111: It Is Time For Me

Related to my issue at the top court,  I want to start counting the time here.

I know that I already declared this yesterday on another board but I need to fulfill This and also another thing I could have written related to where I would make this declaration.

And by the way here is a copy of what I wrote yesterday:

I hereby recovers all rights I relinquished to the court years ago including the right to be told only the truth about my case and to have time counted as with any other litigant and that starts from this day. Now as much as I have a right to do that, I demand a resolution  through the offer I made to the corruption guy if accepted for the part I kept for myself, or a response back and negotiation.

+110

I got confused in the preceding post. The word "general" was needed to contrast that bias with the one in the preceding example there. The totality of this view also protects against other ways that word could be taken. 

+109: Expressing my position more clearly-4 (Correction)

When in post +107  I said "I oppose things that suggest general bias.." I think that I missed what I wanted to express.

First, the word "general" could be unnecessarily confusing. Second, and this is more important, I should have used the word "tell" instead of the word "suggest" because the things at which I wanted to point are those that have no other probable meaning except through seeing them as fake. As for things that have other probable reasonable meanings, my answer is that I do not know them as wrong or feel they should be avoided to the level of opposing them and therefore the general position I declared in that post also adjusts accordingly. I am not trying to be the active maker of decisions here. I am just trying to decide when I feel things are calling on me to do so. 

Again, this is not my personal right stand.   

108: Expressing my position more clearly-3

I have two kind of rights here, one personal while the other is about the system, which I share with everybody else. The two preceding posts were about refusal and acceptance talk related to the latter. I included neutrality on the latter with the acceptance there. In other words if voting of every person here was taken on actions I described as I accept in the preceding two posts, mine could be just not voting no.   

+107: Expressing my position more clearly-2

On second thought (technically the millionth trying to find a separation line here), it is not just the time issue, but I also accept or at least take a neutral stand on many other things that are from the start about my issue. That is because I myself gave permission and opened this domain on my personal rights. I remembered yesterday that this creation of fault free zone was the reason on my mind when I made the related declaration on my personal rights but missed completing that later by looking for the things to happen from the start within this domain. For example, one of the judges of the court or those working for them communicates to me that the denial of my petition represents the end of my case and no further action will be taken. That is okay even if it was not true because it falls from the start within the domain of my personal rights where I stated my acceptance for games and untrue declarations. On the other hand I oppose things that suggest general bias toward this guy or what is related to him even though they could be (and have always find them are) less effective on me personally than the preceding example. The measure is not the effect on me personally but the stepping on the system and its integrity and the enabling of this guy to have his way to losing reality toward corruption by confusing real corruption with fake, in making that effect on me.       

+106: Expressing my position more clearly

I cant feel I am acting myself here unless I declare this clearly. The only thing I accept here is giving the judges of the final court the time to deal with this outside the formal path. It should be understood this way and not as a game of pretend corruption I am tolerating.

Other than that, I, for my standing for choosing the good over the bad, accept nothing of the games being played despite 

that I cannot emphasis enough not being negatively affected personally (actually hardly not affected positively). This is all is like being pushed to a different universe to me.

I could have written what mistakenly seen to suggest otherwise but that was only speaking for, as mentioned above, the personal effect  and I think that I deserved to be taken on this meaning and feel bad for coming later to put a responsibility on myself for any misunderstanding here. The difference I am making here is that, beside declaring not being negatively affected personally, I am not taking a passive position for what is correct or what I choose to avoid, and instead from this latter stand declare my opposition to the choices being made.     

+105

The combination of working in the market with the fact that I, like any other person here, cannot avoid the Supreme Court as the final judicial point to which one could be taken for any matter in his life, makes my challenge here like that of challenging a person working as a rope walking acrobat to walk on the ground. That involves the same level of risk everybody else takes. Moreover, given that I have other things at top priority for me for which I could make use of the time, we can extend the analogy to saying that person is very much in need to exercise which the ground walking can provide.
Despite all that, this analogy still falls short of including how much my work in the market also involves time passing.     

+104

Too much energy and resources could be wasted when parties unnecessarily engage themselves worrying about each other instead of assuming the correctness of the work of each party toward itself. Therefore from now on, I intend to focus better on my thoughts and what I want to do by better resisting the feeling of guilt related to hardships on those judges like that resulting from the absent judge claim or any other thing with which they could be burdening themselves in relation to any  effect on me despite what I have written (although that is still much more about my guilt feeling toward the persons not the effect on their work as the final judicial point for justice). If this is what I do here imagine what I would have done if I were in their place, and aside from everything else, if I have that huge guilt this court has with the Second Amendment.   

+103

It seems that the effect of the denial of my petition on me is still being compared to other things in terms of intensity and much less the way I wanted to express it as a different kind of action. So lets make a little review. I did not continue to the final court depending on a faith I had for positive reaction there. Actually, I looked at what to me was the absence of caring signs from this guy and the whole environment in general and said to my self lets see to what this will lead. In doing so I looked at things as being entirely within the  domain of formal process. Like any other litigant the denial of my petition was seen as a fatal thing because it closes that domain. However, after that denial I got what made me consider the existence of a surviving personal involvement to solve the matter domain by the judges at the final court. So  unless you find a way to also close this domain (and I do not know how you can do that) I am very far from being affected even close to the way that happened with the denial of my petition regardless of the intensity level of what I see.       

