"no change to the substance" -3

Although not far ago "certiorari" would have sounded to me like something inappropriate to look at, some may still wonder why I did not reach the conclusion that the difficult filing requirement could be a test earlier. That is because for me I could have complained a hundred times the way I did about these requirements and still not be even anywhere close to thinking about abandoning my claim because of it.

By the way, to an ordinary person filing for the first time, fulfilling the technical requirements of this court to that of others is like that of running a marathon to jogging.

"no change to the substance" -2

After reading this I even left almost all of the misspellings the way they are. I still don't understand the reason behind this requirement. On the other hand I think that I now can see the intended purpose behind the difficult filing requirements the court imposes. It seems that these requirements were intentionally made difficult as a test if the filer's believe in his case is at least at level to make him put the effort to pass this test and not just fishing. Otherwise, the job those making these requirements are holding  most probably put them in clearly inconvenient situations more than the like of reading a text from a letter size document instead of the size they require.

"no change to the substance"

I thought that the time extension from the supreme court allows me ,in addition to correcting the petition form, to also improve on the content of the petition but have just noticed this line in the Clerk's letter:


"When making the required corrections to a petition, no change to the substance of the petition may be made".


The rules of the court does not seem to get into that. It is confusing and unexpected because how can the change to a petition be measured starting from first accepted submission? 
The objective could be not to allow changes altering the petition to a fundamentally new one. In other words the purpose could be to prevent changes at a level similar to that which would not prevent a re-filing of the case because of the like of the res judicata rule if it were a case at a district court. 
If that interpretation is correct then the way they stated it was unnecessarily costly to me because it probably would force me to resend the original petition with all its substance shortcomings.   
What also supports this interpretation is that it doesn't seem very probable that the court would treat differently in that regard extension based on what is judged as a failure after a good faith effort without asking for extension for the original filing period, from extending the period after approving such request. 

(This title was newly added just to enable a link to the original post which had no title)

The rules of the Supreme Court stated that if the clerk see an erroneous filing but timely and in good faith he may return the filing giving an additional 60 days to file again and I did get that starting from the issuance of the clerk's letters on 7 which I received on 9 of January 2015 (It was sent back also through priority mail). 

CORRUPTION OF THE DERIVATIVE ARGUMENT

(The date above may not be accurate as a result of experimenting in how to make the blog show when a post was last modified)   
It is had to see the positions taken by courts in this country in general toward the issue of direct or derivative standing when it is related to share transactions as really originating from honest reasoning efforts and not from notions and structures built by the corruption forces. The fact that shareholders generally cannot directly sue on all what corporation insiders can do with its assets apparently was not enough . It needed to be extended to the issue of selling shares and the one thing left to the real owners, their ownership.  It is about shares owners lose from their ownership, that is why they are called shareholders, yet their injury often not seen except through the corporation when ,in fact, it is the injury to the corporation that can not come without injury to shareholders and not always the other way around. They put some ridiculous rules like the special injury test which stands on a made up premise not stemming from any sound reasoning related to standing that if corporation insiders are harming all shareholders the same way then they are not harming any of them directly. Why, what necessitates this end result?

In contrast there is this simple reasoning which shows that there is a direct standing whenever the issue contested is the issuing and selling of shares even when it appears to be more about the assets generated from the issuing or selling of those shares rather than the added dilution itself.

All issued shares come from the authorized shares. Fiduciary duty to shareholders requires the use of the authorized shares for the best interest of shareholders. Therefore a shareholder would still have direct standing to complain about, for example, how insiders favored a friend and sold him shares at half the price. That is because there is a direct injury to shareholders to complain about in not using the authorized shares for their best interest which in this case required using those shares for the best interest of the corporation and that required obtaining the best possible price . Correcting that injury to shareholders can come through correcting the price or returning those shares. What is wrong in this reasoning or why is it hard to be seen for a mind trying to work honestly?(this was added recently for testing ) 

Here is another thing showing even more how difficult the filing requirements of the Supreme Court are which was brought to my attention by the article/post I pointed to earlier.

