+51

Assuming the guy had made a case for seeking the interference of the judges of the court, one would still wonder how he was able to be convincing that I should be treated externally from the start instead of having my input or response taken just like his first. 

Even when there is no worthy gain expected from such behaviour, the minute one sees such an attempt to isolate things into separate worlds he may need to think that he could be dealing with a deceptive psychotic person his real aim is denial.   

+50

Aside from everything else, playing those corruption games is like re-choosing the earlier ones but with the addition of having experienced the consequences of them. And when that happens in the context of being held responsible for those earlier ones it is also like the ultimate form of ridiculing what is going on. 

+49

Aside from the difference in how much he had a say and a choice (actually a better word here could be "creation"), in his degrading to the rest of the system do not forget to compare the value of what he is doing that for to him to the value of what he is taking from any group or entity to it, let alone the combined value of what he is taking from everybody. For example, think about how much my offer is a fraction to the ownership he holds or represents and compare that to how much not to lie is the main thing to news media and the press. What value could be left in a news media that intentionally lie especially when it is not even about some details but fabricating whole stories from scratch like that? And it did not even looks like he cared more than for a game playing far from being really expected to have the desired effect on its target.  

+48

Continuing from post 46

Like I mentioned in another blog of mine, degrading the rest of the system like that could add to the reason for reacting to his earlier actions with the courts instead of making them look normal.

+47

Nothing changed in what I said and the passing of time is still as it is not counted to me. I just keep catching myself and bringing it back here because there are still things I think leaving them not communicated may not be wise enough. 

+46

In what was supposed to be an attempt at resolving what he had done, he repeated the same trampling the system uncaring about the consequences actions, this time extending his target to include from the executive branch and others in the government to even the media and free and honest press. How much of even just that shows you the behaviour of somebody even counting in his actions let alone trying to correct them? Moreover, most of that happened not just after what he did but after seeing the kind of things he could be faced with for doing what he did earlier. 

+45

continuing from the preceding post

Is there a valid reason for that or is it that this guy continues to pull these things like nothing happened while we are still in this? Did he even expect that to really affect me or was it to him, as usual, like playing something with no value?

That brings to mind how the behaviour of this guy could involve lying through actions instead of words. Much of what he tries to play on me could suggest to an external observer things about me that are exactly contrary to what this guy himself knows but acts otherwise. For example, even from just the considerable amount of time I have been with him in the market, he knows how much I am not the type who is likely to just jump ship with any turbulence. He knows how much even with the relatively lower level of moral issue involved,  I stick to my position there. Yet he play games here as if he has the exact opposite experience about me.

He could be simply counting on time to change positions of others and have to pretend that there is a sufficient probability of success for his efforts to have a valid excuse for taking as much time as he can. Like I said before one should never count on what a guy like this pretends to be his target. Although, I still would be surprised to know seeking that aim is not itself empowered by the reality fighting of a psychotic denial underneath.

+44

Correcting the preceding post, if we count in the triggering days then I should have added 14 to 11 not 12. However, my selected date is still within the allowed range. Actually, I can be wrong in a day or two in that calculation and it still would not matter because October 22 and 23 are weekend days and that generally pushes the date to the next working day. So how could it be after all that my calculation is supposedly wrong enough to take me back to October 19?

+43

The appeal court in New York gives appellants the choice for selecting their own filing date within a range of 91 days according to the rules shown in THIS FORM ("(2) when no transcript is ordered.." applies to me as indicated HERE). This District Court Docket Sheet (entry #16) shows that my notice of appeal was filed on July 12 and form D-P is due within 14 days. Even if we count including the day of the triggering events, which I don't think is the usual practice, we have this:

12+ 14=26

That leaves 6 days of July's 31 days. Add to that 31 and 30 days of August and September respectively and you get 67. Now subtract that from 91 and you get 24 days of October. This makes my selected date of October 23 with in the valid range. If so then why did I find THIS ORDER setting the date at October 19 because the date I selected "exceeds the time allowed by the rule"? It is not a big difference, but why? The corruption guy playing his games again?     

