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).

Appellate Court Order directly violates a local rule

In addition to all the reasons I mentioned about how outrageous was granting the motion to postpone the due date of the defendant's brief until ruling on the frivolous dismissal motion in posts like this

http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2013/12/layer-under-layer-of-outrageousness.html it turned out that there is also local court rule regarding such request which that order directly violated . The 11th Cir. R. 31-1 (c) Rule titled "Effect of Other Pending Motions on Time for Serving and Filing Brief" clearly states that "Except as otherwise provided in this rule, a pending motion does not postpone the time for serving and filing any brief."
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/pdfs/RulesDEC13.pdf 
(Go to "FRAP 31")

The exceptions mentioned were two related to criminal appeals and replacement briefs. Neither one of those two exceptions apply here.

The word "Other" was used in the title because in the preceding Cir. R. 31-1 (b) Rule titled "Pending Motions" the motions that require putting off counting for the due date to file a brief until ruling on these motions were listed and also none of them apply on that frivolous dismissal motion or any dismissal motion in general. 

Any adult here still wears his toddler clothes? - 2

Even if the constitution does not allow what I said there amending it for that purpose is something that I can not see a reason for anyone to oppose. It would give better opportunity for everybody to be heard while at the same time the supreme court will remain the final decider that can be sought by whoever wants that. 


There is no reason to make prioritizing cases sacrifices the rights of some to contest injustice they suffer as if in a dictatorship when you have the choice to do otherwise.

What sinking path congress would like to choose?

I wonder what kind of moral sinking to the bottom congress would like to claim for itself for not impeaching those judges here?

That they do not care because it happened to me and they discriminate? Or that they are not discriminating and this is how they accept for the judiciary to operate? 

Role of the chief judge of that appellate court

I find it a low probability that the clerk of that appellate court did what he did not counting on support from the chief judge of that court and expecting that judge to be opposed to his actions.

Safeguards needed for our time

Similar to how there were efforts put in the constitution to protect against being abused by the government , our time requires safeguards from being abused by the big power of corruption we live with.

Look from how far the defense starts

I have noticed this from the beginning but waited to feel more confident about what I am saying. It seems that every time I bring more strongly to attention things that shows the power and control some corrupt financial institutions have in this country some other issue or scandal gets brought  to attention in order to distract from that issue and probably even to fight back the legislators themselves by damaging their reputations. 

I talked about the corruption of the SEC toward hedge funds and a scandal got raised about the IRS. I sent some senators the initial games this hedge fund guy made the district court play on me and the story of Edward Snowden started. It felt from the beginning as if someone was telling legislators : just in case you want to open a door on us, here is what we can open on you. And now we have issue of the CIA and the Senate appears to be also brought to attention intentionally at this time. The intention could be to prevent legislators from even turning their heads toward the direction of the problem I mentioned at the beginning.

I have never being able to bring myself to believe with any substantial probability that Edward Snowden was not pushed from here to do what he did whether he realize that or not. Furthermore, I don't see what sufficiently answer what seems to me a good probability that at least some of those IRS officials who admitted the problem and/or pled the fifth amendment did that to support creating the  scandal in support of that entity trying to distract the attention rather than defending themselves against it.    

Any adult here still wears his toddler clothes?

Speaking about the supreme court, how is it possible to see that it can have enough time to handle all cases in this huge country as if it is still at its constitution time size? How much does that court refuse to take cases that otherwise it would have taken if it has the time?

Clearly the more courts cases pass through before reaching the supreme court the better the chance that errors will be corrected along that path and as a result the supreme court can have the time to handle more cases that need to be taken. That is why I think that those who made the constitution did put in it a preparation for that with the right given to congress to establish as many courts as needed. I think that not only the supreme court but all those courts can have  jurisdiction over cases appealed from state supreme courts. I think that this interpretation is also supported by the only condition put on these courts which is of being inferior to the supreme court. The support that later thing gives to this interpretation comes from the combined power of leaving open other jurisdictional possibilities in addition to how being inferior to the supreme court suggests sharing a jurisdiction. 

TO The Supreme Court.

In any case, just like how I brought my complaint here after encapsulating with it the questions of corruption at the district court I can reencapsulate  the questions of corruption at the appellate court and take it to the supreme court. I also know that I can or could have filed a writ of mandamus to make this court do its job in a reasonable way but I preferred to keep things until I appeal the final decisions here to that remaining court.

The three judges who ruled on the motion

Are those three judges who ruled on the frivolous motion to dismiss the same three who will rule on my complaint? Was it that since Saddam is not available they picked the next (best) choice to rule on me? One of those judges already showed big potential for unfair handling of the case and inclination toward the defendant's side with the motion he approved. Another one broke the scale of outrageousness with a motion she approved for that same side.

