SEC regulations facilitate hiding of hedge fund violations and manipulations

As if being taken over by hedge funds is not enough protection in itself, some regulations the SEC makes also allow hiding hedge funds activities and give better excuse in not discovering what, where and how they violate other laws and regulations and manipulate stocks in comparison with individual investors.  I spoke about this in a previous post. Based on my understanding the SEC requires ordinary people to file with it any ownership of more than 5 percent (Schedule 13D or equivalent) of any stock within 10 days of obtaining that ownership. If you are a hedge fund ,on the other hand, this requirement does not apply to you. Instead you can get in and out obtaining less than 10 percent ownership of all the stocks you want and you only would have to file if your ownership of that stock at the last  day of the year is above 5 percent.      

Living here and believing  the  SEC  is a real valid functioning entity for what it was created for, is like living in Russia and really believing you have a democratic system. 

No refuge from the corruption here

Even for general basic needs, there is no refuge from the corruption I see here. The hedge fund guy watches everything I do on my computers and has viruses messing things up for me and causing malfunctions. Basic functionalities on my Google's blogs are not all available to me and may not apply despite being selected.

But most importantly is that I have my password settings requiring two step verifications through password in addition to a phone call giving a random number required for logging in and I still get messages from Google that I was logged out from other locations.

I changed the phone to which these numbers are sent from voice calls to my landline through my Internet phone with Phone Power to a text message to my cell phone with Virgin Mobile and still this thing continues to happen. In both cases or at least in the case of my cell phone, I can show that I did not receive the phone call required to log in, a text message in case of the cell phone,  which clearly indicate a foul play by someone. 

Remember, this is not even about privacy. That ship had already sailed, as they say, and nobody seems to mind. The hedge fund guy and his gang see everything I type , visit or search for on my computers and seems to have the support of a professional group that can create viruses that cannot be avoided (Nevertheless he is still a joke when trying to connect things around me and put theories far from how I do that with him without any access to same things on his side) .No, this is about the minimum of keeping what is required to exist as secret in order to protect what is a basic general need that is being made unavailable to me.

  

SEC regulations encouraging naked shorting

In fact, even the regulations themselves that were established by the SEC seem to encourage naked shorting and you know who benefit the most from these maneuvering paths (Hint: Not the individual investor). They don't make it clear that no shorting is allowed by a market maker or whoever unless shares first borrowed and not just expected to be borrowed. They justify giving such potential to manipulate the market with improving the liquidity in the market. Allowing the selling of nothing as existing shares  and reducing the value of shares owned by shareholders in order to offer better liquidity to them? What kind of excuse is that?  But again you know who benefit the most from this power to abuse the market.

Corruption in the market and the market crash of 2000

Does anyone wonder why as a result of stock market crash of 2000 ,unlike what happened during the recent problem with real estates, no big name like Lehman Brothers or Citibank declared bankruptcy or became under substantial financial trouble? In fact, during the real estate problem it was hard to find any big financial institution that was not affected by it. That is because what happened in the market down of 2000 was probably, like many other things, a game played or allowed to be played only on the ordinary people who invested in the market. The government watched people very unrealistically exaggerating the valuation of tech companies and did not try to advice and put a matching effort to restore sanity to the market? Why? Do you think it has nothing to do with trying to avoid impeding the big guys from devouring that big potential meal ? What could have been the excuse for missing that? Avoiding interfering with the principles of capitalism and free market? What happened to those principles when the government later interfered to save and help the big guys with financial support rather than just advice and wake up calls?

However the main thing for which I am writing this is how the investments of those ordinary people were treated in the market. I used to look at how stocks went down from high prices and think about the over valuation mistakes that led to this loss for many people. But a while after seeing what happened with the Viking system stock story and the naked shorting the corruption of the SEC allows in the market ,aside from other violations and fraudulent activities by some of those hedge funds and financial institutions I wondered how much fairness was left in the market during that time? I started thinking that despite the clearly huge over valuation mistakes ,how could we blame the loss people suffered on those mistakes only? If this is what happens in the ordinary days ,God knows what kind of corruption financial massacres the SEC allowed to happen during that time. A real investigation and looking into the records and books of brokerage and hedge funds of that period may provide even more shocking news about how unfairly people were being slaughtered in the market than that of Madoff' story. Even the minimum that came in the form of the SHO to combat the problem of naked shorting was not legislated until 2005 so imagine the mess of that time. But who is going to do such investigation? The same points I just mentioned in addition to what we all saw what this one hedge fund guy can pull are all indication showing for the power and control the big corruption forces have in this country.

