Impeachment - 2

I mentioned those two judges because their actions reached a level that meets even the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that those actions were not serving or intended to serve justice. Of course if someone later shows otherwise then it becomes a different thing. But until then it seems very reasonable to question if there was any good intention behind the actions of those two Judges. In fact, I don't understand how it could be reasonable not to question that for the kind of actions taken by those two judges if there is a serious interest in having a judicial system that is not a joke.

Layer Under Layer of Outrageousness

Lets see what we have here. We have a defendant, represented by a lawyer firm, who suddenly appeared at the last two days before the deadline for filing its response brief and asked for a time extension of 30 days which is equal to a repetition of the entire time period originally given to it to respond. Although the local rules require that extension requests for more than seven days should be submitted at least seven days before the deadline the defendant submitted his request only two days before the deadline. the defendant did not explain what prevented it from submitting its request earlier. In addition local rules require that the entity submitting such request state with particularity the reasons why it needs that extension of time. The defendant's motion did not list any significant thing for why it needed the time extension it was requesting. Despite all that the time extension request, to which I myself agreed before the motion requesting it became available, was granted (see Deeper Corruption at the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeal).

Then the defendant filed a very frivolous motion in direct contradiction with one of the most basic rules for filing an appeal which requires a final judgment ending the case before an appeal could be filed (see Frivolous Motion).

Then ,again, one or two days before the extended deadline for filing its brief, the defendant made a new request for additional extension of 14 days. Despite the fact that motion was a second time extension request which the court emphasizes how rarely it can be granted, it also came having all the failures and shortcomings mentioned above for the first time extension motion (see Motion for more time extension ).

The new time extension motion requested the 14 days to start from after the date the court rule on the dismissal motion mentioned above. So in effect it was a request for an indefinite time extension that is guaranteed to be at least 14 days. Had such a request ,if ever made, ever granted in the court system of this country? If yes, then was that granting also based on no grounds other than that the court can make a ruling on a motion that would render the defendant's brief unnecessary? If such reasoning justifies this kind of time extension then courts would have been flooded with similar requests. Finally, assuming the answer to that last question is also yes, is the motion for which the defendant made his case of waiting for a ruling by the court before he files his response brief also based on a very clearly frivolous reasoning that made something from nothing like the dismissal motion of this defendant?

It is only if that request is denied by the court then the defendant would then take 14 days from the due date of the first extension.But the court did grant that request (see Granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion ) .

So as you can see here, the court has granted a second time extension to a party who did not even file his first or second time extension requests in a way even close to what the court requires and without stating any reason for that failure, in the unheard of way of starting the new extension time from after it rules on a previous motion without any good reason for waiting for ruling on that motion which , if all that is not enough, is in itself a very clearly frivolous motion. 

In addition, one factor that is usually determinant to granting any time extension request ,let alone second request which also doesn't start counting the additional time until a ruling on a previous motion comes out, is the agreement of the adversary party to that extension. I agreed to the first request and did not agree to anything after that. But still the corrupt judge did not care and granted that very unjustified request. 

Bringing it closer to the eyes

In case anyone is unable the outrageousness of the order issued by Judge Beverly B Martin yesterday then I intend to bring that closer to your eyes. If you are in a responsibility position related to this matter and you realize that I am right then the rest will depend on the quality of your intention in carrying your responsibilities.

Granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion

Impeachment

Judge Donald L Graham and Judge Beverly B Martin Should both be impeached and removed if the court system here is not a joke.

These are courts? According to what dictionary?

So help me get this correctly. When you say "courts" here you refer to these things where the like of this hedge fund guy can pull his strings and make "judges" dance the way he likes even publicly in front of everybody?

Like I anticipated earlier, I am dealing with a Circus Appeal Court not with Appeal Court .

The Circus Court of Appeals

Breaking the corruption scale at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

You know that motion I talked about a week ago asking for another extension of 14 days from after the date the court rules on a motion to dismiss filed earlier by the defendant?

Motion for more time extension 

It was granted yesterday by Judge Beverly B Martin.

Granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion

USPS Response for the 10:30 PM court delivery attempt - 2

The fact is that although the response from the USPS would have been very weak even if the package containing my brief to the court was delivered late or even lost altogether, the response from the USPS here regarding the event in question is even much weaker. That is because the event in question does not even allow interpretations based on mistakes and less than expected performance from the USPS. The only interpretation that event allows is that of an intentional action because it is not in line in any way with how the USPS does its delivery business and clearly required more instead of less effort and attention to be carried out. If delivering the package within the normal business hours was not feasible, the path of waiting for the next day is not only the normal and better and closer to mind path than attempting delivery of the package after 10:30 in the night but also the one that requires less effort and less special attention.   

