+57

By the way, if I had that level of guaranteeing the result of going to this court how does that fit with THIS or THIS or THIS and the worrying they suggest that my petition could be denied? Or was that too early? Then how about all the effort I put in expressing what I faced and arguing for my case to be taken in my  PETITION ? Still not recent enough? Then how about the worrying about my petition suggested by the wish to "improve on the content of the petition" in THIS post? 

+56

Not only with neutral behaviour, but all the judges of the final court could have done what significantly suggest that they would be biased toward this guy, and I still wouldn't have even thought about stopping before reaching it. My earlier behaviour clearly support this much more than any thought to the contrary and I even declared my intention HERE. Actually my shock from the behaviour of the lower courts was already affecting me to the level that I kept listening to the oral arguments of this court trying to support my faith that courts can reason normally. Giving up on a judicial process before completing the path to the final court is something that is hard for me to imagine justifiable even when I see it in a movie.     

+55

Rescheduling the petition probably would have been more than sufficient to balance any thought I supposedly had about the court being very exited to act on my case and that could be followed by another rescheduling or denial if needed. But choosing a path where it gets denied with the rest of denied petitions that may not have reached the judges (although that still does not take away the moral responsibility) shows how much his problem was really any recognition to the existence of my issue I may perceive.   

+54

Here is an additional thing  that is more specifically about what he probably alleged in that I insisted on my position because of assurance resulted from hearing Justice Scalia's call on people to come to the court. Look at that immediate knockout action in denying my petition. Does that look to you like the action one would push for if he just wanted to balance that alleged certainty in the outcome that I supposedly had or does it look more like the action somebody would push for if his problem was any hope his adversary have in the outcome and he want that to crumble?      

+53

one would expect that somebody showing this willingness to resolve the matter with the level of phone calling efforts this guy pretended wouldn't mind, if he was really trying to settle the matter, diverting some of that effort to show how much his adversary is insisting on refusing to settle, with a sears of offerings not just one. He did not make any.

+52

And it is not like he communicated an offer earlier and the action of the court was to push me to accept it. No, he did not communicate any offer because he was afraid he may not be able to offer something that I refuse but still fits with how much he was pretending with the other side.  

+51

Assuming the guy had made a case for seeking the interference of the judges of the court, one would still wonder how he was able to be convincing that I should be treated externally from the start instead of having my input or response taken just like his first. 

Even when there is no worthy gain expected from such behaviour, the minute one sees such an attempt to isolate things into separate worlds he may need to think that he could be dealing with a deceptive psychotic person his real aim is denial.   

+50

Aside from everything else, playing those corruption games is like re-choosing the earlier ones but with the addition of having experienced the consequences of them. And when that happens in the context of being held responsible for those earlier ones it is also like the ultimate form of ridiculing what is going on. 

+49

Aside from the difference in how much he had a say and a choice (actually a better word here could be "creation"), in his degrading to the rest of the system do not forget to compare the value of what he is doing that for to him to the value of what he is taking from any group or entity to it, let alone the combined value of what he is taking from everybody. For example, think about how much my offer is a fraction to the ownership he holds or represents and compare that to how much not to lie is the main thing to news media and the press. What value could be left in a news media that intentionally lie especially when it is not even about some details but fabricating whole stories from scratch like that? And it did not even looks like he cared more than for a game playing far from being really expected to have the desired effect on its target.  

+48

Continuing from post 46

Like I mentioned in another blog of mine, degrading the rest of the system like that could add to the reason for reacting to his earlier actions with the courts instead of making them look normal.

+47

Nothing changed in what I said and the passing of time is still as it is not counted to me. I just keep catching myself and bringing it back here because there are still things I think leaving them not communicated may not be wise enough. 

+46

In what was supposed to be an attempt at resolving what he had done, he repeated the same trampling the system uncaring about the consequences actions, this time extending his target to include from the executive branch and others in the government to even the media and free and honest press. How much of even just that shows you the behaviour of somebody even counting in his actions let alone trying to correct them? Moreover, most of that happened not just after what he did but after seeing the kind of things he could be faced with for doing what he did earlier. 

+45

continuing from the preceding post

Is there a valid reason for that or is it that this guy continues to pull these things like nothing happened while we are still in this? Did he even expect that to really affect me or was it to him, as usual, like playing something with no value?

That brings to mind how the behaviour of this guy could involve lying through actions instead of words. Much of what he tries to play on me could suggest to an external observer things about me that are exactly contrary to what this guy himself knows but acts otherwise. For example, even from just the considerable amount of time I have been with him in the market, he knows how much I am not the type who is likely to just jump ship with any turbulence. He knows how much even with the relatively lower level of moral issue involved,  I stick to my position there. Yet he play games here as if he has the exact opposite experience about me.

He could be simply counting on time to change positions of others and have to pretend that there is a sufficient probability of success for his efforts to have a valid excuse for taking as much time as he can. Like I said before one should never count on what a guy like this pretends to be his target. Although, I still would be surprised to know seeking that aim is not itself empowered by the reality fighting of a psychotic denial underneath.

+44

Correcting the preceding post, if we count in the triggering days then I should have added 14 to 11 not 12. However, my selected date is still within the allowed range. Actually, I can be wrong in a day or two in that calculation and it still would not matter because October 22 and 23 are weekend days and that generally pushes the date to the next working day. So how could it be after all that my calculation is supposedly wrong enough to take me back to October 19?

+43

The appeal court in New York gives appellants the choice for selecting their own filing date within a range of 91 days according to the rules shown in THIS FORM ("(2) when no transcript is ordered.." applies to me as indicated HERE). This District Court Docket Sheet (entry #16) shows that my notice of appeal was filed on July 12 and form D-P is due within 14 days. Even if we count including the day of the triggering events, which I don't think is the usual practice, we have this:

12+ 14=26

That leaves 6 days of July's 31 days. Add to that 31 and 30 days of August and September respectively and you get 67. Now subtract that from 91 and you get 24 days of October. This makes my selected date of October 23 with in the valid range. If so then why did I find THIS ORDER setting the date at October 19 because the date I selected "exceeds the time allowed by the rule"? It is not a big difference, but why? The corruption guy playing his games again?     

+42

I mentioned before that six years ago I talked about how this guy seems to me as one of those whom I described as deceptive psychotics and the power of their convincing through character assumption, in other words the way they present themselves. Several days ago, it occurred to me how unusual and far from being normal the position this guy probably tried to take here which suggests dependence on such power.

Think about it. Even without morality, if you were in his place would you try to take the position that the other guy's refusal to take your phone calls being the insult impeding solving the issue, without making any offer? The way situations like this normally go is for somebody in my position to claim an insult based on the behaviour of the other guy in trying to reach a solution. The guy in his position on the other hand cannot claim an insult before making an offer because until then he is isolated by the capability to make the offer from feeling insulted. Even in fiction, a guy who had suffered a wrong from a rich guy could react telling the other guy that he cannot just correct anything with his money. But how many times have you seen in a movie or read in a novel things go the other way around? In other words, how many times have you seen the rich guy, where his only concern is to resolve the situation, feel insulted by the other guy refusal to communicate with him without sending an offer first? But apparently this corruption guy thought he can take both positions. He may have thought that his power of assuming the insulted character here would eclipse such an unusual situation. He even had to take it higher than this, making use of refusal of only the form of communication on which he insisted as the insult.