+42

I mentioned before that six years ago I talked about how this guy seems to me as one of those whom I described as deceptive psychotics and the power of their convincing through character assumption, in other words the way they present themselves. Several days ago, it occurred to me how unusual and far from being normal the position this guy probably tried to take here which suggests dependence on such power.

Think about it. Even without morality, if you were in his place would you try to take the position that the other guy's refusal to take your phone calls being the insult impeding solving the issue, without making any offer? The way situations like this normally go is for somebody in my position to claim an insult based on the behaviour of the other guy in trying to reach a solution. The guy in his position on the other hand cannot claim an insult before making an offer because until then he is isolated by the capability to make the offer from feeling insulted. Even in fiction, a guy who had suffered a wrong from a rich guy could react telling the other guy that he cannot just correct anything with his money. But how many times have you seen in a movie or read in a novel things go the other way around? In other words, how many times have you seen the rich guy, where his only concern is to resolve the situation, feel insulted by the other guy refusal to communicate with him without sending an offer first? But apparently this corruption guy thought he can take both positions. He may have thought that his power of assuming the insulted character here would eclipse such an unusual situation. He even had to take it higher than this, making use of refusal of only the form of communication on which he insisted as the insult.            

+41

He was far from needing to do what he did with the first court to begin with. As I said previously, it is not like we were contesting the ownership of Microsoft or even anywhere close to the same galaxy where such thing exists. The court could have given me the whole company I was suing about diluting my ownership in it  and it would still have been far from causing a serious financial damage to him. And before or after that he could have easily offered what could be easily seen as more than the equivalent to the whole value of it based on its assets and potential. Even assuming the situation was worse than that to him, is it still worthy of pulling the things he made the courts do from the start? Why cover a bad thing with a worse one? But it was all showing off and enjoyment of power to him. He wanted to show that he can take the court system and be in control inside there like he is in control with the SEC and others outside.

+40

If all what he really needed from the final court was to open a door for negotiation why not ask the court first to mediate ? That is especially true if he really thought that what was holding me from negotiating with him was my faith in how much the court was on my side. Because in that case what would he lose in showing me that my case had some consideration inside the court? But instead of this gradual approach he preferred having the effect on me of showing me a sudden total refusal to my case and how he can take this one like the preceding courts. 
By the way, given all the unnecessary showing of power he did with those courts, his interest in showing the same thing with the final one is probably far away from being mistakenly overestimated.    

+39

He insisted on his communication medium trying to make of the difference on that technical issue something that ultimately disperses the main issue while he manipulates all sides at the same time. He apparently wanted to keep me trapped in that situation. I think that probably what made him underestimates how that could be reversed back onto him was how much he counted on losing power and control to be taken as losing dignity.

  

There is not a single email or letter he sent me about negotiating the matter throughout the years it remained. Talk about being happy to find an impediment. But now, after reflecting his actions back onto him, that reversed to a good potential because his choices against me were turned to choices for me and empowering me. Although, to be fair, based on the voice mails I checked from his phone calls he might not have left a real message talking about serious negotiation for the lawsuit either. He might have treated these mediums differently only on the surface. Also, and I mentioned this last year, there are times where I think he comes back to delete his voice mails before I got to them (I don't know if he does that directly to my mail box or if the phone company does it to my mail box for him).

+38

Regarding his insistence on his choices, notice how even after I started complaining about how he insisted on his communication medium, explaining things after the denial of my petition, he could have, for once, sent me, for example an email about the same thing he pretended he was calling for. He could have said: This guy thinks I am trying to force my communication way? I am going to send an email to him in order not to let such a thing stands in the way of resolving the matter. But he never did that.    

+37

continuing from post +34

From the beginning of the mater in the market to here, he drove things step by step to this point. 

Moreover one can hardly imagine somebody sitting in a position displayed in front of it more information about the internal thoughts of his adversary. Although having no privacy or boundary against him online could be a big help in that, I am referring here mainly to how after the denial of my petition I wrote, in addition to my arguments, my understanding to what happened and what I am doing about it also publicly.         

