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.
No comments:
Post a Comment