The petition for Writ of Certriorari I filed

After printing thousands of pages and all the effort I did not want to take further risk within the two hours remaining of the due date so I stopped every thing and only sent couple of copies with only the three documents I referred to the most despite including a table of content that includes a much bigger appendix. Having stayed awake for over 33 hours, literally, I was so exhausted that I even sent the fee in separate package and continued the day falling asleep even while I am  eating or in the rest room. All that because of the number of copies required that all should have that same appendix. The required size of the filing, unless early arranged for, can be so exhausting that it may require a warning like those of "hot surface" put on some objects to prevent harm. If there were a commercial showing some one filing to the Supreme Court copying and arranging documents fast, it should include a warning like that showing maneuvers in car commercials and in this case stating "professional filer, do not attempt". All that in a time where you can hold one device, as small or big as you choose, that can provide access or itself store and make readily available materials that are millions or billions of the size of this appendix and choose to print your selection if you like. So why are we not living in our time and require all this wasting of resources and damaging to the environment? I don't know. Anyway, here is the main content of my petition 

 Petition to the Supreme Court

                                                 

Wow, two days before the due date I found that I am not allowed to use the format I mentioned in previous post to begin with. Thanks for making the technical instruction unexpectedly this hard to understand. It turned out that I am required to use and follow the encrypted instructions for the 6 1/8 by 9 1/4 am inch paper format and try to figure out what its rules mean. At the moment, I don't even know where to buy that kind of paper. I think the due date has much more priority and that is what I intend to continue trying to meet.   

Am I missing something here or is it that the rules of the Supreme Court for filing a petition for writ of certiorari do not specify what font type and ,more importantly, font size it requires for the 40 page limit filing (rule 33.2)? If so, does that mean it would accept submission at 6 point size, for example, or is it that our judiciary system is, aside from the level of corruption in it, is so incompetent that the highest court make rules that lack such basic information and make the litigant spend considerable time trying to figure out how to deal with the situation?    

Their letter not in the system

I noticed that the letter I received from the Pro Se Office in that court responding to my concerns regarding the validity of the summons which I talked about here was not entered as part of the entries related to the case. I don't know if this is part of the special game being played in my case or is it just another sign against whatever remained that could have suggested good faith in the creation of  a unite that can make communications not accounted for.

Second affidavit

I sent that district court in New York a new Affidavit in case the dog ate my first one and it was received today. It is even notarized by a different entity.

The more fitting view

The view to the action of selling shares as being comprised of the action of  giving shares by diluting shareholders ownership and the action of receiving something (including nothing) in exchange of that for the corporation instead of taking the selling action as one whole is the more fitting view when you are dealing at the level of  contrasting between the effect of  selling shares on the shareholders and the corporation.  

A view for an expanded direct standing - 4

Two things here.

First, my referring to the injury to the corporation to mean the absence of a justification for shareholders dilution injury is part of the more general absence of sufficient benefit through the corporation to shareholders as a justification for their injury.Expanding the injury question to a benefit question was stated here because there are situations were the corporation is not injured at all. If  a corporation can generate and continue to generate proceeds at its best capacity from the issuing and selling of shares with the difference being only the continuous increase of outstanding shares then the corporation did not suffer any injury. That is because, it means no difference to a corporation whether it is being held through millions or billions of shares. Contrast that with how shareholders are always affected by any amount of dilution.

Extending the benefit to reach shareholders through the corporation was stated here because it seems that their are situations were a corporation can benefit from the issuing and selling of shares but not in a way that can benefit its current shareholders.

The word "benefit" here also include the meaning of doing something necessary.

Secondly, it seems I was wrong in suggesting that a shareholder can demand correcting the injury to the corporation that failed to justify the dilution to his ownership from direct standing even if there is a path to return his ownership to its original percentage and correct his injury. The situation is like if A was trusted with an amount of B's money to be spent only for the benefit of some ,for example,charitable organization. While B would have a direct standing in suing A based on the injury of violating the implied agreement in that trust, it seems that he still cant make a demand that jumps to correcting the problem by giving an equal amount of money to that charity if there is a path to correcting the injury by returning the money back to him. However that view was only an extension to my main purpose of emphasizing the direct standing right for a shareholder to sue on a dilution he suffered through the distinction I referred to in the first post.

 

A view for an expanded direct standing - 3

The distinction I tried to make at the first post was an attempt to differentiate the situations where there is an action that caused shareholders injury independently of its contact with the corporation. 

A view for an expanded direct standing - 2

Notice that although I said " the path of injury to shareholders started with the dilution to shareholders ownership .." that assumption for the existence of such path by default is not necessary. I could have written " If there was an injury to the corporation because of the low price shares were issue at then the path of injury.." and still reached the same result. That is because the "If " part would not mean that the injury to the corporation created the path to shareholders injury. Instead, it would simply just tell us that a path to shareholders injury was started with the issuance of those shares because that issuance was not justified by sufficient benefit for the corporation. 

A view for an expanded direct standing

It seems that the attempt to argue on everything a shareholder may bring to a court as being a derivative claim is the common corruption game played together by many corporations and courts.

While I am not trying to balance that by making arguments in which I don't see a potential for being correct, I think there is a potential that a direct standing exist in cases related to the undervalued selling and issuance of shares of a corporation even when the relief is demanded to come through the corporation or can only obtained through the corporation. I want to start first by pointing out a potential distinction that doesn't seem to has been commonly noticed by the courts. The distinction is between injury to shareholders by the injury to the corporation, like that of selling assets at undervalued prices, and injury to shareholders by the action that injured the corporation, like that of issuing shares at low prices. In this later situation, the path of injury to shareholders started with the dilution to shareholders ownership by the issuance of those shares and did not pass through the injury to the corporation by receiving less than required price for those shares. The injury to the corporation here simply meant a failure for providing an acceptable justification altering the issuance of those shares from its path to injure shareholders through the dilution. Therefore a shareholder may demand a compensation for the corporation for the issuance of those shares from a direct standing because, while it wont provide a recovery from the dilution, it can provide a proper justification for it correcting the path to shareholders injury that started by the issuance of those shares.           

