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.      

1153: That other commitment

 I  just want to know how could this guy escape all those occasions on which he was required to deliver what is owed to me? In addition of what was already mentioned, when the two persons playing the two fake presidents were brought into this matter in July of last year, didn't that involve this guy making a separate commitment to them that he will honor the commitment they tried to convey? How did he escape that? And such commitment was for something to be done several months away, so they should be internally comfortable about the way they understood it. Did they understand that it is about just one day and my leaving for shopping frees the guy from his obligation even if there is ample time to do that within business hours before I went shopping and after 7 pm after I came back? 

Were the commitment question I see about only their side toward me, I honestly wouldn't have written this at this time.     

1152: The good Behaviour requirement-2

  A2S4 dose not limit the reasons for removal from office, but when it comes to officials set in the writ to serve terms, it is the only way opened to do that. Because of their continuous dependency on satisfying the good Behaviour requirement to stay in office, a judge can be removed for any charge involving not satisfying this requirement if impeached and convicted on that charge.

But if everything is in doubt until proven we would get no start. And doesn't having the writ referred unconditionally to recognition of good Behaviour imply that it can be taken as a start? If so then removing a judge for not satisfying that requirement needs no more than simple vote. That is if we assume that the original appointment and confirmation was also for all such intermittent change in Behaviour. Otherwise that judge is already not constitutionally holding office. But again, whether a judge get removed or not for such failure what follows from it would not count as supported by the judicial authority (Unlike the practicality issue with reappointing and reconfirming judges, there is no reason to set the original appointment and confirmation to undo this). 

  

1151:

 This is the second time my air condition stops cooling for no apparent reason, and I wonder if it is the work of this guy making someone manipulate the unit from the outside.  

1150: Wasn't that clue by itself enough?

At least when they decided to extend the time for the guy because of that signal I got while watching tv in march of last year, why those in that court were not told?: 

Wait a minute! how could you accept that something you want to do be that much susceptible to being undone or disturbed by external interferences like this unless it is part of your plan to disregard such interferences? This is not even close to being serious work. It is the work of someone playing around and trying to make joke of or humiliate the other side by making him powerlessly under the effect of others like an object.

1149: The currently most pressing question about my situation

                                     (Added July 18, 2025)

Then shouldn't everything be set after satisfying the time extension added because of the excuse mentioned below? What have they gotten themselves into next? Every thing okay and ready then you leave for lunch and come back to them mysteriously entangled again. But it is not just the problem, the whole group is fantastic enough to discover a problem and find a time consuming promising solution all arranged between them like gods with you mere mortal receiving, at best, signals about how more you need to wait (unless of course some other excuse get used or problem discovered). It is your thing and you have just showed them how better than them you are, but still you offered no chance to help in resolving the alleged problem. Because no direct acknowledgment of you, which has been going on for a decade here, is the most essential thing necessary to avoid natural disasters.  And all this for something they added on their own at the cost of postponing fulfilling what they should have fulfilled.        

                                             (First Posting)

 I again want to go back to the issue of how this got extended to this day and ask what would happen if the guy repeat the same thing and demand another extension based on, for example as the most practiced excuse, a signal he thinks I shouldn't receive? Could the excuses of the past period be any weaker? So how could one count on the same process and trust that the result should be different? And again, do not miss how extremely insulting it is to be taken like an object carrying the consequences of others actions like this. 

One promise fails to materialize and then other signals would be sent for a new one as if the earlier hadn't happened, and so on. Do those with good intention wish for me to have been any better in enabling them by going along with their plan? Yet, they kept failing with all that going their way while the bad side kept winning by making something from nothing. Did they at least when that outgoing fake president news was used as excuse for that crazy time extension point out my earlier anticipation to such situation with how much I had been trying to avoid signals? I even stopped watching tv since much earlier and the other side still found an excuse from what occurred in a minute in which I checked the weather online, and against that the good intention side apparently preferred to take a wimpy stand.

I, on the other hand, and despite how I had demanded earlier not to be in this situation but offered no other choice, stood like a concrete wall driving the guy crazy with how I faced his games like sponge balls. Take for example, the incident to which I referred above. I usually pay my expenses with the on the go selling of stock shares I have and try not to exceed the amounts for which I have current need. But on the beginning of December last year I sold much more than the usual trying to signal that I can see that better tax time purpose and I know that this may take sometime. Moving along, the guy killed himself trying to make me think that MLK day is the date set for the delivery. But a week before that day I did another and even bigger share selling to  signal to those with good intention that I am okay and don't care if there is more waiting required, trying to  make things easier on them and avoid them sending me signals, and also show this guy that I saw his real intention. This drove the guy crazy. Unfortunately it had the same effect on the rest of the other side there who psychotically wanted to defeat me. I honestly told myself: What have I done?: They want to humiliate and see weakness on me and I show them such strength? The guy also recognized the effect that strength showing had on them and their desire for anything to fight me with. So he picked that news thing and threw it into them and they jumped on it saying: He is ready for longer time, ha! We are going to show him how long we can take it.