+36

Still the appeal notice has not been entered.  At least with the court in Florida I did not have to suffer with every filing I send to have it entered and there were no pro se unit there. I don't remember any filing there entered later than the day after receiving it. But here they made a pro se unit they have been using it to impede things and as a device to do bad things while isolating the clerk from direct responsibility. Other than that, it has done nothing of benefit to me. They even couldn't photocopy the complaint correctly, assuming that was not intended, because I signed more than one copy and despite how long it stayed with them. Filing the appeal notice in time was the main reason I kept checking the docket sheet of the court of thugs.       

+35

My notice of appeal was delivered yesterday before 1 pm to the thugs operated court in New York  and up to this time it has not been entered.

+34

Although even then it is generally not justifiable, you would think that such a desire to do-over reality would more probably come from someone complaining of a coincidental bad luck, not from someone who insisted on his choices one after the other. Actually, throughout the whole path he was himself the main creator of the games and options to begin with.

+33

Aside from how I left the time issue to the judges of the court, the guy should not delude himself that I am waiting for him and he is in control. Instead, I am simply enjoying watching him following his own choices, again, to make a joke of himself even though he may pretend otherwise.  

+32

And remember that there is a big difference in taking a risk on the judges by themselves from when they are accessible to this guy and whatever allegations and theories he formulates about me. He can see whatever I write about him but I cant see what he communicates about me there. 

+31

All this joke allegation game from this guy about the death of Justice Scalia as if without something he said my behaviour would have changed to a mentionable amount, let alone to a level that would make me give a pass to the behaviour of this guy, is simply just refusal by the guy to accept that somebody really took a risk or bet against him and succeeded. He just did not like it so that it should be repeated again and again until the result changes to a one he likes.

By the way, despite that what he is doing is like child play in its effect on me and that I don't feel even a little bit of difficulty about my continued being under the possibility of receiving different result here, a person shouldn't need to keep taking a risk in order to prove that he took it once. One doesn't need to sleep in the lion's cage to prove that he once jumped there.

+30

Like I said earlier, any sense of urgency my concentration of writings here may reflect is a sense of urgency from my desire to say what I want to say and not from any desire to make the judges of the court hasten resolving the matter.

+29

I mistakenly wrote in post +25 that I checked all the messages from all the phone calls he made. I meant all the voice mails he left after the denial of my petition. The fact is that I checked all voice mails on my land line number, which is the only phone number included in my court filings any way, but, for my cell phone I checked all the way back to when I changed my number about two weeks after denying my petition. 

+28

On June 27 my case in New York was dismissed. I have got the remaining of the thirty days to file and make the court of thugs acknowledge receiving the notice of appeal. Of course my complaint was entered only after I started complaining publicly and about two weeks late from filing. The same thing with my motion which was finally entered (as a letter) on the sixth after being filed on the first of October 2014. But this one was filed and entered the same day. What is more interesting is that since this guy continuously watch what I do over the internet, he was capable to time the order to be just after I checked the docket on June 27 between 2 and 3 pm. I check on docket sheets periodically or every now and then and this is not the first time this corruption guy does what shows him timing court orders to leave me as little time as possible. I think I may have posted about this including with the timing of the ruling of the Eleventh Court of Appeals.      

+27

Even after declaring publicly the change of plan I described in POST 241 OF "The Supreme.." BLOG he still did not take the initiative to make an offer. If you think there are no points on him for that because he had made a commitment inside then he should have been very careful about what was going to follow and especially given how my referring in the same post to the similarity with the VKNG stock story where he made himself ready to take market price shows what suggests that I have a theory about him doing a similar thing here.
Anyway, he also did not seriously leave any message for talk about the issue. The only one he left was of the kind I described in POST 244 OF "The Supreme.." BLOG. 

By the way, part of his high to low behaviour, he uses a person with an Indian accent I could hardly decipher the phone number being left. He may think that I cannot complain about that because it would divert seeing the discriminating behaviour to me. That is what psychotics like him enjoy doing. They love to circumvent reality. But it is not hard to see having problem with intentionally choosing that person for a bad purpose, as being like, for example, disliking how somebody may talk to you with a tilted mouth to muck you despite you not having any problem with seeing the same thing on somebody who is partly paralyzed.

