903: Recovering Back My Rights And Demanding A Resolution

I hereby recovers all rights I relinquished to the court years ago including the right to be told only the truth about my case and to have time counted as with any other litigant and that starts from this day. Now as much as I have a right to do that, I demand a resolution  through the offer I made to the corruption guy if accepted for the part I kept for myself, or a response back and negotiation.

902: Canceling The Position Below

Because I feel like the corruption guy is still trying to abuse the situation and play games in response to my position in the two posts below, I now can cancel that position and may accept an additional compensation even if it is because of liking my jokes, without a problem. It is much better that I am working on choosing the correct path with changing positions toward actual actions than directly with actual actions and mistakenly assume the good in this guy like this.

However, deciding not to refuse additional compensation does not mean wanting to sit and wait for it. On the contrary, if I were to be told your offer to the corruption guy was accepted for what you kept to yourself of it, do you want to end things now or wait for a chance to double that? My choice would be to end things now. Now that the issue at the court seems to be only about the level of compensation I should get and not about reacting to the wrong that happened to the system with regard to the two cases I have at the court, and there seems to be no intention for directing the part of the offer I returned to the court to some other purpose, I do not feel good about waiting, especially with the compensation issue being about an extra level that was attached to some unrelated thing not any harm or hardship I experienced. 
By the way, some at the court may think that they got some good will action from the corruption guy to give me extra time to finish with the Second Amendment (which I try not to care about and instead work on my own timing, or otherwise I feel like a beggar), while I was able to detect that my issue at the court was about to be resolved by seeing how stocks I watch went up, then detect a change in the timing for that by seeing how the pressure was brought back to those stocks and they got driven down.
The corruption guy seems to think that he would have his way with the market in the meantime without that kind of competition from me while ultimately he most probably will not pay more than what I kept for myself in the offer I made to him. He is probably right at least because I do not find it easy to think while I am in this position.     

901: Even Better

Related to the preceding post, it seems that a decision was already made months ago in which the amount of compensation beyond what I kept for myself in the offer I made to the corruption guy, was made dependant on my performance in relation to some unrelated thing.  That strongly suggests that another decision was already made regarding the compensation that is related to what was done to me. Therefore, and counting on that unless I am going to be told that this action itself can be taken as a reason for negatively affecting accepting or ruling on a case I may file in the future, if it can be taken like that, I am refusing any amount over what I kept for myself in the offer I made to the corruption guy, of any compensation amount here, as long as that refusal can be done without me trying to avoid a  potential tax effect related to that action. If forced through that tax precaution thing, I may risk being seen getting what I intend not to keep, and refuse the remaining of that additional amount minus some tax reservation in order to pay any required tax.  

By the way, now that I paid attention to the potential implication that was pointed out above, I honestly like that I knew about that first decision. It saved me from unnecessary thinking struggle.  

   

900:

This is related to my personal issue at the court. It took me a while to respect this feeling. Not only I do not want, but I want the absence of compensation for arguing on the Second Amendment; I only accept compensations here as being to  resolve the issue of the Florida case and the issue of the New York case according to the offer I made to the corruption guy, with only harm or hardship can be taken into consideration for whatever goes beyond what I kept for myself in that offer, and compensations for whatever additional harm or injury this corruption guy did to me that was related to having filed those cases. By accepting that latter thing I accept with it that such compensations can be taken into consideration for refusing and dealing with new cases related to those harms, by the final court if they reach it. 

      

899

My digestive system is still in big mess because of what I did Here. It is like the Italians telling me: We have been consuming semolina flour as boiled pasta for that much and for this long, then you come trying these other ways as if we missed or ignored thinking about such obvious things, what do you think this is? The Constitution of the United States?   

898: Another Reminder

This is another reminder to what post 892 was partly suggesting. Before adding more strain to itself for my sake, it should not be underestimated how big it is that that group  brought itself together on going along with what I kept for myself in the offer I made to the corruption guy. In addition, it has been always okay with me for that passing time to be for the sake of the system. 

However, I still do not want my position here to be a reason for refusing any petition I may file in the future related to anything outside that offer.  

897

From Blog Guns And Crimes

+285: Two Decisions

I have decided to work on my Second Amendment argument on my own time instead of seeking fulfilment of that deadline. And in order to avoid confusing situations like the past I no longer intend to keep that weekly news check I kept doing.

896

I wonder if Post +279 needed me to point out that that level of sensitivity happened after those emails that apparently were showing to me exchanging my arguing on the second amendment with resolving my personal issue at the court, by telling me that this or that judge will no longer be with the court. So if recently I was challenged to finish things on my own, it seems that I was challenged for what was already my position but got pushed away or instigated to stay away by the same challenging entity. 
The above may serve as an argument to counter any possible suggestion that signalling me about the existence of that challenge spoiled the challenge. Otherwise I am not requesting the removal of that challenge. In fact, the more the challenge is tilted against me the more a win would feel real to me. Oh, and the above is also related to giving me time to the end of June in case I need that.   

895: One Special Linguist

I have been wanting to point out this Website for sometime. I have never seen anyone else does anywhere close to understanding the work of commas like this guy.  

894

Link +284 (second amendment interpretation 213: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 5: Corrections And Improvements)

893

From Blog Guns And Crimes

+283 (second amendment interpretation 212: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 4: Better "concept" Argument )

Instead of the way I argued for that "being necessary to the security of a free State" refers to the well regulated Militia as concept only, in the section titled Connecting Through The First Comma, couldn't I just said this:

The reference to a well regulated Militia at the beginning fits any well regulated Militia but the first comma blocks that reference from connecting to the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part following it. However the latter still try to refer to the former. This leads to that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part refers to a well regulated Militia from the closest possible point which is its concept root. 

892

I prefered to say this after a completely fine tuned argument for the Second Amendment but I do not want to risk that I may not be given enough time for that while at the same time I am making others with important issues to think  unnecessarily about this one, so let me say it now:

It is related to my offer to the corruption guy. I have thought many times about returning back to those to whom I gave authority on half that offer whatever portion I may receive from that half, again to their authority, but worried  about the tax consequences. Recently, when I sensed a potential of doing close to that without getting into a tax issue by trying to use a potential arguing about the Second Amendment connection  as a challenge I win to do that, I wanted (and still want) to take that path.    

891

From Blog Guns And Crimes

+282 (second amendment interpretation 211: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 3: I Noticed This 2 )

Something has been pinching me about using the word "actual", and I just noticed that I probably should have focussed on the difference between a well regulated Militia as an instance and as a concept, not as an actual and as a concept.  

890

From Blog Guns And Crimes 

+281 (second amendment interpretation 210: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 2: I Noticed This1 )

Since the preceding post is long, I intend not to change it even within the 24 hours I usually give myself after posting and instead point out potential issues to be corrected  in separate posts like this one.

Anyway, this is a series I call "I Noticed This" to point out that I recognized a potential issue and intend to work on it

This first one is related to the "Connecting Through The First Comma" part and is related to how I might have contradicted myself when I refused to count in the concept in the actual thing when it comes to affecting the next part but I counted it in as a reason to prevent that actual part from surviving the first comma.

Also, without the first comma the part of the Amendment before the second comma would probably be just a reference to an actual well regulated Militia not either just concept or an actual one like I said. 

889

Link +280 (second amendment interpretation 209: Argument For The Whole Amendment )