+102

It is very discomforting for me to see the final point for people to complain about injustice they suffer in such a huge country and with this limited number of intermediate stages gets even a little bit consumed by the game this corruption guy brought to it. What helps me tolerate this is the hope that I can minimize the amount of energy and resources diverted to this there and make dealing with the situation more convenient by conveying how much I am personally at ease here . Therefore it is very important to me that I get believed in that I am conveying reality instead of being seen as a good guy making a sacrifice. Actually the more I feel believed in conveying that reality the more I feel free to do what I want to do instead of sacrificing the time. I don't need to be already entangled or for anyone to push me in order to fall in a situation like this. The corruption guy has pushed this to be something that I would not only willingly choose to throw my self in it but also search exhaustingly in order to do so. It is saying otherwise what would have been the hard thing to fit my track record in the stock market where it is not even close to being a realistic goal to seek a similar situation. One may imagine this mentioned there as someone sees another person not being content to invest with anybody and says mockingly to the latter that he can do that with the judges running the final court.  

+101

When my petition was denied I intentionally and even beyond my rage kept insulting the judges of the final court taking pride in that despite my lose at least I am reacting to the highest court like the ones below if not worse. Even assuming that later I would have been able to reach thoughts about the intention inside the court leading me to change direction without dependence on feeling as if this guy was being pushed from inside the court to contact me, I, for the standard of behaviour described above, still like being empowered to detect the court itself putting such effort more than the other way around and regardless of how much the latter could be better for me.   

+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.      

+96

Here comes the technical work of filing a new case petition to the final court. Goodbye free time! I am willing to pay for it to be prepared outside but whom can I trust on this with this guy?

+95

Despite how much I like, in the market, to invest with persons with little information known about them and go do what I want to do, this thing here was converted to the like of that except that this one is with persons chosen for and are running the final court. Imagine that. 

+93

Continuing from post +91

I just want to know, isn't there enough on the plate of people serving as the final judges of a huge country like this, to add the restriction of this absent judge claim on their work? If the intention of continuing it is to remedy the absence of knowing a specific date like that a case being officially with the court would have, then although I appreciate such level of caring and holding the self accountable very much, I am very far from being in need for that any longer, if at all. Having a specific date does not create a good judge but a good judge creates a specific date and frankly  speaking, to begin with, I would choose the sign contained in the denial of my petition and the surrounding situation over having a known specific date, any day of the year. As for the package that sign came in, dealing with it is part of the end result of this process and therefore does not need to be counted twice. That is just one of the reasons why I am very far from needing this absent judge situation. And it comes on top of that, because this is the final court, I, like any other person here, already have no choice but to risk depending on it in so many other things in our lives with the potential of going or being taken to it.

+92

I think that this situation could be a torture to Justice Scalia and even not because of his Heller opinion.

+91

Anyone thinks it is believable that the final court has been left with only eight judges for even a small fraction of this time is severely deluding himself. Therefore there is no reason for this continued additional hardship on the allegedly absent judge and on the work of the court because of that. I could hear similar news about the absence of all the judges then see that contradicted directly and still would not care to comment anything about the matter. What benefit does the corruption guy gets from the continuity of this situation? At least when it stops he can counter any thought of associating that with resolving my issue. 

+90

Yesterday, I thought about this analogy with the passing of time on me here. Imagine that a person needed or was required to stay in some place. But that person also happened to have his top priority is to read a book he was carrying with him, a thing he has not done of it anywhere close to be bored. Later people started to think that person have become bored with that place although he was still merely at the stage of preparing a seat for himself to sit comfortably to read his book. That place in this analogy is my situation here. The seat is the posts I make here trying to get rid of what could cause me to worry about whatever pressure the appearance of my situation could put on the work of the court and on the people there. Finally, you guessed it, the book is my thoughts about the personal matter to which I referred earlier. 

+89

Continuing from the preceding post

And remember that, unlike how it is with the roots, the judges did not share with this guy much of the way with which he processed the dealing with the matter which made things much worse (Even within this view the story of that offer is another matter). I also said that within the returning back of power to the judges of this court, if I was given the power I thought I could be given, they can decide if settlement here should also settle the New York case.

In the preceding post I wanted to express a real significance of that issue to me and how it maybe the one with clearly more priority but it was not my intention to show unappreciation for efforts done for my direction.

  

+88

I interrupt my talk about how the passing of time should not put pressure on the judges, to talk about a thing I hope to be considered carefully. As much as any, lets use the word "settlement", would be about my cases with the courts, it clearly involves two parties on that other side and not just the corruption guy. So why wouldn't the judges of this court use the power that was returned back to them and cancel half of my settlement offer amount to the corruption guy in order not to be obliged to the latter for paying for the judges part in what happened? Why would a person, let alone a judge, choose not to avoid reducing being obliged and having a relationship with an immoral defrauding to people guy like this?         