Who rules here?

Again, when you see that a USPS mail man chooses to isolate in his deliveries one specific court related package and take it to court at 10:30 in the night you realize the magnitude of the corruption in this country that encourages such audacity.

In choosing between the lawful path and the path sought by the corruption power, the mail man publicly followed the path wanted by the corruption power and went to his work the next day like nothing happened. So who do you think rules here government laws or corruption?  

And what about the reaction from the post master general to what I sent him about the incident? Did that sound to anybody like the way someone who really care about the integrity of the USPS work and not part of the corruption would respond? In a non corrupt system it would probably be hard for such a guy to be a neighbor to someone in that position and also probably neither those who chose him to others in the positions they currently assume.

But don't worry your hedge fund employment history FBI director will be like a wolf after every thing this hedge fund guy here do or causes to happen, right?

You live in a huge joke without realizing it.       

As if there is a real thing there

After the story of Madoff how is it possible to remain dependent on the SEC as if it is a real entity? What kind of denial is that? And the funny thing is that laws being added to encourage whistle blowers as if there is a thing on which one can count there and you just need to tip them. I can go inside a SEC office shouting in a bullhorn instead of just whistling on the like of this hedge fund guy and nothing would change.     

I personally did not need Madoff's story to know that the SEC is a corrupted entity. I began realizing what the SEC really is starting from 2006 after I sent an email complaining about this same hedge fund guy and my name was revealed to him (In a later case where I sent more complaints, information appeared to reach him that a complaint was sent on him within an hour or two of sending these complaints) . Madoff's story came to build on what I already knew and helped me answer any doubt I had in that SEC corruption affecting me extends beyond the world of low price stocks in which I work.  

What is the SEC? - 2

Lets try first to look and pinpoint more closely to the problem here. Most of the failure to fight back fraud related to the stock market is the result of lack of honesty and integrity in the SEC. It is not the result of lack of sufficient sophistication. This is not a complicated science where you may have a scientist with depth of knowledge irreplaceable by whatever number of others who haven't yet reached that level of knowledge. Except for things like insider tradings, most of the fraud in the market is even easy to be seen and caught provided that there is a real intention to do that. Take even a major case like that of Madoff's. Even though I did not dig deep into the details of the case, I still wonder how much more is required beside an honest intention to check to see whether trades , Madoff's or any other, were real or fake? How would you check fake trades? Using common sense similar to that applied in checking any other claims of buying and selling through tracing the claimed transactions?How could someone with honest intention fail in such a task?The SEC received a tip on Madoff's fraud and investigated things without finding any problem. Actually there is too much fraud and manipulation in the market that requires nothing more than being seen.

The point is that for much, and probably most, of the fraud and manipulation in the market you do not need specialization beyond common sense intelligence to find it. What you need, instead, is honesty and having a real intention to investigate things. That honesty and integrity would need to be sufficient to stand the strength of the corruption power from those with the financial power and malicious intentions. One way to help achieving that is to make a good use from that fact through expanding the authority of investigating these things as widely as possible so that those with the corruption power would not be able to infiltrate and hijack all that expanded domain or predict who will be investigating them or even how many separate investigations by those various entities with that authority. This is how you fight corruption from the like of those with huge corruption power involved with the stock market rather than the ways of the thirties which probably have became far from being sufficient a long time ago. Your cute and fancy SEC is nothing more than a concentration point for the corruption power of the like of this hedge fund guy.

In addition, this is suitable to be the first level to fighting corruption related to fraud in the market anyway even when a higher degree of sophistication and specialization is required. That is because if you cant deal with things that are clear enough to require only an honest intention to be investigated, how can you trust that sophistication and specialization?

