1173: The Skunks There -2

 Hey congress members, again and again and again, open your eyes to how much what they did here is unspeakably despicable! It is hard to see how  you could see yourselves as not betraying the nation because of leaving the top court with persons who have done even just a minor part of such outrageous behaviour. You are galaxies far from my world if you think that I accept such cost in exchange for resolving my situation.

===========================================

                                  (Added January 28-, 2026)

===========================================

In case some are missing this, it seems that most or all of those who opposed the sinking and immoral stand of others in that court with regard to my situation are the appointees of the black president, and it seems even more of a sure thing that the main and biggest force against the other side in that court came from his appointee side.

  

You think that without whatever agreement made with the congress and/or the executive authority in mid last year the skunks would have been having the ability to let the guy free of his obligations if they are willing to take the consequences on themselves? But with regard to any promise or commitment toward me involving the guy, I have been taking them (and the rest in that court) as being the interface of one entity to which that guy belongs, not mere intermediary carriers for the responsibility

There is something that I have missed to point out adequately  about how horrible are the fraudulent actions of the skunks involving giving the guy do-overs and new chances the way they did. While doing that for such neither my fault nor far from being unforeseeable, and, moreover, so trivial things might look unbelievably outrageous on its own if for example I and him were racing and a new fresh start was set for both of us with every do-over for him, here it is like that I have been running continuously while the guy bets that I am not able to run some distance and they keep giving him do-overs on that bet with new start for that distance while I continue running without resting between those races against that repetitive bet. And what is even more astonishing is that newer versions of the race kept requiring longer distances. 

         

As indicated below, what he is required to do has neither material need for what he is demanding nor even sensibly open for satisfying it. It is not like if, for example, we both work in the same place and he feels offended from the red color and therefore I may get asked not to wear red everyday. Here I am in my domain; and he would be shielded from interfacing the thing to which he objects; and this interaction would not last longer than until the door gets opened. However, having argued here for my right to do what I want in my home, I now really do not care that much for actively spending the ime and energy engaging myself in such fight (especially given that I am always on daylight-saving time) like I have been doing recently. Actually, having him fits himself within my schedule rather than awakening me knocking on my door fits better as respecting behaviour.

How wonderful is it that not respecting my privacy throughout all those years has been upgraded to having the other side objecting on the basis of being offended because of private action that has no effect outside? And this is done by those who throughout all that time have been insisting on not dealing with me except through signals rather than direct acknowledgement. What a long government vacation away from constitutional rights have been taken on me here throughout all these years! Anyway, I also in general maintain that I have the absolute right to sleep any time I want inside my own home and that even doing that as intentional disregard to any person and also intentionally targeting the time in which that person would knock on my door when arriving would not relieve that person from any obligation toward me requiring that person to come to my home. I rightfully refuse to be any less than the king of my own castle. If  the other side wants to deny me this right here then let us arrange to have good neutral ruling entity and have all arguments equally available to all parties. And any attempt by this guy to show me as bad here because of how much he supposedly tries to go my way here but I do not do anything of the kind in return would be weaker than even his giving-to-charity jokes which he has been chasing me with for years. The difference is that here even at the most pretended superficial level his demand involves no real need that makes sense.   

Back to the bigger scene, the situation with this sleeping time issue is as if the skunks have said: Okay, we have treated him to the max like an object, and of the low value type, by choosing to involve him (despite how much he sought and tried initially to convince us to end the matter) then counting on him things done by others and no matter how trivial were their effects; and we also refused to accept that he was free to leave his house in that day of November 2024; now, where to go from here? what more can we add to the astonishingly outrageous way we have been dealing with him? Ah, we got it! This time we hold him accountable for things of his own life he does inside his home!

     

It should not be missed how the earlier assumed commitment from them still requires them to do honest work for me with the power of whatever their agreement with the congress have empowered them with. If you can see that then do you really miss how their behaviour screams for them to be not just removed from power but also prosecuted to the max?

