THIS DESERVES A BLOG OF ITS OWN AND HERE IT IS

http://scotusatcb.blogspot.com/

SHOW ME ANY OTHER SECURITIES CASE WHERE COURTS MADE ARGUMENTS LIKE THE COURTS BELOW THE TOP CRAP DID IN MINE. NO MATTER HOW YOU DESCRIBE THEM AS WEAK YOU WOULD STILL FEEL SOMETHING MISSING BECAUSE THEY WERE ALMOST LIKE WHEN SOMEONE SARCASTICALLY MOCKS ANOTHER PERSON BY PRETENDING INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND CLEAR THINGS HE IS SAYING.

JUST TO REFRESH THE MEMORY OF ANYONE WHO HAS FORGOTTEN HERE IS THE LINK TO MY PETITION TO THE SUPREME CRAP AGAIN:

THE PETITION I SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME CRAP

I VERY MUCH  ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO THINKS HE CAN SUCCESSFULLY ARGUE FOR AND DEFEND THE SUPREME CRAP IN DENYING MY PETITION TO DO SO BY CLICKING THE COMMENTS LINK (WHICH WHEN THERE IS NO COMMENTS APPEARS AS "No comments"). IF SUCCESSFUL YOU WOULD AT LEAST RE INSTALL SOME FAITH IN THE SYSTEM BACK IN ME WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RESULT OF ONE CASE REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH IT MATTER TO ME     

REMEMBER HOW I SPOKE ABOUT THIS GUY TAKING THOSE WITH HIM MUCH FURTHER THAN WHAT THEY INITIALLY INTENDED TO GO AND ULTIMATELY DO THINGS HIS WAY? HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE. HIS ACTIONS WERE PROBABLY FOR SHOWING WILLINGNESS TO SETTLE TO THOSE ON HIS SIDE AT A LEVEL MUCH HIGHER THAN HE IS REALLY WILLING TO GO. AND EVEN FOR THE LOWER LEVEL THAT PROBABLY SHOULD STILL HAVE COME WITH HIM ACTING FROM A HIGHER POSITION REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE REALITY AS IF TREATING THE OPPOSING PARTY SARCASTICALLY.

ANYWAY, THAT IS IN NO WAY AS IMPORTANT AS THE SUPREME CRAP SHOWING HOW CORRUPT IT IS.

AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT THE CORRUPTION GUY DID NOT EVEN BOTHER HIMSELF TO OFFER ANY SETTLEMENT. HE JUST KEPT ACTING IN AN INSULTING WAY BY LEAVING VOICE MAIL MESSAGES THE FIRST OF WHICH SOUNDED LIKE RECORDED UNCLEAR GENERAL MESSAGE FROM A NUMBER TO WHICH I DECIDED NOT TO CHECK ITS MESSAGES AGAIN AFTER I SAW OTHER   PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT CALLING THEM ON THE INTERNET WHICH WAS SOMETHING HE PROBABLY KNEW I WOULD DO.    

I NEVER FELT I HAVE NO RIGHTS LIKE I THE WAY I AM FEELING NOW.

EVEN FOR ME IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THIS CASE OF MINE BUT ALSO ABOUT HOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE MEANS THAT THE LIKE OF THE CORRUPTION GUY HERE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO ME AND I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO THEM. IT IS LIKE YOU DON'T EXIST AND DO NOT OWN ANYTHING. NOT EVEN THE WILD WEST IN THE WILDEST IMAGINATION CONTAIN THIS LEVEL OF MESS.

EVEN IF YOU WANT TO IGNORE MY RIGHTS AS A ONE PERSON, HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL SYSTEM ALLOWING SUCH THINGS TO HAPPEN IN IT? WHAT SIGNAL YOU ARE GIVING ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM WHEN YOU ALLOW SUCH CLEARLY REPREHENSIBLE ACTIONS TO HAPPEN? COULD THINGS BE ANY MORE CLEAR FOR YOU TO PUT YOUR FEET DOWN AND AGAINST THE CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM?

THIS LEVEL OF CLEAR INJUSTICE CAN BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ONLY IN THE CRAPPIEST NATIONS ON EARTH.

THE OUTRAGEOUSNESS OF THE ACTIONS FROM THE COURTS BELOW THE TOP CRAP WAS SO OBVIOUS THAT I FELT WHEN ARGUING TO POINT THEM OUT AS IF I AM EXPLAINING SOMETHING AS BASIC AS HEARING OR SEEING SOMETHING.  

