(Added August 27, 2024)
Hey scumbag! Never again disables my hotspot, as just happened now, or my mobile connection itself (which is the only way I have to connect to the internet) as happened yesterday.
(Added August 26, 2024)
Actually, although it may seem tilted more toward one side and the behaviour in general, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" requires from the congress that for each individual case it should not let that case be handled with bad behaviour from its judge.
(Added August 24, 2024)
Let's not kid ourselves. Regardless of how this situation ends, the question of impeaching and removing at least several of those at the top court for what they have done here and in that Colorado cake case is, to say the least, very seriously presenting itself, unless the Constitution is itself not taken seriously. And one also should not miss that the Constitution requires good not just valid Behaviour from them.
Also, amending the Constitution to have term limits for judges of this court is another question worthy of serious consideration, and one version of this is to make the change occurs in parts like the way the Senate was established.
(Added August 18, 2024)
Oh, and I also forgot below to mention the breaking and entering to my car.
(Added August 17, 2024)
And by the way, my objection to the extra time taken here did not even include the problems with his own compliance with the conditions and restraints on his behaviour according to the deal he has made. It has been like joke to him to the level of not just crossing but staying in violation of my online and communication or car traveling privacy and being free from any not permitted intrusion which are right that belong to me even without any other behaviour obligation imposed on him according to the deal in which he is involved. And again the audacity of bugging my car for tracking (as substitute for tracking me through my cell phone which I switched to carrying it separated from its battery) despite all the public complaining I did against such tracking by him feels mind boggling.
(Added August 16, 2024)
This low life is back again to messing my things and not letting me live. Here is the situation with something I wanted to buy. First, about two week ago, I visited the website of the store carrying it then went there but I did not find but a single item of it and not exactly of the variety I came for which the store according to its website has two of it in that location. This time I decided to buy it on line and pick it in the store at that location. So I ordered it yesterday and everything looked okay and today as expected I received an email telling me my order is ready for pick up. But when I arrived there they told me that a mistake happened and they do not carry that item in stock even though online they say they do carry two of it. I had to do driving around for two more hours to find the other location and buy it from there (which of course also could have been prevented). With this thug watching every thing I do online and tracking my car when I go out what fighting chance do I have?
(Added August 12, 2024)
Instead of the "but without the things against gays" below I should have said "but without the things against homosexuality".
By the way, does the requirement that the President should be born in this country really look sitting well among all such Anti-discrimination laws? And like I said before, unlike the earlier time and its uncertainty about the kind of demographic growth this country would experience, now having such majority for those born here makes this requirement hardly serves any purpose but pure discrimination on the basis of the eligibility for that position.
(Added August 9, 2024)
I think I need to rethink my position on the issue below and if it turns out that I am wrong then I would owe big for the criticism I have made below and earlier on this issue.
----
While rethinking the point I made below I noticed an even more direct and easier one in the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act which says (or said at that time):
“It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”
Unlike wedding cakes, fitting the two other requested cakes under "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,..." does not seem as direct. This was not a case of for example a publishing place that accepted publishing for one side but not the other. It was about a cake making place. For such a place not to sell a wedding cake would make one wonder why is the shop even open then. On the other hand it is very reasonable to see the business of such shop as intended not to get involved in a level of ideology not needed for that business to run and therefore "the goods, services..." of that business should be defined according to this limitation.
----
It should not be missed that the two later requested cakes require a level of ideology involvement that crosses expressing being correct to expressing the other side as wrong. Actually, according to what I read every visited shop accepted to do the Bible but without the things against gays.
(Added August 6, 2024)
Speaking of missing the environment and the context, yesterday I shocked myself again by reading in the opinion of that Colorado cake bakery case. Who would honestly and in good faith equate the original cake making request with the other two? It is clear that the root focus of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is the existence of the person. Had the first two filed a lawsuit to have marriage legal recognition they could have won or lost but they certainly would have not been seen as lacking standing to bring the lawsuit which is what the person who brought the two other cake requests would have faced had he filed a case to undo legal recognition of gay marriage had it been already there.
(Added July 29, 2024)
Playing Being God
So, those judges had been set to receive from as soon as I present my argument a precut time period equal to the length of their term even if the argument convinces them earlier in that period? Who had understood in this way the earlier situation which lasted over 8.5 years and involved my very early post petition denying offer which culminated to setting the final stage being having those judges convinced in my second amendment argument? I do not care if they are the judges of the highest court of this country or the earth or the galaxy; it is clear that they had/have no right to such time, and this has been a broken promise since very shortly after they became convinced in my argument.