Their arrogance in the wrong of flipping back on their commitment because I left in part of that day of November 2024 was apparently not enough that they upgraded it to a mind blogging of unrightful audacity condition on what I do in my own life inside my own home. And sadly the level of absence of privacy to which I have been subjected for so long made me later think that I need to adjust my intention for neutrality and miss that the top controlling fact here is not my intention but my being within my own domain. Only a crazy person would think that the connection to the other side occurring at the knocking and waiting for me to open the door justifies considering when I sleep a matter belonging to the shared domain. Actually, if anyone has a right to put a condition here it should be the visited not the visitor in order for the former not to be disturbed. That is why there is something called setting an appointment. Having this the other way around and it is the visitor who sets a condition on what the visited should be or not be doing when his door is knocked is an invention achieved by the psychotics running the top court of this country, and it shows the amount of sewage that have accumulated in their brains because of seeing themselves like God. Even before this I reached the same conclusion with regard to them believing that they have right to time after getting convinced in my argument even though they are dealing with a case they have denied. As if such condition on neutral ground  is not bad enough, here they added such condition to what in which they themselves involved me despite that I requested otherwise and tried to convince them into abandoning their plan.

I emphasize again that I accept giving removing the skunks more priority than resolving my own issue. 

                               (Added January 25-26, 2026)

By the way, HERE is how I tried before to raise potential power abuse suspicion from just few words in their opinion for the colorado bakery case.

After writing post 1171 it occurred to me how it could have coincided with some special change inside, so let me use this opportunity to give apparently much needed lesson for many about the difference between serving your ego and serving your morality. If having someone whom you owe say bad things about you, even if with the intention of taking advantage of the situation to humiliate you for having to return what you owe under such insults, and you let that stops you from returning what you owe even though you do not expect that the interaction time for returning what you owe would involve such insults then you should not be appointed a judge in even sheep court let alone the top court of the country.

1172: Some of The Fraud Here

  Not fulfilling their obligation toward me shortly after reading my book and deciding on its argument was fraud. Then making me count on that they would do honest work but then handling the matter in such a joke, playful and loose manner in which I carry the consequences of external actions was fraud. Then not fulfilling the commitment of November 2024 was fraud. And adding conditions on what I do in my own life is also fraud.  

They kept doing one fraud inside another behaving the most outrageous ways toward me and even though those actions prolong their own default (then double default) toward me.   

While one may think about a limit to official immunity, they even do not have official immunity here since they denied the related case, and therefore they are as prosecutable as any other person here.

 By the way, I hope that there is no as if the skunks were appointed because of passing an exam in which others failed fixation on official positions snubbing that judges of lower courts can be consulted here.

1171: The Skunks There

                                 (Added January 13, 2026)

The first posting was meant to be:

 Is the highest court in the land really still left with its majority being fraudulent lowlife promise-breaking criminals?!

        

                                              (First Posting)

   Is the highest court in the land really still left with its majority being fraudulent lowlife promise-braking criminals?!   

1170:

 That opening in the pipe of the septic system near the septic tank had been there since I moved in in august 2011 and I have experienced what seems to be animals coming to my home through it only three times with several years of time separating the first occurrence. One of those was in september of this year with a little lizard which I cannot think of except that it was dropped in that hole timed for my entrance to the bathroom close to that hole as service to this guy. Then a month later a frog suddenly appeared near the bathroom close to the living room. The several years earlier occurrence was with a lizard I suddenly found in the basin of the bathroom near that hole, and I probably also thought about that as being done as a service for this guy, but at the time I questioned if that hole is supposed to be covered and if it can lead to inside of the house. 

 

1169: New situation with Bank of America

                                      (Added December 13, 2025)

 Speaking of this bank, it is the only financial institution I have done money transfer with and when I finish the online form I get a message telling me that my "transfer", rather than "transfer request", was received.

                                                  (First Posting)

 Remember that situation with Regions bank when he apparently made them require information from me at a level not usually suitable for my request which was just to have a check card and also the situation I posted about like a decade earlier when I kept getting no information service but just "good buy" every time I call the same bank for a week or two until I tried to do the same within a branch and everything went okay from that moment (However, at the branch I called using my cell phone while all the calls from home were made through Charter's landline phone)? Now the game is through this bank. While checking the current credit card transactions, I found a charge from Mcafee, a company I have not done business with for what feels like a decade. Because I claimed an unauthorized transaction, the dispute page showed me a text box telling me to call them "immediately", but when I called the number they provided to report a fraud there was no option to report a fraud in the menu. So I myself invoked this option and they then left me on hold for more than 20 minutes. The sound of the representative kept coming broken like they are using packet switching of the nineties. And the interaction felt informal and involving making up questions just like with that check card request from Regions I mentioned above. Then the biggest shock came when they told me that the same charge was supposedly already on my bills of December 2024 and 2023 but I have not disputed them. Even though it seems that all the records available online support that the same charge existed on 2023 and 2024 like they say, I cannot but conclude that theses records were fabricated afterwards. There is no way I could have missed any charge in any way like this let alone the highest on my bill. Actually, this latest charged itself occurred on December 8 and here I am disputing it on December 10. While this one is the biggest (yet), this guy has been for a long time playing various games to move me away from this bank.      

