Who rules here?

Again, when you see that a USPS mail man chooses to isolate in his deliveries one specific court related package and take it to court at 10:30 in the night you realize the magnitude of the corruption in this country that encourages such audacity.

In choosing between the lawful path and the path sought by the corruption power, the mail man publicly followed the path wanted by the corruption power and went to his work the next day like nothing happened. So who do you think rules here government laws or corruption?  

And what about the reaction from the post master general to what I sent him about the incident? Did that sound to anybody like the way someone who really care about the integrity of the USPS work and not part of the corruption would respond? In a non corrupt system it would probably be hard for such a guy to be a neighbor to someone in that position and also probably neither those who chose him to others in the positions they currently assume.

But don't worry your hedge fund employment history FBI director will be like a wolf after every thing this hedge fund guy here do or causes to happen, right?

You live in a huge joke without realizing it.       

As if there is a real thing there

After the story of Madoff how is it possible to remain dependent on the SEC as if it is a real entity? What kind of denial is that? And the funny thing is that laws being added to encourage whistle blowers as if there is a thing on which one can count there and you just need to tip them. I can go inside a SEC office shouting in a bullhorn instead of just whistling on the like of this hedge fund guy and nothing would change.     

I personally did not need Madoff's story to know that the SEC is a corrupted entity. I began realizing what the SEC really is starting from 2006 after I sent an email complaining about this same hedge fund guy and my name was revealed to him (In a later case where I sent more complaints, information appeared to reach him that a complaint was sent on him within an hour or two of sending these complaints) . Madoff's story came to build on what I already knew and helped me answer any doubt I had in that SEC corruption affecting me extends beyond the world of low price stocks in which I work.  

What is the SEC? - 2

Lets try first to look and pinpoint more closely to the problem here. Most of the failure to fight back fraud related to the stock market is the result of lack of honesty and integrity in the SEC. It is not the result of lack of sufficient sophistication. This is not a complicated science where you may have a scientist with depth of knowledge irreplaceable by whatever number of others who haven't yet reached that level of knowledge. Except for things like insider tradings, most of the fraud in the market is even easy to be seen and caught provided that there is a real intention to do that. Take even a major case like that of Madoff's. Even though I did not dig deep into the details of the case, I still wonder how much more is required beside an honest intention to check to see whether trades , Madoff's or any other, were real or fake? How would you check fake trades? Using common sense similar to that applied in checking any other claims of buying and selling through tracing the claimed transactions?How could someone with honest intention fail in such a task?The SEC received a tip on Madoff's fraud and investigated things without finding any problem. Actually there is too much fraud and manipulation in the market that requires nothing more than being seen.

The point is that for much, and probably most, of the fraud and manipulation in the market you do not need specialization beyond common sense intelligence to find it. What you need, instead, is honesty and having a real intention to investigate things. That honesty and integrity would need to be sufficient to stand the strength of the corruption power from those with the financial power and malicious intentions. One way to help achieving that is to make a good use from that fact through expanding the authority of investigating these things as widely as possible so that those with the corruption power would not be able to infiltrate and hijack all that expanded domain or predict who will be investigating them or even how many separate investigations by those various entities with that authority. This is how you fight corruption from the like of those with huge corruption power involved with the stock market rather than the ways of the thirties which probably have became far from being sufficient a long time ago. Your cute and fancy SEC is nothing more than a concentration point for the corruption power of the like of this hedge fund guy.

In addition, this is suitable to be the first level to fighting corruption related to fraud in the market anyway even when a higher degree of sophistication and specialization is required. That is because if you cant deal with things that are clear enough to require only an honest intention to be investigated, how can you trust that sophistication and specialization?

[(added 1/18/2014) Although there maybe a huge amount of smoke surrounding the SEC regarding Madoff's case and that I am far from believing that it really did not know about the scam, my suggestion above that simple tracing of Madoff's trades should have revealed them being fake failed to take into account that ,as it seems, the SEC has no authority to force revealing the data needed to achieve that tracing of trades. Yes, one may still argue that there were enough suspicious things for someone interested to do a real investigation to empower obtaining a court order from an incorrupt court for revealing that information with ease but that is still not as direct as I meant.]

[ (Added 1/19/2014) Then ,again, thanks to this wonderful writing by Elaine Lindenmayer and Richard M. Phillips http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/newsletter/0065/materials/book.pdf
it seems that my earlier assumption was more probably correct than wrong]

What is the SEC?

