Beyond simply abusing authority

Also, take into account that the outrageous behavior of those judges was more than simply abusing their powers and authorities because of a conviction or even overly inflated ego. No, it was more than that clearly part of a conspiracy with the hedge fund guy. A significant  part of those actions was ,in fact,  intentionally intended to show outrageousness and big diversion from the normal path in order to weaken my will by showing me how much power the hedge fund guy has inside these courts.  

  

A Joke System

I cant put this any other way. A government system with what happened from the courts here and even the mail man makes that special exception  to be in obedience to the like of this hedge fund guy disregarding the rules of the  law and their duties to this level publicly, is a joke system no matter where it is.   

Filling the dictator's place

Corruption here took the place of the dictator in a dictatorship.  But unlike the situation in a dictatorship, corruption here is not seen as a thing that is superimposed on  life and accepted as a normal part of it.

The level of disregard to the system

You would think that if one has the power to pull what has been pulled here making federal judges (both district and circuit) act at this level of corruption he would save that for a more compelling  

situation. After all, we are not contesting the ownership of Microsoft  nor there is a criminal prosecution here. But shows even more how corrupt is the system here that it is ready to being  abused and service even the non serious whims of the like of this hedge fund guy.

Before and After

Honestly, how many would have accepted from me even the mere suggestion that ,for example, the federal district court may do such a thing as sending me an order taking away part of the remaining time allowed to all plaintiffs to serve their complaints for no reason? It was not even based  on a requesting motion but a sua sponte order the court ,technically, made on its own. A listener hearing such suggestion from me could have said:

- You are not living in this real world but in a far suspicious delusional one of your own creation.  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_9OcAMogtRTd0g1enI1X1dGZVk/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_9OcAMogtRTaXFhUGpqb094eGc/edit?usp=sharing

http://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.com/rules/rule-4-summons/ ("(m) Time Limit for Service")

From paranoid suspicions to boring reality

I think I showed enough signs related to corruption even in the court system that it is now seen as familiar reality by those who would have otherwise thrown their paranoia accusations disregarding and walking away from allowing such thoughts or suspicions. Nevertheless such reactions were far from being balanced or anywhere of being balanced by their reactions toward the opposite side when clear signs and evidences were presented to them as if they already knew that and accept living in it.

I think I showed enough of what was generally taken like ghost claims here to make others bored instead of being shocked or surprised for seeing any more ghosts rather than ordinary persons.  

Answers And Their Reply

On the 12 of this month the Appellee/Defendant who was given close to five times its FRAP time to file its answer brief ,filed that brief.Here is what took all that time to be produced:

Appellee/Defendant Action Stock Transfer Corporation Answer Brief
Here is also the Answer Brief of the Appellee/Defendant who had filed one earlier.

Appellee/Defendant Dror Svorai Answer Brief
Here is a link to the Appellees affidavit referred to in that answer

and its the Appellant reply
Appellee Dror Svorai Affidavit (doc 34)

Here is my reply brief for both answers filed within the FRAP 14 days without any extension (like my initial brief before it):
Appellant Reply Brief
Here is also the my initial brief:

Appellant Initial Brief
Here is also a link to the original complaint:                      Appellant/ Plaintiff Complaint (doc 1) 

Current process serving rules not enough

If it were me I would also require a defendant in a case to be given a full body massage for the service of process to be correct. Why not? It is not like the current rules are needed for justice and fairness to defendants. The main thing needed is for the defendant to know that there is a complaint against him in the court. Anything other than that is much less needed if at all. That is because  no matter how you make it difficult to serve a complaint it would not correct being sued for unjust cause. Even if you think about how just it would be in situations were the defendant himself needs to seek the details of the complaint instead of being directly provided to him it would be either a fair thing for sufficiently fair claim or a minor thing added to and compared with being sued unfairly and required to respond to that. So what is all this complication for?

Anyway, imagine how fun it would be when courts try to rule on  claims from lawyers that there defendants received only partial  massages and therefore the service of process was invalid (Although, seriously, it could still be less ridiculous, and childish, than much of the current chasing and hiding game).

But don't worry. My system may still consider a sponge bath to be in "substantial" compliance with the rule and accept such service (Of course, after wasting judiciary time that could have served some really needed thing other than finding a way around a complication I myself created for no reason).