[(added 1/18/2014) Although there maybe a huge amount of smoke surrounding the SEC regarding Madoff's case and that I am far from believing that it really did not know about the scam, my suggestion above that simple tracing of Madoff's trades should have revealed them being fake failed to take into account that ,as it seems, the SEC has no authority to force revealing the data needed to achieve that tracing of trades. Yes, one may still argue that there were enough suspicious things for someone interested to do a real investigation to empower obtaining a court order from an incorrupt court for revealing that information with ease but that is still not as direct as I meant.]

[ (Added 1/19/2014) Then ,again, thanks to this wonderful writing by Elaine Lindenmayer and Richard M. Phillips http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/newsletter/0065/materials/book.pdf
it seems that my earlier assumption was more probably correct than wrong]

What is the SEC?

The SEC is simply an entity saving the like of this hedge fund guy from having scattered efforts because of possibilities of being investigated by various entities and instead can concentrate his related efforts on manipulating one of them from the inside.

I just would like to know what kind of thinking suggests that the best way to combat corruption in the stock market by those with the financial power and connections who control every thing in this country is to assign that task or count on that task to be carried on by a small entity that is easy to be infiltrated and hijacked like the SEC? Instead of that the path to fight corruption in the market should have been implemented through widening such authority and its application to all and every kind of law enforcement entities as much as possible so that those guys with that power cannot concentrate that power on one entity to manipulate. In addition, multiple independent and isolated investigations for the same case enable one of the best possible ways to check for the integrity of these investigations. There is a very serious disease of corruption in this country and in fighting that disease one may not always have the luxury of giving saving or cutting costs the priority a healthy person can give.

The depth of the mess

Even if you ultimately find justice in the court system against the like of this guy, you will only be dealing with things on the surface which are themselves dependant on the limitations imposed on the like of this guy because of potential prosecution by the government. These later things are to what you see and may potentially deal with outside in the court system are much bigger than the submerged part of an ice burg relative to its top part over the surface of the water. So the question is: If the like of this guy can show outside what he showed here how reasonable are the expectations of real limitations imposed on him inside because of the threat of prosecution from the government? The answer is: BEYOND RIDICULOUS. 

    

Circus Court of Appeals? No, Worse

At least watching a circus show you would know which person is doing which activity. As pointed out in the previous two posts, although the order of 11/26/2013 remained the same, the docket sheet entry for that order indicating toward which defendant it was directed was changed on 1/9/2014 to include the other defendant who had also filed a motion for time extension. So, aside from what changing that entry may say about manipulating a past court order entry in a court docket sheet, there is still no clear indication to whom that order was directed or even to whom the judge who issued the order may claim it was directed.  I could add another response related to the new docket sheet interpretation. But then there is no assurance that the issuer of that order may not claim the older docket sheet interpretation was the correct one. Have you ever expected to see this low level of hiding intentions and/or who is responsible for what being played in a court?          

Changing the appellate court order docket sheet entry of 11/26/2013

I am adding this post to draw attention to the fact that one of the links in the previous post was wrong then became corrected later and also to provide direct access to the  core of that post.

Here are the links related to this change :

Here is a link showing the new change that happened 1/9/2014  to the past entry of 11/26/2013
Entry of 11/26/2013 on the docket sheet starting from 1/9/2014

And here is a link showing how that entry was until the day before (I have so many other links pointing to the same entry for various dates saved to my computer).

Entry of 11/26/2013 until 1/8/2014

New from that appellate court

In case you thought that was enough, that federal appellate court added a new thing to its outrageous show yesterday.

Remember the story mentioned in this post
The wider view to the game

of the required CIP form which I showed with the help of links in that post that I sent overnight on 9/23/2013 but did not show on the docket sheet at least until after  10/6/2013?

Later I complained in this post
Late Entries

about the late entries of that court docket sheet

Then later in this post
Docket forgery or backdating ?

I showed how some entry was added for a past date which I also showed through many links that it did not exist in the docket sheet before.

Yesterday a new thing of this kind was added. This order of 11/26/2013
The first extension granting order

I talked about here
Deeper Corruption at the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeal

which was earlier mentioned in the docket sheet as granting the first time extension request for defendant Action, was changed yesterday to be described as also granting that same extension to the other defendant and to whom I did not even give my agreement to that extension.

