Corruption of the US District Court for Southern New York -2

And here is an image of the check for filing fees in case you think a failure in that part could be the reason (The bank took this one and gave me a cashier check to send instead because that court do not accept personal checks).


Paying the required fees

Corruption of the US District Court for Southern New York

I filed the second complaint I mentioned  (Complaint) and it was received on 8/8/2014.

Complaint received

Believe it or not, I just did a new search for all the complaints I filed and ,as can be seen through the link below, up to this time it has not been entered into the system, let alone receiving the summons to serve.

Complaint not in the system


Can be magnified more than the above link

Internet access prevention

I have spent the last two days under what could hardly be anything other than Charter's intentional effort to prevent and restrict my access to the Internet in support of this hedge fund guy here. It did not even sound like a one action service but a continuous connection with the guy calling the shots on the go. 

ATTENTION: VIKING SYSTEMS SHAREHOLDERS

For the group who, after reading my complaint in the post below, think that they were affected the same way time could be very short for filing a 10b-5 class action lawsuit. I cant represent you because I want to represent myself and pro se litigants are not allowed to represent the class in a class action lawsuit.  

My second complaint

Complaint

Courts so far from being courts

These courts acted in my case so far from how they should act that it is almost like being sarcastic. I don't know how legislators can see that they are not required to take action against things at this level of clarity. If it is left to the Supreme Court then this level of outrageousness suggests a wide level of court corruption potential  that I may need my own personal Supreme Court to handle it all. However, at least whenever it is at this level of clear intensity the right from wrong wouldn't take significant time or effort to be seen.   

This is the whole judiciary system?

Look at how these two Federal court levels (District and Appeal) acted in my case and then think about how could such system be sufficient by itself to apply justice? The final judiciary level is not obligated to take any case and according to its website it takes less than one percent of cases filed with it on average. You cannot argue that the final level was counted on for catching such kind of actions from the two lower levels because, as was pointed out before, the easiness with which the hedge fund guy caused this level of clear biased toward him at this degree of lack of necessity clearly indicates a bad system and not simply exceptions in a good system.

One Sided Capitalism

 Even when one limits his knowledge and quittance of the SEC and its actions to just reading its short selling regulations he would still wonder how could that reflect an intention of just and fair treatment for everybody in the market? Why take all that complicated path in "regulating" shorting just to keep open paths for naked shorting? Why would one avoid the simple rule that no one should sell a stock that he could not deliver ? Why is the stock market treated different than all other  things in the world in that regard? How could that be seen as unbiased treatment for everyone in the market? What kind of reasoning on which it stands? Liquidity? Is that a worthy trade off for allowing someone to sell what he cant deliver? Why would that apply only to the stock market? Who said the stock market should always provide liquidity? In any case, it certainly does not with or without such rules. What does it even mean? When liquidity comes through the reduction of value caused by naked short selling how much would there be a difference for its existence from its nonexistence? Should a situation where a stock worth $100 a share find a buyer at $0.01 a share be seen as significantly better than a situation where there is no buyer for the stock just because there is liquidity in the first?

But these regulations where not made for the sake of everybody. These regulation allow manipulation of the market and clearly the ordinary person without the sufficient financial power cannot take advantage of that. Even limited shorting is not much for the ordinary person because it involves unlimited upside risk. Also unlike buying stocks long you need the help of your broker to find you shares to short. That involve connections and relationships which are clearly much more in the domain of power for hedge funds than the ordinary person. Notice that how liquidity as a reason did not come from far away to this mental set except that these regulations were intended to help those with big liquidity in manipulating the market instead of really helping the market with liquidity.

 

These regulations not only violate the principles of justice and fairness but they also violate the principles of capitalism making it one sided application. For although all the importance is given to the capital in the hands of those with big liquidity, when the ordinary person hold an asset its existence is not that important and selling it without really delivering it is allowed.    


[Added (8/10/2014): "quittance" above was intended to be "acquaintance" ]  

The level of corruption of Charter Communications

I wouldn't expect much surprised reaction to the notion of Charter's corruption. Nevertheless, this post is about reaching the level that required admitting this company to the  hall of SPECIAL shame in its corruption and cooperating with the hedge fund guy here.