And how about the abstinence challenge itself, which is at the core of what has been going on here, and how he probably was expecting to win in a matter of days but now it is or about to be two years old and he continues to lose (along with those who fabricated through one outrageous thing inside another the rights for him to get those additional chances because of their psychotic reaction to my book)? 

1148: The good Behaviour requirement

 What is this? How do you people accept for yourself such a baseless interpretation for this clause? And they talk about a debate on this issue while the best I can see for the other side is the high crime clause which does not limit the reason for impeachments but simply says that if you impeach for those reasons you no longer can keep the impeached in office. The good Behaviour means what it says which is very far from being limited to that. How could you people allow yourselves to flip what requires continuous and highly sensitive watching like this to its opposite saying the joke that judges are appointed for life and intending it to mean unconditionally? And how does your understanding fit the makers of and other things in the writ? So after all the arrangements they did for congress and the president to have democracy they said we took enough care of the people let us make the judges fixed for life no matter what they do as long as they do not commit those high crimes? Do you also think fish live in the desert? Yes, it is not necessary to remove a judge for Behaviour that is not good but whatever follow from that Behaviour would not count as being from the judicial authority and this is the top focus of the clause: justice and good treatment for the people. 

While misinterpreting the second amendment had much worse consequences, this is much worse in being taken with directly contradicting what it says. It is like directing someone to go east but that person follows that by going not even south east or north east but 180 degree to the west. And just like how we distinguish between stating opinion and being a witness, there is no reason to exclude the ruling judges make from this requirement if it can be applied.

And, again, regardless of their scope, what made this 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

understood as limiting the reasons for impeachment to the categories it mention? 

People! give me something to argue against. It is all empty here!

I have just compared above the level of diverting from what is required in interpreting the second amendment to that of the good Behaviour clause and this takes that to the worst possible level. I cannot take it but as simply lying, and that should not be done at least because it is intentional false accusation to those who made the writ.

1147: Neither Rushing Nor Delaying

                                                       (Added July 17, 2025)     

Why have I kept this not clarified? The reason for this change is that I felt like the guy is trying to benefit from the same bad things done for him to trap those who acted with good intention in that court. He did even more outrageous thing of with same strategy of throwing the responsibility or consequences of his bad on others when I first took my case to this court  and I pointed that out intensely. He unbelievably acted from high ground like he carries very little responsibility for his actions then presented me as the one refusing negotiation.

                                 (Added July 16, 2025)

I want to say that I appreciate the effort of all those who with good intention supported that things should go the way I demanded, here and earlier, and I hope that they don't consider themselves as wrong in that.

Also, let's make it explicit this time: I am expecting not just one day of catch or miss but a date starting from it I would be reasonably sought to receive what is owed to me (Although even on that November date there was ample time to do it before I went shopping and after I came back).

                                (First Posting)

I am asking here that until I request otherwise, all the posting I do about my situation should be considered as if they are not there when it comes to the issue of changing the date that is currently has already been set for the delivery of what is owed to me.  

1146: At least for the sake of respecting reality and facts-3:

(Added July 14, 2025)

Having this situation continues to this day seems by far much more deserving to be considered unforeseeable than any of those jokes they have been counting for him. So if it is as okay as they have been practicing it that compensating one side can come from the other even if the unforeseeable thing did not come from the latter, how much credit have I accumulated because of such prolonging to this situation (Just in case I am being misunderstood, I have been using the word "credit" here for countering any more of what may make them give this guy more time (or take more time from me))?

The prolonging of the situation is on its own against me but what I was focussing on above is its effect on me with regard to the bet through exhaustion and discouragement. And now it seems that they added this recent time extension into even their summer recess for the guy (or took more time from me) because of a recent involvement by congress, counting that as unforeseeable as if we were at home playing and not in what is connected to a legal matter and being handled (or unbelievably mishandled and abused) by part of the government. Actually, it should add to my credit having the disappointment of seeing such involvements not ending this matter on what I felt like two dates set then changed to what we are in now.      

(First Posting)

INSTEAD OF ARRANGING FOR THAT EXTERNAL EVENTS FALL WHEREVER THEY FALL OR CONSIDER IT IMPLIED  THEY SEEM TO HAVE LET THAT LOOSE AND BEEN ENJOYING GIVING TIME EXTENSIONS TO THE GUY IN REACTION TO FORESEEABLE OR EVEN TRIVIAL EVENTS FROM THE OUTSIDE AND DESPITE REPRESENTING A SIDE IN DEFAULT, NOT FREE TIME. 

