The corrupt justice and judiciary system here just made me read a news caption stating " Flights continue to be cancelled" as "Rights continue to be cancelled" for a few seconds until I realized my mistake.

These are the summons they sent - 6

That additional protection and how it was added show some hesitation or tension in doing corrupt actions for this hedge fund guy and the defendants in the complaint and that,in turn,fits with taking all that time to assign a judge to the case. 

These are the summons they sent - 5

 In addition, if you look at the docket sheet here you would see that an order from the district court judge to assign the case to the magistrate judge for "General Pretrial" issued on  9/12/2014 followed by an order for issuing these summons from the magistrate judge on 9/16/2014. That seems to fit being an extension  used by the district judge to using the Pro Se Intake Unite to manipulate while staying away from responsibility. So now it is through the magistrate judge then through the clerk of the court then through the Pro Se Intake Unite.   

Downloading link images

Again, I don't know why images I upload to Google Drive do not appear at their actual size even when maximized. It could be another thing caused by the hedge fund guy. Anyway, like I said earlier, if the image is downloaded then opened with Windows Paint or any other program that can display PNG images ,including most popular web browsers, then the image will be capable of being seen in its actual size. After viewing the image it can be deleted of course.

In the link below, the first image shows download button in the tool bar that appears when the mouse pointer is taken to the top of the screen. The second image, at the bottom, shows, the dialog box that appears after clicking the download button. In that dialog box clicking the arrow beside the "Save" button will give the "Save as" option.

Downloading images

The image can also be zoomed in using the zoom in option of the browser but, clearly, that would reduce the quality. Nevertheless, as long as the words remain readable it could suffice.       

These are the summons they sent - 4

So, lets make a short review of what we have here from  this court until now.
First it does its work here through the Pro Se Intake Unite and like I stated here, starting with the reasoning behind the creation of this unite as an entity that is not limited to internal contacts inside the court, there doesn't seem to be a valid worthy benefit for it except for corrupted purposes.
Second, in that same post,and this one here, I pointed out how the information in the court's website do not only mislead into thinking that even first pleading should be submitted to this unite but directly state this unconstitutional requirement. That shows how the court was already on unclean path in using this unite.
Then, looking at its actions from the start, we see that , as I mentioned here , I filed the complaint on 8/9/2014 but  it was not entered in the system until 8/25/2014. I also mentioned in that post how "even the number of pages mentioned for the complaint was wrong and it was scanned incorrectly with the end half of it scanned twice" (if this is the level of quality in the work of that unite then that not only give even less reason for the creation of it  for a valid purpose but also strengthens even more creating it  for a corrupt purpose by using this sever lack of quality work as an excuse. Or that level of lacking quality in its work  is related to dishonest intentions and that would lead us to that same result)
In addition despite all that time, a judge was not assigned to the case until 9/2/2014 (Link).
Then came those invalid summons despite taking until 9/17/2014 to issue them.

Is there even a reasonable doubt remaining about the intention of that court and the purpose of what it is doing here?

These are the summons they sent - 3

And that summons work was prepared by, again, you guessed it, The Pro Se Intake Unite. Do you see how that unite is helping the court and not being used to manipulate things not only from the receiving but also from the sending position?

The envelope those summons came in 

These are the summons they sent - 2

Here is a scanned image for one of those "summons". They all look exactly like this except that one of them has a seal. 

The summons they sent
You can see that it is not addressed to a defendant, do not have the court's seal (except for one) and the signature is a copy not a wet signature.    

These are the summons they sent

After waiting since filing my new complaint on 8/9/2014 for over a month to receive the summons, they finally issued an order on 9/16/2014 for issuing the summons and giving 120 days from the issuance date to serve those summons. The mail man appeared to have come yesterday and left a note. So I took the note to the post office to receive the long waited for package. But first, the guy in the post office made me sign and print my name on a paper then sign and print my name on the screen where you sign for credit card payments then write my street address on that same machine before he gave me the package. I did not know why that was required. Anyway,when I opened the package I found that there are six of what are supposed to be summons with only one of them having the court's seal. That may give a ground for dismissal according to FRCP Rule 12 b (4) (Insufficient Process) because summons are required to have the court's seal according to FRCP Rule 4(a)(1)(G) requiring that summons should "bear the court's seal". In addition none of the summons was addressed to any of the defendants which could be used as a ground for dismissal according to FRCP Rule 12 b (4) and Rule 4(a)(1)(B) requiring that summons should "be directed to the defendant". Instead, what was there in the "To" section was the instruction "(Defendant's name and address)" which should have been replaced with the actual name and address of the defendant.Also, although Rule 4(a)(1)(B) requires that summons "be signed by the clerk" I am not sure that any wet signature is there.


