIS GUY REFUSE TO REVEAL THEIR TRUE SELF TO ANYBODY, I WOULDN'T BE VERY SURPRISED IF THOSE ON HIS SIDE TRULY BELIEVE IN THE LEVEL OF HIS PRETENDED INTENTION AND THAT HE WAS NOT DOING THOSE THINGS TO SHOW THAT HE IS WILLING TO SETTLE MORE THAN HE TRULY WANTED TO SETTLE LIKE A NORMAL PERSON MAY WANT TO SETTLE AND NOT DEALING WITH THE SITUATION FROM A HIGH POSITION.   

124

AGAIN, THE ACTION OF THOSE INSIDE THAT COURT IS BAD ON ITS FACE AND ALSO IN ITS DEPTH. BEYOND THE SURFACE LEVEL IT  VERY STRONGLY SUGGESTS COMMUNICATION WITH COOPERATION AND ARRANGEMENTS WITH MY OPPOSING SIDE LEADING TO THEIR UNEXPLAINED DENIAL OF MY PETITION. FURTHERMORE, ON GOING SIGNS ALSO STRONGLY SUGGEST THE CONTINUITY OF THAT COMMUNICATION AND ARRANGEMENT TO THIS TIME. 

123

THERE IS NO MORAL VALUES MAGIC SHIELD THAT AUTOMATICALLY APPLIES TO ANYBODY BECAUSE HE IS CALLED A "JUSTICE" AND THOSE IN THIS COURT HAD CLEARLY COMMITTED AN UNJUST CORRUPT ACTION.

122

LIMITING THE SEARCH FOR THE MOST JUST PEOPLE TO LAWYERS COULD PUT THE SEARCHER IN A DISADVANTAGEOUS POSITION WORSE THAN THAT OF LIMITING TRYING TO FIND THE PERSON WITH THE BEST ABSTINENCE FROM DRUGS AND ALCOHOL TO HOLLYWOOD.   

121

WHY DO THOSE PEOPLE DENY THAT IN THE JUDICIARY HAVING THE ONE WITH THE BEST JUSTICE VALUES TO BE ON TOP IS THE MOST INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT? WHO SAID THAT PERSON HAS TO BE A LAWYER OR EVEN COMES WITH SOME SPECIAL LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE OR MENTAL CAPABILITIES? YOU MAY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO A PERSON WHO COMMIT AN HONEST MISTAKE TO CORRECT HIM BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO TO A CORRUPT PERSON? CORRECTING MORALITY IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THAN CORRECTING KNOWLEDGE. MOREOVER, A PERSON IN SUCH POSITION CAN HAVE A VERY SUBSTANTIAL LAWYER ASSISTANCE READY TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO HIM. FINALLY THAT PERSON GENERALLY MAY NOT BE EVEN THE ONE MAKING THE DECISIONS. HE MAY JUST CHECK THEM FOR COMPLIANCE WITH BEING JUST AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WHEN ISSUED WHILE ALSO STAND READY TO TAKE BACK THINGS FOR CORRECTION IF A JUST OBJECTION GETS RAISED.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHILE THE POSITION OF A JUDGE IS NOT AS MUCH A POLICY MAKING POSITION LIKE THAT OF A PRECEDENT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO BE A DIRECT ONE AND CANNOT USE CAPABILITIES FROM OTHER PEOPLE IF THAT PROVIDE A BETTER PATH FOR JUSTICE. 

  

120

WE WANTED HONEST SOLID CORE JUST PEOPLE TO BE, AT LEAST, IN THE TOP COURT OF THE COUNTRY AND THIS IS WHAT CONGRESS GAVE US.

119

WHAT KIND OF COURT REFUSES TO COME DIRECT AND INSISTS ON DOING THINGS IN TWISTED BEHIND THE SCENES WAY LIKE THIS?  

118

STARTING FROM THE FIRST LEVEL OF LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENED HERE , THIS "SUPREME COURT" DID TWO VERY OUTRAGEOUSLY BAD THINGS NOT ONE. THE FIRST IS REFUSING THE PETITION, WITHOUT EVEN ONE PERSON VOICING A DISAGREEMENT TO THAT, WHILE THE SECOND IS NOT CARING OR REFUSING TO EXPLAIN THAT REFUSAL. EVEN WITH CASES WHERE THERE IS MUCH BIGGER SPACE ALLOWING ASSUMPTION OF BEING CORRECT IN DENYING THEM, ONE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DISPUTE THE FACT OF THE EXISTENCE OF  A DOUBT TO BE ANSWERED IN AN EXPLANATION.  