I even referred to that at the end of this post
People Courts, Hedge Fund Guy Chuck-E-Cheese

when I talked about how this recently added defendant filed his brief late without being granted an extension from the court (Notice that post also contained in the second page of the link at the end the original version of that order of 11/26/2013) .

Here is a link showing the new change that happened yesterday to the past entry of 11/26/2013
Entry of 11/26/2013 on the docket sheet starting from yesterday


(This link was pointing to the wrong address and has been corrected)

And here is a link showing how that entry was until the day before (I have so many other links pointing to the same entry for various dates saved to my computer).

Entry of 11/26/2013 until yesterday

Notice also that dependence on the docket sheet description of an order could also be the only way to know to which motion or entity that order was directed unless something in the text of that order also indicate that. Here the text of the order mentioned the word "Appellees'" which could indicate that it is being directed to a plural. But then it was attached to the word "motion" instead of "motions". So was it directed to a plural or singular entity or just someone playing a game? Now one may say that it was directed to a plural entity but used "motion" instead of "motions" to refer to the identical request in both motions. But then how about when the order mentioned "Appellees' brief" instead of "Appellees' briefs"? There is certainly no reason to believe in having identical briefs here. In any case, even if inside the order was clearly indicating to whom it was directed, I do not know any reason for the insufficiency of  the dependence on court docket sheets.

Imagine what is inside

I say, again, if the like of this hedge fund guy can do this outside, imagine what is going on inside the market. I ,personally, do not need to imagine because what is happening here fits adequately with what I have experienced for years in the market and how the SEC is ,if anything, for the service of those guys. Do you think that he who can make the federal courts show publicly the outrageous things they have shown here without excuse would be less capable able in getting what he wants from the SEC and brokerage firms in the darkness of what goes on behind the scenes in the market? Do you think that he who can have such access to a system led by persons whom the Senate vote on each one of them individually is less capable with an entity like the SEC? Do you think that he who can make those in the federal courts do what they did here, or even the basic federal mail service, intentionally ,and apart from all other packages, take my appeal brief to the court at 10:30 in the night, despite his only occasional need for both of those two systems is less capable with a system he always encounter in his main line of business like the SEC?

Hard to imagine but,YES, that was topped - 2

In case there is anyone who think that seeing what I mentioned there requires more than simple direct knowledge of the related Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP), here are the related links for anybody to understand on what grounds what I mentioned stands:

The point related to the district court is related to this:

 FRCP Rule 4 (m) which states:

"Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1)"

FRCP RULE 4   

The point related to the appellate court is related to this:
 FRAP Rule 28 (a) (4) (D)  states regarding a requirement an appeal brief should contain:
"an assertion that the appeal is from a final order or judgment that disposes of all parties’ claims, or information establishing the court of appeals’ jurisdiction on some other basis"

FRAP (go to rule 28)

In case that is not clear enough here is more from the Supreme Court about this very well known basic requirement:

"..a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered, in which claims of district court error at any stage of the litigation may be ventilated" (Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 US 863 - Supreme Court 1994).

 
Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.


Here is also a link showing in the docket sheet of the district court when the case was closed ( #46) and when the appeal was filed (#47).


When the case was closed


The funny thing is that it is when the issue of waiting for a final judgment is usually raised it is with regard to a party seeking to make an early appeal [(Added 1/8/2014) or had already brought an early appeal] and the appellate court arguing for waiting until a final judgment. I doubt that giving a weight for an argument calling for a dismissal because the appeal waited until a final judgment exists anywhere before it was created by the judge of this court of appeals.

The expanded picture being shown here

What is being showed here should serve others who are not fully aware to their environment to wake up and realize what they live in. You live in an environment where the ordinary person moves with the range of a three feet leash within which he had to restrict his activities to conform with the do and don't of the law. The like of this hedge fund guy, on the other hand, move within the range of a leash, if  any, that is miles and miles in length. The point at which they may suffer consequences of their actions doesn't appear to be viewable to the naked eye through the distance and for practical purposes they simply appear to be immune from being watched or prosecuted no matter what they do.

