◆ SpookStack

— *. a —~O . ') me weer st - read the papers, you would have found that they were for Temporary Restrining Orders Without Notice or Interloevtory Injunctions; NOT for Writs of Certiorari, The Writs of Injunction should have been - issued PENDING the submittels of Petitions for Writs of Certiorari, If you had reed the papers, you would have seen that, If you will read ATTACHMENTS-l.,5, yor will learn the purpose of Injunctions; if you had read my papers, it would have deen CEVIOUS that I am entitled to that relief, The denial of the relief In the lower Court {copies of the ORDERS denying relief were sent previously) is a “clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of - Judicial power" (ATTACHMENT6C), Charges of Judicial Misconduct had been filed with the U.S. Court of Appesls for the Second Circuit and they issved their denial (these papers had been sent to you previously). I had sent thew papers complaining of their denial, In return, I have received a letter from the U,S, Court of Appeals (ATTACHMENT-~7), This letter resulted in Impeachment Proceedings (ATTACHMENT-8) which are in the process of preparation, The CORRUPTION in the lower Courts led to the need for Writs of Certiorari (ATTACHMENT-6A), In addition, the Court.has already ruled that "Extraordinary writs are “reserved for really extraordinary causes" (ATTACHMENT-9), In view of the above, where do you come off telling me that "the Court has no furisdiction to consider them on a petition for e writ of certiorari, See Rules 17 to 217 In addition, if you had examined and read the papers which were recently sent to you, they were for Writs of Injunction : and NOT for certiorari, Therefor, your statements are totally in- correct, My papers DO comply with all legal requirements, Paragraph 3: This paragraph is totally incorrect es explained above, Thus far, since the initial submittal of my papers, you have made different complaints in “quotes? gddressed different Rules, but you were never explicit as to what your complaint was, In slang terminology (but with clear explicit meaning), this is called "jerk- ing me around" in the same manner as the lower Courts where communi- cations were reduced to dual monologues, simply because the lower Courts refused the direct addressing of the issues, and this is true for one of @ few reasons (or all of them): 1, You looked at my name and saw “pro se" next to it and I was ivmediately “disoualified" es a litigant, That means that my papers were never examined nor read, and it explains why your letter fa not in the same context of subject matter as my papers. Yes, I know that the Rules, Constitution and Statutes say thet "pro se" litigants have every legal right to proceed, The reality is called "abominable hypocracy" because the Legal “Profession” doesn't want the “wrong message” sent, You are reminded that this Matter is a Legal Controversy NOT a POLITICAL ONE, 2, You are taking bribes to protect my adversaries, a5 FIR AEA RR a Gd Le ed BEAL fort thong pare mpmaptenmamte tite theapearicme RN THIN ap Rie gR Hp R -te