I CALL THEM CRAP BUT IF CRAP CAN TALK IT WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED SAYING "WHAT HAVE I DONE TO YOU TO CALL ME THAT?". IF TALKING TO CRAP SOUNDS INSULTING TO ME IT IS STILL A FACT BECAUSE, AGAIN, I NOT ONLY TALKED TO A SUPREME CRAP BUT HAD TO PUT ENORMOUS EFFORT SATISFYING ITS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT JUST TO ACCESS IT. 

IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT A PERSON WITH EVEN ANY RESPECTABLE AMOUNT OF HONOR OR HONESTY ON THIS EARTH WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT MY CASE AND WOULDN'T DECIDE TO USE WHATEVER POWER HE HAS TO PUNISH THE LOWER COURTS FOR THEIR ACTIONS HERE LET ALONE PASSING ON IT.

ALTHOUGH THE CRAPPY JUDICIAL SYSTEM LEFT ME WITH ONLY A COURT WITH A DISCRETIONARY POWER IN TAKING CASES AS A LAST RESORT TO CORRECT ALL THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED FROM THE COURTS BELOW, THEY STILL SHOULDN'T HAVE REFUSED MY CASE EVEN IF THEY ACCEPTED FOR THEMSELVES TO ACT LIKE CRAP BECAUSE DOING SO FOR A CASE WITH THIS LEVEL OF THE OUTRAGEOUS AND REPREHENSIBLE THINGS DONE BY THE LOWER COURTS WOULD NOT FIT THE "GOOD BEHAVIOR" REQUIREMENT ON THE JUDICIARY IN THE CONSTITUTION.  

IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN ITS RULES, YOU SEE ONE OF THOSE WORKING FOR THE SUPREME CRAP SPEAKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF COMING TO THEM. I CAME WITH A CASE CONTAINING THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THINGS FROM THE LOWER COURTS AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. THE CHIEF OF THE CRAP - I AM SORRY- THE SUPREME CRAP IN ANOTHER VIDEO SPEAKS ABOUT HOW THEY NEED TO BE CONVINCING IN THEIR OPINIONS. OK, TRY TO EXPLAIN THE DENIAL TO MY PETITION.    

AN HONEST READER CANNOT EVEN AVOID THE IMPRESSION THAT I WAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE LOWER COURTS.

WHAT? THE REPREHENSIBILITY OF THE ACTIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE SUPREME CRAP? READ THE OPINION OF THE APPELLATE CRAP. IT NOT ONLY CONTRADICTS AN ENDLESS LIST OF OTHER APPELLATE COURTS BUT ALSO CONTRADICT THE MOST BASIC SIMPLE THINKING AND RECOGNITION. MUCH OF IT WAS A DIRECT DENIAL AS IF YOU ARE TALKING TO SOMEONE WHO CANT HEAR.

THE NUMBER IS 14-1099 IN CASE ANY ONE WANTS TO CHECK THAT HIMSELF ON THE SUPREME CRAP WEB SITE. 

SORRY, BUT A CRAP CAN HARDLY SMELL WORSE THAN THIS.

THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO ME IN NORTH KOREA AND I WOULD STILL USE IT TO POINT OUT THE LEVEL OF CORRUPTION OF ITS JUDICIARY. 

I REACHED THE FINAL END AND HEREBY COMPLETED MY PROOF FOR THE CRAPNESS OF THE WHOLE JUDICIARY.  

I CHALLENGE  ALL THOSE AT THE SUPREME CRAP TO EXPLAIN WHY MY PETITION WAS DENIED.

Can anybody explain why my petition was denied?
What happened to me with the courts below was not enough for the one at the top to apply its supervisory role? 
It was not even sent back for correction but simply just denied. 

My petition was DENIED

My petition was DENIED

This LINK shows how the corruption guy disabled my search on the Supreme Court Web Site from my laptop PC. Look at how the same searches find results in my Chromebook (Of course it would have been more difficult to find a similar proof had he disabled my search from my internet provider (Charter) but he did not choose this path this time).

Counsel denying its representation

The law firm that represented defendant Onteco sent the clerk of the supreme court a letter denying being a counsel of record to any party in that case and claiming being served a notice in that matter as "inadvertent mistake". The link below contains that letter and also images captured today from the appellate and district courts showing that same law firm listed as being a counsel for Onteco. 

Link

Corruption Investigations

Investigation of corruption here seems to be limited to those situations involving direct exchange of material benefits. The fact is that probably less than one percent of all corruption happen in that crude way. Most corruption happen as part of a process in which the relationship among the parties is the main direct focus.      