117

AND BY THE WAY, THAT WW2 THING AND THE SEPARATION AND ISOLATION CREATED THROUGH GUANTANAMO (ALTHOUGH THAT IS  STILL MUCH LESS OF A GUILT THAN SURRENDERING SOMEONE TO A DICTATORSHIP AND TORTURING GOVERNMENT) AND THE GUN MESS HERE IN ADDITION TO PROBABLY THIS ARE ALL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM HERE I CALL GROUP IDENTITY COMPLEX.

WHILE THE ISSUE OF THE MESS OF GUNS MAY SEEM LACKING MUCH OF THE SIMILARITY IN THE PROCESS OF SELF DEFINITION BY CONTRAST, THERE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE VERY SURPRISING IN HOW STRONGLY THAT FITS HERE.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT I COULD BE USING THE WORD "COMPLEX" TO MEAN "ISSUE" MORE THAN AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL TERM. ALSO, I COULD BE TALKING FROM THE LEVEL THAT MORE DIRECTLY FIT BEHAVIOUR AND NOT NECESSARILY THE ONE THAT CARRY A HIGH DEPTH OF THE ISSUE. AFTER ALL, WHAT I SEE AS AN IDENTITY ISSUE COULD BE AT THE ROOT NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXISTENCE ISSUE.   

116

I ONCE READ A QUOTE FROM THE ARGUMENT THIS COURT MADE IN SUPPORT OF HOLDING JAPANESE AMERICANS DURING WW2 IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND IT SOUNDED TO ME AS OUTRAGEOUS IN ITS WEAKNESS. LATER, ONE DAY I SAW ONE OF THOSE NINE IN A VIDEO WONDERING ABOUT HOW COULD THIS COURT AGREE WITH WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME AND THOUGHT GOOD SEEMS LIKE THEY NOTICED THAT SO I DO NOT NEED TO PUT MUCH EFFORT POINTING IT OUT TO CORRECT WHATEVER MENTAL SET IT CAME FROM. UNFORTUNATELY, AS WHAT THIS COURT DID HERE SEEMS TO INDICATE, THAT REALIZATION APPARENTLY DID NOT EXCEED BY MUCH THE SUPERFICIALITY OF RECOGNITION AND SELF SCRUTINY FOR MERELY THE FORM.

115

REMEMBER THERE ARE NINE OF THEM. EVEN WITH THIS LEVEL OF QUALITY IN SELECTION FOR "JUSTICES", SHOULDN'T THE PROBABILITY OF DOING SUCH AN OUTRAGEOUS THING WITH NO ONE OF THEM VOICING A DISAGREEMENT BE REDUCED WITH THE INCREASE OF THEIR NUMBER? WHY DOES IT SEEM THAT EASY? 

THE ANSWER IS YES IT GENERALLY SHOULD BUT MUCH LESS FOR HERE. BECAUSE WITH THE IDENTITY COMPLEX THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH A GROUP IDENTITY AND SHARE A SIMILAR POSITION AGAINST AN EXTERNAL OBJECT TO DEFINE THAT IDENTITY BY CONTRAST.    

114

EVEN IF I ASSUME I WERE IN SIMILAR PLACE AND CORRUPT ENOUGH TO AGREE TO PROVIDE HELP TO THIS CORRUPTION GUY, I STILL CANT IMAGINE MYSELF BEING STUPID ENOUGH TO MAKE HIM TAKE ME THIS FAR WITH HIM .     

113

THE "SUPREME COURT" ACTED WITH BIAS AND FAVORITISM AND COMMUNICATED AND ARRANGED THINGS WITH ONE SIDE BUT NOT THE OTHER IN ITS RULING ON A PETITION. 

THIS IS WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE LAST REFUGE FOR JUSTICE? WHAT IS LEFT FOR A CORRUPT CAR SHOP TO DO? 

112

DESPITE HOW THIS GUY DOES WHATEVER HE LIKES EVERYWHERE AROUND ME, I WANTED TO SEE HIM, EVEN IF FOR ONLY THIS, REACHES, BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS, A RED LINE HE CANT CROSS OR HAVE HIS WAY AROUND IT. AFTER THE LONG WAITING AND BIG EFFORTS AND DESPITE BEING CLEARLY ON THE RIGHT SIDE WITHOUT ANY WRONG, AGAINST THE OUTRAGEOUS THINGS THIS GUY DONE AND INDUCED THE COURTS TO DO TO ME ABUSING THE SYSTEM AND MAKING A JOKE OF IT, THE END RESULT WAS THAT THEY INSTEAD MADE ME REACH THAT RED LINE.   