(Added July 27, 2024)
The demand pause period has expired and now I, again, demand receiving the obligation the other side owes me and do not accept any delay regardless of the additional compensation I would receive for that delay.
------
You think I do not have the right to the time yet? Then answer in the comment section here the arguments I have made for that.
------
The shame and disgrace of the promise breaking the other side has done to me here is of a cosmic size that can eclipse the whole galaxy.
----
Had this same behaviour that occurred from the judges of the highest court instead occurred from an ordinary person, how much that person would have been spared the view or even being told: YOU ARE A WORTHLESS PROMICE BREAKING THUG!
------
And how about all you other participants and those who played along? Could the matter been anymore public and involving more government officials? This is how you understood the earlier environment and commitment toward me, right? I present my argument in the middle of December and it gets read and convinces those judges but the other side can remain not fulfilling its part of the deal to July and we are still counting, right? You were not waiting for me to present that argument so that the situation ends but so that we start a new waiting of this long or more even if the argument does its job that fast? Nothing new here, right?
-----
And it is not just the failure to deliver but there is no communication attempt to explain or even just tell me about a need to extend time either. That refusal to address me specifically and give me direct acknowledgement kept unbelievably strongly anchored like nothing else since the denial of my petition in May 2015? Not even writing a book those ruling on me now are not able to bring the like of it in a million years changed that treatment to me even once. And even just for simple reasoning, how many here have wondered what purpose other than joining this corruption guy in his psychotic world for denying my existence does it serve that I do not get a direct acknowledgement but still get all those signs and signals and how obvious are those government faking efforts?
--------
Even with what I have already argued aside, what should one make of those judges here? That they are not honest here or that they are really facing argument from the corruption guy they cannot answer? With regard to the latter, what kind of low competency makes them spend all the time they had spent with my case before I presented my book and then get surprised with this argument like this after I did? Or is it that they already saw such potential but just were not honest or caring enough to convey that to others or present themselves accordingly?
-------
(Added July 26, 2024)
I ask here the same conditional acceptance questions I asked in the post of July 20 about the acceptance to my offer but this time apply them to the acceptance of the corruption guy to the acceptance of the judges to my offer. Absent having a related conditional attachment to his acceptance to their acceptance, his acceptance to their acceptance means that he accepted that the agreement with me supersedes the agreement with him.
Having the possibility that the guy through the power of his agreement with those judges forces them to take all that time has been the only thing that stands for those judges here and it seems to have gone now.
----
You cannot appeal an issue to which you had not objected to the Court at the time. So here even if you assume the guy was in a similar following position with those judges, had he raised to them when they agreed to my offer the issue of which of the two agreements (the one with me and the one with him) supersedes the other on the right to time?
------
Because the restriction on communicating with me had been for the corruption guy, the argument that the judges should not have exceeded their authority under the agreement with the corruption guy when they dealt with my offer is not even comparable to the above.
(Added July 25, 2024)
Again, I do not know how anyone can deny how in that environment it was very established and understood that it is part of the agreement that if my argument convinces enough of those judges then the delivery of the offer amount to me should occur fairly soon? But while this time thing was new, there has been something that remained the same like being engraved in a stone and deeply anchored at the root of the matter from after denying my petition in May 2015 to this day. That thing is the refusal to make direct acknowledgement to my existence while dealing with the matter. Throw in the quality of my book and enjoy how the latter explains the former.
(Added July 24, 2024)
Ending The Demand Pause
My seven days prior notice period has not elapsed yet, but expect my demand to come back this Saturday unless it gets fulfilled earlier. The end of August is not that far, but this is the position that would make me feel better morally.
Actually, since the demand pause I have put is about the effect of the demands, not communicating the demand messages, I do not need to wait until Saturday to make demands that would take effect starting from there. So, I am declaring here that starting from the first minute of this Saturday, the pause I have put on my demands will no longer exist. And again, no matter in exchange for how much more, I do not accept delaying for even one minute delivering the original obligation owed to me. This is an absolute refusal to sell.