The ways of this guy

As usual this hedge fund guy drags down others to do for him what he wants while he himself stays away as far as possible from taking any direct responsibility. I think he did that with Midsummer Investment in his share and manipulation scam of the Viking Systems (VKNG) stock and he did it with those involved in this case who probably did not want things to go this far. I doubt that he reveals his true intentions to even those with him. Instead, I think that although he may show that he is trying to take them 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. Anyway, for each his own choices.

 

With at least some of the games he is playing in this case through those corrupt judges I even doubt that his intention is not showing off what he can do. Nevertheless, one may need to admit that for him to make even district and appellate court judges reach this level of stupidity doing this outrageous level of  clear corrupted work for him publicly may make even those who can recruit suicide bombers wonder how he could be that convincing.  

 

       

Hard to imagine but,YES, that was topped

What happened here was as if , first, the district court judge said:

 

- Look, I am going to issue an order against this plaintiff for doing a basic thing he has the RIGHT to do.

 

Then he issued an order giving 21 days to serve the complaint and took away the remaining of the 120 days time given to plaintiffs to serve their complaints.

 

The appellate court judge then looked at that and said:

 

-You think I cannot top that? I am going to issue an order against this plaintiff for doing a basic thing he was REQUIRED to do.

 

Then she issued the order granting  the defendant time extension starting from after ruling on a motion calling for a dismissal because the appeal was not filed until the final judgment.

 

 

This is your path to justice???

One federal judge, a district court judge ,aside from other things he did, suddenly sends me an order to serve my complaint within 21 days and cancels the remaining days of the 120 days given by the FRCP for no reason. Another federal judge, an appellate court judge, treats a motion that try to fault me for failing to violate a required basic appeal procedure as something that needs a consideration and ruling before the defendant can file his brief. The USPS gives the special treatment to my brief of taking it to the court after 10:30 in the night. All happened publicly in front of everybody. This is the path to  justice you make available?  Are you kidding me? 

 

That failure to comprehend

There is still a higher court there I may try for my case. But this not just about that. It is about the unbelievable level of corruption the actions of this hedge fund guy in my case proved to exist in this country and of which he gave samples through those actions. The level of corruption in this country is extremely disgusting. It is as if it took the place emptied by the absence of a dictatorship. Yet, unlike the situation in a dictatorship, people here do not seem to realize and comprehend deeply enough that this is bad and treat it as a normal thing. They also do not seem to realize that,without being forced by an overpowering military with its big machinery, you do not have any excuse accepting the existence of this corruption.

Why did the hedge fund guy pull that thing from this appellate court? Two reasons come to mind. The first one is to postpone ruling on the appeal. The second one is to show me that he has got enough judges that are so on his side to make me lose  the appeal. 

Failure to violate the required procedure

Every time I think about this I find it a little hard to resist a laughter.

 

The situation was as if the defendant said:

 

-This appeal should be dismissed because this guy waited for the required final judgment before filing it.

 

And the Appellate Court Judge responded

 

-I see your point and because of it I grant you a new time extension starting from after we rule on if the appellant failure to violate the required procedure makes a sufficient ground for dismissal.  

Three branch government, really? - 2

In other words, you cannot build mud cottages then try to stay away from the complaints of the people living there as if you built concrete buildings for them. The way I see people being nominated and approved by the Executive and Senate branches of government doesn't seem to come even close to fit the complexity of the size and options in this huge country.

 

Three branch government, really?

 For the legislative and executive branches of government people get what they throw on themselves . But do the executive branch and the Senate think that their effort in choosing and approving the judiciary branch is of the sufficient quality to create a third branch that is a peer to the other two? You cannot create something in a shallow way then expect it to be of a dependable quality. The executive branch  and the Senate  are only deceiving the people with the illusion that there is really a dependable judiciary branch here?

There are less than 200 appeal court Judges in the entire country and the executive branch  and the Senate even failed in choosing those with the quality and moral standard not to be affected by the like of this hedge fund guy the way that judge did and it seems that what happened here is more of a  sample than the exception.    

  

Can that judge show at least a reasonable doubt?