 The bet could have been itself about guessing the delivery date and I get that emailed to me and that would still be foreseeable because it is an open environment. Also, if they count that much effect for knowing the delivery date because of the encouragement associated with the success it brings, where is my credit for the discouragements resulting from the disappointments associated with cancelling those dates despite the signals that were given to me about them earlier? Actually I should get discouragement credits for such cancellations because of that reason if those decisions were correct or because of the decisions themselves if they were wrong (those reasons could also be switched).

And one could argue for such credit based totally on the questionable (allegedly) signal itself and that should follow from the decision itself whether it was right or wrong. The explanation for the right case is that if the event was unforeseeable to the guy then it was also unforeseeable to me and I am going to carry the burden of the reaction to its being unforeseeable.

But here is a much bigger objection.  Even if those signals were unforeseeable to the guy, how much can you take from one side to compensate the other side because of things affected the latter from the shared environment? Isn't it foreseeable to a party entering such contest that its compensation for unforeseeable things that may affect it from the shared environment could be minimal because it requires taking from the other side for no fault? 

Also, while one would expect difficult negotiation after those alleged unforeseen things for the guy, they kept passing them easily to express their power for positioning themselves as God to me, the guy continuing with his usual psychotic behaviour toward me while they join him into that because of my book. 

1145: At least for the sake of respecting reality and facts-2:

  THEY HAVE BEEN JUST PLAYING HERE WITHOUT BEING UNDER ANY RIGHTFUL PRESSURE TO BREAK THEIR COMMITMENTS EVEN ONCE LET ALONE REPEATEDLY LIKE THIS

Nevertheless, in the meantime one can enjoy how much they are presenting themselves as jokes because of their repeated failure with such none existent reasons and for something they themselves had set themselves to do.    

1144: Watching Over This Court Here

 Because those in this court are themselves in default and/or representing a side in default here, looking at what they are doing should not stop at how much time they are taking but instead must go into the details of what they are doing to solve the issue and how much sense it makes, and I do not know how their plan here with its unjustified demanding for such absence of environmental interference and allowing them that much time extensions and do-overs counts as serious work or good effort. I wonder how many if any other judges justifies that like them. 

I was led to the above while thinking about how despite targeting me with their insanely bad doing it is themselves whom they are lowering with not only their continuous failure of what they on their own had set themselves to do but also with the reasons for those failures and their ridiculously impractical and made more difficult for no reason plan. 

1143: The unbelievable level and layers of excuse fabrications and absurdity here

 First they brought from nowhere that satisfying the obligation to pay me the original amount can wait even if they read my argument and find it convincing. Then they built on it that the guy share their time with them and therefore the bet doubling the offer remains in play. Then under those circumstances and when the time given to the guy was about to end they gave him extension because while watching TV someone gave me a signal about the specific day the guy should deliver his obligation, counting the thing on me and showing either their unjust ruling or how much their work was not serious because of not telling him earlier that he needs to take such possibility into his account. Isn't it wonderful how the environment that has been that much under his control to the level of faking  presidents and government procedures for so long now counts on me? Then at late November they decided to extend the matter to the new year supposedly to give me better tax time but weeks after crossing to there they gave the guy extension of several months more because of a reason as a joke as having a news shown to me about the going fake president close to the inauguration of the coming fake president, and even though as a signal about how long the thing would continue it could be also against me because the date that had been set for delivery was more than a month away. Then despite how all the previous incidents should have prepared them they seem to have given the guy another extension because while I was shopping online on May 28 a Walmart item showed me a delivery date of June 3 which was supposed to be their delivery date. Now I am unable to even guess what could be the reason for crossing into even their summer recess. Is it because I thought congress could have became involved here and because of that I might have guessed the earlier set delivery date (#56738946587463864792) and that is not allowed for me just like a signal about it is not allowed? Or is it just the feeling of empowerment and the guy could get another extension if I hear a song or see an athletic performance with that kind of effect? Or what?  

The above was just a fast summary.

By the way, I want to go again to what I said in post 1141 and ask what makes this guy demand that much no environmental interference other than that they positioned themselves to him like God in that everything falls under their accountability and there are no external factors to them? A tennis player would get nothing from the referee if he complains about the wind. Why is it different here to this ridiculous level? Also, their position after I presented my argument that they had such a pre-cut time allowing for even postponing satisfying the offer obligation despite that they had denied the case strongly supports the same conclusion.   

1142: At least for the sake of respecting reality and facts:

 FROM THE START THIS ALL DID NOT APPEAR BUT AS BULLSHIT AND THAT IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO REQUIRE AFTER FINDING MY BOOK ARGUMENT CONVINCING THIS GUY TO PAY ME EVEN THE DOUBLE AMOUNT THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT VIOLATING ANY RIGHT OF HIS.

(Later even the double amount became more of an obligation issue not just want).

