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.