+77

Even beyond what I mentioned in post +75, I cant emphasize enough that I am not posting here to affect when the case will be resolved. I am posting not to let this guy play his deception freely on the world for how the case could be resolved. I want his work not to escape passing through the picture I want to show. Also my intention is to affect things by the content of my writings not the intensity and frequency of my posting. If I were feeling it is wise enough to leave the picture at this level of clarity, With the other side being someone like this guy, I wouldn't take myself away from the other things I feel much stronger about spending my time doing them. Although, my time for doing either will be reduced until I file my brief due on 10/19/2016 (The good guys there stole 4 days from me for no reason. It is as if courts here like to tax my time).       

+76

Continuing from the preceding post

Also if I am going to declare that it would be on the board "the supreme.." in addition to here.

They say that the final court takes about 70 cases out of 7000 filed each year. Even if that number does not include the cases they send back to be corrected, it still can hardly make the person feel easy about those left out petitions and the question of need for justice not being answered. So I try to at least reduce the level of attention here for there.

Remember that filing to this court is a very exhausting task that itself make a test if you really need justice.  

+75

In case it is thought otherwise, I want to emphasis that I am not writing here to send complaining signals about the court's role in the passing of time. I cannot put things further away from such thought than saying that for my right here, time does not start counting on the court until I say it is. If I want the zero period to end I would not be shy to declare my intention clearly and I wouldn't be substituting that with indirect signals. 

But notice that I still can talk about the role of the corruption guy himself for the passing of time.

+74

If I were to spread the same degrading thing as this guy did, on another person I would worry about a significant lowering of myself because of my choice to deal with things at such level. But it does not seem this guy suffered anything of that. This reminds me of another thing I spent my life with and the enormous loss of not dealing with this kind of behaviour appropriately. Be very careful before giving anyone a free pass on what he does if it in itself seems significant. By not giving a free pass, I mean that the behaviour should be really counted in. If you feel like ignoring the bad thing because it does not look like the person doing it really needs it or self involved in doing it then you could be facing one of those whom I call deceptive psychotics and their super power of character deception.

+73

It took me less than three months to accept and deal with a reality that forced itself on me out of the blue. On the other hand, since then, it has been over a year and still going on him for choices he made with every thing clear in front of him.   

+72

Unlike my situation where he wanted to test and hold me responsible for my choices behind my back, it was explained to him very clearly how his choice will be counted.

+71

It is interesting how his phone calls never sounded to me like real effort and how it turned out he was using them to build a case.

+70

Just like he was calling even though he did not expect me to respond, he could have sent me an offer even if he expect me to refuse it or ignore it. 

He was willing to force anything on me except seeing an offer from him. 

+69

continuing from the preceding post

Did he just realize his power over the media only afterwords? 

Back then it was much easier to inflict suspicion on me than now. But he did not leave trying that as much as he did later because he thought he cannot make me doubt what is going to happen. No, he did not care to play these kind of games because of how much he knew my resolution to see the path to the end was not dependent on expecting the result and that is why he jumped to the most certain thing he could have, denying the petition.

The point is if he really believed what I heard from one of the judges of the court was causing his problem, then it was not hard to counter that sufficiently. So if he did that, then he got no reason to complain about that thing. If he did not, then the analysis above applies.       

+68

I may have already conveyed this but I still want to do it in this form. How is it that if I were affected to believe more in one side of what the court intends to do based on probability about what is going to happen that couldn't be countered by also another probability about what is going to happen, let alone the certainty of a real action in the case with the finality of denying a petition?Where was all this creativity and readiness in playing and repeating deceptive games one saw later until it reached the top of his head? For example where were all the games insinuating grouping and bias inside the court he has been playing afterwords? Also, if any of the judges there want to help him in balancing that, was it really a hard thing to say something that could counter the call about coming to the court I heard? But not seeking to work at the probability shows his knowing that I was not depending on probability to see the thing through to the end.