The SEC is simply an entity saving the like of this hedge fund guy from having scattered efforts because of possibilities of being investigated by various entities and instead can concentrate his related efforts on manipulating one of them from the inside.

I just would like to know what kind of thinking suggests that the best way to combat corruption in the stock market by those with the financial power and connections who control every thing in this country is to assign that task or count on that task to be carried on by a small entity that is easy to be infiltrated and hijacked like the SEC? Instead of that the path to fight corruption in the market should have been implemented through widening such authority and its application to all and every kind of law enforcement entities as much as possible so that those guys with that power cannot concentrate that power on one entity to manipulate. In addition, multiple independent and isolated investigations for the same case enable one of the best possible ways to check for the integrity of these investigations. There is a very serious disease of corruption in this country and in fighting that disease one may not always have the luxury of giving saving or cutting costs the priority a healthy person can give.

The depth of the mess

Even if you ultimately find justice in the court system against the like of this guy, you will only be dealing with things on the surface which are themselves dependant on the limitations imposed on the like of this guy because of potential prosecution by the government. These later things are to what you see and may potentially deal with outside in the court system are much bigger than the submerged part of an ice burg relative to its top part over the surface of the water. So the question is: If the like of this guy can show outside what he showed here how reasonable are the expectations of real limitations imposed on him inside because of the threat of prosecution from the government? The answer is: BEYOND RIDICULOUS. 

    

Circus Court of Appeals? No, Worse

At least watching a circus show you would know which person is doing which activity. As pointed out in the previous two posts, although the order of 11/26/2013 remained the same, the docket sheet entry for that order indicating toward which defendant it was directed was changed on 1/9/2014 to include the other defendant who had also filed a motion for time extension. So, aside from what changing that entry may say about manipulating a past court order entry in a court docket sheet, there is still no clear indication to whom that order was directed or even to whom the judge who issued the order may claim it was directed.  I could add another response related to the new docket sheet interpretation. But then there is no assurance that the issuer of that order may not claim the older docket sheet interpretation was the correct one. Have you ever expected to see this low level of hiding intentions and/or who is responsible for what being played in a court?          

Changing the appellate court order docket sheet entry of 11/26/2013

I am adding this post to draw attention to the fact that one of the links in the previous post was wrong then became corrected later and also to provide direct access to the  core of that post.

Here are the links related to this change :

Here is a link showing the new change that happened 1/9/2014  to the past entry of 11/26/2013
Entry of 11/26/2013 on the docket sheet starting from 1/9/2014

And here is a link showing how that entry was until the day before (I have so many other links pointing to the same entry for various dates saved to my computer).

Entry of 11/26/2013 until 1/8/2014

New from that appellate court

In case you thought that was enough, that federal appellate court added a new thing to its outrageous show yesterday.

Remember the story mentioned in this post
The wider view to the game

of the required CIP form which I showed with the help of links in that post that I sent overnight on 9/23/2013 but did not show on the docket sheet at least until after  10/6/2013?

Later I complained in this post
Late Entries

about the late entries of that court docket sheet

Then later in this post
Docket forgery or backdating ?

I showed how some entry was added for a past date which I also showed through many links that it did not exist in the docket sheet before.

Yesterday a new thing of this kind was added. This order of 11/26/2013
The first extension granting order

I talked about here
Deeper Corruption at the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeal

which was earlier mentioned in the docket sheet as granting the first time extension request for defendant Action, was changed yesterday to be described as also granting that same extension to the other defendant and to whom I did not even give my agreement to that extension.

I even referred to that at the end of this post
People Courts, Hedge Fund Guy Chuck-E-Cheese

when I talked about how this recently added defendant filed his brief late without being granted an extension from the court (Notice that post also contained in the second page of the link at the end the original version of that order of 11/26/2013) .

Here is a link showing the new change that happened yesterday to the past entry of 11/26/2013
Entry of 11/26/2013 on the docket sheet starting from yesterday


(This link was pointing to the wrong address and has been corrected)

And here is a link showing how that entry was until the day before (I have so many other links pointing to the same entry for various dates saved to my computer).

