+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.