Appellate Court Order directly violates a local rule

In addition to all the reasons I mentioned about how outrageous was granting the motion to postpone the due date of the defendant's brief until ruling on the frivolous dismissal motion in posts like this

http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2013/12/layer-under-layer-of-outrageousness.html it turned out that there is also local court rule regarding such request which that order directly violated . The 11th Cir. R. 31-1 (c) Rule titled "Effect of Other Pending Motions on Time for Serving and Filing Brief" clearly states that "Except as otherwise provided in this rule, a pending motion does not postpone the time for serving and filing any brief."
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/pdfs/RulesDEC13.pdf 
(Go to "FRAP 31")

The exceptions mentioned were two related to criminal appeals and replacement briefs. Neither one of those two exceptions apply here.

The word "Other" was used in the title because in the preceding Cir. R. 31-1 (b) Rule titled "Pending Motions" the motions that require putting off counting for the due date to file a brief until ruling on these motions were listed and also none of them apply on that frivolous dismissal motion or any dismissal motion in general. 

Any adult here still wears his toddler clothes? - 2

Even if the constitution does not allow what I said there amending it for that purpose is something that I can not see a reason for anyone to oppose. It would give better opportunity for everybody to be heard while at the same time the supreme court will remain the final decider that can be sought by whoever wants that. 


There is no reason to make prioritizing cases sacrifices the rights of some to contest injustice they suffer as if in a dictatorship when you have the choice to do otherwise.

What sinking path congress would like to choose?

I wonder what kind of moral sinking to the bottom congress would like to claim for itself for not impeaching those judges here?

That they do not care because it happened to me and they discriminate? Or that they are not discriminating and this is how they accept for the judiciary to operate? 

Role of the chief judge of that appellate court

I find it a low probability that the clerk of that appellate court did what he did not counting on support from the chief judge of that court and expecting that judge to be opposed to his actions.

Safeguards needed for our time

Similar to how there were efforts put in the constitution to protect against being abused by the government , our time requires safeguards from being abused by the big power of corruption we live with.

Look from how far the defense starts

I have noticed this from the beginning but waited to feel more confident about what I am saying. It seems that every time I bring more strongly to attention things that shows the power and control some corrupt financial institutions have in this country some other issue or scandal gets brought  to attention in order to distract from that issue and probably even to fight back the legislators themselves by damaging their reputations. 

I talked about the corruption of the SEC toward hedge funds and a scandal got raised about the IRS. I sent some senators the initial games this hedge fund guy made the district court play on me and the story of Edward Snowden started. It felt from the beginning as if someone was telling legislators : just in case you want to open a door on us, here is what we can open on you. And now we have issue of the CIA and the Senate appears to be also brought to attention intentionally at this time. The intention could be to prevent legislators from even turning their heads toward the direction of the problem I mentioned at the beginning.

I have never being able to bring myself to believe with any substantial probability that Edward Snowden was not pushed from here to do what he did whether he realize that or not. Furthermore, I don't see what sufficiently answer what seems to me a good probability that at least some of those IRS officials who admitted the problem and/or pled the fifth amendment did that to support creating the  scandal in support of that entity trying to distract the attention rather than defending themselves against it.    

Any adult here still wears his toddler clothes?

Speaking about the supreme court, how is it possible to see that it can have enough time to handle all cases in this huge country as if it is still at its constitution time size? How much does that court refuse to take cases that otherwise it would have taken if it has the time?

Clearly the more courts cases pass through before reaching the supreme court the better the chance that errors will be corrected along that path and as a result the supreme court can have the time to handle more cases that need to be taken. That is why I think that those who made the constitution did put in it a preparation for that with the right given to congress to establish as many courts as needed. I think that not only the supreme court but all those courts can have  jurisdiction over cases appealed from state supreme courts. I think that this interpretation is also supported by the only condition put on these courts which is of being inferior to the supreme court. The support that later thing gives to this interpretation comes from the combined power of leaving open other jurisdictional possibilities in addition to how being inferior to the supreme court suggests sharing a jurisdiction. 

TO The Supreme Court.

In any case, just like how I brought my complaint here after encapsulating with it the questions of corruption at the district court I can reencapsulate  the questions of corruption at the appellate court and take it to the supreme court. I also know that I can or could have filed a writ of mandamus to make this court do its job in a reasonable way but I preferred to keep things until I appeal the final decisions here to that remaining court.

The three judges who ruled on the motion

Are those three judges who ruled on the frivolous motion to dismiss the same three who will rule on my complaint? Was it that since Saddam is not available they picked the next (best) choice to rule on me? One of those judges already showed big potential for unfair handling of the case and inclination toward the defendant's side with the motion he approved. Another one broke the scale of outrageousness with a motion she approved for that same side.

The third judge did not show something specific toward my case. Nevertheless, before seeing his name here I read a little about the judges of that court and it came to my attention that that judge did not assume the senior status which qualify for same pay with less cases to handle despite being eligible for it for a very long time. I thought that someone working to serve the big and corrupted entities may make that choice in order to increase the chance of serving them and here I see the name of that judge in case related to this hedge fund guy where he is pulling strings left and right.