The Supreme Court requires that all text be in some specific font including that of the documents in the appendix. That may still be achieved by opening these documents and selecting all the text then choosing the desired font. But how about when the court, like it is the case with the district court in my situation here, scans document and enter them as images? look at THIS for example. Try selecting and pasting the text here to ,WordPad, for example and see how it looks. Even this limited copying is actually the applications doing you a favor by what seems to be internal working as an OCR software to recognize an image as text.

Imagine ,instead of this, that filers put efforts on things that can really make the work of the court easier like filing in digital media with every reference ,except for copy righted materials that exist only in paper form, being , in addition to the legal form of citing, also a link which can take you directly to the exact position in the referenced document. With that they can still maintain an internal specialized capability to print the documents in the form they like and charge filers for that if they do not want to do it themselves. Why are they still insisting on striking two stones to start a cooking fire?     

 

I sent my petition to the Supreme Court through priority mail but it took seven days to be delivered. Just in case something happened, I want to state again what I sent. I sent two packages.One contained a number of copies each containing the  petition , appellate court opinion, district court order dismissing the complaint on Onteco (doc 40) and the complaint. The other package was an envelope and contained only a check for the fee.    

      

The direct referral to rule 33.1  (in contrast with citing) did not confuse me by itself but that was combined with how much it is probable to use the common paper size than that other size which sounded as something the court allows because of being considerate to litigants with some strange document fetish.

That in addition to how ,except for the article/post below which I found afterword, I did not notice any complaint by others. 

I learned from the link in the previous post that you can higher a professional service for that. My main problem with such arrangement, however, is that the hedge fund guy would immediately contact and take to his side those running that service just like he does everywhere around me. 

      

Actually the link in the previous post was better be directly to this.

Supplying the quantities they require needed more time than I gave it. Imagine, 40 copies plus those to the defendants each should have that same appendix I listed its contents in the petition. The appendix is not supposed to be arranged the way I arranged it but I was trying to use the chronological order as a substitute to numbering the pages which required me (as the only way that keeps the page references in the petition correct) to print a copy of each document, number each page by hand then scan back and produce the required number of copies.

Anyway, the reason I was squeezed in time is that a petition for a writ of certiorari is supposed to be about why the case should be taken by the court not about the case itself and that separation does not exist in a case like mine related to the actions taken by the courts as much as it does in cases involving separate questions on the merits. So I lost much time trying to plan that separation and then after I couldn't come with a clear plan for that I took the approach of doing things on the go piece by piece.

But even if I was successful in that I would still be in violation of the page size and other things (although not the 9000 word limit)related to the rule I was supposed to follow which I did not notice until days before the due date (was confused by the direct reference to rule 33.1 instead of rule 33 and take things from there.While it seems that generally in law there is no text body attached directly to a rule that contains branches, I still think that probably needed to be a reference to the rule in general since if you are explaining how the rules should be followed and not citing a reference in an argument).

while some of the requirements of that rule like "Spiral, plastic, metal, or string bindings may not be used." (rule 33. 1 (c)) are hard to follow because they do not seem to allow any commonly used option , others like (The text of the document must appear on both sides of the page) (rule 33. 1 (b)) I cannot understand at this moment to begin with.


Here is an interesting reading about the issue.
 

The petition for Writ of Certriorari I filed

After printing thousands of pages and all the effort I did not want to take further risk within the two hours remaining of the due date so I stopped every thing and only sent couple of copies with only the three documents I referred to the most despite including a table of content that includes a much bigger appendix. Having stayed awake for over 33 hours, literally, I was so exhausted that I even sent the fee in separate package and continued the day falling asleep even while I am  eating or in the rest room. All that because of the number of copies required that all should have that same appendix. The required size of the filing, unless early arranged for, can be so exhausting that it may require a warning like those of "hot surface" put on some objects to prevent harm. If there were a commercial showing some one filing to the Supreme Court copying and arranging documents fast, it should include a warning like that showing maneuvers in car commercials and in this case stating "professional filer, do not attempt". All that in a time where you can hold one device, as small or big as you choose, that can provide access or itself store and make readily available materials that are millions or billions of the size of this appendix and choose to print your selection if you like. So why are we not living in our time and require all this wasting of resources and damaging to the environment? I don't know. Anyway, here is the main content of my petition 