Look at how this hedge fund guy sailed through the federal court system. I bought most of my suits from Joseph A Bank and still haven't seen a discount like the one this guy gets on federal judges.
Thanks, Washington guys.  

Again, if this is how the courts work on these kind of issues do you really think that the SEC is really conducting an honest work or that there is a functioning portion of it that hasn't been bought yet?

However I did not need this top to bottom approach because, as I said earlier, I already experienced what was more than enough to find out about the reality off the SEC and that is why I sought refuge from it to a court system that proved itself no better. But for those in congress who keep pretending that this an entity that is really trying to be an honest and fair ( and every now and then  come with another whistleblowers encouragement plan as if the receiving side is really willing to listen for a whistle or even drum beat and a siren) if ,because of some magical reason,the Madoff case was not by itself sufficient to make them open their eyes , may be what happened here can complete the picture for them.    

Letter receive from the Pro SE Office of New York- 2

I sent that court a motion looking for a ruling on the validity of all the summons they sent me from the same judge who will later rule on the validity of the service using these summons.I was not looking for a legal advice even assuming what came in their response letter has some value in that regard. They entered my motion as a letter then responded to me with a letter. They probably thought that entering my motion as a letter would give the judge better excuse not to rule on it or at least postpone such ruling considerably further. But I doubt that if higher courts want to act honestly they would not hold the judge responsible for her actions toward what the filing was intended to be not what it was entered as. They also seem to continue resisting entering my affidavit in order to give the judge better excuse not to take the issue in consideration. As you can see here the affidavit I made and the court received on 10/10/2014 before 1 pm still has not been entered into the system.      

Letter receive from the Pro SE Office of New York

I received this letter from the "Staff Attorney" in the "Office of Pro Se Litigation" in response to the Motion I wrote (which they entered as a letter) for correcting the unusable summons they sent me . As you can see he/she is saying that the summons were valid and not in violation of FRCP Rule 4.

First, although it is easy to see, I already showed here what parts of FRCP Rule 4 summons requirements those summons failed to satisfy (with or without the wet signature thing I mentioned ).

The "Staff Attorney" tells me to serve the unsealed summonses and return the proof of service with the one sealed summons they sent me. Assuming I wanted to follow that, how would it work given that the case has more than one defendant? Also, assuming that I want to serve those summonses despite their lack of important requirement like a court seal, it is still wouldn't make any sense to serve summons not directed to the defendant even if the rules did not state that as a violation.

Finally, if the summons were sufficient despite what I mentioned in my motion why didn't the judge deny my motion and state that as the reason ?

Again, remember ,as I pointed here , that according to their instructions it was they who prepared all parts of the summons and it wasn't I who missed making those summons directed to the defendants.

Again my Affidavit still not in the system - 4

How funny is this? The hedge fund guy is still closing that district court of New York to my filing and in front of everybody.  

Before any of this happened

Here is an auto replay email that contains a message I sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee before filing my first case which was actually a second filing for that case after I used my one time right to voluntarily dismiss my case without prejudice. You can see how I talked about my worry that the hedge fund guy was playing games from inside the district court before any of what happened after the second filing for my first case later. 


[(Added 11/19/14) There is an additional part in my message I did not include here because it is about a different issue]  

Again my Affidavit still not in the system - 3

Notice that although I compared the effect of the actions of the Florida district court and New York's in impeding my effort to file and serve my complaint, I don't think that was the main purpose behind things like the order that reduced the time to serve the complaint from the Florida court. Instead, as I said in previous posts, I think the purpose was, like that of many actions of the Appellate court later, to scare me away from pursuing my complaint with the clear bias those actions showed. 

Another case showing the widespread court corruption- 4

Since I mentioned that case in Florida here, I want to point out that my view about how fake that court was is not a bit less than what it was at the time.

Again my Affidavit still not in the system - 2

And it is still  not in the system.

Apparently this district court figured that in order to prevent me from complaining to higher courts later it is better not to enter my filings to begin with. Its Pro Se Intake Unit appears to have been created and kept mainly to better enable such use.

The district court that received my first complaint issued an order reducing the time to serve the complaint and also tried to impede serving the complaint by issuing misleading instructions. The district court that received my second complaint is not allowing my filings to begin with. So, for my third complaint would I find  myself arrested after filing it? And who knows, if I do not stop, possibly Guantanamo and waterboarding later for continuing to challenge the effective leaders of the country.

Another case showing the widespread court corruption- 3

And this dialog:

"[Plaintiff's counsel]: Well, I would appreciate the opportunity to explain quickly why we think that the claims are derived, but if the Court is telling us that there's no way you're going to change your mind, then-

Court: I'm not telling you that. I would never do that"

sounds so staged like I am watching again an argument between  Zimmerman's lawyers and the judge who presided over that case. 

Another case showing the widespread court corruption- 2

If the plaintiff himself was not part of the conspiracy and not a pro se litigant then it is hard not to see that plaintiff being deceived even by the lawyer representing him because it is very hard to believe that lawyer really missed seeing the claim being direct and cannot be brought derivatively after the selling even assuming there was a derivative standing for the claim before that.

Back to that judge. How could the actions of that judge in stating that she is inclined to grant the motion to dismiss then that she is ready to rule on the motion be seen without considerably significant probability as fraudulent and part of the plan of the defendant's side?

I just wonder about the  level of corruption that reaches this audacity of publicly passing on such actions like nothing.  