First, and I knew that from the beginning, they report to the hedge fund guy my activities concerning when I connect or disconnect to the Internet which I get its service through them. Their second thing happened when I was  pushing on the corrupt process server Front Range Legal Process (the same guy in the Discover post), to serve my complaint. I have my phone dependent on the Internet service I get from Charter and in the day I was pressing on with phone calls on that process server my Internet service went down for hours during the middle of the day. To this day I feel very little doubt that Charter intentionally did that at the request of the hedge fund guy. Their third outrageous thing was related to their interference with my Internet use. As bad as that could be,it is not things like watching which sites I visit I am referring to here . No, they restrict and prevent my access to sites on the web on their own. The first occurrence I noticed (later) of that happened with the SEC web site which kept showing me the unusual message of the site being temporary unavailable for being under maintenance for an entire week end. I tried accessing it from another device and received the same message. The second occurrence of that type happened with the site otcmarkets when the site became also inaccessible with similar message and for a period similar to the previous. This time I used my cell phone Internet access which goes through a different network and found that the site was accessible with no problems. I came back to my laptop and refreshed the page and the site suddenly became also accessible after more than two days of its inaccessibility(the hedge fund guy also has access to know about my cell phone use ). Finally after waiting to be more confident that Charter really restrict my access a similar thing happened again yesterday when I was searching for something and Charter wanted to prevent my access to some scholarly articles. A big group of the links to these articles were stating that the site is temporarily unavailable. I went to my cell phone and followed the link to one of these articles and it was accessible without any problem. I went back to my laptop to try the links again and they all continued to take me to web page stating that the site is temporarily inaccessible.  

Look at how the entity trusted on the market justify naked shorting

I am far from needing this to know that the SEC is a joke but look at what they publicly show as their reasoning for allowing naked shorting (selling shares without really delivering them):

"Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to market liquidity. For example, broker-dealers that make a market in a security⁴ generally stand ready to buy and sell the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or sellers. Thus, market makers must sell a security to a buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that security available in the market. This may occur, for example, if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time. Because it may take a market maker considerable time to purchase or arrange to borrow the security, a market maker engaged in bona fide market making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares. This is especially true for market makers in thinly traded, illiquid stocks such as securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board,⁵ as there may be few shares available to purchase or borrow at a given time."

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm

Based on that reasoning it would be a good thing if I also open a store that sells things that it does not actually carry in order to help liquidity in the related market. But ,no, unless the seller declares to the buyer that he is only selling him a promise to deliver the sold item later it is hard to see how that seller would not be liable for the legal consequences of that action. Yes, someone may honestly and without any negligence thinks that he is selling something but circumstances and accidents change that and he becomes unable to deliver the sold thing.  But these situations are generally clear and very far from being justified on the bases of someone "stand ready to buy and sell" something. So what should a market maker do when he cannot find shares to sell? The something anyone in the world outside the stock market would do, simply not sell what he doesn't have. 

Treating things in the stock market this differently from the rules of sound reasoning in the real world is much more a cause for messing and corrupting the stock market than correcting it.

Insist on allowing market makers to sell what the don't have? Then let the buyer know that he is being offered a promise or expectation for the shares offered to him not the actual shares yet. Anything less than that is clearly wrong.

Anyway, it is hard for me to see such reasoning being made with true interest in justice and fairness to begin with. 

     

Corruption of the Discover Corporation

It is a usual occurrence for me to see corruption everywhere related to this hedge fund guy. It doesn't seem practical for me to react to everything I see in this vast domain but I try to select from within each club those who sought the highest level in that scale. For example, I know that the credit card corporations to which my cards belong reveal to the hedge fund guy every transaction I do within even a period that is much closer to real time than later. At least some of them might have also played some frustrating games on me for the sake of that guy. But the one who reached the top  corruption scale here is this Discover Corporation. Their corruption is related to their counterpart in process server club whom I contacted to serve my complaint in Onteco case and I contacted a lot (almost every process server I could find and almost all of them conspired with the hedge fund guy against me). Anyway, this very corrupt process server, Front Range Legal Process, tried , as an additional good will service to the hedge fund guy here to add false charges to the Discover card which I did not even authorize him to use for other than the initial charges. Despite that process server was charging me for service attempts that were not seriously intended to serve my complaint and the fact that I already paid him too much and got mostly conspiring with the opposing side on me instead, it is not for this reason I described theses charges as false here. I described theses charges as false because that process server agreed not to charge me for those services and that agreement was documented and even emphasized through emails. I disputed these charges with Discover three times or more on the bases of these emails but they refused to accept that fact for no apparent justification. The corruption of Discover did not stop there and they wanted to extend their good will for the hedge fund guy to a more outrageous level. They did not just charged me these false charges but also kept adding late payment fee (which is a membership fee) every month to these charges despite the fact that I cancelled my account with them earlier. They then sent  a collector harassing me on both my home and cell phone based on these false charges  . I may sue them under the fair credit reporting act among other things (although that act doesn't seem to sufficiently address the issue of intentional false reporting like this). But what could be even more effective than that is for me to  publish the proof and documents I have on the web first to show the corruption level of that corporation.I know that it would be hard for me to squeeze in time for that but one may want , every now and then, to stop and remove a gum or dirt that stuck to his shows from a dirty floor along the path to his main target. 

Different Names

Where I came from those who hold life time position regardless of what they do are called dictators. Apparently those are known as federal judges here.  

The Chief Judge

And do not forget about the chief judge of that appellate court whom the actions of his clerk do not keep confidence that the chief judge of that court minds that in his court there were orders lacking stating who issued them or  the wide range of overstepping authority with which the clerk of his court issues orders.   

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?