 Petition to the Supreme Court

                                                 

Wow, two days before the due date I found that I am not allowed to use the format I mentioned in previous post to begin with. Thanks for making the technical instruction unexpectedly this hard to understand. It turned out that I am required to use and follow the encrypted instructions for the 6 1/8 by 9 1/4 am inch paper format and try to figure out what its rules mean. At the moment, I don't even know where to buy that kind of paper. I think the due date has much more priority and that is what I intend to continue trying to meet.   

Am I missing something here or is it that the rules of the Supreme Court for filing a petition for writ of certiorari do not specify what font type and ,more importantly, font size it requires for the 40 page limit filing (rule 33.2)? If so, does that mean it would accept submission at 6 point size, for example, or is it that our judiciary system is, aside from the level of corruption in it, is so incompetent that the highest court make rules that lack such basic information and make the litigant spend considerable time trying to figure out how to deal with the situation?    

Their letter not in the system

I noticed that the letter I received from the Pro Se Office in that court responding to my concerns regarding the validity of the summons which I talked about here was not entered as part of the entries related to the case. I don't know if this is part of the special game being played in my case or is it just another sign against whatever remained that could have suggested good faith in the creation of  a unite that can make communications not accounted for.

Second affidavit

I sent that district court in New York a new Affidavit in case the dog ate my first one and it was received today. It is even notarized by a different entity.

The more fitting view

The view to the action of selling shares as being comprised of the action of  giving shares by diluting shareholders ownership and the action of receiving something (including nothing) in exchange of that for the corporation instead of taking the selling action as one whole is the more fitting view when you are dealing at the level of  contrasting between the effect of  selling shares on the shareholders and the corporation.  

A view for an expanded direct standing - 4

Two things here.

First, my referring to the injury to the corporation to mean the absence of a justification for shareholders dilution injury is part of the more general absence of sufficient benefit through the corporation to shareholders as a justification for their injury.Expanding the injury question to a benefit question was stated here because there are situations were the corporation is not injured at all. If  a corporation can generate and continue to generate proceeds at its best capacity from the issuing and selling of shares with the difference being only the continuous increase of outstanding shares then the corporation did not suffer any injury. That is because, it means no difference to a corporation whether it is being held through millions or billions of shares. Contrast that with how shareholders are always affected by any amount of dilution.

Extending the benefit to reach shareholders through the corporation was stated here because it seems that their are situations were a corporation can benefit from the issuing and selling of shares but not in a way that can benefit its current shareholders.

The word "benefit" here also include the meaning of doing something necessary.

Secondly, it seems I was wrong in suggesting that a shareholder can demand correcting the injury to the corporation that failed to justify the dilution to his ownership from direct standing even if there is a path to return his ownership to its original percentage and correct his injury. The situation is like if A was trusted with an amount of B's money to be spent only for the benefit of some ,for example,charitable organization. While B would have a direct standing in suing A based on the injury of violating the implied agreement in that trust, it seems that he still cant make a demand that jumps to correcting the problem by giving an equal amount of money to that charity if there is a path to correcting the injury by returning the money back to him. However that view was only an extension to my main purpose of emphasizing the direct standing right for a shareholder to sue on a dilution he suffered through the distinction I referred to in the first post.

 

A view for an expanded direct standing - 3

The distinction I tried to make at the first post was an attempt to differentiate the situations where there is an action that caused shareholders injury independently of its contact with the corporation. 