Another case showing the widespread court corruption

I was searching the Internet for something unrelated to the subject  of corruption of the courts for the like of corporations and hedge funds when I found this (courtesy of the judiciary system of the state of Utah)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-court-of-appeals/1531013.html

As it appears the Plaintiff there wanted to contest the selling of the company in which he was a shareholder at what he saw as a low price. By just reading this I wondered how could such a claim be derivative and not direct? If the company no longer exist after its selling how could it suffer the injury of the transaction? I continued reading trying to see how could this claimed to be derivative. But instead what I saw was very hard to be avoided seen as a big corruption and/or conspiracy by the court. How could any judge miss that the claim was correctly direct? Not only the judge did not deny the motion arguing that the complaint makes a derivative claim and therefor should be dismissed for such a clearly direct claim but she also ordered a hearing on that. And in case that was not sufficient to scare the plaintiff who was being threatened by the defendant's side that they may argue for a dismissal with prejudice she also made this comment (Again for such a hard to miss direct claim) :

"the Motion to Dismiss is well taken ..So if I were to hear argument, and unless someone changed my mind for me this morning, which certainly could happen, I would be inclined to grant the Motion to Dismiss.”

Are you kidding me???????????

Again my Affidavit still not in the system

Again my  Affidavit has not been entered into the system yet. I wonder why does it seem as if my filings have to go through pickling process in this New York District Court? At least when it comes to filing, my filings were usually processed the same day in the Florida District court. Do you see the improvement the addition of the Pro Se Intake Unite has made on the filing process here?

Despite all the pointing out  I am doing about the widespread corruption here, I find it hard to see that I am not bringing to the forefront a taboo more than an unknown issue.

Apparently, the expectations one may hold in a dictatorship that without being forced people wont allow being enslaved like this turned out to be too optimistic here.   

The Third Reason

I previously spoke about two reasons for why I may not follow a corrupt path like those I see here. I mentioned that assuming that I choose not to be restricted by morality, I still would not be sold as cheaply as I see here for the benefit of others. In addition to those two reasons there is a third one. This third reason is about being part of or agreeing with the choices being made. Even if I want to volunteer a corruption for the sake of goodness, dignity requires at least some mental agreement rather than following stupid choices made by someone else.

There is also a question of existence related to that third reason. People may wonder about Saddam or Hitler or similar crazy dictators. But Saddam or Hitler ,while it is very hard not to think that there weren't sever psychological disturbances inside them, in the outside world they were doing what they want not what someone else wants. On the other hand, the same cannot be said about those who, even if they held the same moral standards of those two, would have chosen much different paths if they were in the positions of  those two but they still chose to follow them. The end result for many of them was that they not only risked and lost but they risked and lost for someone else and without even existing through their willful acts.     

  

Appeal court made its judgment - 5

If you are surprised that court went that far then remember what I wrote here at the beginning of the year about this hedge fund guy that "although he may show that he is trying to take them (those with him) on a path that do not exceed  the level of involvement and risk they are willing to accept, in reality, he is not as fully committed to their path as they are and gradually takes them through points of no return and force what they wanted to avoid on them"

Then again as recently as August of this year, I wrote this about his "pattern of behavior in which he starts things and let them drag from there even beyond the limited intentions at the onset by others".

I probably could go back years further than that (in other boards) if I want.

Affidavit sent for my summons motion

Although affidavit do not make much sense to me because you are not supposed to be lying to a court to begin with, I , nevertheless, sent an affidavit in support of my summons motion (for my second case). The first file in this Link shows that the affidavit was received while the second shows the affidavit itself.  

When less corruption means more

If you look at the listing of judges on the court website you would see that those who issued that ruling opinion (which I just found yesterday that its "per curiam" instead of naming the authoring judge means "by the court") were listed next to each other. If this arrangement was modified for that purpose then it clearly adds to the corruption here. On the other hand, if  that listing is original then it is even much bigger corruption sign because it would emphasize that no special judge selection was done here and this level of immoral ruling and denial of clear facts in that opinion was more of a common position. In other words, one could say that opinion was so corrupt it makes the lack of corruption in  selecting judges who are more on the hedge fund guy side shows more corruption instead of less.     

Summons motion entered today as a "Letter" -2

Even if my motion lacked some needed requirement they could have done what I have seen done in similar situations with other litigants by entering it as what it was filed to be but also state in the docket sheet entry what additional requirement the filing needs to fulfill.   

Summons motion entered today as a "Letter"

I don't know on what basis it was not entered as a motion .  But why would they start needing that now? They held my complaint for over two weeks and could have held it longer ,as well as this motion, hadn't I started talking about their action, without any justification.

If  they tried to use the affirmation or affidavit requirement as an excuse then they probably misinterpreted that because such thing is assumed required when there is a dispute or  expected dispute about the matter not when you are referring to something coming from the court itself. You don't see a motion written related to a court order include an affidavit or an affirmation about what the court order was. If whoever sent me those unusable summons from that court want to contest my claim then it may become my turn to supply an affirmation or affidavit.

Every filing to the court should go to the same place and from there they can pre process it through a pro se intake unite or through whatever they want and the pro se litigant shouldn't be used as an excuse to help the court avoid responsibility of its duties. If the court refuses that then it should at least make the identity of that unit known like the clerk office so the outside can know who is responsible for the actions been taken by this unite instead of looking at a totally black box.

     

Summons motion not in the system yet

The New York district court continues its practice of using its Pro Se Intake Unite to prevent the filings they don't like of mine from being entered in the system. My initial complaint was held for more than two weeks for no reason and probably would have continued to be held hadn't I mentioned that. Now they are holding the Motion  I wrote for correcting the unusable summons they sent.

This folder shows when the motion was received and the docket sheet image I just captured (at 150 percent its size) showing that it has not been entered in the system yet. There is no reason for holding my filings any longer than how the court normally process other filings. 

And by the way, despite what they say at entry number 4 of the docket sheet, there was nothing prepared in the summons package they sent that would help in any way in justifying all the time taken to issue the summons package and mailing it on 9/17/2014 after receiving the complaint on 8/9/2014 or why it was not entered into the system until 8/25/2014.  

Here, again, are my brief and my reply brief . See how much of what is in the ruling opinion of the appellate court was already answered there.

Arranging things with the other side before the ruling?

