+79

continuing from the preceding post

One could easily think the purpose of case title is to provide easier path to remembering and referring to the case and for that it needs to be short not full caption. Otherwise the case number on the same cover uniquely identifies the case. It is not like when you first file to the supreme court and you got no number for your case until after filing your petition.

On the other hand, the motion form I received asks me about "Opposing counsel's position on motion". This can be easily understood that motion filer should file his motion with his opponent before the court. That was supposed to carry local rule 27.1 requirement on the filer about the position of his opponent on the "relief" sought.    

+78

My brief to the Second Court of Appeals in New York had reached the court since Monday. Couple of hours ago I thought it might be time to check on my filing and found THIS for why my filing was defective.

So the question is: Are you kidding me? Even assuming it was wrong to include "et al." in the title, is that really a reason to consider that a defect in need for correction? I don't think that is worthy of being held against an attorney let alone a pro se filer.

But who said that was wrong to begin with. The applicable part of the rule she mentioned is FRAP 32 (a)(2)(C) which states that the cover of a brief should include "the title of the case". How does she understand the "title" to contain the names of all defendants? In addition the rule followed that by "(see Rule 12(a))". If we go to FRAP 12(a) we find it saying that "the circuit clerk must docket the appeal under the title of the district-court action". Also, as an additional support for how a case title may not contain the names of all defendants in the case, the rule added that the appellate court "must identify the appellant, adding the appellant's name if necessary". The defendant names are part of the litigant names on the case and if all litigant names should be included in the title of the case the name of the appellant would always be included in the title and therefore there would be no reason for the part mentioned above about adding the appellant's name . 

The district court had the title "Kammona v. Midsummer Investment Ltd. et al". I only added my first name and wrote all names with capital letters.   

+77

Even beyond what I mentioned in post +75, I cant emphasize enough that I am not posting here to affect when the case will be resolved. I am posting not to let this guy play his deception freely on the world for how the case could be resolved. I want his work not to escape passing through the picture I want to show. Also my intention is to affect things by the content of my writings not the intensity and frequency of my posting. If I were feeling it is wise enough to leave the picture at this level of clarity, With the other side being someone like this guy, I wouldn't take myself away from the other things I feel much stronger about spending my time doing them. Although, my time for doing either will be reduced until I file my brief due on 10/19/2016 (The good guys there stole 4 days from me for no reason. It is as if courts here like to tax my time).       

+76

Continuing from the preceding post

Also if I am going to declare that it would be on the board "the supreme.." in addition to here.

They say that the final court takes about 70 cases out of 7000 filed each year. Even if that number does not include the cases they send back to be corrected, it still can hardly make the person feel easy about those left out petitions and the question of need for justice not being answered. So I try to at least reduce the level of attention here for there.

Remember that filing to this court is a very exhausting task that itself make a test if you really need justice.  

+75

In case it is thought otherwise, I want to emphasis that I am not writing here to send complaining signals about the court's role in the passing of time. I cannot put things further away from such thought than saying that for my right here, time does not start counting on the court until I say it is. If I want the zero period to end I would not be shy to declare my intention clearly and I wouldn't be substituting that with indirect signals. 

But notice that I still can talk about the role of the corruption guy himself for the passing of time.

+74

If I were to spread the same degrading thing as this guy did, on another person I would worry about a significant lowering of myself because of my choice to deal with things at such level. But it does not seem this guy suffered anything of that. This reminds me of another thing I spent my life with and the enormous loss of not dealing with this kind of behaviour appropriately. Be very careful before giving anyone a free pass on what he does if it in itself seems significant. By not giving a free pass, I mean that the behaviour should be really counted in. If you feel like ignoring the bad thing because it does not look like the person doing it really needs it or self involved in doing it then you could be facing one of those whom I call deceptive psychotics and their super power of character deception.

+73

It took me less than three months to accept and deal with a reality that forced itself on me out of the blue. On the other hand, since then, it has been over a year and still going on him for choices he made with every thing clear in front of him.   

+72

Unlike my situation where he wanted to test and hold me responsible for my choices behind my back, it was explained to him very clearly how his choice will be counted.