1168: My Tax Knowledge

 Believe it or not? Up to just couple of months ago, I have been under the impression that every asset acquired for a business is tax deductible and that occurs for all the cost of buying or making it in the year that happens. Had I known last year what I know now, I would have had neither tried to signal that I saw the better tax time purpose nor expected others to get such signal. Even with that horribly incorrect knowledge I later pointed out that if I were that much about better timing for the tax, I would have had not presented my book at timing that was that close to the year end and also with such potential to have the matter resolved before the new year.        

1167: The good Behaviour requirement-7

                                        (Added November 7, 2025)

 As mentioned in my book, the comma separation of a subject or object from its verb requires handling the separated from its mere thought and that implies that its existence beyond that should be limited to no more than what its concept requires.  Applying that to "the judicial Power" excludes empowerment of the specific identities of judges for it is not part of the concept but just a consequence to having the latter acquires beyond mere thought existence. And since the good Behaviour referred to at the end of the paragraph is about what the latter has started with, what count on Congress except for that stated prohibition on diminishing salaries is how cases get dealt with, not the affect on the Judges in itself. 

 The second correction related to that comma separation is about the degree to which Congress should be involved in building and maintaining the system. The target of "The judicial Power of the United States" existing according to its pure concept implies that it is complete to the maximum. The good Behaviour requirement should be accommodated toward that end.    

                                  (Added October 7, 2025)

Actually, because unlike "judges", the singleness of each instance of "Judges" does not allow targeting the persons as other than being Judges, the good-Behaviour requirement applies on Congress not with regard to the action of keeping or removing Judges itself but with regard to its consequences. Therefore, good decisions made by bad-fit Judges would also be valid and not null because those persons should not have been in that position to begin with. 

                                       (Added October 3, 2025)

I do not know if Congress can be satisfying its part of the good-Behaviour requirement while leaving in office judges who have done even just a fraction of what was done here, and even if they were not at the highest court and also have the power to refuse cases.

                          (Added September 29, 2025)

The benefits that come from applying this requirement to the individual case are not a substitute to keeping the good judges and removing the bad, especially for the final court with its capability to refuse cases.

                                           (First Posting)   

While we may point at the current time result and say that a ruling is valid-or-not based on the kind of behaviour that brought it, one should not miss how that remains rooted at the way the office handles the issue. That is why if for example a judge issues a ruling in good faith then later a clearly convincing argument contrary to that ruling gets presented, that ruling would not continue to be valid beyond the time needed to change it.

1166: Overriding the judicial Power

                                                       (Added September 6-13, 2025)

This needs more thinking and I could be wrong below. 

The word "below" above refers to the "First Posting", and after further thinking, I say, first of all, the title should have targeted the supreme court not the judicial power. And because of the prohibition on making ex post facto laws, Congress cannot directly with its legislative power do work involving ruling on past events, which courts can do with its judicial power. But how much need there could be for that when there is something as sufficient as the good Behaviour requirement? For congress also has the power to establish tribunals, and when the supreme court is not satisfying the good Behaviour requirement such court would supersede it. Also, as discussed in the singleness chapter of my book, targeting Congress does not imply targeting congress, and therefore despite the restriction above congress can establish itself as the tribunal (Although I myself usually refer loosely in that regard).

      

                                                                 (First Posting)

 I cannot see it in any way probable that the distinction between legislative and judicial would have been left this loose had it been not intended for congress to have the power to rule overriding the supreme court even at the level of individual cases. Moreover, there is also the support of what the  exclusion for bill of attainder suggests in that regard. But I think that there could be hesitation on this because of unjustifiable fixation on that establishing the judicial power in the writ was to counter congress and not as guidance and/or because of a concern that it may not get involved enough.