In addition, the two male judges share with the judge of the district court the military service path and that is not like any other common thing in making individuals act as a group.

Hurry, Limited Openings!

Again, anyone would like to issue orders in my case with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals? Why just the clerk? That is not fair. And don't worry, you don't even have to think. A coin toss would still be an improvement over the level of fairness with which the real judges of that court have been handling my case. Don't delay, only limited openings are available.

By the way, notice that despite my suspicions I ,at least most of the time, used to point to the "clerk office" when speaking about related games and resisted pointing to the clerk personally until these actions pointed to direct responsibility by him.

 

Cartoon court or Federal Appellate Court

Even a cartoon court I can think of where Bugs Bunny moves fast to take the place of all parties arguing with himself could still be better positioned to deal honestly with my case than this appellate court with the level of sinking it allowed itself to reach in serves of this hedge fund guy.

  

So, based on the action of the clerk of this court, if while you are walking one day you felt like issuing orders like a judge without being a judge then this is your court. Who knows? May be someone will accidentally wonder into this court tomorrow and issue orders related to my case. 

As usual, there are layers of punch lines here

The posts I made yesterday were about only part of the new story. What is the other part about? The other part is where the second punch line after that of the 30 days extension. The defendant came again to request another extension. And today I found that he was again granted a new extension by the clerk of the court until 3/12/2014.
You think you reached the final punch line here? Not yet. The clerk also issued a "public communication" on his own and in which he declared that the briefs of all appellees are due on 3/12/2014.

Aside from how ridiculous the situation orders by judges of that court allowed it to be, even on direct technical view on its face the clerk has no authority to do that. He has the authority to grant extensions (of up to seven days) but not the authority to give a new permission to file for those who had already missed the dead line. Even for the defendant who requested this later extension the clerk has no authority to give this seven days "extension" because it was not shown that the 30 days instead of 14 days previous extension was an order that came from a judge. Even if you add 7 days to the 14 days there would still be an interruption and therefore an extension cannot be granted by the clerk of the court.
Docket Sheet on 3/6/2014

Granting all appellees until 3-12-2014.pdf

[(Added 3/7/2014)Actually, I was wrong. Aside from the good reason requirement, for a second time extension request, the clerk do not have the authority to issue any extension of time. Only the court can do that and a motion is required. This was stated clearly in 11th Cir. R. 31-2 (C) stating that "A second request must be made by written motion and will only be acted upon by the court" http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/pdfs/RulesDEC13.pdf and this was not even the second request for time extension]

Confusing responsibilities played again by the 11th Appellate Court

Notice that a game similar to the one I talked about here

http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-from-that-appellate-court.html

in its aim of confusing who is responsible for the action was also played by this federal Appeal Court in its order talked about in the preceding post . If you compare the orders in the two order links in that post you would see that unlike the older one the newer order has the thirty days extension mentioned at the first page but not with the main content of the order. It started by stating that  "The enclosed order has been ENTERED"  then stated that "Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date of the enclosed order" which was not included in the "enclosed order". So which judge made the ruling of 30 days instead of the 14 days limit granted by the order granting the second time extension motion? Or was it the clerk of the court not only exceeding the limits of his authority but also contradicting an order issued by a judge in the court?

Again, what kind of court plays low games like these?   

The order granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion

The order denying the dismissal motion

And I thought for ounce they made an honest order!

After that one of a kind court order from that 11th Circus Court of Appeal which granted the defendant a variable length second time extension of 14 additional days after they rule on a dismissal motion that itself was at the top of frivolousness scale, on 2/2/2014 there came another order related to the matter. The docket sheet mentioned that the order was denying that frivolous dismissal motion. So, I thought that the intention was to subdue the effect of that outrageous second time extension order and did not think there was a reason for me to read it. That was until yesterday when I discovered I was wrong in expecting it to be corruption free. The court gave 30 days instead of 14 extension from after this ruling on the motion for no reason. Although the second time extension motion itself asked for 14 days after ruling on the dismissal motion and the wonderful order granting it stated that the defendants brief is due after 14 days from ruling on the obviously frivolous motion, the court in this order apparently wanted to make a charitable donation of additional 16 days in contradiction with the order granting the defendant's time extension request.

The order granting an extension starting from after ruling on the dismissal motion

The order denying the dismissal motion

In addition, why would the court be concerned about the other issue of when the defendant will file its brief to begin with when it is in the process of ruling on an entirely different motion with an entirely different issue , not to mention another issue that has been already ruled on?

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?