257

The corruption guy did much of what he did in my second case in New York despite his situation here. Even at this stage of the case he apparently did not hesitate to make the district judge issue that order. What would one do in face of such arrogance and corruption? You saw what choice he made with the recent second chance I gave him. This whole thing of dealing with this case while the petition is denied is probably also a result of his arrogance and need to be in control to begin with. I said that five years ago when he did all what he did in the stock of Viking Systems. I even wouldn't be surprised to see, despite all what happened here,  not just in the district court, if the case in New York reaches the appellate court, he would play like he did here if he can do that. I probably would be surprised if he doesn't do that.  

However, while it may seem insufficient as deterrent, and although I don't think I need to do this, at least partly for the sake of those inside this court, who apparently tried to manipulate me externally like an object where I cant see the choices that could be counted on me and negotiate from the position of having my petition denied , I decided to make the settlement offer mentioned in post # 250 for this case also include settling my case in New York.

256

Aside from the question of morality and quality of persons running the government here, I just want to know, how legally is it acceptable to engage in the deceptive practices even those supposedly in law enforcement local, and especially, federal government have been doing in service of this corruption guy? What kind of a deterioration is this for these things to happen publicly like there is nothing there? If sinking low convert itself to mass this country would be a black hole because of these things. 

This is not just quality sinking but one that is related directly to justice and applying the law.How could false claims like those made about the attack in Chattanooga go without prosecution?

In addition, locally here, the FBI has been having fun, for months now, making false claims about the existence of a gang, apparently operating only here, that abduct or hold bank executives or their relatives and try to force them to draw from their banks. 

How could anyone tolerate such dirt?

     

255

The guy is still required to act within the generally accepted behaviour when making his phone contacts. That include leaving a clear message stating the issue to which the call is related and the contact back information if his call is not answered. That is only required once until a contact back is made to him in the same way described here.

254

That, in #253, was combined with how the guy was trying to bully and threaten me away from making high demands. Then I noticed the potential similarity to the game he played in the Viking Systems stock where he gave those inside the capability to sell shares based on market price no matter what it reaches (for a stock that moved from below a penny to over a dollar a share within probably around 45 days) while he himself kept the price under pressure there (Although that was with help of the agreement itself through the empowerment of the big competing sides to get shares through less competition). I realized how the guy might not even had the decency to come with a new plan but was simply recycling that one to be used with something involving me again.

But that is far from being the whole thing here because the guy's believe in his power to manipulate people to do what he wants them to do apparently took him far off. While he was threatening me (indirectly of course) not to make high demands to resolve the issue, it seemed that he was also encouraging me to continue to fight. Understanding that fight as being related to my reaction to his phone calls highly strengthened and made clear a very probable picture and plan here.  

253

I had to see through the meaning of signs like that of  how the corruption guy was trying to distract me to steal time in short periods which did not sound to me to fit any suitable level of desperation here for someone not having a time limit on his attempts, or pretended attempts, to make a deal with me resolving the case .    

252

He had all his choices in front of him. I, on the other hand, the best assumption for what happened to me from this court is that I was being manipulated externally like an object. 

251

From the beginning of this matter in the market, through the courts, and to this point, the path of this corruption guy was one of clear choice making one after another. Actually, the making of choices seems to fit him at least sometimes more in a way crossing that of just selecting them to entirely inventing those choices for himself.

It is hard to find something calling for holding someone responsible for his actions more than this pure path of choice making. I even gave him what could be a second chance for an earlier choice inside it with the offer that expired today.   

250

THE NEW OFFER

The offer in post #248 has expired and I did not receive the required acceptance response. The guy has made his choice.

The new offer, which can discontinue any time before acceptance at the will of this speaker, does not contain the phone condition attached to the expired offer but the amount number has every digit in it changed to nine ("9").   

249

I checked and found no message, voice mail or otherwise, already left from the corruption guy before I posted post # 248 declaring his acceptance to the offer in post #245. So the offer in post #245 was replaced by the offer in post # 248 without the offer in post # 245 leading to any implementation first.     

248

CHANGE OF PLAN 

Despite how I was put in the dark not knowing my choices in what happened here, I decided to give this corruption guy even more choices for him to use from his already seeing every thing position.

The settlement offer in post #245 has changed. The amount is still the same but he needs to clearly inform me of his acceptance of this offer through reasonably acceptable communication method except the phone (both landline and cellular). In addition not any required part in signing or executing the settlement through the phone will be considered done unless it is accepted by the other party for it to be done through that or because of its being the only reasonable way of communication available.

