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.