+100

My situation here couldn't be easier or more fitting for me but for two things. The first is how to communicate this easiness and almost all of my worry is about others missing that. The second thing is the question of how much I was diverted away from the right path with my reactions to the manipulation of the system by this guy and my passivity toward giving the system the degraded appearance of his games.    

+99

Continuing from the preceding post:

They wrote a line about booklet format in that letter similar to the one I received in my first filing with the preceding case when I filed with letter size papers because I did not recognize that the booklet format applies to me until very late. These on the other hand are already in booklet format with difference from the required size, if any, more likely to be in millimeters. Is it possible to avoid thinking about a purpose here to have fun on tasking me with the remaking of those booklets and see me involve myself in exaggerated measuring to do that?     

+98

continuing from the preceding post

HERE is a link (first page only) to the letter I received from the Clerk Office of the U.S. Supreme Court. Rule 14 mentioned that the Clerk could return a letter "indicating the deficiency". The letter I received is far from fulfilling that and if I take everything there to be intended as a deficiency then it is a shameless lie and suggestion of what is hardly avoidable as being intended for other than falsehood. Also, the thing about how page numbering should start with i, ii, iii etc. followed by 1,2,3 etc. or even that there should be the separate numbering mentioned there in general, I do not know of any base for such a thing in the rules to begin with. Even had they returned all 40 copies and everything else back to me I still wouldn't have cared much about complying with a joke like this.     

+97

Today I found that my new petition to the final court was returned to me with a letter that plays on confusing listing individual objections with listing requirements. It then required me to correct the petition . I may come back to this later but for now I just want to ask this: Was this part of the original game plan made by this guy or is it that he altered it after seeing that, beyond making sure it was delivered, I did not check on the status of the petition, and therefore tried to compensate for expected failure there with directing me like I am a toy of his, again? Instead of just showing me things, this guy always play his games showing lack of caring not to cross the line to directly affect me personally. Moreover, while he may pretend such things to be just leading to other purpose, I feel confident that they are his real purpose and that he is very far from really expecting a result for what is supposedly his intention. But, seeing others of his type, I also know how much seeing his behaviour, which he tries to support, again like others of his kind, by creating divisions and isolation to prevent communications, could make one so far from expecting how much what this guy knows suggest otherwise to his behaviour and that he is toying with reality instead of really trying things, at least toward the direction he claim expecting effect for his effort.The minuet someone comes and ask for, not just joining him against the other party, but also externalizing that party you may need to think about the probability of underlying psychosis.               
The difference in time from receiving the petition on July 21 to the date of august 3 stated on the letter, fits the explanation suggested above.