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case - 8

I sent this objection to the dismissal recommendation by the Magistrate Judge to the Pro SE Intake Unite (as required), the district judge, and that judge himself. Al three copies were delivered a day late from their expected two days priority mail delivery date and the main copy has not been entered yet.     

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case - 7

Here is what FRCP Rule 4(m) 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)."

So in case I did not make that clear, I said that the application of Rule 4(m) precedes the application of Rule 41 (b) (as it relates to court orders) because , as shown above, the rule itself used filing the complaint ("after the complaint is filed") as its trigger point.    

 

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case - 6

I could have also expressed the last part there stating that Rule 41(b) as it relates to orders would be applicable with the condition that it should not contradict Rule 4(m).

However, this issue is not the main purpose of these posts.

 

Remember that letter

And the letter they sent from the Pro Se Office about which I wrote the post here actually clearly strengthens more that there is an intention to protect those in the position of decision making than it justifies their ignoring of the motion I sent. Again, I submitted a motion that should have been either granted or denied not a question looking for a legal advice.  

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case - 5

One could also say that since filing the complaint precedes the issuing of orders, the application of Rule 4(m) precedes that of  Rule 41(b) as it relates to orders. Also, since the issue of dismissal because of failing to serve the complaint does not stop from being under the applicability of Rule 4 (m), Rule 41(b) cant be applicable to lead to prejudiced dismissal here despite the order trick by both Florida and New York Courts.   

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case - 4

Furthermore, if we assume that there is a place to argue for a prejudiced dismissal according to FRCP Rule 4 (m) then that would be with the part that speaks about extensions in the rule. Otherwise failing to serve after the first 120 days directly states dismissal without prejudice if the court chooses not to extend the period. Here, the court ordered service within one period of 120 days. So even if we assume that period contains an extension, it is not the same as the extension of Rule 4 (m) which needs to be ordered after the elapse of the 120 days initial time and would also make the plaintiff knows clearly when the extension begins and ends. The extensions Rule 4 (m) spoke about are also not the ones that result from passively allowing things to extend beyond the original time period.  

Accordingly, if the 120 days represented the original period given to the plaintiff to serve his complaint according to Rule 4 (m) then the rule directly require unprejudiced dismissal. If, on the other hand it was intended to contain an extension then that is not the extension the rule spoke about.            

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case - 3

By the way, even if there was no problem with the summons the recommendation of the magistrate judge for prejudiced dismissal is  legally wrong because in that case FRCP Rule 4 (m) would apply. Like the case in Florida, his issuance of the order to serve the complaint within 120 days from the issuance of the summons, even if we consider the additional time as an extension instead of being  part of the original period because of unreasonable delay from the time the complaint was filed to when the summons were issued, is still within the applicability domain of  FRCP Rule 4 (m) and its unprejudiced dismissal.

Both courts issued extension orders then tried to make the fact that they were orders supersedes the more specific fact that they were related to time extensions which is what FRCP Rule 4 (m) is about and that is incorrect unless they meant that FRCP Rule 4 (m) allows prejudiced dismissal after extension which would also be wrong .  

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case - 2

Again, like the Florida case, this duck not only walked and talked like a duck but signed an affidavit and provided a picture ID that it is a duck.

Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of my case

I found very recently that on 3/11/15 the magistrate judge of my case in New York has written this to the district judge recommending a dismissal with prejudice to my case for "failure to prosecute". He does not mention what I wrote to the court (doc 5 and doc 6) about the problem with the validity of the summons even though he speaks about looking into the records of the docket sheet.
As I mentioned in previous posts , I filed my complaint more than two weeks before its entry date on their docket sheet which happened on the same day I complained about that publicly here. Even their docket sheet shows that it was filed on 8/11/14 but not entered until 8/25/14 (doc 1). Who knows how long it could have taken had I stayed silent?

Then, despite that initial long holding time to the complaint, it took them more than ten additional days to issue the summons and only after the assigned judge referred the case to the magistrate judge for "General Pretrial" (doc 3). They then issued me those invalid , or at least very questionable, summons with a letter telling me that the magistrate judge may recommend the dismissal of my complaint if I do not serve the complaint or request an extension with the 120 day time frame (doc 4). They then ignored my request for new summons because of the invalidity of those they sent (doc 5 and doc 6) and even refused to enter it as a motion which is what it was filed as.