+71

It is interesting how his phone calls never sounded to me like real effort and how it turned out he was using them to build a case.

+70

Just like he was calling even though he did not expect me to respond, he could have sent me an offer even if he expect me to refuse it or ignore it. 

He was willing to force anything on me except seeing an offer from him. 

+69

continuing from the preceding post

Did he just realize his power over the media only afterwords? 

Back then it was much easier to inflict suspicion on me than now. But he did not leave trying that as much as he did later because he thought he cannot make me doubt what is going to happen. No, he did not care to play these kind of games because of how much he knew my resolution to see the path to the end was not dependent on expecting the result and that is why he jumped to the most certain thing he could have, denying the petition.

The point is if he really believed what I heard from one of the judges of the court was causing his problem, then it was not hard to counter that sufficiently. So if he did that, then he got no reason to complain about that thing. If he did not, then the analysis above applies.       

+68

I may have already conveyed this but I still want to do it in this form. How is it that if I were affected to believe more in one side of what the court intends to do based on probability about what is going to happen that couldn't be countered by also another probability about what is going to happen, let alone the certainty of a real action in the case with the finality of denying a petition?Where was all this creativity and readiness in playing and repeating deceptive games one saw later until it reached the top of his head? For example where were all the games insinuating grouping and bias inside the court he has been playing afterwords? Also, if any of the judges there want to help him in balancing that, was it really a hard thing to say something that could counter the call about coming to the court I heard? But not seeking to work at the probability shows his knowing that I was not depending on probability to see the thing through to the end.

+67

Speaking about the degrading things he was spreading, notice the similarity with taking the court to deal with me externally in how through being embarrassed to discuss the issue in order to respond to him your input is also circumvented. Both emphasize the going behind and avoiding a fair face to face of a deceptive behaviour. 

+66

The behaviour to which it was referred in the previous post was especially conflicting with his alleged negotiation effort because of how much it is an unnecessary direct insult requiring action to the contrary in accepting the alleged negotiation effort. But in general his alleged negotiation effort, which imply starting from equal ground, was already offset by his continued behavior in positioning himself above and everything like a toy to him. His effort was far from showing sincerity from a neutral ground, let alone being that much in the minus at the same time.     

+65

In addition to all what I mentioned about his alleged negotiation effort itself, how is it that the guy goes and extends the case to his allegation that I refuse to negotiate with him and it stops there and does not extend to his affecting behaviour? Take first how claiming that he wanted to bring his adversary to the negotiation table while at the same time spreading those degrading things can hardly be seen as not mocking the person to whom you are complaining let alone making a strong case for your allegation (Not to mention the insult of how those degrading allegations may look like being intended to cause a judge to ignore a person). Like the alleged effort itself his sincerity in its surrounding behaviour did not show itself.

   

+64

It is not just the repetition but also the kind of that repetition to reality here. In case he thinks it goes without being noticed, I tell this guy that it did not escape me how taking a risk in the scene of taking a chance dependent on another person's behaviour, is not something, like lifting weight if you do it once you can do it again, available for repetition except to undo reality. 

+63

And given all the training he made sure I go through in the market playing his long term games on my stocks, this corruption guy must really had me as his target for any time taking game he could be playing, right? LOL.  

+62

This situation of not knowing what will happen, if it will happen and when it will happen, is not far from the way I make my living investing and holding in stocks. 

+61

I don't know who told this corruption guy that he showed morality anywhere close to suggesting that he would on his own try to settle the case after it gets denied. However, like I said elsewhere, initially I thought it could be a consolatory compensation being done for the judges of the court. So, imagine, I had something as clear and directed specifically at me as this and still did not take it for myself as most probably would have done. How many then castles in the air I could have built from one time hearing a general call on people to come to this court? And that after all the outrageousness I saw from the lower courts which was all the experience I had with courts here (except once in a traffic court). 

In any case, with or without any encouragement, stopping before completing the path was not something even in a galaxy adjacent to where I am.      