1165: The good Behaviour requirement-6: Corrections

                       (Added September 3-?, 2025)

 I revise my argument below to again depend on that entity references target only thought existence and therefore they need a finite verb to extend that target to beyond that. So in the sentence She got this idea watching Tv the only way to have beyond mere thought existence for "watching Tv" is to consider that part as connected to the extended verb ("got this idea") at object role. So this is what all the below follow from, and I no longer stand on that object pronoun cannot serve as subject. For example, because we have additional original verb ("play") in the sentence I watched them play soccer, it, unlike I watched them playing soccer, does convey that the watched was playing soccer.

 

                    (Added August 27-September 2, 2025)

 With regard to "during" being a present participle I want here to answer the objection of the common grammar that this would make sentences in the writ grammatically incorrect for that word being misplaced as a modifier. While I answered the dangling modifier issue in my book depending on structuring the sentence from existence at the mere thought level, this one does not even need any of that. The common grammar takes a sentence like for example She got this idea watching Tv as grammatically incorrect thinking that it technically implies that the idea was watching Tv. That is incorrect, and what is being missed here is to take the verb and object together as constructing another verb. So, here, "got" is a verb and "this idea" is its object and "got this idea" is another verb for which "She" is also the subject. That is good enough to answer the misplaced modifier objection. But I also want to support the notion of liking two actions directly and therefore continue this with the new verb again constructing another verb with "watching Tv" and for this "She" again is the subject. Like I pointed out in my book, while they may get categorized differently for more details, every thing on the object side is an object. 

Also, ever wondered how could it be allowed for an object pronoun to serve as subject? Well, with this way, beside being the more logical, there is no such thing. However, this comes at the cost of having many common sentences being grammatically incorrect for the intended meaning. For example, I watched him playing soccer implies the watcher not the watched was playing soccer (Although if it were "her" it would have, if taken as possessive, referred to the playing of the watched), and I did the repair with him watching implies I not him was watching, and I want them to call implies that I want them so that I call them rather than so that they call me. On the other hand, It is me is the correct one grammatically not It is I/i. 

After writing the above I noticed how taking the sentence through gradually extending the original verb as done above makes it appear as one coherent whole with no loose components. Look at this benefit in for example the sentence I am going to buy the thing in that store. By extending the verb we can be sure that it means I am going to buy the thing [in that store] rather than I am going to buy [the thing in that store]. And with this same technique being applicable to participles I finally found the technical answer to why in "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who.." Treason, Felony, or other Crime are not descriptions of the State.

                                 (Added August 25-27, 2025)

The discussion below being about removing judges from office should not distract from the other issue which is about  whether a judge gets removed from office or not what is  done through no good Behaviour would not count as valid under the constitution. With regard to the question I brought about having good and no good Behaviour at same time it sounded  big at the time because I mistakenly took the continuity of the effect of a behaviour as equivalent to that of the latter itself, and did not take sufficiently into account how time can continue to be divided cancelling the simultaniuty that appears at the bigger scale. However, it seems that taking "during" as present participle does provide the solution I was seeking for such a probably non existent problem. My mistake earlier was that I tried to do that by arguing for separate time for the participle while what I should have done was to skip time as connection and instead link, as I did in the posting below, one action directly to the other.

I also did not need to seek support from the writ allowing the use of a lower official-office connection than holding office.  

                                  (Added August 21-25, 2025)

Seems like in explaining why below I have gone back again to depending on "during" being a present participle. As present participle, it is only about interacting, actively or passively, with the target, not the time involved in doing that. This was again brought to my attention through something I read today in the writ. In the paragraph above the first target below (writ coincidence?) we read it saying that Senators and Representatives are privileged from being arrested "during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses" rather than just for example during the Session of.. and this supports the position here in that arresting is not part of congress Session. But then we see it continue to also say using "in" rather than "during" that they are privileged from arrest "in going to and returning" from their sessions. The additional benefit provided by "in" here is that it makes the protection applicable while the going and returning actions get paused or briefly interrupted.

In order to focus better on "during" as present participle, I keep coming back to imagining "doing" in its place in the good behaviour clause. And if one cannot with the help of the common grammar decide if doing good behaviour should continue in holding the office or that holding the office should continue in doing good behaviour, then taking things as discussed in my book clearly decides this issue for the former since the verb is what extends entity references in a sentence to targeting beyond mere thought existence.