A view for an expanded direct standing - 2

Notice that although I said " the path of injury to shareholders started with the dilution to shareholders ownership .." that assumption for the existence of such path by default is not necessary. I could have written " If there was an injury to the corporation because of the low price shares were issue at then the path of injury.." and still reached the same result. That is because the "If " part would not mean that the injury to the corporation created the path to shareholders injury. Instead, it would simply just tell us that a path to shareholders injury was started with the issuance of those shares because that issuance was not justified by sufficient benefit for the corporation. 

A view for an expanded direct standing

It seems that the attempt to argue on everything a shareholder may bring to a court as being a derivative claim is the common corruption game played together by many corporations and courts.

While I am not trying to balance that by making arguments in which I don't see a potential for being correct, I think there is a potential that a direct standing exist in cases related to the undervalued selling and issuance of shares of a corporation even when the relief is demanded to come through the corporation or can only obtained through the corporation. I want to start first by pointing out a potential distinction that doesn't seem to has been commonly noticed by the courts. The distinction is between injury to shareholders by the injury to the corporation, like that of selling assets at undervalued prices, and injury to shareholders by the action that injured the corporation, like that of issuing shares at low prices. In this later situation, the path of injury to shareholders started with the dilution to shareholders ownership by the issuance of those shares and did not pass through the injury to the corporation by receiving less than required price for those shares. The injury to the corporation here simply meant a failure for providing an acceptable justification altering the issuance of those shares from its path to injure shareholders through the dilution. Therefore a shareholder may demand a compensation for the corporation for the issuance of those shares from a direct standing because, while it wont provide a recovery from the dilution, it can provide a proper justification for it correcting the path to shareholders injury that started by the issuance of those shares.           

Look at how this hedge fund guy sailed through the federal court system. I bought most of my suits from Joseph A Bank and still haven't seen a discount like the one this guy gets on federal judges.
Thanks, Washington guys.  

Again, if this is how the courts work on these kind of issues do you really think that the SEC is really conducting an honest work or that there is a functioning portion of it that hasn't been bought yet?

However I did not need this top to bottom approach because, as I said earlier, I already experienced what was more than enough to find out about the reality off the SEC and that is why I sought refuge from it to a court system that proved itself no better. But for those in congress who keep pretending that this an entity that is really trying to be an honest and fair ( and every now and then  come with another whistleblowers encouragement plan as if the receiving side is really willing to listen for a whistle or even drum beat and a siren) if ,because of some magical reason,the Madoff case was not by itself sufficient to make them open their eyes , may be what happened here can complete the picture for them.    

Letter receive from the Pro SE Office of New York- 2

I sent that court a motion looking for a ruling on the validity of all the summons they sent me from the same judge who will later rule on the validity of the service using these summons.I was not looking for a legal advice even assuming what came in their response letter has some value in that regard. They entered my motion as a letter then responded to me with a letter. They probably thought that entering my motion as a letter would give the judge better excuse not to rule on it or at least postpone such ruling considerably further. But I doubt that if higher courts want to act honestly they would not hold the judge responsible for her actions toward what the filing was intended to be not what it was entered as. They also seem to continue resisting entering my affidavit in order to give the judge better excuse not to take the issue in consideration. As you can see here the affidavit I made and the court received on 10/10/2014 before 1 pm still has not been entered into the system.      

Letter receive from the Pro SE Office of New York

I received this letter from the "Staff Attorney" in the "Office of Pro Se Litigation" in response to the Motion I wrote (which they entered as a letter) for correcting the unusable summons they sent me . As you can see he/she is saying that the summons were valid and not in violation of FRCP Rule 4.

First, although it is easy to see, I already showed here what parts of FRCP Rule 4 summons requirements those summons failed to satisfy (with or without the wet signature thing I mentioned ).

The "Staff Attorney" tells me to serve the unsealed summonses and return the proof of service with the one sealed summons they sent me. Assuming I wanted to follow that, how would it work given that the case has more than one defendant? Also, assuming that I want to serve those summonses despite their lack of important requirement like a court seal, it is still wouldn't make any sense to serve summons not directed to the defendant even if the rules did not state that as a violation.