+26

The thing that is agitating to me is how he was able to deceptively turn what should have been against him upside down to something for him. 

Now, I worry that as much as I have right for all the complaining and screaming I am doing about his invasion to my privacy that could one day also imply arrogance on my part before really putting the responsibility on him. 

+25

Actually, remember how when I suddenly decided to go his way and went back to check all the messages from all the phone calls he was supposedly making trying to settle the case and found none stating anything about that (POST 241 OF "The Supreme.." BLOG)? He was away from making a direct offer to the level of not being ready to invite for a talk about settling the case there.

+24

Despite not correctly taking responsibility, he still could have made his claim of really trying to settle things relatively much stronger had he, even once and for a fraction of what he pretended , made an offer to me. I guess he might have overestimated his power of creating a world for his claims there isolated from the facts here.

+23

continuing from POST 21

Actually, I did not have a clear plan of my own for the next argument in my case if the petition gets granted but then he provided the work of his evil plan and I thought why not build on his own choice. 

Also, many could be very surprised if they know how little and how late until I knew about my adversary and his size. In fact, I kept thinking if a guy like this can do all this what could the really big guys do and it is highly probable that I can find multiple posts and writings I made suggesting such impression about his size. 

He most probably noticed that and could have taken advantage of it if he really wanted to settle the case. Instead what he chose to do is to show off his power and how high he can go taking people and entities on his side.    

+22

Related to post +18, it turned out that the court in Florida was less "classy" at the initial stage than I remembered it. Looking into my records I found how I called the court for the summonses after waiting two weeks without receiving them. I found how the reason was claimed to be that I did not send a self addressed stamped envelop. In addition the same girl who answered my phone call told me that I could have printed the summonses and served them directly.

However the one in New York is still the big winner in the thuggery contest. In addition to the summons game, they fought against entering my filings, especially entering them as I filed them to be, and even, as in the case with my first affidavit filing, acted as if the filing did not reach them.The complaint itself was not entered until I started complaining publicly about not entering it two weeks after the filing. Still that was not enough to make the subsequent filings get entered without more complaining publicly about the issue.The giving of false legal advice also improved from a girl answering the phone to a lawyer volunteering a response to what I filed to be a motion. 

+21

continuing from post +2
My aim here was simply to reflect the guy's game back onto him.

+20

continuing from post +14

Of course me being treated externally like an object fits him positioning himself like God is not something that is hard to fit with his behaviour of watching me beyond any boundary and the world he creates around me with his wide scale conspiracy games.

+19

I don't want to dwell too long on that case yet but having the judge herself, in the earlier order, points out the, unsolicited, legal advice given to me instead of ruling on my motion to replace the deficient summonses sounds like a scene from a comedy movie. 

+18

Apparently, despite everything it did, the district court of Florida was relatively the classy one. With the one in New York it is like I am dealing with thugs. I had to go after or push everything at the technical level from the very start of sending the complaint as if trying to make a thief honestly abide itself by the duty of its work to send and receive things.     

With the summonses, even if I want to ignore all other objections, it doesn't even make sense to serve a summon not addressed to any body. But apparently for this case his majesty the corruption guy decided to stop things form the court itself at this level.

By the way, I don't know if this is also part of the corruption but they did not even photocopy the complaint correctly. Apparently, having signed all the copies I sent them instead of just one messed up this court with the dedicated special unit all pro se litigants have to go through.  

+17

I then sent back an affidavit about the new summonses in support of the motion I had filed earlier for replacement of the first summonses they sent.

To my surprise, unlike the motion and the affidavit that followed it regarding the first summonses (which I had to send twice because,for some reason the reception of the first identical one did not count), this one was entered as affidavit not a letter. I guess the federal district court defriended me.  

+16

I did not mention this but on April 11 the district court in New York issued an order requiring me to serve the defendants in my Viking Systems case by May 9, 2016. A little later I received a notice about a certified package containing the summonses. This time I video recorded the opening of the envelope and showed how the new summonses are exactly the same as the old ones. I actually recorded that from three different angles simultaneously.