111

ASIDE FROM THE QUESTION OF MY RIGHTS, THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND SIDED WITH THE GUY WHO MADE A JOKE OF THE SYSTEM IT HAS A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION FOR? HOW FUNNY IS THIS? ASIDE FROM ANY FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION HOW ABOUT ITS RESPECT FOR ITSELF? EVEN  PURE LIE LIKE THIS WAS MADE TO IT ITSELF. COULD CORRUPTION MAKE  THINGS MORE EMPTY CORE HERE?  

110

I HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT THE TRUE VALUE OF ANY PLACE IS ITS APPLICATIONS OF JUSTICE AND GIVING THE RIGHTS TO WHOM THEY BELONG. A PLACE WHERE THE RIGHT AND WRONG POSITIONS ARE REVERSED LIKE THIS IS NOT WORTH A CRAP.  

109

THE SENATE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THIS HAD EVEN FAILED TO CONSTRUCT ONE FINAL COURT COMPRISED OF NINE NONE CORRUPT HONEST PEOPLE. THEY DID NOT EVEN FAIL IN SOME OF THEM. THEY FAILED IN ALL OF THEM.

108

IF THE STATUS OF FREE EXISTENCE FROM CORRUPTION IN THIS COUNTRY IS THAT IT IS STILL ALIVE THEN IT IS PROBABLY AT ITS LAST BREATHS WITH NO ONE CARING TO OFFER IT ANY MEDICAL HELP. EVEN WORSE, NO ONE PROBABLY CAN RECOGNIZE IT.  

107

IF YOU LIVE ON THE SURFACE IN THIS COUNTRY EVERY THING MAY SOUND OK TO YOU. BUT IF GET DEEP ENOUGH OR CIRCUMSTANCES OR LUCK MAKES YOU CROSS THE PATH OR SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO WHOEVER CROSSES THE PATH OF THE LIKE OF THIS GUY OR WHOEVER ON HIS SIDE THEN YOU WOULD SEE HOW EVERYTHING IS FAKE INSIDE.

I HAVE JUST SHOWED YOU A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THAT ALONG EVERY STEP OF THE WAY OF THIS LAW SUIT OF MINE ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP.   

106

FOR THOSE WHO SUFFERED INTENTIONAL WRONG FROM THE JUDICIARY BRANCH AND NOBODY CARED, I SAY YOUR CONSTITUTION DID NOT LET YOU DOWN BUT IT WAS ABUSED.

AND FOR THOSE WHO PROUDLY MENTION HOW LONG SO MANY SUPREME COURT AND OTHER JUDGES STAYED IN OFFICE REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF SCRUTINY ON THEIR BEHAVIOUR I SAY YOU WIN. SADDAM RULED FOR ONLY TWENTY FIVE YEARS.   

105

I DON'T KNOW WHY WOULD ONE READ "hold their Offices during good Behaviour" IN THE CONSTITUTION AND TAKE FROM IT MORE EMPHASIZE ON HOLDING THE OFFICE PART THAN THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR PART TO JUSTIFY THE LEVEL OF NOT GOOD BEHAVIOUR REQUIRED TO REMOVE A JUDGE FROM OFFICE WE SEE IN IMPLEMENTING THE QUOTE ABOVE? WHAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION SUGGESTS TO THE READER THIS LOVE  BY THE FRAMERS FOR A DICTATORSHIP LIKE SYSTEM IN THE JUDICIARY WHERE JUDGES CAN DO CLEARLY INTENTIONAL WRONGS WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES?

TO ME READING THE QUOTE ABOVE MAKES ME SEE THOSE TWO THINGS GO HAND IN HAND TOGETHER IN THE DEPTH OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR AND THE CONTINUITY IN OFFICE.