Finally, if the summons were sufficient despite what I mentioned in my motion why didn't the judge deny my motion and state that as the reason ?

Again, remember ,as I pointed here , that according to their instructions it was they who prepared all parts of the summons and it wasn't I who missed making those summons directed to the defendants.

Again my Affidavit still not in the system - 4

How funny is this? The hedge fund guy is still closing that district court of New York to my filing and in front of everybody.  

Before any of this happened

Here is an auto replay email that contains a message I sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee before filing my first case which was actually a second filing for that case after I used my one time right to voluntarily dismiss my case without prejudice. You can see how I talked about my worry that the hedge fund guy was playing games from inside the district court before any of what happened after the second filing for my first case later. 


[(Added 11/19/14) There is an additional part in my message I did not include here because it is about a different issue]  

Again my Affidavit still not in the system - 3

Notice that although I compared the effect of the actions of the Florida district court and New York's in impeding my effort to file and serve my complaint, I don't think that was the main purpose behind things like the order that reduced the time to serve the complaint from the Florida court. Instead, as I said in previous posts, I think the purpose was, like that of many actions of the Appellate court later, to scare me away from pursuing my complaint with the clear bias those actions showed. 

Another case showing the widespread court corruption- 4

Since I mentioned that case in Florida here, I want to point out that my view about how fake that court was is not a bit less than what it was at the time.

Again my Affidavit still not in the system - 2

And it is still  not in the system.

Apparently this district court figured that in order to prevent me from complaining to higher courts later it is better not to enter my filings to begin with. Its Pro Se Intake Unit appears to have been created and kept mainly to better enable such use.

The district court that received my first complaint issued an order reducing the time to serve the complaint and also tried to impede serving the complaint by issuing misleading instructions. The district court that received my second complaint is not allowing my filings to begin with. So, for my third complaint would I find  myself arrested after filing it? And who knows, if I do not stop, possibly Guantanamo and waterboarding later for continuing to challenge the effective leaders of the country.

Another case showing the widespread court corruption- 3

And this dialog:

"[Plaintiff's counsel]: Well, I would appreciate the opportunity to explain quickly why we think that the claims are derived, but if the Court is telling us that there's no way you're going to change your mind, then-

Court: I'm not telling you that. I would never do that"

sounds so staged like I am watching again an argument between  Zimmerman's lawyers and the judge who presided over that case. 

Another case showing the widespread court corruption- 2

If the plaintiff himself was not part of the conspiracy and not a pro se litigant then it is hard not to see that plaintiff being deceived even by the lawyer representing him because it is very hard to believe that lawyer really missed seeing the claim being direct and cannot be brought derivatively after the selling even assuming there was a derivative standing for the claim before that.

Back to that judge. How could the actions of that judge in stating that she is inclined to grant the motion to dismiss then that she is ready to rule on the motion be seen without considerably significant probability as fraudulent and part of the plan of the defendant's side?

I just wonder about the  level of corruption that reaches this audacity of publicly passing on such actions like nothing.  

Another case showing the widespread court corruption

I was searching the Internet for something unrelated to the subject  of corruption of the courts for the like of corporations and hedge funds when I found this (courtesy of the judiciary system of the state of Utah)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-court-of-appeals/1531013.html

As it appears the Plaintiff there wanted to contest the selling of the company in which he was a shareholder at what he saw as a low price. By just reading this I wondered how could such a claim be derivative and not direct? If the company no longer exist after its selling how could it suffer the injury of the transaction? I continued reading trying to see how could this claimed to be derivative. But instead what I saw was very hard to be avoided seen as a big corruption and/or conspiracy by the court. How could any judge miss that the claim was correctly direct? Not only the judge did not deny the motion arguing that the complaint makes a derivative claim and therefor should be dismissed for such a clearly direct claim but she also ordered a hearing on that. And in case that was not sufficient to scare the plaintiff who was being threatened by the defendant's side that they may argue for a dismissal with prejudice she also made this comment (Again for such a hard to miss direct claim) :

"the Motion to Dismiss is well taken ..So if I were to hear argument, and unless someone changed my mind for me this morning, which certainly could happen, I would be inclined to grant the Motion to Dismiss.”