Just found that while Samuel Johnson DEFINES "during" as preposition but also writes "This word is rather a participle", Noah Webster of 1828 HERE does not categorize it but as present participle. 

                             (Added August 19-20, 2025)

This clause does not require keeping a judge in office as long as that judge is on good Behaviuor. The time of good behaviour belongs to just good behaviour. The word "Term" is itself about time. Still, they did not use it in A1S6P2 for "during the Time for which he was elected" to make it during his Term or at least during the Time of his Term even though they were targeting "Senator or Representative" not person/Person. On the other hand, holding office, a thing that is one of those a Term of an executive official is about, was used in "He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years". Therefore, just like had, for example, "nicely" been used instead of "during good Behaviour", holding office relates to judges only while they are allowed to be in office.

Actually, one could say that the second quoted part above by using "the Term" rather a Term draws attention on its own to this logical restriction. 

I needed this in order to answer the technical issue to which I referred at the beginning of the first posting below. The issue was that under the other understanding a judge can always return to being protected from removal.

The protection against abusing removal of judges does not follow directly from their continuity in doing good but from that such removal would, like any other change to the judiciary, not be valid if it is not good Behaviour from congress which itself when managing the judiciary is required to satisfy the good Behaviour requirement as directly as judges are required to do that in everything they do.

                                                                  

                                                  (First Posting)

 I still need to think more about how things work if the judge's behaviour as whole was determined as not satisfying this requirement, but with regard to the issue of having good and no-good  Behaviours occurring and count separately at the same time where the measure is being good or no-good (which I couldn't solve) there is no such possibility to begin with. That is because such tasks are the negative of each other and therefore unless the choice for one was considered as already taken into account before doing the other, and therefore they would account sequentially, that choice would be cancelling to either of them.

1164: He seems to have done it again

                                               (Added August 22-?, 2025)

How could it be that even after this the situation with this guy continues and has not already ended according to that best potential for me? Actually, one would have wondered this for just one occurring of such clear criminal line- crossing, let alone a series of it like this.

When it happened the first time I posted about it then  deleted the post thinking that should be good enough as a warning. But here are the records I have kept along the events: #1151 and #1151-2 with its multiple entries. So even if one wants to argue not paying attention to the consequences of such a clearly criminal act, does any one need to see him warned more about what this could lead to here while the crimes get repeated and he acts with disregard and  intentionally show challenging those warnings? And now we have the new thing involving the probability that he had made the earlier repair guy set things for the most recent malfunctioning. And with regard to the latter, it would have had occurred earlier had I not put the effort to avoid detecting when I would turn the machine on.          

                             (Added August 20, 2025)

The "I have been living here" in the first posting was a reference to just this house. With regard to this country in general, I have been living here since summer of 92 at the age of 21. 

                                                   (Added August 18, 2025)

The repair guy, a new one who is also from a different company, came and made it work again but told me that aunts are the reason which this corruption guy would be making a big joke of himself on this (even more than what he has already heavily accumulated of that on other issues) if he thinks that the situation makes that in anyway believable.                                     

                                             (First Posting)

.. and made one of those on the sides of my house (in collaboration with others) prevent the airconditioner fan from starting and/or had already made the repair guy who came, whom his connection to this guy was apparent, install an about to fail contactor. I had the temperature set at 75 when I turned on the cooling but it moved from 79 to 80 so I went out to check on the fan and indeed it was not running. 

This time from the start we reached the final stage of the earlier situation: The off-on did not work and I can't hear any sound from the machine when I am near it. 

And by the way, even after that repair the fan did not seem to work as good as it was before this practice of preventing it from spinning had started. 

I have been living here since summer of 2011 and had never experienced this issue from my airconditioner before and in general the only other repair done for it was replacing the capacitor.  

1163:The good Behaviour requirement-5

                                 (Added August 13, 2025)

Seems like all the other days posting below is not needed and at least some of it is wrong. Instead all what I needed to do for what I was arguing for is just to bring the attention to that in "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" "good Behaviour" directly applies to "their Offices" not "hold". In other words, one needs to focus on "their Offices during good Behaviour" as one thing. So even had "on" been used instead of "during" and we have at same time good and no good Behaviours this would lead to holding [their Offices on good Behaviour] and at the same time not holding [their Offices on no good Behaviour] which shows no conflict. The same can be said about replacing "during" with a participle, like for example: "doing". Even if we were having "Positions" instead of "Offices" that would still be valid just like how we recognize elsewhere things as subjects even though they just transfer the action.