If you look at this image of the docket sheet you would see that on 9/24/2014 , 4 days before the 9/29/2014 ruling, one defendant filed a new  Certificate Of Interested Persons And Corporate Disclosure Statement Form. This form is usually filed at the very beginning and before starting the process of making of the ruling. This clearly fits that the defendant's side knew when the ruling will be issued and filed this form in order to make me think it is far from being ready so that I would file to the final court as late as possible. The 4 days period gives ,and especially considering my pattern of checking on the case which the hedge fund guy clearly knows, a suitable opportunity to see that and think that I will not need to check again for a longer time.            

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that the hedge fund guy or those connected to him did buy all those federal court judges. Sometimes it is buy one get one free. 

Appeal court made its judgment 4

Notice that all of the judges participating in that judgment are real appellate court judges not judges selected from district courts to help with the work. Notice also that two of them are not even the same two of the three who ruled individually and/or together on the motions earlier and they were also real appellate court judges.

So the question to those who occupied the senate and presidency of this country is: There are still probably less than 200 of those for the entire nation and this is the level of your selection work? Why? But don't worry you may still argue back that you did not deviate much from the selection quality in this country. After all, you are/were holding the positions I just named, isn't  that correct? 

Any way, they are the judges and I am not. But argument to argument I think that I probably will kick some appellate court behinds on this opinion like how I already did that with their clearly biased ruling on motions.

 

Appeal court made its judgment 3

Nothing surprising in the corruption aspect of their work but I was expecting ,at least, some better arguments than, for example, a repetition of the 10b-5 misstatement requirement and also probably less clear denial in serving that purpose.

Appeal court made its judgment 2

So, as you can see here, my complaining and brief to this court were like talking to a kid who put his fingers in his ears and responded with DADADADADADA...  

Appeal court made its judgment

Here is the opinion
Judgment of appeal court
Time to go to the final point.  

In case one wonders why did not I, being the Plaintiff,  fill the summons myself, it is because the instructions on the court's website stated that the Pro Se Intake Unite ,which I was required to send my complaint to, "will complete both" the summons and the civil cover sheet for Pro Se litigants filing by mail.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtrules_prose.php?prose=no_attorney

Ball back in the court's court

Although there is hardly any justification for sending these not only deficient, but can hardly be seen as servable (because none of them is addressed to any of the defendants)  summons, I still threw back the ball to the court's court by submitting a motion asking for correcting them and resetting the issuance date

Motion to correct the summons 

The "Exhibit" mentioned in this one page motion is a copy of this . This is to help showing the appeal court later that the matter was brought to the lower court attention. 

The corrupt justice and judiciary system here just made me read a news caption stating " Flights continue to be cancelled" as "Rights continue to be cancelled" for a few seconds until I realized my mistake.

These are the summons they sent - 6

That additional protection and how it was added show some hesitation or tension in doing corrupt actions for this hedge fund guy and the defendants in the complaint and that,in turn,fits with taking all that time to assign a judge to the case. 

These are the summons they sent - 5

 In addition, if you look at the docket sheet here you would see that an order from the district court judge to assign the case to the magistrate judge for "General Pretrial" issued on  9/12/2014 followed by an order for issuing these summons from the magistrate judge on 9/16/2014. That seems to fit being an extension  used by the district judge to using the Pro Se Intake Unite to manipulate while staying away from responsibility. So now it is through the magistrate judge then through the clerk of the court then through the Pro Se Intake Unite.   

Downloading link images

Again, I don't know why images I upload to Google Drive do not appear at their actual size even when maximized. It could be another thing caused by the hedge fund guy. Anyway, like I said earlier, if the image is downloaded then opened with Windows Paint or any other program that can display PNG images ,including most popular web browsers, then the image will be capable of being seen in its actual size. After viewing the image it can be deleted of course.

In the link below, the first image shows download button in the tool bar that appears when the mouse pointer is taken to the top of the screen. The second image, at the bottom, shows, the dialog box that appears after clicking the download button. In that dialog box clicking the arrow beside the "Save" button will give the "Save as" option.

Downloading images

The image can also be zoomed in using the zoom in option of the browser but, clearly, that would reduce the quality. Nevertheless, as long as the words remain readable it could suffice.       

These are the summons they sent - 4

So, lets make a short review of what we have here from  this court until now.
First it does its work here through the Pro Se Intake Unite and like I stated here, starting with the reasoning behind the creation of this unite as an entity that is not limited to internal contacts inside the court, there doesn't seem to be a valid worthy benefit for it except for corrupted purposes.
Second, in that same post,and this one here, I pointed out how the information in the court's website do not only mislead into thinking that even first pleading should be submitted to this unite but directly state this unconstitutional requirement. That shows how the court was already on unclean path in using this unite.
Then, looking at its actions from the start, we see that , as I mentioned here , I filed the complaint on 8/9/2014 but  it was not entered in the system until 8/25/2014. I also mentioned in that post how "even the number of pages mentioned for the complaint was wrong and it was scanned incorrectly with the end half of it scanned twice" (if this is the level of quality in the work of that unite then that not only give even less reason for the creation of it  for a valid purpose but also strengthens even more creating it  for a corrupt purpose by using this sever lack of quality work as an excuse. Or that level of lacking quality in its work  is related to dishonest intentions and that would lead us to that same result)
In addition despite all that time, a judge was not assigned to the case until 9/2/2014 (Link).
Then came those invalid summons despite taking until 9/17/2014 to issue them.

Is there even a reasonable doubt remaining about the intention of that court and the purpose of what it is doing here?

These are the summons they sent - 3

And that summons work was prepared by, again, you guessed it, The Pro Se Intake Unite. Do you see how that unite is helping the court and not being used to manipulate things not only from the receiving but also from the sending position?

The envelope those summons came in 

These are the summons they sent - 2

Here is a scanned image for one of those "summons". They all look exactly like this except that one of them has a seal. 

The summons they sent
You can see that it is not addressed to a defendant, do not have the court's seal (except for one) and the signature is a copy not a wet signature.    