Are you kidding me???????????

Again my Affidavit still not in the system

Again my  Affidavit has not been entered into the system yet. I wonder why does it seem as if my filings have to go through pickling process in this New York District Court? At least when it comes to filing, my filings were usually processed the same day in the Florida District court. Do you see the improvement the addition of the Pro Se Intake Unite has made on the filing process here?

Despite all the pointing out  I am doing about the widespread corruption here, I find it hard to see that I am not bringing to the forefront a taboo more than an unknown issue.

Apparently, the expectations one may hold in a dictatorship that without being forced people wont allow being enslaved like this turned out to be too optimistic here.   

The Third Reason

I previously spoke about two reasons for why I may not follow a corrupt path like those I see here. I mentioned that assuming that I choose not to be restricted by morality, I still would not be sold as cheaply as I see here for the benefit of others. In addition to those two reasons there is a third one. This third reason is about being part of or agreeing with the choices being made. Even if I want to volunteer a corruption for the sake of goodness, dignity requires at least some mental agreement rather than following stupid choices made by someone else.

There is also a question of existence related to that third reason. People may wonder about Saddam or Hitler or similar crazy dictators. But Saddam or Hitler ,while it is very hard not to think that there weren't sever psychological disturbances inside them, in the outside world they were doing what they want not what someone else wants. On the other hand, the same cannot be said about those who, even if they held the same moral standards of those two, would have chosen much different paths if they were in the positions of  those two but they still chose to follow them. The end result for many of them was that they not only risked and lost but they risked and lost for someone else and without even existing through their willful acts.     

  

Appeal court made its judgment - 5

If you are surprised that court went that far then remember what I wrote here at the beginning of the year about this hedge fund guy that "although he may show that he is trying to take them (those with him) on a path that do not exceed  the level of involvement and risk they are willing to accept, in reality, he is not as fully committed to their path as they are and gradually takes them through points of no return and force what they wanted to avoid on them"

Then again as recently as August of this year, I wrote this about his "pattern of behavior in which he starts things and let them drag from there even beyond the limited intentions at the onset by others".

I probably could go back years further than that (in other boards) if I want.

Affidavit sent for my summons motion

Although affidavit do not make much sense to me because you are not supposed to be lying to a court to begin with, I , nevertheless, sent an affidavit in support of my summons motion (for my second case). The first file in this Link shows that the affidavit was received while the second shows the affidavit itself.  

When less corruption means more

If you look at the listing of judges on the court website you would see that those who issued that ruling opinion (which I just found yesterday that its "per curiam" instead of naming the authoring judge means "by the court") were listed next to each other. If this arrangement was modified for that purpose then it clearly adds to the corruption here. On the other hand, if  that listing is original then it is even much bigger corruption sign because it would emphasize that no special judge selection was done here and this level of immoral ruling and denial of clear facts in that opinion was more of a common position. In other words, one could say that opinion was so corrupt it makes the lack of corruption in  selecting judges who are more on the hedge fund guy side shows more corruption instead of less.     

Summons motion entered today as a "Letter" -2

Even if my motion lacked some needed requirement they could have done what I have seen done in similar situations with other litigants by entering it as what it was filed to be but also state in the docket sheet entry what additional requirement the filing needs to fulfill.   

Summons motion entered today as a "Letter"

I don't know on what basis it was not entered as a motion .  But why would they start needing that now? They held my complaint for over two weeks and could have held it longer ,as well as this motion, hadn't I started talking about their action, without any justification.

If  they tried to use the affirmation or affidavit requirement as an excuse then they probably misinterpreted that because such thing is assumed required when there is a dispute or  expected dispute about the matter not when you are referring to something coming from the court itself. You don't see a motion written related to a court order include an affidavit or an affirmation about what the court order was. If whoever sent me those unusable summons from that court want to contest my claim then it may become my turn to supply an affirmation or affidavit.