Entry of 11/26/2013 until yesterday

Notice also that dependence on the docket sheet description of an order could also be the only way to know to which motion or entity that order was directed unless something in the text of that order also indicate that. Here the text of the order mentioned the word "Appellees'" which could indicate that it is being directed to a plural. But then it was attached to the word "motion" instead of "motions". So was it directed to a plural or singular entity or just someone playing a game? Now one may say that it was directed to a plural entity but used "motion" instead of "motions" to refer to the identical request in both motions. But then how about when the order mentioned "Appellees' brief" instead of "Appellees' briefs"? There is certainly no reason to believe in having identical briefs here. In any case, even if inside the order was clearly indicating to whom it was directed, I do not know any reason for the insufficiency of  the dependence on court docket sheets.

Imagine what is inside

I say, again, if the like of this hedge fund guy can do this outside, imagine what is going on inside the market. I ,personally, do not need to imagine because what is happening here fits adequately with what I have experienced for years in the market and how the SEC is ,if anything, for the service of those guys. Do you think that he who can make the federal courts show publicly the outrageous things they have shown here without excuse would be less capable able in getting what he wants from the SEC and brokerage firms in the darkness of what goes on behind the scenes in the market? Do you think that he who can have such access to a system led by persons whom the Senate vote on each one of them individually is less capable with an entity like the SEC? Do you think that he who can make those in the federal courts do what they did here, or even the basic federal mail service, intentionally ,and apart from all other packages, take my appeal brief to the court at 10:30 in the night, despite his only occasional need for both of those two systems is less capable with a system he always encounter in his main line of business like the SEC?

Hard to imagine but,YES, that was topped - 2

In case there is anyone who think that seeing what I mentioned there requires more than simple direct knowledge of the related Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP), here are the related links for anybody to understand on what grounds what I mentioned stands:

The point related to the district court is related to this:

 FRCP Rule 4 (m) which states:

"Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1)"

FRCP RULE 4   

The point related to the appellate court is related to this:
 FRAP Rule 28 (a) (4) (D)  states regarding a requirement an appeal brief should contain:
"an assertion that the appeal is from a final order or judgment that disposes of all parties’ claims, or information establishing the court of appeals’ jurisdiction on some other basis"

FRAP (go to rule 28)

In case that is not clear enough here is more from the Supreme Court about this very well known basic requirement:

"..a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered, in which claims of district court error at any stage of the litigation may be ventilated" (Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 US 863 - Supreme Court 1994).

 
Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.


Here is also a link showing in the docket sheet of the district court when the case was closed ( #46) and when the appeal was filed (#47).


When the case was closed


The funny thing is that it is when the issue of waiting for a final judgment is usually raised it is with regard to a party seeking to make an early appeal [(Added 1/8/2014) or had already brought an early appeal] and the appellate court arguing for waiting until a final judgment. I doubt that giving a weight for an argument calling for a dismissal because the appeal waited until a final judgment exists anywhere before it was created by the judge of this court of appeals.

The expanded picture being shown here

What is being showed here should serve others who are not fully aware to their environment to wake up and realize what they live in. You live in an environment where the ordinary person moves with the range of a three feet leash within which he had to restrict his activities to conform with the do and don't of the law. The like of this hedge fund guy, on the other hand, move within the range of a leash, if  any, that is miles and miles in length. The point at which they may suffer consequences of their actions doesn't appear to be viewable to the naked eye through the distance and for practical purposes they simply appear to be immune from being watched or prosecuted no matter what they do.

The ways of this guy

As usual this hedge fund guy drags down others to do for him what he wants while he himself stays away as far as possible from taking any direct responsibility. I think he did that with Midsummer Investment in his share and manipulation scam of the Viking Systems (VKNG) stock and he did it with those involved in this case who probably did not want things to go this far. I doubt that he reveals his true intentions to even those with him. Instead, I think that although he may show that he is trying to take them 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. Anyway, for each his own choices.

 

With at least some of the games he is playing in this case through those corrupt judges I even doubt that his intention is not showing off what he can do. Nevertheless, one may need to admit that for him to make even district and appellate court judges reach this level of stupidity doing this outrageous level of  clear corrupted work for him publicly may make even those who can recruit suicide bombers wonder how he could be that convincing.  

 

       

Hard to imagine but,YES, that was topped

What happened here was as if , first, the district court judge said:

 

- Look, I am going to issue an order against this plaintiff for doing a basic thing he has the RIGHT to do.

 

Then he issued an order giving 21 days to serve the complaint and took away the remaining of the 120 days time given to plaintiffs to serve their complaints.

 

The appellate court judge then looked at that and said:

 

-You think I cannot top that? I am going to issue an order against this plaintiff for doing a basic thing he was REQUIRED to do.