ACTUALLY, IF ANYTHING, THERE SEEMS TO BE MORE EMPHASIZE ON THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR PART. THINK ABOUT WHY THE QUOTE ABOVE WAS PRECEDED BY "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts," INSTEAD OF JUST "THE JUDGES"? WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS A MORE PROBABLE REASON TO EMPHASISE THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE ON BOTH? WAS IT A POTENTIAL DIFFERENT TREATMENT IN CONTINUITY IN OFFICE OR A DIFFERENT TREATMENT IF THEY DO LESS THAN GOOD BEHAVIOUR? IF CONGRESS WANTS TO CHANGE JUDGES AT THE SUPREME COURT TO GET SOME INTERPRETATION TO THE CONSTITUTION OR LAW THE WAY IT LIKES THE JUDGES OF THAT COURT CAN IMMEDIATELY SAY THAT IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION EVEN IF THE PART "THE JUDGES" WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY WHAT CAME BETWEEN THE TWO COMMAS. FURTHERMORE, CONGRESS COULD GET THOSE SAME INTERPRETATIONS IT LIKES  BY ADDING ENOUGH JUDGES OF THE TYPE WHO WOULD VOTE THE WAY IT LIKES. IF THAT WAS MORE THE CONCERN FOR THE FRAMERS BEHIND MAKING THE PART BETWEEN THE TWO COMMAS, WHY DIDN'T THEY SPECIFY A NUMBER FOR SUPREME COURT JUDGES PREVENTING ADDITION TO IT? 

    

104

I DON'T CARE WHAT RELIGION YOU BELIEVE IN OR WHAT FAITH YOU PRACTICE, IF YOU ARE IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY AND YOU PASS ON CLEAR INJUSTICE LIKE THIS AS IF EVERYTHING IS OK THEN YOU ARE AS DIRTY AS CRAP. 

103

AS IF WHAT THE DISTRICT AND APPELLATE COURTS DID IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY WAS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF.

102

ONLY IN THE MOST DISGUSTING CRAPPIEST PLACES ON EARTH SUCH CLEAR AND DIRECT INJUSTICE COMMITTED LIKE THIS AND PASSED ON LIKE NOTHING.   

101

UNLESS THEY KNOW THEY GOT NOTHING, WHY WOULD ANYONE ACTS SO COWARDLY LEAVING OUT THE ARGUMENT PART SUPPORTING HIS ACTION AND PREVENTING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A COUNTER ARGUMENT FOR SOMETHING THAT, AT LEAST ON ITS FACE, SEEMS VERY DESERVING OF THAT? 

100

SO ALL OF THOSE NINE AGREED TO DENY MY PETITION AND NONE OF THEM WANTED TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION TO THAT? ONLY CRAP STICK TO EACH OTHER LIKE THIS REGARDLESS OF THE QUESTION OF JUSTICE.

99

ASIDE FROM WHAT THEIR DENIAL TO MY PETITION AFFECTS ME AS A LITIGANT, WHAT ABOUT ITS EFFECT ON THE SYSTEM? HOW COULD ANYONE SEE A SYSTEM HE IS HEADING ACTS IN THIS WAY AND ACCEPT THAT LIKE THIS? WHERE IS THE HEAT FOR JUSTICE FROM THOSE AT THE TOP OF JUSTICE SYSTEM? ARE YOU KIDDING ME! CORRUPTION HAS GOTTEN UNDER THE SKIN AND FLOWS WITH THE BLOOD  IN THIS COUNTRY.  

98

IN GENERAL, IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER BIG ABUSE TO PEOPLE HERE BY DISFIGURING THE CONSTITUTION AND THIS TIME THROUGH OUTRAGEOUS INTERPRETATION TO HANDLING THE JUDICIARY BRANCH.

LOOK AT ALL THIS FALSE INSINUATION SPEAKING ABOUT LIFE TIME APPOINTMENT FOR  FEDERAL JUDGES. THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT SPEAK ABOUT NEITHER LIFE TIME NOR FIVE MINUTES APPOINTMENT FOR FEDERAL JUDGES. THAT IS BECAUSE IT HANDLED THAT CONDITIONALLY THROUGH BEHAVIOUR EVALUATION. THE "good Behaviour" STATEMENT IMPOSES A REQUIREMENT TO CONTINUOUSLY SATISFY A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF SCRUTINY ON ALL ACTIONS OF FEDERAL JUDGES. THE SYSTEM THAT SEEMS TO BE CREATED HERE WHERE FEDERAL JUDGES CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE UNLESS THEY COMMIT THE KIND OF THINGS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 2 SECTION 4 , IS AN IMAGINARY CREATION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTION. NOT ONLY SUCH ARGUMENT IS VERY WEAKLY SUPPORTED IN COMPARISON WITH THE MUCH LESS RESTRICTIVE UNDERSTANDING TO THE "good Behaviour" IN ARTICLE 3 SECTION 1, BUT IT IN ITSELF ACTUALLY ALSO SUPPORT THAT UNDERSTANDING. THAT IS BECAUSE THE SCRUTINY LEVEL IN APPLYING ARTICLE 2 SECTION 4 ON ELECTED "CIVIL OFFICERS" CLEARLY SUGGESTS A HIGHER LEVEL OF IT FOR THOSE APPOINTED WITHOUT TIME LIMIT.