Forget about justifying it, I just want to hear how can that judge make an argument that could lead to reasonable doubt in that she had unjust intention in granting the defendant's request. She doesn't have to prove anything. She just need to make some claim that could reasonably be assumed to be true.  

How funny is that?

This could also be added to the layer of outrageousness of that most recent order from the Court of Appeals. It is not only that the motion being waited for a ruling is a frivolous one, but it objects to something that  is required to be followed by the law. The waiting for a final judgment  is a requirement for filing an appeal. So, in other words I am being punished for following what the law required me to follow. Could things be anymore absurd than this?     

Do you really realize that?

Do you really realize that the Appellate Court Judge issued an order depending on a ruling on a motion she knows very clearly
is a frivolous motion? Anybody alive here? 

Impeachment -3

No one should think that I , and especially being originally from a place that was one of the furthest on earth from having this requirement, do not care about having an independent judicial system. But should the attempt to avoid government control and manipulation of the judicial system be allowed to extend to a level permitting this corruption to take its place in achieving that?

Sometimes the government is needed to stay away to make the judicial system works properly away from is effect. Other times it may need to interfere to protect that system from the effect of others. With the level of control and power the like of this hedge fund guy have in this country , the interference by the highest elected legislative body of the government to protect the judicial system of the country, given its history as a democracy, maybe much less risky than leaving things under that kind of power and control.

It is important that one try not to freeze his thinking and view of this country on a snapshot picture of it taken more than two hundred years ago. Things change and what was the biggest danger potential at that time ,after being watched carefully and avoided for sometime, might have been subdued enough to passively allow substantial growth in another risk to take its place. In other words, it is the next in line risk I talked about before.

The Next In Line

Impeachment - 2

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

Layer Under Layer of Outrageousness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bringing it closer to the eyes

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

Granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion

Impeachment

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

These are courts? According to what dictionary?

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

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

The Circus Court of Appeals

Breaking the corruption scale at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

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

Motion for more time extension 

It was granted yesterday by Judge Beverly B Martin.

Granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion

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

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

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

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

USPS Response for the 10:30 PM court delivery attempt

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

USPS Response

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

People Courts, Hedge Fund Guy Chuck-E-Cheese

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

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

Frivolous Motion

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

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

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

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

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

Defendant lawyer filing on his own .
   

Bugs Bunny Cartoon V. SEC Corruption

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

       

Corruption at brokerage firms

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

The story of the transfer request

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

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

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

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

 

Probably just for fun

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

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

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

 

The process servers I contacted

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSA? What NSA?

 

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

Frivolous Motion

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

Deeper Corruption at the US 11th ...

 

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

 

Frivolous Motion 

Docket forgery or backdating ?

The link below shows how the docket entry for 11/15/2013 suddenly appeared starting 11/25/2013 and was not there on dockets of dates like the 16, 19, 20 , 21, 22, 24 of November 2013. These links show print screen images of the docket entries for those dates saved which I saved to my computer and that is why there is a local address in the address bar of the browser.

Docket forgery or backdating?

(Tip: to see the image at its actual size continue to double click on it until it reaches the maximum size then double click on and adjust the position of the white rectangle inside the smaller picture on the left side)

[(Added 12/3/2013) I still cant understand how a court serious in conducting its business without a mess would allow docket entries without entry dates]

Deeper Corruption at the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeal

Look at this. On 11/18/2013 I suddenly received a phone call from the lawyer firm of one of the defendants (Action Stock Transfer Corporation) requesting that I agree on an extension for them to file their response brief with the Appellate Court. They did not appear to the court until two days from the due date for them to file their appeal as if they were asleep and their alarm clock just rang. They also were not asking for a day or two but the whole 30 days given to them to respond, again. I agreed which probably was a mistake. Nevertheless, my intention was to make my agreement contingent on the existence of good cause that is far from what the joke of their actions and what they submitted satisfies. In other words I was counting on the court to act reasonably and my agreement was intended not to stand against a court's decision for a good cause but look at what they did:

1-They appeared only two days before the due date.

2-They failed to comply with 11th Circuit Local Rule 26.1-2 (c) which required them to file within 14 days from the CIP certificate (FRAP 26.1) I filed on the 9/24/2013 a notice with the court indicating their agreement or changes to that certificate.