So even before the issuance of this dismissal recommendation it didn't need a genius to see what is going on. One can also see what clearly suggests an attempt to make those in higher positions participate in the plan without direct responsibility. That was started with the protection for the district judge through her referral to the magistrate judge for general pretrial (That reluctance to accept a responsibility here also fits with the relatively long time it took to assign a judge to the case even without counting the time between filing and entering the complaint). Despite that referral the magistrate judge or even the Clerk may not be seen in direct responsibility here because the game was being played through that vaguely identified unit I already talked here about doubting the purpose of its creation called the Pro SE Intake Unite . Then the second layer of that defense was shown with their entering as a letter the motion I sent regarding the invalidity of the summons (In addition an affidavit in support of the motion had to be sent and was received by them twice and I had to also complain publicly about the problem of not entering it before it was entered, as "Letter", in doc 6. Do you see how the general requirement on pro se litigants to contact only the Pro Se Intake Unite directly instead of the clerk was beneficial to the plan here?).

Even without recognizing that I don't see how an honest higher court would accept how the summons issue I raised was ignored without even denying the motion despite being on their docket sheet. That would still be the case even if I were to unknowingly miss the 14 days time frame to object to this recommendation and therefore to appeal and instead go directly to the higher court with a writ of mandamus.

Also, it is funny how the magistrate judge mentions dates showing more than a month of time difference between the filing of the complaint and the issuance of the summons or that the Clerk was directed by the court to issue the summons without explaining why that was needed here then pass on all that like there is nothing there.

Current Docket Sheet


[(Added 3/16/2015) I mistakenly referred to doc 6 and doc 8 which are the motion I sent regarding the summons and the affidavit I sent in support of that as doc 5 and doc 6 respectively]

"no change to the substance" -3

Although not far ago "certiorari" would have sounded to me like something inappropriate to look at, some may still wonder why I did not reach the conclusion that the difficult filing requirement could be a test earlier. That is because for me I could have complained a hundred times the way I did about these requirements and still not be even anywhere close to thinking about abandoning my claim because of it.

By the way, to an ordinary person filing for the first time, fulfilling the technical requirements of this court to that of others is like that of running a marathon to jogging.

"no change to the substance" -2

After reading this I even left almost all of the misspellings the way they are. I still don't understand the reason behind this requirement. On the other hand I think that I now can see the intended purpose behind the difficult filing requirements the court imposes. It seems that these requirements were intentionally made difficult as a test if the filer's believe in his case is at least at level to make him put the effort to pass this test and not just fishing. Otherwise, the job those making these requirements are holding  most probably put them in clearly inconvenient situations more than the like of reading a text from a letter size document instead of the size they require.

"no change to the substance"

I thought that the time extension from the supreme court allows me ,in addition to correcting the petition form, to also improve on the content of the petition but have just noticed this line in the Clerk's letter:


"When making the required corrections to a petition, no change to the substance of the petition may be made".


The rules of the court does not seem to get into that. It is confusing and unexpected because how can the change to a petition be measured starting from first accepted submission? 
The objective could be not to allow changes altering the petition to a fundamentally new one. In other words the purpose could be to prevent changes at a level similar to that which would not prevent a re-filing of the case because of the like of the res judicata rule if it were a case at a district court. 
If that interpretation is correct then the way they stated it was unnecessarily costly to me because it probably would force me to resend the original petition with all its substance shortcomings.   
What also supports this interpretation is that it doesn't seem very probable that the court would treat differently in that regard extension based on what is judged as a failure after a good faith effort without asking for extension for the original filing period, from extending the period after approving such request. 

(This title was newly added just to enable a link to the original post which had no title)

The rules of the Supreme Court stated that if the clerk see an erroneous filing but timely and in good faith he may return the filing giving an additional 60 days to file again and I did get that starting from the issuance of the clerk's letters on 7 which I received on 9 of January 2015 (It was sent back also through priority mail). 

CORRUPTION OF THE DERIVATIVE ARGUMENT

(The date above may not be accurate as a result of experimenting in how to make the blog show when a post was last modified)   
It is had to see the positions taken by courts in this country in general toward the issue of direct or derivative standing when it is related to share transactions as really originating from honest reasoning efforts and not from notions and structures built by the corruption forces. The fact that shareholders generally cannot directly sue on all what corporation insiders can do with its assets apparently was not enough . It needed to be extended to the issue of selling shares and the one thing left to the real owners, their ownership.  It is about shares owners lose from their ownership, that is why they are called shareholders, yet their injury often not seen except through the corporation when ,in fact, it is the injury to the corporation that can not come without injury to shareholders and not always the other way around. They put some ridiculous rules like the special injury test which stands on a made up premise not stemming from any sound reasoning related to standing that if corporation insiders are harming all shareholders the same way then they are not harming any of them directly. Why, what necessitates this end result?

