268

You would think that by now this guy should have learned a long time ago that I so often know when he is behind things that happen to or around me without showing that. But no, his dilution of control still pushes him to play on himself obvious lies. So, while what I write about him is publicly available for him to respond, he apparently adds to his capability of communicating with this court or others what I cant see to respond, conducting on me, ironically enough, tests for character or quality attributes that may not lead the way he like to use them because I know he is behind them and, aside from other consequences of that, I may not be willing to be restricted by the false world he tries to force on me. 

267

I think the corruption guy convinced that judge in New York to issue that order only after he made a promise to settle that case merely in exchange for the issuance of that order. So in case he is squeezing others because of some past compliance or performance issues he should know that if this case settles for less than the offer in post#250 then not only it would not settles the New York case with it but the demand for settling that case would be in total with this settlement more than that offer in post#250.

266

Back to the guy himself. It seems that he did not take the offer, at least partly, because he wants to act like God and not in response to a deadline or an offer not sufficiently submissive. This same control issue seems to be also a reason in his going to this court. It is not that he really found me unwilling to settle. His actions were far from sufficiently supporting such claim. He simply did not want to act in compliance with what he was required to do because it means he is under the control of something. So he cancelled the control of this court, at least to my eyes, with the denial of my petition, to put me in a helpless position while he makes his contact attempts like God not under the control of anything.

By the way, I still don't know how that plan of denying my petition was intended to work. Supposed that I settled because of the thought that I am powerless with that denial how would that be just? Or was it supposed to merely serve the extremely unneeded purpose of telling me that those inside do not like the position of being against other judges?  

265

Again, beside the lack of morality in being on the side of this guy, there also seems to be a sever lack of dignity in existing there not even as partners but much more like slaves following his wishes no matter how much there is believe in the lack of wisdom in his choices. This actually was one of the things that I thought about seeing when I changed the offer in post 245 to the one in 248. That post removed even more any excuse for the inaction to call on this guy to take the offer or no longer be supported by those on his side who believed it was relatively a good choice, and I think there were many of them, if they do not accept to follow like slaves. Yet, there was still support for him afterwords like nothing changed.

264

On top of everything else , I just want to know if those who kept conspiring and working for the service of this guy against me really think he made good choices in his response to the offers I made or are they just that shameless in showing the level of their being slaves to him? 

Aside from other things, earlier before giving this guy the choice of post 248, wasn't I who  wrote all that complaining about how he always given new options to avoid ends that are supposed to be the consequences to his choices? So what was encouraging the imagination into a different reaction from me toward his reaching this end? He even has access to my thoughts about my understanding to what is going on, which suggest what I could choose to do, published on this board.

In addition, my requiring no phone use unless necessary in the first option of post 248 did not even counter his choice of insisting only on that communication medium to play his games with one that is mine. Instead it only required the exclusion of one medium and that is not the same as insisting on one.      

263

Compare the choice given to this guy to how I was put in a position lacking clarity in even indicating how what was going in dealing with the matter after the denial of my petition should be counted as internal or external to the process let alone a visibility to the consequences that is anywhere close to the one provided to this guy.  

262

Just in case somebody had lost his calendar, here is a little reminder. 

This corruption guy has been where there is a clear choice provided to him to settle this matter since August 13 and of which only between four and five days it was required for him to deliver his acceptance not through the phone.

261

Continuing with the post below:

However, to be more sure that I am doing my part here, I responded back to that phone call by leaving a message on the number the phone call came from stating that the guy should only call me if he is representing the other side or trying to resolve the issue on their behalf.  

260

Continuing with the post below

The caller did not state his relationship to the matter or even just that he wants to take a role related to solving the matter in general let alone in the direction of a settlement. All what he said is that he wants to ask questions related to the lawsuit. So there is not here what sufficiently calls on a reasonable person to take that call as something that could potentially resolve the matter or that it represents the other side in a way that other side would stand behind. Therefore this call cannot be reasonably counted as a valid communication attempt from the other side requiring a response back from me.

259

I spoke earlier in POST 244  about the kind of voice mail this guy left and here we go again with THIS ONE  . Is this how one would show or state representation for the other side in order to get a response back?