[(Added 9/29/2014) The last Rule 4(a)(1)(B) above should have been Rule 4(a)(1)(F)]  

Veneer System

Couple of years ago I wanted to buy a house with brick outside walls. Unfortunately it is not until I started the process of buying the one I selected I discovered that its outer walls, like what seems to be the case with most houses with brick looks external walls, were built with brick veneer not real bricks and realized how widespread the phenomena of limiting things to only their external images as much as possible. Those in Washington, on the other hand, appear to have been smart enough not only to  recognize this much earlier but also to  extend the application of it to their field and ask why stop there? Why not us? So they built a government and judicial system veneer with depth sufficient only to look real by working on the ordinary person.    

Their own governments

It is clear that some ,like this hedge fund guy here, are let to run a government within the government for their service starting from ignoring or turning the head away from seeing how they let civil and government entities serve them in violation to the law all the way to controlling the courts.

Even when they abide themselves by the law it doesn't look like  the way the ordinary person abide himself by the law. Instead it is more like how the son of a wealthy man who knows that while his father may not be pleased if he spends his money unwisely, it is not like he will let him be in desperate need because of such action. That is in contrast to how the ordinary person in his choice to comply with the law is like how the person on a fixed income knows that if he spends his money unwisely  then he got nothing sporting him before his next payment time comes.     

The Worst Engineers

The Federal judiciary system built by the executive and legislative branches here is like a bridge intended to be capable of enabling everybody to cross to the other side and built by an engineer hired for that purpose. But when someone came with a big truck instead of light weight vehicle that bridge  immediately started showing how it wouldn't be able to carry the weight and what kind of fraudulent work it is.      

The best deal on corruption -2

They are like someone who does not rob a place for himself but gives a lift to the thief out of his goodness.

The best deal on corruption

Even assuming that I were ready to let go of my justice principles , I still wouldn't have sacrificed them this cheaply for the benefit of someone else like those in the three branches of government here  giving away theirs. 

 

Smaller images

It needs to be noted that, recently, the images I upload to Google's Drive to share started to appear ,even with maximum enlargement, smaller and less clear than they are on my computer . I initially thought that this may be only affecting the images I add so I tried to work around the problem by capturing and uploading images in multiple parts to increase the size. But I have just found that the same problem is now occurring also with past images I uploaded to Google's Drive which were in the past showing when at maximum enlargement the same resolution they show directly on my computer.    

However, there is an option allowing for downloading and saving the image with "Save" - and also "Save as" enabling saving to a different location. If the downloaded image later opened with Windows Paint the image should appear with its full resolution.

The FBI wants to investigate how someone made a limited period invasion of privacy on the cloud data of some  people. On the other hand this hedge fund guy has been living in my computers for so long that it is now not good enough for him just to watch and know about everything I do but may prevent me from accessing what I want to access on the web in the first place. 

Aside from all other things, from the moment someone says that the government mailman chose to take papers directed to a court there at 10:30 in the night with this audacity in serving the hedge fund guy instead of carrying his duties, I would say that there is a deep problem with this place. Then to add  to the outrageousness of the situation the reaction to me complaining to the top office came through a response offering a refund to solve  the problem.   


[(Added 9/14/14) these two posts give more details:
http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2013/12/usps-response-for-1030-pm-court.html
http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2013/12/usps-response-for-1030-pm-court_26.html ] 

Beyond breach of contract with one side

Charter ,and to lesser extent Virgin Mobile, are not only breaching their contracts  but also committing fraud and/or tort actions here. That is because they do not only disable or restrict my access to some websites but do that while falsely pretending these disablements or restrictions are coming from these websites not from them. 

Actually, generally these restrictions or disablements are most probably coming from the websites themselves but they are caused by actions from those ISPs. For example, if one of those ISPs wants to serve the hedge fund guy and his games by preventing me from accessing a website it may replace the log in input or web address I provide with different ones to cause the website to refuse my access or point me elsewhere. That means the actions of those ISPs also involve fraud on the other end of the communication path.      

Internet service providers I use , Charter and it seems also Virgin Mobile, restrict or prevent my access to websites on the Internet based on the desires and wants of the hedge fund guy? Any one

else finds that outrageous?