The level of corruption the like of this hedge fund guy enjoy in this country made him act within the luxury of choosing a very unusual and for which it is the hardest to come up with an excuse plan and made the USPS do it for him. By delivering the package late so the court wont receive it at the delivery time and leaving a note the event would represent a situation for the package to be stuck in neither received nor not received. The brief was mailed on the last filing day allowed (date of filing for an appeal brief is the date of mailing it) so it wouldn't have been without complications had I tried to send substitute copies. In addition, there is the  possibility that could be argued as being a failure to timely file the brief by the opposing party. A lawyer experienced in dealing with such technicalities of the courts probably could have found his way through such situation easily but the same cannot be said about a layman like me and the hedge fund guy knows that.   

It is very clear that the delivery attempt for my brief to that court at 10:30 in the night was part of a plan arranged with the USPS.It is a very low probability, if any, that event was not part of that conspiracy plan. And if one wonder if there could have been some kind of special events or incidents that led to that delivery attempt, the response from the USPS significantly cancelled even that unsupported assumed probability. The most significant way with which the response from the USPS had cancelled such possibility was when it mentioned that "we cannot state with certainty what actually happened after that time and the carrier cannot recall". That is because by stating that he/she cant recall what happened, the carrier is indirectly suggesting through his own admission the absence of any other significant event or incident that could have led to a delivery attempt to the court at 10:30 in the night. In addition, although any claim that the delivery attempt at 10:30 PM did not really happen, is weak and can be refuted through various elements of the whole picture, that statement from the carrier proves more that the event really happened. That is because only someone who is trying to avoid the possibility of facts revealing things different from what he is saying would claim that he cannot recall such an  unusual event. Otherwise he should have responded that he did not attempt to deliver any package to the court after 10:30 in the night.

USPS Response for the 10:30 PM court delivery attempt

This is how the usps responded to the complaint I mailed the Postmaster General and others, after failure of the internet contact to lead any suitable reaction, regarding taking my brief to be delivered to the Court of Appeals at 10:30 in the night (see USPS took my brief to the court at 10:30 in the night) 

USPS Response

How probable is it that someone who him/herself is not only careless about this kind of corruption but part of it would write a response like that or forward to someone to write a response like that?

 

Look at this part and see if it signify any other conclusion:

" Unfortunately, we cannot state with certainty what actually happened after that time and the carrier cannot recall. For some reason, the delivery action was not scanned. This could have been human error on the part of the carrier, due to the extremely large volume of mail the US Court of Appeals receives. Or, there may have been issues with the barcode that prevented the scan. The subsequent scans were not on the actual mail piece but rather system generated entries to account for the non-delivery event."

So, what are they saying here? That the system data was wrong and shouldn't be trusted? If so then they are merely replacing or justifying one questionable thing with another that itself may need a longer series of explanations.

Again it is very clear that this response was intended to deny and defend rather than seeking the truth. Nevertheless, lets take a detailed look at some of what is there.

First they say that they " cannot state with certainty what actually happened" ,yet they still appear to be able to state confidently that " The subsequent scans" were "system generated entries to account for the non-delivery event".

Also does that happen with all other packages that the system " account for the non-delivery event" in the same manner? Does it also always state the time of the delivery attempt at 10:32 PM? Does it always state that "Business Closed" on it own? Does it always state that " Notice left" without really knowing that and claims to the customers things that could be false? (see USPS delivery attempt to the court after 10:30 PM and Top of above page showing tracking number)

As for the "extremely large volume of mail" to the court, nobody told me that was the last day before the court took a vacation. What? The court did not close for a vacation the next day? Then that "extremely large volume of mail" to the US Court of Appeals is countered by how the USPS is accustomed to the usual business of the court. In addition, assuming that there was unusual volume on that day shouldn't that also increase the chances of more errors happened on that day with other packages? Why just mine? Even if there were more errors and complaints from customers related to delivery in that date how many of those errors was similar to what happened to my package? In fact, I doubt one could find a similar thing in  a range of years and for the entire court system of the country not to mention one day and for one court.

They also claim that " the carrier cannot recall". Aside from the fact that it was not a package of the common size because of its containing seven copies of the brief with their covers which probably should make it more noticeable, what does that claim even mean? Even if the carrier doesn't remember what happened to my package specifically how could he fail to remember if he took a package ,any package, to the court at 10:30 in the night or not?  