Therefore whether what follow from a Behaviour would be supported or not supported by the judicial power of the United States would apply the same way regardless of what other Behaviours occur at same time with that Behaviour.

One may look at article 3 and wonder: What is this? Congress is only required to provide a supreme Court? And even this one can be of only one judge? Do or don't they want Congress to  establish a judiciary system? I think that the answer to all that is also in the good Behaviour requirement. In other words, this requirement applies to the judiciary starting from the outside level that is the responsibility of the Congress and that is at least one of the reasons why the clause was worded in the plural form, referring to "Offices", and with "during" rather than, for example, "on" or  anything involving referring to the judges. On the other hand "during" in the following line of the same paragraph has "their" following it in "during their Continuance in Office" even though within that context there seems to be less reason to take continuance in office as related to others than there is such reason for "good Behaviour" above. And while I just said above that all what I have written earlier is not needed, here we can see how taking the clause as order telling the how for the deed rather than being inclusive for the other way around completes this view by making the clause imply obligation rather than choice for Congress to do what good Behaviour require it to do for taking care of the judiciary. Although, as mentioned in my book, while a prepositional phrase starting the sentence is conditional (externally), a prepositional phrase existing at any point in or after the subject would be just like every thing there in the sentence in having the verb establishes beyond mere thought existence for it. Therefore seeing "during good Behaviour" as telling what should occur rather than what may occur is the only way to take it even if we consider "during" as just a preposition.   

   

                                  (Added August 11, 2025)

 It is better to start with saying that rather than thinking of "during good Behaviour" as directly telling the when, one should think of it as telling the how. The when follows depending on complying or not complying with the order or directive. Of course it would have been easier had the present participle been one not that much used for just its prepositional function. Because the prepositional functionality of "during" is secondary to its verbal role, this understanding is the only valid one. In other words, with regard to just the when issue the "doing" equivalent of "during good Behaviour" would be "doing good Behaviour" not " while/when doing good Behaviour"(This should not suggest that I take "...during good Behaviour" as if it were "...during their good Behaviour" ). So,  because "during" is a present participle the good Behaviour would have separate time accountability and therefore whether what follow from a Behaviour would be supported or not supported by the judicial power of the United States would apply the same way regardless of what other Behaviours occur at same time with that Behaviour.

                                  (Added August 9, 2025) 

Rather than the way the middle paragraph below went on, it probably would have been better to just explain the difference by saying that a present participle, an incapsulated verb, occurs in its own time dimension. So had it been for example "..hold their offices on good Behaviour" then  because "on" is just a preposition, we would have not been allowed/required to also take the good and the not good separately as described in the third paragraph below.    

                                        (First Posting)

 Although "during" may elsewhere be used just for conveying what "while" could have conveyed, here one should not miss how it can make holding the office relative to the task. Because a judge, like everybody else in everyday life, could be on good Behaviour with regard to something and not on good Behaviour with regard to something else at the same time.

The word "during", being a participle not a preposition in the first place, does not make direct association with time. So when it connects the doing of two things it associates doing one thing within the time brought to existence because of doing another thing, rather than having time being the original container as it is the case with "while". So unless the association is made directly with time (as done elsewhere in the writ bringing attention this issue), multiple contrary occurring of the former can happen at the same time if multiple occurring of the latter also happen during that time.

So, what follow from good Behaviour would be supported by the judicial Power of the United States and  what follow from not good Behaviour would be not supported by the judicial Power of the United States even if the two kind occur at same time or within a period of time to which one or the other gets attributed as when evaluating the whole performance of a judge with regard to satisfying this requirement.      

1162: judiciary-free judicial Issues

                                                      (Added August 2, 2025)

 What I said in the first posting below should not distract from applying to this situation that what follow from not satisfying the good Behaviour requirement would not be supported by the judicial Power of the United States. And this is with the assumption that this Court gets officially invoked which has not happened yet.