These are the summons they sent

After waiting since filing my new complaint on 8/9/2014 for over a month to receive the summons, they finally issued an order on 9/16/2014 for issuing the summons and giving 120 days from the issuance date to serve those summons. The mail man appeared to have come yesterday and left a note. So I took the note to the post office to receive the long waited for package. But first, the guy in the post office made me sign and print my name on a paper then sign and print my name on the screen where you sign for credit card payments then write my street address on that same machine before he gave me the package. I did not know why that was required. Anyway,when I opened the package I found that there are six of what are supposed to be summons with only one of them having the court's seal. That may give a ground for dismissal according to FRCP Rule 12 b (4) (Insufficient Process) because summons are required to have the court's seal according to FRCP Rule 4(a)(1)(G) requiring that summons should "bear the court's seal". In addition none of the summons was addressed to any of the defendants which could be used as a ground for dismissal according to FRCP Rule 12 b (4) and Rule 4(a)(1)(B) requiring that summons should "be directed to the defendant". Instead, what was there in the "To" section was the instruction "(Defendant's name and address)" which should have been replaced with the actual name and address of the defendant.Also, although Rule 4(a)(1)(B) requires that summons "be signed by the clerk" I am not sure that any wet signature is there.


[(Added 9/29/2014) The last Rule 4(a)(1)(B) above should have been Rule 4(a)(1)(F)]  

Veneer System

Couple of years ago I wanted to buy a house with brick outside walls. Unfortunately it is not until I started the process of buying the one I selected I discovered that its outer walls, like what seems to be the case with most houses with brick looks external walls, were built with brick veneer not real bricks and realized how widespread the phenomena of limiting things to only their external images as much as possible. Those in Washington, on the other hand, appear to have been smart enough not only to  recognize this much earlier but also to  extend the application of it to their field and ask why stop there? Why not us? So they built a government and judicial system veneer with depth sufficient only to look real by working on the ordinary person.    

Their own governments

It is clear that some ,like this hedge fund guy here, are let to run a government within the government for their service starting from ignoring or turning the head away from seeing how they let civil and government entities serve them in violation to the law all the way to controlling the courts.

Even when they abide themselves by the law it doesn't look like  the way the ordinary person abide himself by the law. Instead it is more like how the son of a wealthy man who knows that while his father may not be pleased if he spends his money unwisely, it is not like he will let him be in desperate need because of such action. That is in contrast to how the ordinary person in his choice to comply with the law is like how the person on a fixed income knows that if he spends his money unwisely  then he got nothing sporting him before his next payment time comes.     

The Worst Engineers

The Federal judiciary system built by the executive and legislative branches here is like a bridge intended to be capable of enabling everybody to cross to the other side and built by an engineer hired for that purpose. But when someone came with a big truck instead of light weight vehicle that bridge  immediately started showing how it wouldn't be able to carry the weight and what kind of fraudulent work it is.      

The best deal on corruption -2

They are like someone who does not rob a place for himself but gives a lift to the thief out of his goodness.

The best deal on corruption

Even assuming that I were ready to let go of my justice principles , I still wouldn't have sacrificed them this cheaply for the benefit of someone else like those in the three branches of government here  giving away theirs. 

 

Smaller images

It needs to be noted that, recently, the images I upload to Google's Drive to share started to appear ,even with maximum enlargement, smaller and less clear than they are on my computer . I initially thought that this may be only affecting the images I add so I tried to work around the problem by capturing and uploading images in multiple parts to increase the size. But I have just found that the same problem is now occurring also with past images I uploaded to Google's Drive which were in the past showing when at maximum enlargement the same resolution they show directly on my computer.    

However, there is an option allowing for downloading and saving the image with "Save" - and also "Save as" enabling saving to a different location. If the downloaded image later opened with Windows Paint the image should appear with its full resolution.

The FBI wants to investigate how someone made a limited period invasion of privacy on the cloud data of some  people. On the other hand this hedge fund guy has been living in my computers for so long that it is now not good enough for him just to watch and know about everything I do but may prevent me from accessing what I want to access on the web in the first place. 

Aside from all other things, from the moment someone says that the government mailman chose to take papers directed to a court there at 10:30 in the night with this audacity in serving the hedge fund guy instead of carrying his duties, I would say that there is a deep problem with this place. Then to add  to the outrageousness of the situation the reaction to me complaining to the top office came through a response offering a refund to solve  the problem.   


[(Added 9/14/14) these two posts give more details:
http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2013/12/usps-response-for-1030-pm-court.html
http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2013/12/usps-response-for-1030-pm-court_26.html ] 

Beyond breach of contract with one side

Charter ,and to lesser extent Virgin Mobile, are not only breaching their contracts  but also committing fraud and/or tort actions here. That is because they do not only disable or restrict my access to some websites but do that while falsely pretending these disablements or restrictions are coming from these websites not from them. 

Actually, generally these restrictions or disablements are most probably coming from the websites themselves but they are caused by actions from those ISPs. For example, if one of those ISPs wants to serve the hedge fund guy and his games by preventing me from accessing a website it may replace the log in input or web address I provide with different ones to cause the website to refuse my access or point me elsewhere. That means the actions of those ISPs also involve fraud on the other end of the communication path.      

Internet service providers I use , Charter and it seems also Virgin Mobile, restrict or prevent my access to websites on the Internet based on the desires and wants of the hedge fund guy? Any one

else finds that outrageous?

Look to whom am I talking.  I am talking where the post office man did not hesitate to selectively deliver only my appeal papers to the court after 10 in the night for this hedge fund guy.
Those running things here are as close to honestly investigating and applying justice on the like of this hedge fund guy as Putin to honestly apply fair election on himself.

New York District Court intentionally misleading the public with incorrect information?