They also said that they apologize if "the information on usps.com was in anyway confusing or misleading" when, in fact, I did not complain about the descriptions of the actions on the tracking website. I complained about the actions themselves. It is they who tried to shift the responsibility of what happened to the system in their letter.

Finally, they wanted to even reach a higher level of shameless pretending in lack of understanding so they made their way in offering refund to me.

 

 

Actually, given the control and what is allowed in this country for the like of this hedge fund guy I am surprised that it is not the courts who write motions to him to conduct it business instead of him writing these motions to the courts. But who knows? Maybe we are on our way to that.

People Courts, Hedge Fund Guy Chuck-E-Cheese

The same defendant lawyer which filed the time enlargement motion talked about here

 Deeper Corruption at the US 11th Circuit..
then outdone himself filing this motion to dismiss my appeal

Frivolous Motion

 has done it again and filed this motion for additional 14 days extension
Motion for more time extension   .

 But wait, you haven't heard the punchline of this one yet. He wants the 14 days extension to start from after the court rule on his motion to dismiss mentioned above .Only if that is not granted to him then he would take 14 days from the due date.

Of course one could ask for this additional time extension just to cover that his earlier extension (enlargement) request was for the purpose of only taking more time.

Instead of this lawyer filing his brief on the due date of the 30 day time enlargement that was granted to him another defendant lawyer filed his brief on that date. That lawyer wasn't granted any time extension by the court and I did not agree to his request. Nevertheless he still filed his brief on is own.

You can see using the links here to the docket entries at the court that the entity who filed its brief on 12/20/2013 was not granted any time extension.

Defendant lawyer filing on his own .
   

Bugs Bunny Cartoon V. SEC Corruption

In a previous post I compared the unreasonableness of what the like of this guy may do in the market and the SEC act like there is nothing because of its corruption to the like of a Bugs Bunny Cartoon. Of course I understand that comparison could be exaggerated. After all, one may not be able to generalize such level of things lacking sufficient reasonable sense to all cartoon. For example, during some period this hedge fund guy was manipulating the volume of one of the stocks I owned to show too much trading at low prices. That stock was barely trading to a level that even reaching a volume of 10k shares traded is considered generally something unusual. After this guy started playing his volume in inflating game he in one of the days made it show a 30 million shares traded . That was not for the entire day,no, but just during the first half hour of the day. 

 

There are so many examples of this kind and this hedge fund guy never hesitates to challenge the environment by showing the most unreasonable thing knowing that no body would go after him. But why go far? There is more than enough of that game in this case of Onteco Corporation which I took to the court.

 

Anyway, going back to the 30 million shares in half hour example above I sent that to the SEC trying to bring things even closer to their view sight  but again it ,and reasonably so ,failed in changing the course intentional failure because of corruption take things. 

 

 

 

       

Corruption at brokerage firms

The level of corruption at the brokerage firms involved even that 
this guy can stop my order from being executed despite being  at the ask or higher.[(Added 1/25/2013) I was referring to a buying order]. 

The story of the transfer request

It is my understanding that at the beginning those inside Onteco Corporation working for this hedge fund guy wanted to resist the dilution path to which he led them later. So after seeing the way I was able to buy the amount of shares I bought with millions of shares easily thrown to me when I place an order I had my doubts and wanted to check to see if I was really receiving those shares in my account. The account in which my buying of this stock was concentrated at that time was my account with Fidelity . The test I wanted to do was to transfer those shares from that account to another account of mine.While that may not sufficiently prove that those shares were really delivered to my account it would at least provide a better sign for that.

I tried two or three brokerage firms with which I have or had accounts. I don't remember exactly how many but I remember that I became confident that they did not want to do it because they were cooperating and covering for Fidelity and that I most probably can easily show a similar response from other brokers to anyone seeking more samples.All the transfer requests started with the brokerage firm accepting my application without any problem like a very routine procedure. Then it was very obvious that after they make contact with Fidelity they come with various excuses. The difference between the way they were accepting to do the transfer at the beginning ,without stating any of those objection even days after receiving the application, and the way they acted later was very clear. They were all clearly excuses intended to avoid doing the transfer because most probably ,as I suspected,Fidelity was cooperating with the hedge fund guy by enabling him to sell a big amount of shares without requiring him to really deliver those shares. Scottrade went far enough to later even fabricating a new specially designed rule that they do not accept transfer of penny stocks as the reason for not transferring the shares. 