+15

Clearly, to some level, I decided to work through this thing of being treated externally like an object. However, I still worry sometimes that it could have been applied to the level that when I say I am not much affected by the passing of time I am not doing at least a neutral thing to those inside the court if they want to end the case in terms not favorable to this guy but a bad thing. 

+14

This guy may think it can pass without being noticed, but it is not hard seeing how the situation fits him positioning himself as God with things being external to me and his actions should not be foreseeable by me because of being obligations he has to do.

+13

Contrary to how it may suggest otherwise, the more I explain and convey what I see the more I am completing my execution for returning back what I returned to the judges of the court, not cancel or run away from that.   

In addition, even if it is believed that I shouldn't need to explain or write anything I don't mind doing it and I am not holding anyone in the court morally responsible for that.

+12

And what a unity it was. The guy was not even required to refrain from his dirt low demeaningly dehumanizing ways and taking the dignity of the other person as a joke like that. Instead he gets submitting servers who were acting as if they were inviting  me to join them in worshiping him as a God.   

+11

And if you think it takes some special level of being shameless to continue standing with this guy despite the level of clarity in my offer  to him about what could follow, for many their warnings about this guy and his behaviour go back to 2010. It goes back to all what I wrote about him in the Viking Systems Stock's situation, even before he got into this stock and what followed with the courts. 

Anyway, with or without that, it would have been an entirely different thing had my offer to him been a private one and those in his support knew about it only after it passed. But it was a public one and those with him knew about it in real time. So as much as that level of unconditional support reflects oneness as much as a person may wonder about the sufficiency of the offer for such unity. 

+10

The more I remember his behaviour in response to the price jump which led to that Viking Systems stock situation the more I remember how much I wouldn't have guessed that he was not in trouble because of it in a million years. 

+9

 continuing from the preceding post

There I felt a struggle in order to look beyond what was on the forefront and see the reason behind the behaviour of this corruption guy as a control issue instead of being simply materially motivated like any other material motivation. I kept stating that he could have "tolerated" what happened there for what I much later came to find out was less than a dimple to him financially. Seeing what he had done there, who would have thought corruption had reached the level  of making the system that much unaccounted for to this guy's wants and desires? 

+8

Aside from all other things, it is good that I saw how this guy reacted to the jump of the stock price in the story of Viking Systems also as if it was the end of the world to him. One day this guy may regret pretending or acting as if being affected like this when he really needs people to believe him and nobody does.  

+7

Passing of time? What passing of time? Only the calendar is telling me that we are in May and not still in January. Also, not even a quarter of my financial preparation is exhausted. 

+6

I want to strongly emphasize that my writing here is very far from being the effect of passing of time. Instead, I am trying to avoid regretting not saying things I wanted to say after the situation gets resolved whenever that could be.

+5

He probably figured out that I am continuing in my direction anyway so intentionally even pushed for adding a signal suggesting success to claim that as the reason for not behaving otherwise later. At least that was a better alternative to what he has been doing from the beginning through the courts to cause the opposite to me in that it didn't require me to change course (Interestingly, he seems to have followed a similar path in trying to get actions from me that passively fit after failing to make them actively fit the purpose of trying to suggest on me the moral principle compromise to please the judges thing I talked about in another blog). As if from the first time the lower courts started their outrageous actions and throughout my journey their, I had a success signal from anyone or even just someone telling this law layman that he is on the correct path.   

+4

And before that I may, of course, again need to be made knowing the effect of my complaining for me to try to take advantage of it instead of depending on my view on how bad things are.

 Although seeking a path because of its success may not be a bad thing, it was not comfortable for me to see my revolutionary status challenging attitude be brought into question this easily. 

However I also do not abandon success just because a psychotic person keeps seeking do-over to reality in which he had failed.       

+3

Remembering what happened here, yesterday I thought how if I sue for the invasion of my privacy this guy could also turn the bad things he had done against me as suggesting an arrogant position. The more bad he does the bigger the opportunity to make that claim. Flipping things like this may not even occur to a normal person.

+2

Although it is always fun to watch in a movie a bad guy having his own evil creation and planing turned back on him, I don't think it would have been easy for even the imagination of a fiction writer to stretch enough to come up with the level this corruption guy had in choosing and developing what he is facing here.