295

continuing from the preceding post

In other words, for as much as its effect on me is the measure, claiming untrue things about those matters I mentioned doesn't count against the person making those claims, no matter who that person is. That is because, aside from how good or bad the intention would later appear, I am allowing this to be on me like a game where the other side doesn't have to restrict itself to the facts. 

As an analogy, I am trying to make this similar to that game played on the Tonight Show where two opposing sides have to guess the truth from fabrication in the claims of each other. No participant is considered to have done any bad or undignified thing for stating untrue things there. The only difference here is that permission is given, by choice, to only one side instead of both .      

294

This applies to everybody without any exception. Any claim, direct or indirect, made or will be made until this settles, about the alleged death of Justice Scalia and/or how the court is equally divided on my case, is to me like watching a movie in how it does not affect any right I have regardless of its being true or false and the purpose.  

293

By the way, while I believe the guy has a duty to carry his responsibility regardless of what he may have claimed to the court on me, I have noticed recently that I left with the court what suggests the contrary to such claims. If I was in so much confidence about what the court will do, why did I need to write such a relatively long PETITION and for clear things like those I was complaining about? Instead, the petition was not merely showing pointing out the obvious but also trying to explain it. That behaviour, strengthened even more by facing the denying behaviour of the lower courts, suggests a state of being worried of also facing another denying behaviour from this court. My petition was like that of, for example, someone complaining about being counted as a fish instead of a person. But instead of leaving it at that he goes on to list the difference in shape and how a fish cannot breathe outside the water and other differences between the two for a thing as direct as that of recognizing a human from a fish.

292

Continuing from the preceding post

Second, take this scenario. The corruption guy made the judges inside the court agree that I need to have my faith or certainty in the outcome of my lawsuit be reduced. Then they agreed to deny my petition. Now, doesn't this suggest that originally the contract was to achieve the purpose described above and that the denial of my petition became part of the contract only as the implementation form to achieve that purpose? If so, then wouldn't realizing, through my reaction , that the intended result is there pushes outside the contract all remaining things that were in the implementation part ?     

291

Continuing from post 289

First, a correction or clarification to what I said in post 289. The difficulty or ease in seeing a breach of contract there may very much depends on how long or until what event the denial of my petition was supposed to look to me as I described there. 

290

This time I prepared myself much better financially.  

289

Continuing from post 288

I intend to dedicate and concentrate more thinking on that issue.

288

The beauty of a contract is that it makes one rule on himself and thereby help make a ruling person avoid that very hard measuring of things involved with tort ruling in order not to cross into an unjust outcome. Here, however, if the original contract with the corruption guy was that I should have taken the denial of my petition as a real thing with no arrangement behind it like any other denial then it is hard to see how making the corruption guy call my phone(s) starting that early and then continue with that intensity and timing after it (despite that it was done for me) was not at least on its face a breach for that contract. On the other hand that may need to be balanced against misleading and fraudulent representations from the guy about himself and me in relation to the matter.  

It is even harder to see how the first thing mentioned above could be corrected by a similar process given the difference of how much I see a connection for arranging things now.

287

It is hard for me to imagine what would make me change my position here. It is even harder to imagine a change to something that does not also passes through the judges of the court.
I also find it hard to see how having part or all of the judges being new would change me. As for not deciding anything until after having no vacancy left, I don't even know if such thing would make me start counting the time later.

286

It is very important to me and of high priority that a settlement I receive does not leave the judges of this court feeling they left a standing argument against them.

No, I am not in love with the court. I am just trying to account for the good like I accounted for the bad especially given that without that good they wouldn't have felt the need to do that bad.

285

I use the expression "the judges of this court" instead of just "the court" because we are not talking about formal issuance of orders here or at least not limited to that. Otherwise that expression means exactly the same thing as the shorter version following it above. 

284

Because the argument for taking the time issue as if the case was not denied occurred to me only later, I put time limit in my offer to prevent leaving that open for game playing.