In contrast there is this simple reasoning which shows that there is a direct standing whenever the issue contested is the issuing and selling of shares even when it appears to be more about the assets generated from the issuing or selling of those shares rather than the added dilution itself.

All issued shares come from the authorized shares. Fiduciary duty to shareholders requires the use of the authorized shares for the best interest of shareholders. Therefore a shareholder would still have direct standing to complain about, for example, how insiders favored a friend and sold him shares at half the price. That is because there is a direct injury to shareholders to complain about in not using the authorized shares for their best interest which in this case required using those shares for the best interest of the corporation and that required obtaining the best possible price . Correcting that injury to shareholders can come through correcting the price or returning those shares. What is wrong in this reasoning or why is it hard to be seen for a mind trying to work honestly?(this was added recently for testing ) 

Here is another thing showing even more how difficult the filing requirements of the Supreme Court are which was brought to my attention by the article/post I pointed to earlier.

The Supreme Court requires that all text be in some specific font including that of the documents in the appendix. That may still be achieved by opening these documents and selecting all the text then choosing the desired font. But how about when the court, like it is the case with the district court in my situation here, scans document and enter them as images? look at THIS for example. Try selecting and pasting the text here to ,WordPad, for example and see how it looks. Even this limited copying is actually the applications doing you a favor by what seems to be internal working as an OCR software to recognize an image as text.

Imagine ,instead of this, that filers put efforts on things that can really make the work of the court easier like filing in digital media with every reference ,except for copy righted materials that exist only in paper form, being , in addition to the legal form of citing, also a link which can take you directly to the exact position in the referenced document. With that they can still maintain an internal specialized capability to print the documents in the form they like and charge filers for that if they do not want to do it themselves. Why are they still insisting on striking two stones to start a cooking fire?     

 

I sent my petition to the Supreme Court through priority mail but it took seven days to be delivered. Just in case something happened, I want to state again what I sent. I sent two packages.One contained a number of copies each containing the  petition , appellate court opinion, district court order dismissing the complaint on Onteco (doc 40) and the complaint. The other package was an envelope and contained only a check for the fee.    

      

The direct referral to rule 33.1  (in contrast with citing) did not confuse me by itself but that was combined with how much it is probable to use the common paper size than that other size which sounded as something the court allows because of being considerate to litigants with some strange document fetish.

That in addition to how ,except for the article/post below which I found afterword, I did not notice any complaint by others. 

I learned from the link in the previous post that you can higher a professional service for that. My main problem with such arrangement, however, is that the hedge fund guy would immediately contact and take to his side those running that service just like he does everywhere around me. 

      

Actually the link in the previous post was better be directly to this.

Supplying the quantities they require needed more time than I gave it. Imagine, 40 copies plus those to the defendants each should have that same appendix I listed its contents in the petition. The appendix is not supposed to be arranged the way I arranged it but I was trying to use the chronological order as a substitute to numbering the pages which required me (as the only way that keeps the page references in the petition correct) to print a copy of each document, number each page by hand then scan back and produce the required number of copies.

Anyway, the reason I was squeezed in time is that a petition for a writ of certiorari is supposed to be about why the case should be taken by the court not about the case itself and that separation does not exist in a case like mine related to the actions taken by the courts as much as it does in cases involving separate questions on the merits. So I lost much time trying to plan that separation and then after I couldn't come with a clear plan for that I took the approach of doing things on the go piece by piece.

But even if I was successful in that I would still be in violation of the page size and other things (although not the 9000 word limit)related to the rule I was supposed to follow which I did not notice until days before the due date (was confused by the direct reference to rule 33.1 instead of rule 33 and take things from there.While it seems that generally in law there is no text body attached directly to a rule that contains branches, I still think that probably needed to be a reference to the rule in general since if you are explaining how the rules should be followed and not citing a reference in an argument).

while some of the requirements of that rule like "Spiral, plastic, metal, or string bindings may not be used." (rule 33. 1 (c)) are hard to follow because they do not seem to allow any commonly used option , others like (The text of the document must appear on both sides of the page) (rule 33. 1 (b)) I cannot understand at this moment to begin with.


Here is an interesting reading about the issue.