(Added July 20, 2024)
The Right to Time Here - 4
I cannot believe that anyone in the environment before I presented my book really thought that there would be a precut time for the judges and/or the guy open for them to use it any way they want before fulfilling their obligation toward an argument of mine after it convince enough number of those judges. Time cannot delay for no reasonable justification the fulfilment of a contract that did not give a precut time. There is no such justification here. The case was denied and therefore the offer I made should be assumed as starting from a point preceding the authority of the judges and that makes it the top controller here. Did anyone take the acceptance of the judges and the guy to the offer as conditional requiring such right to time? Did they present themselves in a way that fits such conditional acceptance? Did they show involvement in the offer for themselves beyond just judging the quality of the argument I would present and fulfilling their obligation accordingly? Could claiming such right to time be anymore baseless with an overwhelming amount of signs to the contrary witnessed by everyone?
By the way, even had this situation been already resolved, I still would have been arguing that I am the correct one here, unless I find otherwise.
-----
With undenied cases the above would also apply provided that the judges had agreed on the offer as not part of the formal communication. This is not the way things are taken by default and that is why I was wrong in the post of July 17 below.
(Added July 19, 2024)
You can put makeup on a pig and make it win a beauty contest easier than you can hide how this situation sounds like a broken promise. Anyway, assuming the other side had more time from after enough number of the judges read my argument and became convinced than what I have been arguing for, how much time that is? Up to the end of June was not good enough to cover it? What am I in now? Is it my time and therefore if I demand what the other side owes me I should receive it? I already did and no such outcome occurred. Or is it that the other side think it is still its time. If so, when shall the time no longer belong to the other side according to its own view? Or is it that I should not know that either but instead just surrender myself to its power?
-------
My Prior Notice
I am here giving a seven days or more (the choice belongs to me) prior notice for my intention to undo the pause which I have put in July 12 on my demands.
I am considering the question of how much I need to separate the prime actors from the secondary on the other side when reactivating my demands.
(Added July 17, 2024)
The Right to Time Here -3
Even had the case been not denied but I made that offer with the guy and the Court accepting it, the offer would also be the top controlling thing and nothing else related to the case can delay satisfying the obligation of this offer. I cannot see how could that be missed here despite being that much the common way to understand such arrangement.
And even assuming I also said there, like here, that my argument would be like a new case when I present it, that only allows for the convenience to allocate the time to read the argument and think about it, not postponing acting on the conviction to trigger fulfilling the obligation of the offer.
Nevertheless, denying my petition adds support to the first argument here and also, through the argument of July 15, to the second.
(Added July 16, 2024)
The Right to Time Here -2
Actually, a better argument is simply this: It is clear that the offer I made the corruption guy came to fill the authority gap left after the case was denied by the Court. Therefore, if the offer got accepted by the other side, that means it became the top controlling thing and nothing else related to the case can delay satisfying the obligation of this offer.
----
So, again, except for the pause I have put on my demands on July 12, the other side has been in my time and failing to carry out its obligation according to the offer since very shortly after enough number of the judges read my argument and became convinced.
(Added July 15, 2024)
The Right to Time Here
I do not know how anyone in the environment before I presented my argument could have missed seeing it as the final triggering thing for the end of the matter. Things were so much so that I myself in that position felt bad for the time I kept taking and stopped watching TV from April 2023 or earlier until I presented the argument in December 14. I think that even for a fraction of the time that passed before I presented my argument a person in a similar position to that of the other side here claiming still having the right to the time for other things related to the matter would be met with the question: And what do you think all that passed time was for? And looking deeper into the context adds even more support here. It is not like I and the corruption guy have agreed from the onset to take the matter to the judges away from the official path. Instead, this followed the judges denying my petition and all the complaining I did about injustice here. So if the issue here is that much the abuse of power, how much does it satisfies addressing it that dealing with it was such incomplete solution with regard to the powers it leaves to the judges that it allows taking even a fraction of the time that was taken here after the judges read my argument and became convinced?
(Added July 14, 2024)
Like I said earlier, I have been taking that challenge as if it is an abstinence challenge rather than just not being detected. Now I am adding that I would report here my own failure within 48 hours. By the way, how many days did the characters on the Seinfeld show last on the same challenge? Here I do not know how much even longer than a year I could have been into this abstinence and we are still counting (However things happened while in the sleeping dreams twice).
As a guy, I consider that clearly defined point (you know to what I am referring here) as the point if not reached then the abstinence is still on regardless of any other thing done.
(Added July 12, 2024)
Because I do not yet want to burden others with reversing for my demands their path here (especially now with how seeing those demands as a matter of right may be intensified because of the argument that from after a short while after enough number of the judges read my argument and became convinced they no longer had authority to take more time) I am here pausing the demands I made below. Also, to counter the thought that I need signals to maintain this pause, I am also declaring here that I would declare my intention to undo this pause at least one week before I do it.