+87

Even if I want, for my right, time to start counting I would write something as equivalent to that effect as "I want to start counting the time" and that would be my total reaction to the passing of time here.

+86

Things could be already confusing with two blogs talking about the issue (FinalAndOtherCourts and this one) so I continue from THIS and some of its preceding posts.

Even if I want, for my right, time to start counting I could simply write saying "okay guys I want to start counting the time here", then except for the reference there this passing time would be as if it did not occur.

+85

Personally, my only complaint about the games being played is that they are not good enough for enjoyment. However, morally, I cannot just sit and enjoy watching the system being degraded and therefore I denounce that like I denounced crossing into the right of others before.     

+84

Continuing from the preceding post

Yes, at the base stage of knowledge I did not take the denial of my petition easily. But, beyond that, even at the stage of just adding knowing that there is also a claim of intent to deal with my case in a good way externally, regardless of the level of existing support for that claim, I was not tested.  

+83

Clearly I am not supposed to know if I am being played. But if I am, for whatever belongs to the court, are those people for real? I had a 1000 pound weight dropped on me out of the blue with the denial of my petition. Now, if anything, I have weightless feathers, and despite how I waived any right I could have if untrue claims came from them, including indirect (through action) claims. I declared publicly that, for any possible effect on my side, those claims would be equivalent to being part of a game, which  I entered willingly, allowing the making of untrue claims.

Again, the denial of a petition is in a universe of its own because it signals to you that the process has ended and therefore it is evaluation time, no matter how much you had determination not to prejudge the end.  

+82

Continuing from the preceding post:

In addition to that, he also couldn't have missed how much my search about going after how judges act with bias and overstep their authority had turned unfavorable results. I couldn't find one case to support my complaining against judges. In fact, to this day I still do not know whether a legal right in that regard was also seen or that the judges of the final court were troubled merely because they did not like accepting such behaviour in their court system. 

So what better condition countering positive expectations he kept waiting for here if he alleges that being his problem ?

Actually, without any of the above. Seeing the level to which he has been trying things having no realistic chance of leading the way he wants them to lead, one wonders, why couldn't he care anywhere close to this about bigger chances back then? He surrendered to the possibility of me being affected by counting on something I heard one of the judges of the court says absent further effort that easily? Such behaviour then seems to occupy the opposing side of that we saw afterwords.  

+81

How this guy reacted, in the earlier story of Viking Systems Stock in 2009-2010, to the jump of the price as if he was squeezed and really in trouble combined with the stock being a penny stock (literally Cents not the market definition of a penny stock) made me like being isolated by a concrete shield or dragging a very anchoring weight toward recognizing otherwise about this guy and signs pointing out the contrary, to a very late point. That was even reflected in speaking about this guy in comparison with Goldman Sachs and saying things like if this guy can do this to the system imagine what the like of that company can do. 

If he, as I spoke HERE, appears that convincingly to make people think as if he really needs their help for a situation he is toying with, imagine the effect of any input from him with the support I mentioned above. Adds to the latter how it was preceded with my initial recognition to the work of this guy in a stock trading in the range of dollars (Symbol: BITS) which sounded to fit the whole picture of degraded financial capability and being squeezed. 

+80

When I was making my latest brief I thought I would concentrate the same way here to say what I want to say then feel free to do what I want to do after that but I still cannot control myself not to steal time here. 

+79

continuing from the preceding post

One could easily think the purpose of case title is to provide easier path to remembering and referring to the case and for that it needs to be short not full caption. Otherwise the case number on the same cover uniquely identifies the case. It is not like when you first file to the supreme court and you got no number for your case until after filing your petition.

On the other hand, the motion form I received asks me about "Opposing counsel's position on motion". This can be easily understood that motion filer should file his motion with his opponent before the court. That was supposed to carry local rule 27.1 requirement on the filer about the position of his opponent on the "relief" sought.    

+78

My brief to the Second Court of Appeals in New York had reached the court since Monday. Couple of hours ago I thought it might be time to check on my filing and found THIS for why my filing was defective.

So the question is: Are you kidding me? Even assuming it was wrong to include "et al." in the title, is that really a reason to consider that a defect in need for correction? I don't think that is worthy of being held against an attorney let alone a pro se filer.

But who said that was wrong to begin with. The applicable part of the rule she mentioned is FRAP 32 (a)(2)(C) which states that the cover of a brief should include "the title of the case". How does she understand the "title" to contain the names of all defendants? In addition the rule followed that by "(see Rule 12(a))". If we go to FRAP 12(a) we find it saying that "the circuit clerk must docket the appeal under the title of the district-court action". Also, as an additional support for how a case title may not contain the names of all defendants in the case, the rule added that the appellate court "must identify the appellant, adding the appellant's name if necessary". The defendant names are part of the litigant names on the case and if all litigant names should be included in the title of the case the name of the appellant would always be included in the title and therefore there would be no reason for the part mentioned above about adding the appellant's name . 

The district court had the title "Kammona v. Midsummer Investment Ltd. et al". I only added my first name and wrote all names with capital letters.   

+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.