+60

Actually, the situation in the market and my recognition for his games was also based on his exaggeration but he still chose to play it again here on the same target. With the option I mentioned in the preceding post he could have suggested to me that anything I heard from the judges of the court and supposedly made me feel strongly that they would be on my side meant nothing more than resolving and dealing with the original merits of the case fairly. If he really thought that my faith in the outcome was built that much high based on things I heard from the judges of the court then that needed to be fitted with something not contradicted. Instead, his behaviour was more like he wanted to take away whatever was left than that of facing a strong thing.    

+59

Reflecting on what I wrote in post Post +55 I thought about how much things would have been more confusing to me if instead of denying my petition, it was announced that the case was returned back to the lower court for the judgment to be corrected on the original merits of the case. Not only that in itself would have been much more reasonably fit for the situation by the showing of much less outrageousness, but there also his phone calls could have been seen as attempts to negotiate the case for the ruling of the lower court after the return of the case to it. If this was not an option to him, rescheduling the case could have opened the door for such thoughts. As much as he supposedly expected me to have faith that the court will be on my side how does that fit facing it with how much it is less probable for the court to carelessly deny my petition like that? Although even if we suppose he really expected that, it is not clear how much him being such a fool to showing his power and would like to come to me like God not under the power of anything, would have let him to act reasonably on it.         

+58

While I was counting on my capability to refer back to my history here, it seems that the published date is not an external authentication for when the content of the post was created and there is no proof readily available, if at all, showing that a poster did not change his post after posting. 

 

+57

By the way, if I had that level of guaranteeing the result of going to this court how does that fit with THIS or THIS or THIS and the worrying they suggest that my petition could be denied? Or was that too early? Then how about all the effort I put in expressing what I faced and arguing for my case to be taken in my  PETITION ? Still not recent enough? Then how about the worrying about my petition suggested by the wish to "improve on the content of the petition" in THIS post? 

+56

Not only with neutral behaviour, but all the judges of the final court could have done what significantly suggest that they would be biased toward this guy, and I still wouldn't have even thought about stopping before reaching it. My earlier behaviour clearly support this much more than any thought to the contrary and I even declared my intention HERE. Actually my shock from the behaviour of the lower courts was already affecting me to the level that I kept listening to the oral arguments of this court trying to support my faith that courts can reason normally. Giving up on a judicial process before completing the path to the final court is something that is hard for me to imagine justifiable even when I see it in a movie.     

+55

Rescheduling the petition probably would have been more than sufficient to balance any thought I supposedly had about the court being very exited to act on my case and that could be followed by another rescheduling or denial if needed. But choosing a path where it gets denied with the rest of denied petitions that may not have reached the judges (although that still does not take away the moral responsibility) shows how much his problem was really any recognition to the existence of my issue I may perceive.   

+54

Here is an additional thing  that is more specifically about what he probably alleged in that I insisted on my position because of assurance resulted from hearing Justice Scalia's call on people to come to the court. Look at that immediate knockout action in denying my petition. Does that look to you like the action one would push for if he just wanted to balance that alleged certainty in the outcome that I supposedly had or does it look more like the action somebody would push for if his problem was any hope his adversary have in the outcome and he want that to crumble?      

+53

one would expect that somebody showing this willingness to resolve the matter with the level of phone calling efforts this guy pretended wouldn't mind, if he was really trying to settle the matter, diverting some of that effort to show how much his adversary is insisting on refusing to settle, with a sears of offerings not just one. He did not make any.

+52

And it is not like he communicated an offer earlier and the action of the court was to push me to accept it. No, he did not communicate any offer because he was afraid he may not be able to offer something that I refuse but still fits with how much he was pretending with the other side.  

+51

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

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

+50

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

+49

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

+48

Continuing from post 46

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

+47

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

+46

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

+45

continuing from the preceding post

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

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

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

+44

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

+43

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

12+ 14=26

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

+42

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

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

+41

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

+40

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

+39

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

  

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

+38

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

+37

continuing from post +34

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

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

+36

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

+35

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

+34

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

+33

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

+32

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

+31

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

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

+30

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