The argument below, if right, serves dealing with beyond what was special about the problems of this situation. But for what this court may do, it is not like that we would be stuck until a new court comes in to undo an order this one could make to give this guy another chance beyond this agreement. If such order does not satisfy the good Behaviour requirement, and I can't see how it could, then it would have no effect to begin with. However, this is still based on assumptions about what currently exist in an environment isolated from me. 

                                      (First Posting)

 How many of the reasons based on which this guy was granted extension do not even qualify as judicial issues for only the judiciary to decide? Let's say a cop was standing and watched one person pays another the price of something bought but the other person switches and refuses to hand the item because for example a mosquito just bit him. Would the cop because of not being one of those authorised with "The judicial Power of the United States" refrain from forcing the contract? Shouldn't things here been similarly disregarded because of being external and/or trivial? If even clear things need the judiciary authority everything would stop.

Who has watched what has been going on and thought the other side has a non-joke case? Now with the new third partly involved here there should be no opportunity for the guy to escape through the game of internal blaming being accounted as clearly standing on nothing and therefore the case can be acted on without any involvement from those authorised with "The judicial Power of the United States". 

If a case is clear enough then it is the executive authority who may need to tell the judicial to step aside; it is not always that other way around. Actually, I don't see the judgement as a matter of law, practiced by the judicial branch itself, but as another application of what I am arguing for here.        

By the way, one fun thought that has just occurred to me is how the guy got extensions because of signals like a week or days away from of the set date and even before and after that former vice president news in January of this year for which this guy also got time extension even though it was more than a month from the set date and it did not bring my attention to any date. But the argument for the latter apparently tried to stand on that showing news about the going president while the coming president is close to be inaugurated signals to me that the set date is not that far. So a month is not far enough but I also supposedly would not have held on for a week with other set dates if it were not for those signals?         

1161: Post 1151-2

                                    (Added July 31, 2025)

How could there be no shame for letting this guy pass on this despite the kind of objections he has been making for himself? And you know what? There is what suggests that those around my house are still seeking to do it again for him. 

                                     (Added July 30, 2025)

It turned out to be none of what I thought could be broken but instead some contactor. I then asked google's AI if preventing the fan in the airconditioner unit from running could damage the airconditioner contactor and it said yes. Anyway, the machine is now back working.                                        

                                        (Added July 29, 2025)

He may have broken the fan with that, because it now refuses to run. Also now when I go to the unit outside I don't hear any sound, so the compressor could also be broken because of all that running without the fan. Could I be anymore not in need for any extra thing to strengthen my argument in that bigger situation of mine? But I also don't want to give him a free pass on this. I made post 1151 on July 16 then on July 17 the same thing happened but this time I went outside and found the fan not running and made it run again by turning the air-conditioner off and on, and since then it kept working with no problem until the day after I made the starting post here. So that he has done nothing here is very improbable. However I don't know if what he did broke the fan and/or the compressor or damaged just the capacitor and that is why they are not working now.

With him getting all those time extensions for occurrings that are as external and trivial as those he used to get here, how many centuries of additional time he would have been awarded had it been I who did this to him? 

 I am the furthest from thinking I am unable to survive this time extension just like I did with all the earlier ones. But if he wants to force with violations like this an excuse to shorten or immediately end the matter according to the max outcome for me then let it be.  

                                        (Added July 28, 2025)

And he just did it again. I woke up  to temperature 81 even though it was set to be 78 and I solved that by turning the machine off then on again.   

                                               (Starting Post)

 Now I think it is his work and not wondering much, and he does it by making someone stops the fan in the unit. My guess is that this is done with a stick preventing the fan from starting when the unit is about to run in one of those on/off cycles.

1160: How does "Backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" sound after all what have happened here?

 

1159: Judicial Vs Personal

                                   (Added July 28-29, 2025)

 This has been since shortly after I presented my book on December 13 or 14 2023 nothing but an in your face series of one unbelievably outrageous fraud over another all committed publicly by those positioned the highest in the judicial system.

Correction: the second paragraph below should have been:

 While official immunity does not extend to personal actions, impeachment and removal from office according to A2S4  are clearly applicable to personal actions related to official matters.

                                  (Starting Post)

 The only official connection to the judicial system process for what have been going on here was my case of 2015 which those judges have denied. So even with that upside down understanding to the good Behaviour clause how could their fraud be tolerated like this? There is neither separation of powers or even immunity issue here: They are just like any other person but have been doing the unthinkable. 