Look to whom am I talking.  I am talking where the post office man did not hesitate to selectively deliver only my appeal papers to the court after 10 in the night for this hedge fund guy.
Those running things here are as close to honestly investigating and applying justice on the like of this hedge fund guy as Putin to honestly apply fair election on himself.

New York District Court intentionally misleading the public with incorrect information?

Remember the game of confusing responsibilities the actions of the Eleventh US Appellate court suggested being played on my case which I talked about here?

 http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2014/03/confusing-responsibilities-is-being.html
It seems as if a game of the kind was played by the New York District Court to misdirect the general public using the technique of direct circular reference. I am referring to the point I raised in the previous post that requiring the pro se litigants to send their initial pleading to the Pro Se Intake unit is illegal. While those who wrote that part on the website may argue that this is how they understood the order, the district court could argue that its order is not unconstitutional because the "pro se" term wont apply until the pro se litigant start his litigation and that would mean that the order does not extend to the pleading that starts the complaint. So through that process they could have intended to establish a no responsibility for creating something that has been misleading and misdirecting the public since 1994 (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose/pro_se_litigation.pdf).

Why the Pro Se Intake Unite?

What kind of sense there is in the creation of the Pro Se Intake Unite created by the US Southern District of New York?

First, the creation of an additional obligatory stage preventing same application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) on Pro Se and lawyer filings could be troubling to say the least.Second, since almost everything based on which a complaint can be refused or judged as being in violation of the FRCP requires a ruling by the judge how much real need there is for such entity? How could the work of the clerk by itself not be sufficient for that very limited and very direct domain of possible errors?Third, assuming there is a real need for such entity, why was not that treated as an internal procedure by directing pro se filings to that entity from inside instead of requiring pro se litigants to be involved in that?

The above make it hard to see a real purpose for this entity other than to add another stage that can manipulate if needed while being in a position of much less accountability than the judges or the clerk of the court. What we just saw in the treatment of my case seems to fit an implementation of such plan.

In addition, the link below in the court site showing it stating that ALL court filings by pro se litigants starting from the first pleading should be filed with that entity seems to be wrong legally.That is because either it was not based on the court order it cited or that court order itself if meant to be applied even on the first pleading is illegal. More specifically in the later case that order would be unconstitutional because it would mean that the court acted with a legislative authority for such requirement to be applied before submitting to its judicial authority. But was this an honest mistake or an intentional effort to mislead and further implement the plan mention above?

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtrules_prose.php?prose=office

Corruption of the US District Court for Southern New York -3

Have you heard of The Pro Se Intake Unite?

No, it is not a new Law And Order spin off.

It is an entity created by this district court and all pro se litigants are required to file their papers to this entity and not with the clerk of the court directly. So, as I mentioned earlier, I filed my complaint (Complaint) to this entity and it was received on Friday 8/9/2014 before 10 am (Complaint received)  then was not entered into the system for at least up to the time I checked on 8/25/2014   ( link).  Couple of days later I did a new search and found that the complaint was entered on 8/25/2014 ,the same day I did my last check, according to their claim. The content of the complaint was not accessible but couple of days later I checked again and the complaint was made accessible (remember the hedge  fund guy watch every thing I do on my computer and may choose to change things whenever he wants). Anyway these things remained (Docket Sheet):

First, they put the filing date as 8/11/2014. I don't know how it was OK not to consider the date they received the complaint as the filing date.

Second, the case was not assigned a judge despite being held all that time.

Third, they mentioned that I paid $350 fee although the requirement for filing new case is $400 (Link) and that is the amount I paid (link).

Finally, even the number of pages mentioned for the complaint was wrong and it was scanned incorrectly with the end half of it scanned twice (Complaint as scanned) .

All this happened despite the claim of having an additional stage and specialized unite to improve handling pro se complaints  .     

Charter's corruption again

Charter again prevented me from accessing the Internet. This time it was specifically for my bank account access which I access frequently. What emphasized it was Charter even more was that when I called the bank they said that the system doesn't show that I was trying to log in to my account which should have been there had I entered my online Id correctly. That I did not enter even the online Id correctly can hardly be the case for an account I access this frequently. Even after I gained access back to the account Charter appears to start working on a more detailed level in preventing my access.
These are the error messages I received trying to access my account history for specific date period on two different computers in my home network.  Notice how the error messages contradict themselves. Notice also that while one of them was showing error for violating a rule that was not violated (as the entered date range is showing)  the other one doesn't even make sense for a bank (limiting going back in history for only 90 days). 

Error messages