Remember the game of confusing responsibilities the actions of the Eleventh US Appellate court suggested being played on my case which I talked about here?

 http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2014/03/confusing-responsibilities-is-being.html
It seems as if a game of the kind was played by the New York District Court to misdirect the general public using the technique of direct circular reference. I am referring to the point I raised in the previous post that requiring the pro se litigants to send their initial pleading to the Pro Se Intake unit is illegal. While those who wrote that part on the website may argue that this is how they understood the order, the district court could argue that its order is not unconstitutional because the "pro se" term wont apply until the pro se litigant start his litigation and that would mean that the order does not extend to the pleading that starts the complaint. So through that process they could have intended to establish a no responsibility for creating something that has been misleading and misdirecting the public since 1994 (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose/pro_se_litigation.pdf).

Why the Pro Se Intake Unite?

What kind of sense there is in the creation of the Pro Se Intake Unite created by the US Southern District of New York?

First, the creation of an additional obligatory stage preventing same application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) on Pro Se and lawyer filings could be troubling to say the least.Second, since almost everything based on which a complaint can be refused or judged as being in violation of the FRCP requires a ruling by the judge how much real need there is for such entity? How could the work of the clerk by itself not be sufficient for that very limited and very direct domain of possible errors?Third, assuming there is a real need for such entity, why was not that treated as an internal procedure by directing pro se filings to that entity from inside instead of requiring pro se litigants to be involved in that?

The above make it hard to see a real purpose for this entity other than to add another stage that can manipulate if needed while being in a position of much less accountability than the judges or the clerk of the court. What we just saw in the treatment of my case seems to fit an implementation of such plan.

In addition, the link below in the court site showing it stating that ALL court filings by pro se litigants starting from the first pleading should be filed with that entity seems to be wrong legally.That is because either it was not based on the court order it cited or that court order itself if meant to be applied even on the first pleading is illegal. More specifically in the later case that order would be unconstitutional because it would mean that the court acted with a legislative authority for such requirement to be applied before submitting to its judicial authority. But was this an honest mistake or an intentional effort to mislead and further implement the plan mention above?

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtrules_prose.php?prose=office

Corruption of the US District Court for Southern New York -3

Have you heard of The Pro Se Intake Unite?

No, it is not a new Law And Order spin off.

It is an entity created by this district court and all pro se litigants are required to file their papers to this entity and not with the clerk of the court directly. So, as I mentioned earlier, I filed my complaint (Complaint) to this entity and it was received on Friday 8/9/2014 before 10 am (Complaint received)  then was not entered into the system for at least up to the time I checked on 8/25/2014   ( link).  Couple of days later I did a new search and found that the complaint was entered on 8/25/2014 ,the same day I did my last check, according to their claim. The content of the complaint was not accessible but couple of days later I checked again and the complaint was made accessible (remember the hedge  fund guy watch every thing I do on my computer and may choose to change things whenever he wants). Anyway these things remained (Docket Sheet):

First, they put the filing date as 8/11/2014. I don't know how it was OK not to consider the date they received the complaint as the filing date.

Second, the case was not assigned a judge despite being held all that time.

Third, they mentioned that I paid $350 fee although the requirement for filing new case is $400 (Link) and that is the amount I paid (link).

Finally, even the number of pages mentioned for the complaint was wrong and it was scanned incorrectly with the end half of it scanned twice (Complaint as scanned) .

All this happened despite the claim of having an additional stage and specialized unite to improve handling pro se complaints  .     

Charter's corruption again

Charter again prevented me from accessing the Internet. This time it was specifically for my bank account access which I access frequently. What emphasized it was Charter even more was that when I called the bank they said that the system doesn't show that I was trying to log in to my account which should have been there had I entered my online Id correctly. That I did not enter even the online Id correctly can hardly be the case for an account I access this frequently. Even after I gained access back to the account Charter appears to start working on a more detailed level in preventing my access.
These are the error messages I received trying to access my account history for specific date period on two different computers in my home network.  Notice how the error messages contradict themselves. Notice also that while one of them was showing error for violating a rule that was not violated (as the entered date range is showing)  the other one doesn't even make sense for a bank (limiting going back in history for only 90 days). 

Error messages

Corruption of the US District Court for Southern New York -2

And here is an image of the check for filing fees in case you think a failure in that part could be the reason (The bank took this one and gave me a cashier check to send instead because that court do not accept personal checks).


Paying the required fees

Corruption of the US District Court for Southern New York

I filed the second complaint I mentioned  (Complaint) and it was received on 8/8/2014.

Complaint received

Believe it or not, I just did a new search for all the complaints I filed and ,as can be seen through the link below, up to this time it has not been entered into the system, let alone receiving the summons to serve.

Complaint not in the system


Can be magnified more than the above link

Internet access prevention

I have spent the last two days under what could hardly be anything other than Charter's intentional effort to prevent and restrict my access to the Internet in support of this hedge fund guy here. It did not even sound like a one action service but a continuous connection with the guy calling the shots on the go. 

ATTENTION: VIKING SYSTEMS SHAREHOLDERS

For the group who, after reading my complaint in the post below, think that they were affected the same way time could be very short for filing a 10b-5 class action lawsuit. I cant represent you because I want to represent myself and pro se litigants are not allowed to represent the class in a class action lawsuit.  

My second complaint

Complaint

Courts so far from being courts

These courts acted in my case so far from how they should act that it is almost like being sarcastic. I don't know how legislators can see that they are not required to take action against things at this level of clarity. If it is left to the Supreme Court then this level of outrageousness suggests a wide level of court corruption potential  that I may need my own personal Supreme Court to handle it all. However, at least whenever it is at this level of clear intensity the right from wrong wouldn't take significant time or effort to be seen.   

This is the whole judiciary system?

Look at how these two Federal court levels (District and Appeal) acted in my case and then think about how could such system be sufficient by itself to apply justice? The final judiciary level is not obligated to take any case and according to its website it takes less than one percent of cases filed with it on average. You cannot argue that the final level was counted on for catching such kind of actions from the two lower levels because, as was pointed out before, the easiness with which the hedge fund guy caused this level of clear biased toward him at this degree of lack of necessity clearly indicates a bad system and not simply exceptions in a good system.

