(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.