   

On the other hand, if he wants his voice mail messages to count, he wouldn't need to wait long for that. All what he needs to do is not to accept the settlement as I mentioned above and it will expire on its own by the end of Saturday 8/22/2015. Then, unless for some unforeseen reason, no later than Saturday 8/29/2015, I intend to provide another settlement offer where he wouldn't need to restrict himself by what I said above .

The choice is his.

In both cases the settlement should be signed and completely executed no later than 30 days from being accepted by both sides.

Again, reasonable and acceptable behaviour is required.

However, I still intend to restrict myself by the earlier settlement offer if there is already a message from him stating his acceptance of it in my voice mail.       

247

You can see how the one who really wants to deal with the matter sends messages that are directly about the main issue instead of dividing it into two stage communication and play on that. But apparently despite how it was proven that he was playing the game of leaving false voice mail signals (in relation to this matter) that count as real throughout all that time, he acts as if it is acceptable from him, assuming it was to begin with,  to insist on communicating through the phone rather than using all the methods he can to reach me which include Email.

Anyway, in addition to all that, as long as I am not changing the settlement offer I made, I have done all what is required from me regarding executing it.  

246

One uses public communication through the web to reach the other party because it is all what is available to him while the other plays around despite having all communication ways available to him. But guess who apparently went to the court to claim that the other side does not want things done here?

245

On a second thought, why am I wasting time with the games of this corruption guy? I have done everything publicly so why not this?

He wants to settle? What he could compensate with? Doing my yard? It is only money and for that I tell him you can settle this for

$300,000,000 (of course acceptable behaviour is also required) .      

244

A little while ago I checked the voice mail message he left and it was on my landline phone. This one, which seems to be the most serious one from him to which I listened yet, did not specify more than that the speaker wanted to talk to me. He did not mention the issue on a phone I use publicly and publish in SEC filings and over the Internet. 

I said from the beginning that despite the willingness he pretends this guy is far from seriously , even at this simple level of action, behaving normally. Here, he again was acting from high position of manipulating a person like a toy. In addition, the level of effort put in conveying the message did not do much to help support balancing that or suggesting its being an oversight. I in fact could have needed to repeat the message 4 or 5 times to get the calling back numbers left. On the other hand, that action seems to carry at least partly a similar purpose to that of making me check on unrelated voice mail messages in connection with this matter. Also, aside from me, would someone not trying to deceive the others pretend to try that hard to reach me with his phone calls and, actually, often chase me with those calls leave a message like this if he was serious in his effort?

Anyway, even for this situation as an option, as long as he is not behaving in acceptable manner at least for the purpose of conducting the required communication the ball is still in his court.

Not referring to the issue is like not leaving a message at all.          

243

Continuing from #241, just in case the corruption guy says otherwise, he, directly or indirectly, was making those phone calls on both my land line and my cellular phones. He was intentionally leaving voice mails that had no content related to this matter just to make it appear that he did or probably did leave a related voice mail. There is no one who could have kept calling my cellphone except him. Those calls numerous times, also, in no way that could be seen coincidental, appeared to have been timed to ring while I have my phone with me outside. No one has such power to track me except him. In addition, I changed the cellphone number probably around two weeks or less after the denial of my petition on 5/18/15. So there is no way that it could have become known to anyone else especially given how within a short time after changing the number calls started ringing again. The earlier cellphone number he was calling was also a changed number from before or at the beginning of September 2014 after I discarded my 2010 model cellphone. Also, if he continued to call the number from which I made this recent change, shouldn't he have received a message telling him that it is no longer in service? Or was it that there was a sudden shortage of cellphone numbers and that my number, very shortly after I left it, was given to another person who kept reacting the same way I did to phone calls from this guy?

However I did delete those voice mails belonging to the period of the previous cellphone number after I changed to this most recent one without hearing them.

As for cellphone text messages, except for possibly those from my carrier,  I don't remember I ever deleted one of them without reading it. 

242

When it comes to applying justice, it is even more important that people shouldn't be treated as a number. I am saying this because of what was done to lower the number of cases taken at the final level. I am not talking here about my case since I think that mine fits more than the current restrictions. What I am talking about is the issue of why would people  who have the power to rule themselves see it that easy to ignore the right of anybody and correcting injustice on him/her even if it happened despite good faith work by lower courts on an issue that is not of national importance and there is no constitutional obligation to take the case, in other words any case?

What could be more important than giving people their rights? What could be more deserving to have resources being spent on it than that? If two much cases would have reached the final level of courts if it was obligated to take all cases then you may need to consider adding another level. But ignoring all those possible injustices in this way seems far from being the right or respectable thing to do in a democratic system. Why is there only two levels of federal courts before the final court? How much would we lose if we add a third level in comparison to what we spend on much less important things? Is anyone convince that this level of attempting to give people their rights through a judicial system is the best we can do?