One Sided Capitalism

 Even when one limits his knowledge and quittance of the SEC and its actions to just reading its short selling regulations he would still wonder how could that reflect an intention of just and fair treatment for everybody in the market? Why take all that complicated path in "regulating" shorting just to keep open paths for naked shorting? Why would one avoid the simple rule that no one should sell a stock that he could not deliver ? Why is the stock market treated different than all other  things in the world in that regard? How could that be seen as unbiased treatment for everyone in the market? What kind of reasoning on which it stands? Liquidity? Is that a worthy trade off for allowing someone to sell what he cant deliver? Why would that apply only to the stock market? Who said the stock market should always provide liquidity? In any case, it certainly does not with or without such rules. What does it even mean? When liquidity comes through the reduction of value caused by naked short selling how much would there be a difference for its existence from its nonexistence? Should a situation where a stock worth $100 a share find a buyer at $0.01 a share be seen as significantly better than a situation where there is no buyer for the stock just because there is liquidity in the first?

But these regulations where not made for the sake of everybody. These regulation allow manipulation of the market and clearly the ordinary person without the sufficient financial power cannot take advantage of that. Even limited shorting is not much for the ordinary person because it involves unlimited upside risk. Also unlike buying stocks long you need the help of your broker to find you shares to short. That involve connections and relationships which are clearly much more in the domain of power for hedge funds than the ordinary person. Notice that how liquidity as a reason did not come from far away to this mental set except that these regulations were intended to help those with big liquidity in manipulating the market instead of really helping the market with liquidity.

 

These regulations not only violate the principles of justice and fairness but they also violate the principles of capitalism making it one sided application. For although all the importance is given to the capital in the hands of those with big liquidity, when the ordinary person hold an asset its existence is not that important and selling it without really delivering it is allowed.    


[Added (8/10/2014): "quittance" above was intended to be "acquaintance" ]  

The level of corruption of Charter Communications

I wouldn't expect much surprised reaction to the notion of Charter's corruption. Nevertheless, this post is about reaching the level that required admitting this company to the  hall of SPECIAL shame in its corruption and cooperating with the hedge fund guy here.

First, and I knew that from the beginning, they report to the hedge fund guy my activities concerning when I connect or disconnect to the Internet which I get its service through them. Their second thing happened when I was  pushing on the corrupt process server Front Range Legal Process (the same guy in the Discover post), to serve my complaint. I have my phone dependent on the Internet service I get from Charter and in the day I was pressing on with phone calls on that process server my Internet service went down for hours during the middle of the day. To this day I feel very little doubt that Charter intentionally did that at the request of the hedge fund guy. Their third outrageous thing was related to their interference with my Internet use. As bad as that could be,it is not things like watching which sites I visit I am referring to here . No, they restrict and prevent my access to sites on the web on their own. The first occurrence I noticed (later) of that happened with the SEC web site which kept showing me the unusual message of the site being temporary unavailable for being under maintenance for an entire week end. I tried accessing it from another device and received the same message. The second occurrence of that type happened with the site otcmarkets when the site became also inaccessible with similar message and for a period similar to the previous. This time I used my cell phone Internet access which goes through a different network and found that the site was accessible with no problems. I came back to my laptop and refreshed the page and the site suddenly became also accessible after more than two days of its inaccessibility(the hedge fund guy also has access to know about my cell phone use ). Finally after waiting to be more confident that Charter really restrict my access a similar thing happened again yesterday when I was searching for something and Charter wanted to prevent my access to some scholarly articles. A big group of the links to these articles were stating that the site is temporarily unavailable. I went to my cell phone and followed the link to one of these articles and it was accessible without any problem. I went back to my laptop to try the links again and they all continued to take me to web page stating that the site is temporarily inaccessible.  

Look at how the entity trusted on the market justify naked shorting

I am far from needing this to know that the SEC is a joke but look at what they publicly show as their reasoning for allowing naked shorting (selling shares without really delivering them):

"Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to market liquidity. For example, broker-dealers that make a market in a security⁴ generally stand ready to buy and sell the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or sellers. Thus, market makers must sell a security to a buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that security available in the market. This may occur, for example, if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time. Because it may take a market maker considerable time to purchase or arrange to borrow the security, a market maker engaged in bona fide market making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares. This is especially true for market makers in thinly traded, illiquid stocks such as securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board,⁵ as there may be few shares available to purchase or borrow at a given time."

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm

Based on that reasoning it would be a good thing if I also open a store that sells things that it does not actually carry in order to help liquidity in the related market. But ,no, unless the seller declares to the buyer that he is only selling him a promise to deliver the sold item later it is hard to see how that seller would not be liable for the legal consequences of that action. Yes, someone may honestly and without any negligence thinks that he is selling something but circumstances and accidents change that and he becomes unable to deliver the sold thing.  But these situations are generally clear and very far from being justified on the bases of someone "stand ready to buy and sell" something. So what should a market maker do when he cannot find shares to sell? The something anyone in the world outside the stock market would do, simply not sell what he doesn't have. 

Treating things in the stock market this differently from the rules of sound reasoning in the real world is much more a cause for messing and corrupting the stock market than correcting it.

Insist on allowing market makers to sell what the don't have? Then let the buyer know that he is being offered a promise or expectation for the shares offered to him not the actual shares yet. Anything less than that is clearly wrong.

Anyway, it is hard for me to see such reasoning being made with true interest in justice and fairness to begin with. 