Actually, because of the possibility of a deadlock resulting from the guy demanding the time according to this pause, I am here declaring my intention to undo this pause (What I intend to do is to limit the pause to only the fully determined period of time to which the Court and the guy have already agreed on before today (July 12, 2024)).
(Added July 11, 2024)
I am again pointing out here that I do not accept anymore having the other side plays God on me for when I would receive the obligation it owes me, which I have won fair and square in front of every one, and I do not care how much it is (supposedly) willing to add to that obligation in exchange for prolonging my being in this situation.
-----
My willingness to accept dealing with me without direct communication and acknowledgement was part the earlier challenge which I won with the argument I made, then I gave all that extra time on it, but now I do not tolerate any of such communication as the main way to deal with me.
-----
I took an exception from my general way of 24 hours time limit for change after posting and changed the title of this whole thread.
(Added July 10, 2024)
I again demand receiving the obligation the other side owes me and point out my refusal to have that delayed in exchange for receiving more.
------
In what parallel universe the other side here is not considered gone back on its word or promise?
-------
What moral person would risk taking the position of the other side? Nevertheless, let me show my position even more clearly by emphasizing and reiterating that if the other side delivers to me double its obligation now even though it could have delivered just its obligation an hour earlier, I still would not consider that the additional amount I received justifies the delay.
-----
A moral person , to begin with, would have not taken the risk of going where the other side has gone here, and assuming such person does then just one direct declaration of those I kept repeating would have been enough to correct that path.
(Added July 9, 2024)
I have just noticed that I erred in the starting post below when I assumed that denying the petition keeps only the granted authority. However, I also noticed that I did not need to go that complicated approach. Instead I now focus directly on the issue itself and ask: How many in the environment before I presented my book took providing a convincing second amendment argument as sufficient on its own to trigger very close in time fulfillment for the offer amount obligation on the other side and how many thought of the convincing as being open to other constraints and restrictions before it can trigger such no delay fulfillment?
-----
Denying the petition takes away their original authority and leaves us to determine what can and cannot be done through the context and the environment just like in any communication between two parties which leads to some duties on them, and the communication here seems to overwhelmingly support that from very shortly after enough number of those judges read and became convinced in my argument the other side has lost any right to delay without my permission delivery of its obligation to me.
(Added July 8, 2024)
I emphasize again that I do not accept giving away any amount of time in exchange for receiving more here.
----
(Added July 6 2024)
It has just occurred to me that I did not need to take into account in the argument I made yesterday my earlier acceptance. The effect of my earlier acceptance being contingent on receiving the original amount by June 30, the failure to deliver that cancels that effect. So, from very shortly after the judges read my argument and became convinced, the other side has been and continues to be in my time and failing to carry out its part of the deal.
I also want to bring to attention that although my argument very probably did, I think that convincing every judge there was not required to bring the immediate receiving of that original amount.
(Starting Post)
While on its face such taking of time has already looked like a bad thing no moral person would risk doing, carefully considering the facts here seems to even put doing that further away from being a right. And except for how you take my acceptance for that while being in this position, I am also including here a big chunk if not most of the time between December 13 or 14 2023 and June 30 2024. Let us start with the fact that they have denied my petition. Therefore they cannot take the matter here with more authority than what was granted to them here. So arguing that those judges have been taking this time working on my compensation issue does not provide even a valid root for a justification here. The burden of proof for that here is on them. Facts are strong in supporting only that this was already handled except for the part of evaluating my second amendment argument which if found convincing would trigger receiving that compensation. So after those judges have read that argument and became convinced, how can even a fraction of such delay be justified for them with regard to acting on this conviction according to the only way they were authorized to act?
-----
Actually, we do not need to look for the facts with regard to the authority I am arguing for, and that is because accepting it is shared by both sides.
-------
Even with assuming good intention toward me by those who have been keeping me in this position, it is scary in what it reflects on them. That is because with regard to my book, I was expecting others to think "hey this guy kept himself in that situation that long in order to do good work" much more than them to think "hey this guy kept himself in that situation that long because of how much he wants money" especially for those who rule on my argument.
-----
Having done the thinking above, it can now be declared clearly and without hesitation that the other side has failed in carrying out its obligation here.
-------
Those on the other side are not just any individuals but judges and not any judges but the judges of the highest court and they are not just on the side with the failure to carry out that commitment but they themselves have been making this failure.
------