241

Connecting some of the things and remembering how in the case of Viking System this corruption guy went to those inside the company as someone who is bringing to them the opportunity to generate financing from selling shares based on market price while he himself kept pressuring the price inside the market, I decided to try not to give him the opportunity to deceive everybody again despite what this court did and his not owning to his actions even to the level of insisting on his choice of communication method. So, I have just checked my phones and just like how he was playing a game before this court deny my petition, there was not a single voice mail or message related to this matter.

240

Although it seems that people here created their golden calf dictatorship from the judiciary, the constitution, on the other hand gives me the impression that, despite the restrictions on the legislative branch, in comparison, the judicial one cannot even breathe more than permissible.  

239

So the constitution which provided a set of rights to protect people from the actions of those chosen by them to represent them, intended to leave, except for correcting the effect on the case itself as much as possible later, people helpless against the actions of any judiciary entity, which could be comprised of only one person, doing whatever it wants within its jurisdiction? Is this the same constitution available to the public view?

But such understanding could be another consequence to paying insufficient attention to the good Behaviour constitutional requirement and how it seems that it was intended to act on the judiciary taking the role like that of the direct rules constitutional constraints on the legislative branch.  

238

In other words, in my third point in #236 I was questioning those who believe that immunity for judges should extend to acting in bad faith how could they then tolerate the continuous risk in life that they could be indited and convicted all based on the judgment of people they don't even know? If controlling themselves from acting in bad faith seems more risky to them than things not in their hands then such people may need to stay as far as possible from occupying the position of a judge.

237

In addition to ignoring the good behaviour requirement, there is the issue of this level of immunity in the judiciary? Apparently it also did not take long here to have a golden calf and for the constitution to be abandoned.  

236

Arguments trying to support with a purpose the extreme immunity for judges from being sued  seems to be generally concentrating on freeing the judge from fear of consequences of those potential lawsuits. 

First, like I said earlier, that pressure applies in every profession but it was never an excuse for immunity. 

Second, why would having such a potential for accountability not be more of a reason for behaving correctly instead?   

Third why would any honest judge  need the level of  immunity being suggested which include allowing him to do his job not in good faith? If anyone does then he shouldn't be in a position of a judge to begin with. The moral dilemma in assigning such person to the position of a judge is like assigning to the position of being a guard someone who thinks that he may find it difficult to control himself from pulling the trigger for no reason.

How far could the judges in my case, for example, wonder in their mind in order to accidentally stumble on the bad actions they did? Unless they are acting in bad faith, it is hard to see a limit for that.       

235

Some public corporations even when it is just a doubt that some information was leaked unintentionally, immediately reveal that information to make people equal in their knowledge as soon as possible. This honorable court (and that still applies here in the sense that it can absorb so much honor because of sever deficiency of it) on the other hand, refused to even write an explanation for the denial order it made.   

234

In addition, we should pay attention to how the word "judge" apply differently on different sides here. Even for a litigant who himself seek a government court, the situation is not like that of empowering a person by choosing him to be a judge and then if you want to sue him later an objection may arise about suing him for his opinion and what you yourself empowered him to do. No, government judges to any litigant are only judges in the sense that they have the power to judge things. It is the government who chose them. So the actions of those judges are the responsibility of either of those parties or both but not the litigant.

Why should litigant's suing to a government judge (even for the side who chose to go to the court) be different from suing a police man for a wrong he did for example (regardless of whether that is being done by suing the government directly or through the police man, I don't know that yet)? Because a government judge has the authority to make a wrong? Since, the litigant did not empower that judge with that authority, to that litigant the government judge is just an applier of authority like a police man.

However, if that argument gets used for even mistakes committed despite good faith by judges then the argument currently used for the purpose of exaggerating immunity of judges would start to be more reasonable. So, it seems that those arguing for immunity of judges are who may need to start from a defensive position, instead. 

233

And it is not any official you are challenging there. Here is this from Wikipedia

[Historically, judicial immunity was associated with the English common law idea that "the King can do no wrong." (Compare Sovereign immunity.) Judges, the King's delegates for dispensing justice, accordingly "ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption [for this tends] to the slander of the justice of the King."^[9] ]

232

In addition supporting the judicial immunity thing with the history of common law argument has less strength than supporting other claims with similar argument. That is because for the pre - revolution part of the history dealing with issues about the opposing sides in general there is no reason to assume that one side is preferred over the other. In this case on the other hand you are talking about challenging a government official in a non democratic system, what else did you expect?

