283

Saying "if they go more into my side" in post 278 was not intended to suggest being close to that. Instead it was intended to provide additional cushioning against the burden of worrying about crossing that line. Otherwise, even with the Appellate Court I did not talk about when will the final ruling come out. 

282

I want to bring to attention that in the story of my other case in New York's Court (Viking System's Stock), where a significant portion of the trading volume was real, many people probably lost and did not recover their out of pocket investment cost, let alone any upward potential, because of the same issue I complained about of having shares incorrectly counted as existing in the system and the effect of that on the trading and price. 

281

And post 278, related to time, also apply regardless of the reason for which they take the time.
[(Added 1/28/2016) of course "they" above refers to the judges of this (The Supreme) court] 

280

Because I wrote things earlier that could be confusing, I want to point out that post # 279 would still apply regardless of the reason for which the decision of the judges of this court may come in accordance with it. Moreover, the judges of this court can  specify if that decision also includes settling my other case in New York or they can take the decision here into consideration when deciding on a petition from me regarding that case if I file one later. 

[(Added February 6 2016) "may come" in "..may come in accordance with it" above should change to just "comes"]

279

I probably will not let go of myself until I do what I originally was thinking about doing. Therefor post # 273 and post # 274 are replaced by this:

The decision of the judges of this court on cancelling part or all of one-half (1/2) of the amount in the offer I made in post #250 or diverting it to any entity or purpose other than me would be in its effect on me exactly the same as if I made that choice myself , except that this paragraph shall not force any prearrangement or agreement related to this guy on them.

[(Added 1/25/2016) the "me" in "..effect on me exactly.." should be replaced with: "any right I have including any right that was given to me"]

278

Although I could have written what suggests questioning that in the past, in case judges of this court need the time to satisfy or be more sure that they satisfy a contractual obligation here, I am not sleeping holding the calendar.  Until I state otherwise,  I am not holding them morally responsible if they go more into my side in that regard except that this paragraph shall not force any prearrangement or agreement related to this guy on them.

[Added February 10 2016. "holding" above should be replaced with "starting the time counting for holding"]   

277

If you think my position toward the judges of this court sounds too confusing, you may be right. But it is not my fault. On one hand I think they communicated and arranged things with one side and not the other and denied my petition. On the other, as it later became clearer, it appears that inside they did not really just ignore my petition and were merely trying to make this guy do some consolatory compensating. So the question then became why did not they choose the better looking path of returning the case to the lower courts to be corrected on the original merits only? That strongly added to that they saw how the lower courts acted and handled the case as a big thing, and probably much more than what the sign I was looking for in accepting or just rescheduling the decision on my petition would have provided me, so they did not accept it passing without accountability on it.  

How often have you seen somebody feeling a need to act immorally in order to serve his morality like this? Such a conflicting path and for people like those would not have occurred to me to count a probability for it in a million years. But again I think that is the magic of what I point to as the identity complex here. However, at least the level of self oversight in that regard appears to have significantly improved from the decision on the American Japanese people during second world war.   

[(Added 1/13/16) clearly "American Japanese"  was supposed to be  "Japanese American"]

276

"keeping or cancelling" in post 273 meant keeping in the offer or cancelling from the offer.

Also, the "amount" in "diverting all or some of that amount" in post 273 refers to the percentage amount not the original one.

275

Continuing from the post below, in case it still needs an explanation, what I was saying is that if the judges of this court feel pressured or squeezed because of a moral stand to make me have the final say in setting the amount for settling this, then, at least for the percentage I specified in the post below of the offer in post 250, my final word is for them to have the final word.

    

274

One a second thought and based on a number that sounded more like being put by that guy, the one-fourth (1/4) in post 273 below is replaced by 34 percent.

Notice that when what someone puts on himself comes from a moral obligation toward me then the preference I stated in the post below reverses and that is why I am trying to return to this court at least part of whatever power they gave me here. 

I was actually thinking about returning the power on 50 percent of the offer I made in post 250 like I did here but I was also afraid that the guy would claim a victory including one in postponing and not following them in telling him to execute the offer had they done that.    

273

It sounds like this guy is using, again, lottery news to signal his readiness to accept some settlement amounts he was showing. I always prefer to restrict myself to what he put on himself.

Based on that, the decision of the judges of this court on keeping or cancelling all or some of one-fourth (1/4) of the amount in the most recent offer I made (post # 250) or diverting all or some of that amount to any entity or purpose other than me would be in its effect on me exactly the same as if I made that choice myself , except that this paragraph shall not force any prearrangement or agreement related to this guy on them.