97

APPARENTLY THE GUY DESPITE DOING ALL WHAT HE DID AND INDUCED THOSE LOWER COURTS TO DO, AND HE DOES HIS THINGS NOT JUST LIKE THE ONE WHO WANTS TO DO WHAT HE WANTS BUT MOREOVER LIKE THE ONE WHO TRIES TO CHALLENGE THE SYSTEM AND THE RULES, HE WENT TO THOSE "JUSTICES" AND SAID REGARDING HIS CASE WITH ME:

I WANT TO BE ON EQUAL GROUND LEGALLY WITH HIM.

AND DESPITE THAT I HAVEN'T EVEN DONE ANYTHING WRONG LET ALONE BE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO HIS POSITION, THE "JUSTICES" SAID:

YOU GOT IT! WE ARE DENYING HIS PETITION.

HOW FUNNY IS THAT. TALK ABOUT GRANTING PSYCHOS THEIR WISHES AND EMPOWERING THEM ON THE WORLD!

   

96

JUST WHEN I THOUGHT THAT AT THIS FINAL COURT  IT SEEMS  I FINALLY REACHED WHERE MY EXISTENCE IS NOT IGNORED BECAUSE I AM ON THE OPPOSING SIDE TO THIS GUY.

DEAR HAVEN! IT IS LIKE HAVING A SOLID CORE INSIDE IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY UNKNOWN HERE. 

95

THIS WAS A  CORRUPTION AND FAVORITISM FROM THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND AND SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED FOR ONE SECOND.

THAT SHOULD BE  INTOLERABLE BECAUSE OF BEING THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND MUCH MORE THAN IT IS IN SPITE OF BEING THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND. 

94

CONGRESS SHOULD ALSO TAKE MY CASE AT LEAST BY TAKING THE ISSUE WITH THIS AND LOWER COURTS TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS BECAUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR GRIEVANCES CLEARLY REQUIRES MORE THAN JUST BEING A COURT IN NAME AS THESE COURTS WERE TO ME.  

93

CONGRESS SHOULD RESPOND TO WHAT HAPPENED HERE IF IT CARES ABOUT COMPLYING WITH THE CONSTITUTION WHICH REQUIRES REMOVING JUDGES FROM OFFICE IF THEY DO WHAT DOES NOT FIT GOOD BEHAVIOUR IN OFFICE. THE BEHAVIOUR HERE CLEARLY IS VERY FAR FROM BEING GOOD BEHAVIOUR.

92

THIS IS CORRUPTION AND FAVOURITISM IN ITS CLEAREST FORM.

91

IF THOSE INSIDE THAT SUPREME CRAP THINK THAT I KEPT ON MY POSITION BECAUSE OF THE FAITH I HAD IN THEM THEN THEY ARE JUST DREAMING. I INSISTED AND CONTINUE TO INSIST ON MY POSITION BECAUSE THE MOST BASIC RULES OF JUSTICE AND COMMON SENSE CLEARLY AND DEEPLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY VALIDATES MY POSITION . WHAT THOSE LOWER COURTS DID WAS EXTREMELY WRONG AND INEXCUSABLE. AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, DEALING WITH THOSE COURTS WAS LIKE TALKING TO A DEAF PERSON YOU GOT NO WAY AROUND THEIR INJUSTICE EVEN IF YOU WANT TO TOLERATE IT. 

90

HEY SENATE, I KNOW THAT PROBABLY NONE OF THOSE IN THAT COURT SHOULD REALLY BE THERE, BUT SHOULDN'T THEY AT LEAST SHOW THEMSELVES SANE BY EXPLAINING WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

89

I HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG THROUGH OUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS WHILE THEY TREAT ME IN A SARCASTIC LIKE WAY AND AS IF I DON'T HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

88

AS IF I DID NOT ALREADY HAD ENOUGH FROM THE LOWER COURTS, I REACHED THIS ONE AND IT DECIDED TO FINISH WITH THAT SAME CRAP.