1141: How did this cross into their summer recess?

                                    (Added July 11, 2025)

  I hope that the way I argued below does not eclipse how my record of satisfying requirements here should put me far from the need to depend on a length of time argument. 

 One could also see the argument below as directed at freeing them from any related obligation they supposedly have for this guy.

By the way, and although I have done a similar thing before, to better cut on the games to take more time, I am declaring here and for immediate effect taking that at least when it is about the same amount, receiving that amount on an earlier day and/or earlier time (including weekends) if done between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm eastern time is always my choice over receiving it on a later day and/or later time.

                                 (First Posting)

  So if last year the time was extended beyond their term to compensate the guy for not taking the right I gave him to pay me just the original amount, what happened this year? How did this go beyond their term this time? Or is it that they entered this considering themselves as having the right to time even more than they originally considered for themselves last year even though this one is supposedly a minor thing done just to give me better tax time? Or is it that even outside their time I am being treated like an object taking responsibility for other's action?

What could be the reason that was stronger than how time restriction should be controlling on this matter? 

  Could it be that they have been giving those time extensions to this guy not on the basis that it is within their time but on the basis that their agreement or contract with him requires that? If so, then why did they stop short of giving me as slave to him?

And even aside from all usual factors against accepting this as courtesy, if I got a specially empowering thing why would I go along with canceling its effect for the purpose of making me in the weak position while this guy be more like God in being under no force when he supposedly deliver his obligations? Haven't there been already enough done for him in that regard with this situation seems that much rooted at his March of last year refusal to honor his first agreement because a host on a TV shopping network showed a week or two away announcement for two programs of his squeezing in the middle the day of the action required from this guy? 

With regard to the latter issue, although I have already accused them of positioning themselves like God toward me it never occurred to me that could be to the level that they take their agreements with the guy this much absent of considering how external factors could be forcing for them as well and outside their ruling power. So, when such thing occurs the guy could object to it and ask for sharing their power. Who would have thought when getting the vibe about them having no choice but to go along with this guy on a time extension that that weakness is the result of how they have considered themselves like God? 

For an external example about the above, they could be taking themselves like a referee of an outside sport who does not stop the game for the wind or heat not because they are not high enough to invoke his power to stop the game but because he decided that their levels are okay for the game. So, if such referee takes one side of the match as sharing his power and that side wants to stop the game because of heat even though it is not high enough then that referee making his decision on the basis of sharing his power with that side may think that justice requires him to find a compromised solution rather than just refusing the request which is what the other kind of referee would have thought justice requires him to do even if he takes the asking side as sharing his power with him.         

1140

 How wonderful is this: You take part of one day for shopping and the guy takes about seven and half months of additional time and we are still counting with more than half of the new year (at the time) which was supposedly targeted to give me better tax time has already gone now. By the way, while they jumped December and 4 or 5 days of November, if I were that much into losing time in exchange for better tax time I wouldn't have presented my book 17 or 18 days before the end of 2023.  

1139:

 YOU THINK ONCE IS ENOUGH AND FROM THEN THEY WOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO NEW COMMITMENTS. BUT NO, THEY MADE A NEW ONE THEN KEPT WATCHING IT GETS OUTRAGEOUSLY AND PUBLICLY BROKEN AGAIN AND AGAIN SINCE LAST NOVEMBER TO THIS DAY.

1138: THIS SHAME

WHETHER THINGS HERE NEVER MATERIALIZE TO EVEN A PENNEY  OR THEY DO TO TRILLIONS THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC SHAME AND COMMITMENT BREAKING IN WHAT HAVE BEEN DONE TO ME SINCE I PRESENTED MY BOOK IS ASTRONOMICAL    

1137: The depth of how things have been taken here

 I have already noticed but couldn't believe how things here seem like I am dealing with children in that the absence of frowning and directing the attention to another issue can be taken to indicate that there is no longer a problem with the earlier one. So, what I have been in here is not only that if I get troubled by the situation enough to demand its end based on the earlier terms then the guy gets his way but also that talking about unrelated things is that much open to the interpretation that I am relaxed on the issue and the extra time that allows belongs to the guy? And all this despite the defaulting situation on my earlier demands. Not receiving additional collection letters does not mean the default is no longer there. And it is even more than that here because I have actively in the past brought the attention to that they remain active by declaring them deactivated and then canceling that. 

1136: From astonishingly ridiculous to absolutely nothing

 What is it this time? Why have we crossed into their summer recess time. Despite how absurd they were, I have always been able to detect what those in that court took as a reason for adding time to this guy, and the last of which was the June 3 delivery date shown to me on one of the items while doing online shopping. But this time there is absolutely nothing.    

1135

 Struggling with and do not know for how much longer I can tolerate not talking freely in order not to cross a technical trap set for me.