     

Corruption of the Discover Corporation

It is a usual occurrence for me to see corruption everywhere related to this hedge fund guy. It doesn't seem practical for me to react to everything I see in this vast domain but I try to select from within each club those who sought the highest level in that scale. For example, I know that the credit card corporations to which my cards belong reveal to the hedge fund guy every transaction I do within even a period that is much closer to real time than later. At least some of them might have also played some frustrating games on me for the sake of that guy. But the one who reached the top  corruption scale here is this Discover Corporation. Their corruption is related to their counterpart in process server club whom I contacted to serve my complaint in Onteco case and I contacted a lot (almost every process server I could find and almost all of them conspired with the hedge fund guy against me). Anyway, this very corrupt process server, Front Range Legal Process, tried , as an additional good will service to the hedge fund guy here to add false charges to the Discover card which I did not even authorize him to use for other than the initial charges. Despite that process server was charging me for service attempts that were not seriously intended to serve my complaint and the fact that I already paid him too much and got mostly conspiring with the opposing side on me instead, it is not for this reason I described theses charges as false here. I described theses charges as false because that process server agreed not to charge me for those services and that agreement was documented and even emphasized through emails. I disputed these charges with Discover three times or more on the bases of these emails but they refused to accept that fact for no apparent justification. The corruption of Discover did not stop there and they wanted to extend their good will for the hedge fund guy to a more outrageous level. They did not just charged me these false charges but also kept adding late payment fee (which is a membership fee) every month to these charges despite the fact that I cancelled my account with them earlier. They then sent  a collector harassing me on both my home and cell phone based on these false charges  . I may sue them under the fair credit reporting act among other things (although that act doesn't seem to sufficiently address the issue of intentional false reporting like this). But what could be even more effective than that is for me to  publish the proof and documents I have on the web first to show the corruption level of that corporation.I know that it would be hard for me to squeeze in time for that but one may want , every now and then, to stop and remove a gum or dirt that stuck to his shows from a dirty floor along the path to his main target. 

Different Names

Where I came from those who hold life time position regardless of what they do are called dictators. Apparently those are known as federal judges here.  

The Chief Judge

And do not forget about the chief judge of that appellate court whom the actions of his clerk do not keep confidence that the chief judge of that court minds that in his court there were orders lacking stating who issued them or  the wide range of overstepping authority with which the clerk of his court issues orders.   

Beyond simply abusing authority

Also, take into account that the outrageous behavior of those judges was more than simply abusing their powers and authorities because of a conviction or even overly inflated ego. No, it was more than that clearly part of a conspiracy with the hedge fund guy. A significant  part of those actions was ,in fact,  intentionally intended to show outrageousness and big diversion from the normal path in order to weaken my will by showing me how much power the hedge fund guy has inside these courts.  

  

A Joke System

I cant put this any other way. A government system with what happened from the courts here and even the mail man makes that special exception  to be in obedience to the like of this hedge fund guy disregarding the rules of the  law and their duties to this level publicly, is a joke system no matter where it is.   

Filling the dictator's place

Corruption here took the place of the dictator in a dictatorship.  But unlike the situation in a dictatorship, corruption here is not seen as a thing that is superimposed on  life and accepted as a normal part of it.

The level of disregard to the system

You would think that if one has the power to pull what has been pulled here making federal judges (both district and circuit) act at this level of corruption he would save that for a more compelling  

situation. After all, we are not contesting the ownership of Microsoft  nor there is a criminal prosecution here. But shows even more how corrupt is the system here that it is ready to being  abused and service even the non serious whims of the like of this hedge fund guy.

Before and After

Honestly, how many would have accepted from me even the mere suggestion that ,for example, the federal district court may do such a thing as sending me an order taking away part of the remaining time allowed to all plaintiffs to serve their complaints for no reason? It was not even based  on a requesting motion but a sua sponte order the court ,technically, made on its own. A listener hearing such suggestion from me could have said:

- You are not living in this real world but in a far suspicious delusional one of your own creation.  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_9OcAMogtRTd0g1enI1X1dGZVk/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_9OcAMogtRTaXFhUGpqb094eGc/edit?usp=sharing

http://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.com/rules/rule-4-summons/ ("(m) Time Limit for Service")

From paranoid suspicions to boring reality

I think I showed enough signs related to corruption even in the court system that it is now seen as familiar reality by those who would have otherwise thrown their paranoia accusations disregarding and walking away from allowing such thoughts or suspicions. Nevertheless such reactions were far from being balanced or anywhere of being balanced by their reactions toward the opposite side when clear signs and evidences were presented to them as if they already knew that and accept living in it.

I think I showed enough of what was generally taken like ghost claims here to make others bored instead of being shocked or surprised for seeing any more ghosts rather than ordinary persons.  

Answers And Their Reply

On the 12 of this month the Appellee/Defendant who was given close to five times its FRAP time to file its answer brief ,filed that brief.Here is what took all that time to be produced:

Appellee/Defendant Action Stock Transfer Corporation Answer Brief
Here is also the Answer Brief of the Appellee/Defendant who had filed one earlier.

Appellee/Defendant Dror Svorai Answer Brief
Here is a link to the Appellees affidavit referred to in that answer

and its the Appellant reply
Appellee Dror Svorai Affidavit (doc 34)

Here is my reply brief for both answers filed within the FRAP 14 days without any extension (like my initial brief before it):
Appellant Reply Brief
Here is also the my initial brief:

Appellant Initial Brief
Here is also a link to the original complaint:                      Appellant/ Plaintiff Complaint (doc 1) 

Current process serving rules not enough

If it were me I would also require a defendant in a case to be given a full body massage for the service of process to be correct. Why not? It is not like the current rules are needed for justice and fairness to defendants. The main thing needed is for the defendant to know that there is a complaint against him in the court. Anything other than that is much less needed if at all. That is because  no matter how you make it difficult to serve a complaint it would not correct being sued for unjust cause. Even if you think about how just it would be in situations were the defendant himself needs to seek the details of the complaint instead of being directly provided to him it would be either a fair thing for sufficiently fair claim or a minor thing added to and compared with being sued unfairly and required to respond to that. So what is all this complication for?

Anyway, imagine how fun it would be when courts try to rule on  claims from lawyers that there defendants received only partial  massages and therefore the service of process was invalid (Although, seriously, it could still be less ridiculous, and childish, than much of the current chasing and hiding game).

But don't worry. My system may still consider a sponge bath to be in "substantial" compliance with the rule and accept such service (Of course, after wasting judiciary time that could have served some really needed thing other than finding a way around a complication I myself created for no reason).