The third judge did not show something specific toward my case. Nevertheless, before seeing his name here I read a little about the judges of that court and it came to my attention that that judge did not assume the senior status which qualify for same pay with less cases to handle despite being eligible for it for a very long time. I thought that someone working to serve the big and corrupted entities may make that choice in order to increase the chance of serving them and here I see the name of that judge in case related to this hedge fund guy where he is pulling strings left and right.

In addition, the two male judges share with the judge of the district court the military service path and that is not like any other common thing in making individuals act as a group.

Hurry, Limited Openings!

Again, anyone would like to issue orders in my case with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals? Why just the clerk? That is not fair. And don't worry, you don't even have to think. A coin toss would still be an improvement over the level of fairness with which the real judges of that court have been handling my case. Don't delay, only limited openings are available.

By the way, notice that despite my suspicions I ,at least most of the time, used to point to the "clerk office" when speaking about related games and resisted pointing to the clerk personally until these actions pointed to direct responsibility by him.

 

Cartoon court or Federal Appellate Court

Even a cartoon court I can think of where Bugs Bunny moves fast to take the place of all parties arguing with himself could still be better positioned to deal honestly with my case than this appellate court with the level of sinking it allowed itself to reach in serves of this hedge fund guy.

  

So, based on the action of the clerk of this court, if while you are walking one day you felt like issuing orders like a judge without being a judge then this is your court. Who knows? May be someone will accidentally wonder into this court tomorrow and issue orders related to my case. 

As usual, there are layers of punch lines here

The posts I made yesterday were about only part of the new story. What is the other part about? The other part is where the second punch line after that of the 30 days extension. The defendant came again to request another extension. And today I found that he was again granted a new extension by the clerk of the court until 3/12/2014.
You think you reached the final punch line here? Not yet. The clerk also issued a "public communication" on his own and in which he declared that the briefs of all appellees are due on 3/12/2014.

Aside from how ridiculous the situation orders by judges of that court allowed it to be, even on direct technical view on its face the clerk has no authority to do that. He has the authority to grant extensions (of up to seven days) but not the authority to give a new permission to file for those who had already missed the dead line. Even for the defendant who requested this later extension the clerk has no authority to give this seven days "extension" because it was not shown that the 30 days instead of 14 days previous extension was an order that came from a judge. Even if you add 7 days to the 14 days there would still be an interruption and therefore an extension cannot be granted by the clerk of the court.
Docket Sheet on 3/6/2014

Granting all appellees until 3-12-2014.pdf

[(Added 3/7/2014)Actually, I was wrong. Aside from the good reason requirement, for a second time extension request, the clerk do not have the authority to issue any extension of time. Only the court can do that and a motion is required. This was stated clearly in 11th Cir. R. 31-2 (C) stating that "A second request must be made by written motion and will only be acted upon by the court" http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/pdfs/RulesDEC13.pdf and this was not even the second request for time extension]

Confusing responsibilities played again by the 11th Appellate Court

Notice that a game similar to the one I talked about here

http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-from-that-appellate-court.html

in its aim of confusing who is responsible for the action was also played by this federal Appeal Court in its order talked about in the preceding post . If you compare the orders in the two order links in that post you would see that unlike the older one the newer order has the thirty days extension mentioned at the first page but not with the main content of the order. It started by stating that  "The enclosed order has been ENTERED"  then stated that "Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date of the enclosed order" which was not included in the "enclosed order". So which judge made the ruling of 30 days instead of the 14 days limit granted by the order granting the second time extension motion? Or was it the clerk of the court not only exceeding the limits of his authority but also contradicting an order issued by a judge in the court?

Again, what kind of court plays low games like these?   

The order granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion

The order denying the dismissal motion

And I thought for ounce they made an honest order!

After that one of a kind court order from that 11th Circus Court of Appeal which granted the defendant a variable length second time extension of 14 additional days after they rule on a dismissal motion that itself was at the top of frivolousness scale, on 2/2/2014 there came another order related to the matter. The docket sheet mentioned that the order was denying that frivolous dismissal motion. So, I thought that the intention was to subdue the effect of that outrageous second time extension order and did not think there was a reason for me to read it. That was until yesterday when I discovered I was wrong in expecting it to be corruption free. The court gave 30 days instead of 14 extension from after this ruling on the motion for no reason. Although the second time extension motion itself asked for 14 days after ruling on the dismissal motion and the wonderful order granting it stated that the defendants brief is due after 14 days from ruling on the obviously frivolous motion, the court in this order apparently wanted to make a charitable donation of additional 16 days in contradiction with the order granting the defendant's time extension request.

The order granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion

The order denying the dismissal motion

In addition, why would the court be concerned about the other issue of when the defendant will file its brief to begin with when it is in the process of ruling on an entirely different motion with an entirely different issue , not to mention another issue that has been already ruled on?