+67

Speaking about the degrading things he was spreading, notice the similarity with taking the court to deal with me externally in how through being embarrassed to discuss the issue in order to respond to him your input is also circumvented. Both emphasize the going behind and avoiding a fair face to face of a deceptive behaviour. 

+66

The behaviour to which it was referred in the previous post was especially conflicting with his alleged negotiation effort because of how much it is an unnecessary direct insult requiring action to the contrary in accepting the alleged negotiation effort. But in general his alleged negotiation effort, which imply starting from equal ground, was already offset by his continued behavior in positioning himself above and everything like a toy to him. His effort was far from showing sincerity from a neutral ground, let alone being that much in the minus at the same time.     

+65

In addition to all what I mentioned about his alleged negotiation effort itself, how is it that the guy goes and extends the case to his allegation that I refuse to negotiate with him and it stops there and does not extend to his affecting behaviour? Take first how claiming that he wanted to bring his adversary to the negotiation table while at the same time spreading those degrading things can hardly be seen as not mocking the person to whom you are complaining let alone making a strong case for your allegation (Not to mention the insult of how those degrading allegations may look like being intended to cause a judge to ignore a person). Like the alleged effort itself his sincerity in its surrounding behaviour did not show itself.

   

+64

It is not just the repetition but also the kind of that repetition to reality here. In case he thinks it goes without being noticed, I tell this guy that it did not escape me how taking a risk in the scene of taking a chance dependent on another person's behaviour, is not something, like lifting weight if you do it once you can do it again, available for repetition except to undo reality. 

+63

And given all the training he made sure I go through in the market playing his long term games on my stocks, this corruption guy must really had me as his target for any time taking game he could be playing, right? LOL.  

+62

This situation of not knowing what will happen, if it will happen and when it will happen, is not far from the way I make my living investing and holding in stocks. 

+61

I don't know who told this corruption guy that he showed morality anywhere close to suggesting that he would on his own try to settle the case after it gets denied. However, like I said elsewhere, initially I thought it could be a consolatory compensation being done for the judges of the court. So, imagine, I had something as clear and directed specifically at me as this and still did not take it for myself as most probably would have done. How many then castles in the air I could have built from one time hearing a general call on people to come to this court? And that after all the outrageousness I saw from the lower courts which was all the experience I had with courts here (except once in a traffic court). 

In any case, with or without any encouragement, stopping before completing the path was not something even in a galaxy adjacent to where I am.      

+60

Actually, the situation in the market and my recognition for his games was also based on his exaggeration but he still chose to play it again here on the same target. With the option I mentioned in the preceding post he could have suggested to me that anything I heard from the judges of the court and supposedly made me feel strongly that they would be on my side meant nothing more than resolving and dealing with the original merits of the case fairly. If he really thought that my faith in the outcome was built that much high based on things I heard from the judges of the court then that needed to be fitted with something not contradicted. Instead, his behaviour was more like he wanted to take away whatever was left than that of facing a strong thing.    

+59

Reflecting on what I wrote in post Post +55 I thought about how much things would have been more confusing to me if instead of denying my petition, it was announced that the case was returned back to the lower court for the judgment to be corrected on the original merits of the case. Not only that in itself would have been much more reasonably fit for the situation by the showing of much less outrageousness, but there also his phone calls could have been seen as attempts to negotiate the case for the ruling of the lower court after the return of the case to it. If this was not an option to him, rescheduling the case could have opened the door for such thoughts. As much as he supposedly expected me to have faith that the court will be on my side how does that fit facing it with how much it is less probable for the court to carelessly deny my petition like that? Although even if we suppose he really expected that, it is not clear how much him being such a fool to showing his power and would like to come to me like God not under the power of anything, would have let him to act reasonably on it.         

+58

While I was counting on my capability to refer back to my history here, it seems that the published date is not an external authentication for when the content of the post was created and there is no proof readily available, if at all, showing that a poster did not change his post after posting.