Every filing to the court should go to the same place and from there they can pre process it through a pro se intake unite or through whatever they want and the pro se litigant shouldn't be used as an excuse to help the court avoid responsibility of its duties. If the court refuses that then it should at least make the identity of that unit known like the clerk office so the outside can know who is responsible for the actions been taken by this unite instead of looking at a totally black box.

     

Summons motion not in the system yet

The New York district court continues its practice of using its Pro Se Intake Unite to prevent the filings they don't like of mine from being entered in the system. My initial complaint was held for more than two weeks for no reason and probably would have continued to be held hadn't I mentioned that. Now they are holding the Motion  I wrote for correcting the unusable summons they sent.

This folder shows when the motion was received and the docket sheet image I just captured (at 150 percent its size) showing that it has not been entered in the system yet. There is no reason for holding my filings any longer than how the court normally process other filings. 

And by the way, despite what they say at entry number 4 of the docket sheet, there was nothing prepared in the summons package they sent that would help in any way in justifying all the time taken to issue the summons package and mailing it on 9/17/2014 after receiving the complaint on 8/9/2014 or why it was not entered into the system until 8/25/2014.  

Here, again, are my brief and my reply brief . See how much of what is in the ruling opinion of the appellate court was already answered there.

Arranging things with the other side before the ruling?

If you look at this image of the docket sheet you would see that on 9/24/2014 , 4 days before the 9/29/2014 ruling, one defendant filed a new  Certificate Of Interested Persons And Corporate Disclosure Statement Form. This form is usually filed at the very beginning and before starting the process of making of the ruling. This clearly fits that the defendant's side knew when the ruling will be issued and filed this form in order to make me think it is far from being ready so that I would file to the final court as late as possible. The 4 days period gives ,and especially considering my pattern of checking on the case which the hedge fund guy clearly knows, a suitable opportunity to see that and think that I will not need to check again for a longer time.            

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that the hedge fund guy or those connected to him did buy all those federal court judges. Sometimes it is buy one get one free. 

Appeal court made its judgment 4

Notice that all of the judges participating in that judgment are real appellate court judges not judges selected from district courts to help with the work. Notice also that two of them are not even the same two of the three who ruled individually and/or together on the motions earlier and they were also real appellate court judges.

So the question to those who occupied the senate and presidency of this country is: There are still probably less than 200 of those for the entire nation and this is the level of your selection work? Why? But don't worry you may still argue back that you did not deviate much from the selection quality in this country. After all, you are/were holding the positions I just named, isn't  that correct? 

Any way, they are the judges and I am not. But argument to argument I think that I probably will kick some appellate court behinds on this opinion like how I already did that with their clearly biased ruling on motions.

 

Appeal court made its judgment 3

Nothing surprising in the corruption aspect of their work but I was expecting ,at least, some better arguments than, for example, a repetition of the 10b-5 misstatement requirement and also probably less clear denial in serving that purpose.

Appeal court made its judgment 2

So, as you can see here, my complaining and brief to this court were like talking to a kid who put his fingers in his ears and responded with DADADADADADA...  

Appeal court made its judgment

Here is the opinion
Judgment of appeal court
Time to go to the final point.  

In case one wonders why did not I, being the Plaintiff,  fill the summons myself, it is because the instructions on the court's website stated that the Pro Se Intake Unite ,which I was required to send my complaint to, "will complete both" the summons and the civil cover sheet for Pro Se litigants filing by mail.

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

Ball back in the court's court

Although there is hardly any justification for sending these not only deficient, but can hardly be seen as servable (because none of them is addressed to any of the defendants)  summons, I still threw back the ball to the court's court by submitting a motion asking for correcting them and resetting the issuance date

Motion to correct the summons 

The "Exhibit" mentioned in this one page motion is a copy of this . This is to help showing the appeal court later that the matter was brought to the lower court attention.