231

Did you see from the case mentioned in #229 how much that judges immunity thing was supported by history of common law claims? It is as if one tells them that the constitution requires that there should be a right to petition grievances and due process and equal protection  while they respond yes we know but still we prefer to follow the history of common law instead. They, however, are still supposed to be followers of the constitution. This  reminds me of  how , despite the Islamic image projected by society in many Muslim countries, how much of the bad things there had to do with culture not Islam.

230

This Supreme Corruption court should know that I shouldn't be manipulated like an object and that I have the right to know as much as the other side knows about its views and intentions regarding this matter at least so that one side would not have the advantage of being more able to fit his actions accordingly over the other. 

  

229

People in this country must win a prize for voting for those who do not deserve to be in the positions they occupy and lack the will to act as justice requires. They, being from this nation, are ready to act only if it is about satisfaction of the identity complex they have (and then probably more often than not, incorrectly) . Even if we assume there was earlier an excuse for not dealing with the issue of immunity of judges from being sued, the case of Stump v.Sparkman should have put an end to that. Preventing such abuse of power doesn't even need a constitutional change, just a legislation.

228

Two degrading things need to be changed here because they are bad to the level of being like an insult and there is no reason for free people to tolerate them. First, saying that individuals do not have the right to prosecute even for harms occurring on them and that right is owned by the state makes a person feels like an owned sheep not a human being. We criticize communist systems for considering that the material ownership of a person belongs to the state but we do that with one's self? 

The second thing is not far removed from this as it also relates to discounting the existence of a person by giving judges the capability to violate his rights as much as they want within their jurisdiction and still be protected by judges immunity from being sued. I wonder if those agreeing with such system recognize the difference between submitting to a judiciary system and that of submitting to the Gods in Greek's mythology where every God can do whatever he wants to you within his domain of power?  

227

Yes, because most of the time there is one side not pleased by the ruling of a judge they are more susceptible for being sued with claims of not doing things in good faith. But answering this by requiring some high level of likelihood and not mere plausibility before a complaint against a judge is accepted is much more fair than refusing everything no matter what. 

226

Everywhere in life and in every occupation, you could be sued for encroaching on the rights of others and life did not stop because of that. So I don't know why it should be different with judges even with actions not done in good faith.

   

225

Also about judges immunity:

Judges apparently interpret this part in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 

" in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable"   

for themselves as being applicable even on malicious actions by judges. 

Aside, from the question of constitutionality of such law, it still does not apply on malicious actions by the judges.

That is because the phrase "judicial capacity"  does not include actions intentionally made with disregard to the judicial role. If I tell you that you should follow what your doctor say then he tells you a medically bad advice while joking with you, does that mean I also told you to follow that advice? 

How could that law be understood in this way by Judges not interested in making their job that exclusive party for themselves?  

224

Like that of taking victims right to prosecute, don't get me started on the issue of "Judges Immunity". Two arguments in support of that, the one that the judge should perform his job without fear from such reactions and the one about how such thing could open the door for endless lawsuits, also apply with similar significance on medical doctors. However, doctors can be sued and their decisions could be evaluated by other doctors and those, in turn, could have their evaluation evaluated by other doctors and so on and all could be sued. So why the difference here? Or is it that the minute we find a wiggle room to stray away from justice we immediately use it?    

223

Even if I suddenly fall in love with those judges from this and lower courts, that could only affect my personal standing. The question would remain, however, about how could those who miss justice to this level be trusted as judges in the system. 

222

I used the expression "level of choosing to challenge" in #219, to include actions that  could be understood as being passively challenging, or, in other words, just done in spite of things .  For other actions, the challenging factor strengthening ownership of actions, is, in turn, strengthened by how the challenge itself is the only benefit those actions provide. The best, if not the only explaining purpose for those actions one could find, is to threaten the other side with bias and abuse of authority by those courts.  

221

Most of the wrongs committed here, because of the reprehensibility and audacity involved, very arguably deserves to be granted, by an honest court with integrity,  a petition in case by itself.

220

The ownership of the actions committed here is also not even open to the objection that those action were the result of being taken by surprise to decide things on the spur of the moment.

219

Moreover,  ownership of actions can hardly, if at all,  be more established than where they involve the level of choosing to challenge and audacity like here.     

218

The guy needs to take ownership of his actions and those of whom on their behalf he is standing. He could do much more than insisting on his communication way and that would still not allow him to throw that ownership on me and escape that responsibility except probably in the eyes of the slaves of the corruption.