By the way, while official immunity does not extend to personal actions, impeachment and removal from office according to A2S4  is applicable to personal actions.

1158: The good Behaviour requirement-4

 I think that because of not distinguishing between holding office and just being in office, I probably added unnecessary difficulty in applying this requirement.

What made me notice this is that I could neither see limiting the word "Behaviour" a valid thing to do nor find the difficulty of requiring reappointing and reconfirming at such frequency and how other decisions by the same judge in the mean time would not be supported by the judicial power regardless of how good they could be make sense. 

Also, it should not be missed how Behaviour evaluation is  relative to the applied scope. For example, if a judge insists on that a litigant submit something within a period of non-trivial difference in being shorter than what the litigant rightfully and clearly deserves then that order would not be supported by the judicial power of the United States, even though when evaluating general performance of that judge such a minor isolated incident may not imply not satisfying the good Behaviour requirement and therefore Congress may not be allowed to remove that judge even if it wants to do that. 

Back to supporting the earlier point, the "chosen for the same Term" in A2S1 brings to attention that an official can be occupying a position but not having the powers of that position. There are no extra words in this document. Everything is applied only as needed like a jeweler weighing gold.

1157: Again the same pressing question about what is currently agreed on:

 Let us say that this time I get not just a signal excuse but a real  communication intentionally and directly revealing the set date or any other thing the guy does not want me to know, would he get another time extension and a new chance? If so, then it is a shit agreement because you are throwing the burden of the environment on me in my passive role rather than on you despite taking charge. 

1156: Any more proof needed?

 With this now over nineteen months since I presented my book, an event that had been already set for ending this matter, how does every one feel about my initial and later refusal or reluctance to go along with this plan that had after my book suddenly appeared from nowhere contradicting or conflicting with more than eight years of history in the matter by switching to supposedly seeking to deliver more to me in exchange for more time of continuing in the same situation? And if you were to find now the confession that they did not really want to do it in the diary of those who stood with giving this guy more extension and new chances based on such absurd reasons, would it really add to your confidence in that being the case? Also imagine the same behaviour from another person, would you be in shock if you hear about that person being prosecuted for fraud? And I did not just say no thank you, I fought against being here and they forced me to stay and here we are after all that time. 

And by the way, I never understood the reaction I kept getting in the third part of last year which seemed like seeking to make me repeat my demand for just the original amount so that technically an already made congress directive force them not to deliver on the other commitment. Why would anyone want to be forced not to do what he chose to do if the choice is real?

1155: Like Last Year

                                     (Added July 23, 2025)

 Seems like I should have better focused on the wisdom of accepting this time extension in exchange for escaping a bad environment rather than taking it thinking it was intended to go along with that environment like earlier decisions.   

                                             (Starting Post)

 Last year when I got those July signals I told myself how can I trust this again? And here I am and with the added thing is that this time I don't even know what this time extension is supposed to compensate this guy for and that after all what have happened since then the situation looks unbelievably inexplainable upside down credit wise for his benefit at my cost.

1154: The good Behaviour requirement-3

                          (Added July 28, 2025) 

Actually, both having the judge lose the judicial power when not satisfying this requirement and the inability to replace the judge when satisfying it follow from that this requirement was part of the paragraph that vests the judicial power. Had it been listed on its own the latter would have not applied either.

                                (First Posting)

 Having a judge lose the judicial power because of not satisfying the good Behaviour clause follows from that this clause is not existing separately but instead it is there as part of the same paragraph that vests the judicial power.

The arrangement I talked about in the earlier post for the reappointment and reconfirmation to occur passively is wrong, and that is because the Senate and the president may differ and are not fixed. So what gives one representation the right to takeaway the right of the other to do the appointment or confirmation? 

I now also think that this, depending on the case, may require the impeachment process just like anything where the facts or judging them is unclear. Were there for example a requirement in the writ on Congress to give the people a holiday if the weather is too cold and it was not clear if the current weather fits that or not then resolving that would also need the impeachment process. What hiders this understanding when one reads the definition of "impeach" and "convict" is taking "accuse" and "guilt" in the absolute sense while now I think they should be taken relative to the matter.