Notice that I am aware that the above might be seen as conflicting with what I said in the story of Viking Systems (VKNG) that the hedge fund guy sent SEC officials to pretend (although very poorly) that they were interested in investigating my complaint while their real intention was to find out for the hedge fund guy if it was me who made the big buying on 10/22/2009 or some other hedge fund guy. Now one might say: if he has the power to do what you described above why would he need the SEC to find out your position of a stock?

The answer to that is, yes, if the same thing happens today he probably wouldn't choose the SEC to find out my position at Scottrade or any other broker but at that time he did. Why? Probably because at that time he did not know with which broker I had my account and /or did not dig sufficient connections to find out about my account or have the special services he wanted from the brokerage firm so he used the SEC path for being the ready easy one. In any case I clearly stand by what I said in there and here without any hesitation.    

 

Probably just for fun

One of the games this hedge fund guy played and could be just for fun is this. I once lost access to my bank account (the same bank I think he wanted to attack because they did not as easily provide him access to my account as did other financial institutions so he made a cyber attack and spread it to also include other banks then blamed it on china to throw away suspicion). Every time I contact the phone number related to that matter I hear the name of the bank followed immediately by "Good by" and the phone call ends. My email to the customer service did not lead to anything special except the suggestion of going to a branch office .It was not only that number  but I also tried and heard the same thing most or all of the other main phone numbers related to individual banking and I kept wondering how could they be OK with their system not functioning to this level. I kept receiving the same message from that phone number every time I call for about a week or more according to what I remember until I decided to go the branch near me to resolve the issue. When I went there they told me that they also need to contact that same number to solve the problem just like me. To my surprise that same number worked fine when called from that branch so I stopped the process and went back to my home to restart and complete that same process. But when I called I again received the same machine response announcing the name of the bank followed by "good by" ending the call. Because of the different response between the branch and my home I thought that I need to also try my cell phone and when I did that everything worked fine just like calling from the branch office.

As you can see it was a game targeting only me through my land line . I told the customer service when I reached them from my cell phone about what happened but who would believe such a story.

Of course I am aware that he might have played that game entirely through the internet phone company I am with without any involvement from inside the bank. But there also times when my access was temporarily disabled because of what is hard to be seen as other than through internal game. 

 

The process servers I contacted

Almost all the process serving companies I contacted , and I contacted a lot, were clearly contacted by this hedge fund and conspired with him against me. You would think that having a job where they may serve eviction papers on the poor they may at least try to balance that by also serving things on the bad rich and powerful. But no, they appear to be far from feeling such a thing. One of them (Steve Carlyle from Florida Service Of Process) not only accepted the job then did not really try to serve after being contacted by the hedge fund guy but actually he himself actively sought to take my case in order to prevent me from serving the papers using other process servers. Then as an additional service to the hedge fund guy he added additional charges for things we agreed I shouldn't pay any more after the relatively big charge I already paid him. And guess what? The hedge fund guy made that Discover Card company repeatedly declares the charges as valid despite that I disputed them three times and I have email proof that I shouldn't be charged.

Anyway, I have things that could show what I am saying here are not baseless accusations in case someone wants to prosecute the like of those not to betray the trust of the people.

Like I mentioned in the story of Viking Systems stock (vkng )

(The Earlier VKNG Encounter , The Earlier VKNG Encounter -2),

I let most of a gain of more than $2 millions on its way for more, evaporates because of the illegal actions of this guy while I was trying to give him time to correct his mistake to a safer path for him. He then followed that by messing the rest of my investments in other stocks where I recognized his  games, from the inside of these companies before they start climbing higher values and something of the kind to what happened with vkng repeats itself.

[ (Added 12/15/2013) It is amazing how much readiness there is in many public companies insiders to conspire against their own shareholders with the like of this guy. But why wouldn't they? What would make them avoid joining someone who had his way with the court system the way this guy did here and can make the USPS take your Brief to the court after 10:30 in the night? Who would prosecute them? The SEC? The SEC may prosecute  them if they DONT]   
 

NSA? What NSA?

 

I got this guy watching everything I do on all my computers and tablets using what seems to be viruses written by a professional entity working  for him like an organized crime and still nobody cares? 

Frivolous Motion

The same party that submitted the time enlargement motion that was the subject of this post

Deeper Corruption at the US 11th ...

 

yesterday submitted a motion asking for my appeal against their defendant to be dismissed because it was not filed within the 30 days of the judgment dismissing the case against that defendant although it was an interlocutory order not final. It is clearly not a significant probability that they submit such a thing to the court without counting on support from inside allowing them to do that.

 

Frivolous Motion