3-They failed to comply with the 11th Circuit Local Rule 31- 2 (c) which states that "If a party’s first request for an extension of time to file a brief or record excerpts requests an extension of more than seven calendar days, the motion must be filed at least seven calendar days in advance of the due date". Their due date was on the 20 of November and they filed their motion on the 18th.

4- They also failed to satisfy the particularity requirement stated in 11th Circuit Local Rule 31- 2 (a) which states that "A first request for an extension of more than seven calendar days must be made by written motion setting forth with particularity the facts demonstrating good cause".

Here is what they mentioned as "grounds" for their request (They used "ASTC" to stand for Action Stock Transfer Corporation):

"1. Appellee, ASTC’s answer to the Appellant’s Initial Brief is due on November 20, 2013.
2. Appellee is in need of additional time in which to finalize its answer to the Appellant’s Initial Brief.
3. The undersigned has in good faith consulted with Appellant regarding this matter. Appellant has agreed to an enlargement of time of thirty days (30) for ASTC to serve its Answer Brief up to and including December 20, 2013.
4. This is the first request for an extension and it is not being made for any improper purposes or for delay"

Do you see any "particularity" here as stated by Local Rule 31- 2 (a)? Do you even find it stating any cause worthy of noticing, not to mention the "good cause" mentioned in that same rule ?

Assuming there was a good cause, although clearly there isn't, where is that other good cause that prevented them from filing that request at least seven days before the due date as required by Local Rule 31- 2 (c)? They did not appear until the last two days before the due date and did not even bother themselves to file their required note of agreement or change with the CIP certificate I filed with the court much earlier.

In fact, that same Local Rule 31- 2 (c) which stated the requirement of seven days in advance for such request also went on to say about a motion that fails to satisfy that condition:

" Such a motion received by the clerk less than seven calendar days in advance of the due date for filing the brief or record excerpts will generally be denied by the court, unless the motion demonstrates that the good cause on which the motion is based did not exist earlier or was not and with due diligence could not have been known earlier or communicated to the court earlier"

Like I said above they failed to satisfy the initial good cause condition, let alone another good cause condition for not filing their motion based on that first good cause earlier.

Remember, this is not the same as when someone unexpectedly receives a complaint and request an extension of time to respond. This is an appeal process with the notice of appeal served on them much earlier so receiving my brief was expected and the issues are not new.

Notice also, that this is not a party representing itself. It is a lawyer and not just a lawyer from anywhere. It is a lawyer from a state belonging to the same Eleventh US Circuit of Appeal. Compare that to my position here as a layman representing himself who is not even from the same appeal circuit . Nevertheless, I only missed on recognizing the CIP form requirement which caused a late filing of only one day (actually only couple of hours) and filed the appendix for the brief one day late. That later thing happened during a time when my brief itself was not delivered properly to the court because of an intentional action by the US mail and I did not even know when ,or even if , it will be received. Yet despite all that confusion and uncertainty and the US mail conspiring with the defendant's side I was only late only one day and I am one person working by myself. So what happened with that lawyer firm couldn't he request his secretary to file this motion seven days before the due date if he was taking things with any level of seriousness?

As for my brief, it was filed on time despite that I did not recognize how for my case the requirement of receiving the record from the district court is considered satisfied with the docketing of the appeal notice and as a result of that I got only the 30 days remaining of the 40 days time period which I was under the impression that it hadn't started yet. I also had to deal with a set of issues of which the issue related to this brief related to Defendant Action is only one item.

Even in the first letter I received which set the time for filing my brief I was told that requests for extension of time will be "frowned upon" by the court, not to mention a request like this.

As you can see, this was far from being a good cause request and one cannot see why would it be satisfying to any judge acting in good faith. It is a request that was the result of extreme recklessness or playing games. It asks for no reason for a repetition of the entire period given for it to respond like a child asking for a "do over" in a game he is playing just because he likes to have another chance.

Despite all that, the request was granted.

By the way, I even sent my brief and appendix to the defendants through priority mail.

Request For Time Extension

Order Granting That Request