 

Then she issued the order granting  the defendant time extension starting from after ruling on a motion calling for a dismissal because the appeal was not filed until the final judgment.

 

 

This is your path to justice???

One federal judge, a district court judge ,aside from other things he did, suddenly sends me an order to serve my complaint within 21 days and cancels the remaining days of the 120 days given by the FRCP for no reason. Another federal judge, an appellate court judge, treats a motion that try to fault me for failing to violate a required basic appeal procedure as something that needs a consideration and ruling before the defendant can file his brief. The USPS gives the special treatment to my brief of taking it to the court after 10:30 in the night. All happened publicly in front of everybody. This is the path to  justice you make available?  Are you kidding me? 

 

That failure to comprehend

There is still a higher court there I may try for my case. But this not just about that. It is about the unbelievable level of corruption the actions of this hedge fund guy in my case proved to exist in this country and of which he gave samples through those actions. The level of corruption in this country is extremely disgusting. It is as if it took the place emptied by the absence of a dictatorship. Yet, unlike the situation in a dictatorship, people here do not seem to realize and comprehend deeply enough that this is bad and treat it as a normal thing. They also do not seem to realize that,without being forced by an overpowering military with its big machinery, you do not have any excuse accepting the existence of this corruption.

Why did the hedge fund guy pull that thing from this appellate court? Two reasons come to mind. The first one is to postpone ruling on the appeal. The second one is to show me that he has got enough judges that are so on his side to make me lose  the appeal. 

Failure to violate the required procedure

Every time I think about this I find it a little hard to resist a laughter.

 

The situation was as if the defendant said:

 

-This appeal should be dismissed because this guy waited for the required final judgment before filing it.

 

And the Appellate Court Judge responded

 

-I see your point and because of it I grant you a new time extension starting from after we rule on if the appellant failure to violate the required procedure makes a sufficient ground for dismissal.  

Three branch government, really? - 2

In other words, you cannot build mud cottages then try to stay away from the complaints of the people living there as if you built concrete buildings for them. The way I see people being nominated and approved by the Executive and Senate branches of government doesn't seem to come even close to fit the complexity of the size and options in this huge country.

 

Three branch government, really?

 For the legislative and executive branches of government people get what they throw on themselves . But do the executive branch and the Senate think that their effort in choosing and approving the judiciary branch is of the sufficient quality to create a third branch that is a peer to the other two? You cannot create something in a shallow way then expect it to be of a dependable quality. The executive branch  and the Senate  are only deceiving the people with the illusion that there is really a dependable judiciary branch here?

There are less than 200 appeal court Judges in the entire country and the executive branch  and the Senate even failed in choosing those with the quality and moral standard not to be affected by the like of this hedge fund guy the way that judge did and it seems that what happened here is more of a  sample than the exception.    

  

Can that judge show at least a reasonable doubt?

Forget about justifying it, I just want to hear how can that judge make an argument that could lead to reasonable doubt in that she had unjust intention in granting the defendant's request. She doesn't have to prove anything. She just need to make some claim that could reasonably be assumed to be true.  

How funny is that?

This could also be added to the layer of outrageousness of that most recent order from the Court of Appeals. It is not only that the motion being waited for a ruling is a frivolous one, but it objects to something that  is required to be followed by the law. The waiting for a final judgment  is a requirement for filing an appeal. So, in other words I am being punished for following what the law required me to follow. Could things be anymore absurd than this?     

Do you really realize that?

Do you really realize that the Appellate Court Judge issued an order depending on a ruling on a motion she knows very clearly
is a frivolous motion? Anybody alive here? 

Impeachment -3

No one should think that I , and especially being originally from a place that was one of the furthest on earth from having this requirement, do not care about having an independent judicial system. But should the attempt to avoid government control and manipulation of the judicial system be allowed to extend to a level permitting this corruption to take its place in achieving that?

Sometimes the government is needed to stay away to make the judicial system works properly away from is effect. Other times it may need to interfere to protect that system from the effect of others. With the level of control and power the like of this hedge fund guy have in this country , the interference by the highest elected legislative body of the government to protect the judicial system of the country, given its history as a democracy, maybe much less risky than leaving things under that kind of power and control.

It is important that one try not to freeze his thinking and view of this country on a snapshot picture of it taken more than two hundred years ago. Things change and what was the biggest danger potential at that time ,after being watched carefully and avoided for sometime, might have been subdued enough to passively allow substantial growth in another risk to take its place. In other words, it is the next in line risk I talked about before.

The Next In Line