In review, I told Selimi at the end of the job, even after his arrogance and pride did abuse my life: just pay what I have spent and we will end it there. HE REFUSED! Later through negotiations with Isen, to his credit; Selimi offers $10,000.00. I REFUSE (this is roughly 3 weeks later) saying I now want to be paid, and offered $22,000.00 to settle. HE REFUSED! I HAVE waited 2 years, because my nephew , should he be called into court, deserves the time, to re-establish his life. I offer a fair price in accordance with the contract. Selimi refused! I provide detailed accounts of my legal position and the possible threat to his money. Selimi DOESNT care and provides no rebuttal with regard to his position. I do clarify not only is his money to be considered within this case BUT ALSO his position in this society according to the law. Selimi remains silent.
The door to court proceedings is now open/ ALL necessary warnings HAVE been given, and whatever amount of money, whatever punishment, whatever social or business consequence that could exist now becomes the property of judge & jury.
Warning was provided and now, the actual amount of damages sought is in FACT, the total amount of money that Selimi took from the limited time, he operated/owned the business called Village Garden restaurant of Danville IL. This includes every penny of Salary, & every penny of ANYTHING which looks like profit or salary. The actual value cannot be determined without tax papers/ accountants decisions, and as such the amount should be considered as the difference between earlier specified judgments & the total amount of money generated.
The development of reasoning, the analysis of substantial failures as would indicate this award is in fact fair and important, is created in this text, and subsequent trial material.
As told to Selimi, that this would occur if he failed to settle; Reality now states that a person who chooses to gamble, Must then also pay when his gamble fails! Selimi did also gamble he would never be taken to court/ need not pay attention, when I am to be my own lawyer/ and assumed he was above the law.
I DID NOT seek his opportunity to make money in this project, (would I have offered over 3 times less than the going rate for the work). There is nothing hidden in the contract, and no attempt occurred to exploit Selimi during or after the work, ever. Neither do I now attack his assets/ ONLY the money generated by my own work, the relationship of damages to the decisions and intentions of Selimi as they did cost me, and now the reality of removal of power to limit the effects Selimi might have on another life. Selimi provided very little to the process of construction, and likely would have ended in serious money trouble or bankruptcy without my assistance. This is said because Selimi entered into the contract to acquire the property without researching the actual cost, and the preliminary figures (of much higher numbers) which he obtained from me/ HE clearly discarded, believing he knew better. His failure to understand the process is evident in the words used to illicit faster work ( that he might lose everything, because everything was higher than he expected). I provided the stability, the work, the expertise, and the ability to achieve financial help (because when everything goes wrong, who will venture in). The consequence of his failure to accept responsibility issues the right to say/ Awhat I did build, explains what is my work, acknowledges what is my request from the court@.
The critical reality assessed in this lawsuit apart from specific damages allows that power in the form of money, as was granted to this person, from my own work & participation is socially UNACCEPTABLE.
All evidence, as seen by me, of Selimi influence upon society will be developed; based upon this critical question AND ANSWER prior to trial: DOES Selimi intend to testify on his own behalf? If yes the list of people to be subpoenaed is complete, if not then it will be increased. An answer is expected by April 10/01. The failure to answer yes will assume a NO Selimi will not testify, and therefore appropriate ads will be placed in the newspaper inquiring as to who might wish to expand the knowledge of, What it means to work for, or in conjunction with Selimi
The question exists as to whether the 5th amendment does in fact apply to Selimi, an alien who has lived in this country for roughly 20 years, chosen not to be a citizen as an American, and as such has rejected the constitution and what it stands for. The reality of choice therefore extends this decision to the literal consequence of dependency upon the good nature of the American people/ which Selimi has also chosen to deliberately try to destroy. Do you think this lawsuit has anything to do with fundamental liberty/ it does not! Rather this lawsuit is about damage and the intent to due harm to society, by the reality of deliberately altering the life of its citizens. Did I not have to change my life, due to the irresponsibility of Selimi actions/ Did my nephew not get injured; it is true. Therefore an act of social terrorism in its simplest form, to undermine the integrity of critical human relationships, and prove that humans exist which literally can not be trusted. This by itself is the difference between peace, and all manner of social discontent.
Again we return to the personal decision/ personal freedom to be as big a jackass as you want to be. The question again is not the personal freedom, BUT the level of social/ personal destruction which Selimi DID apply to the people he was able to influence. Can you yell fire anywhere you want, just to laugh at the mayhem? Of course you can not, therefore all behavior comes under the influence of social responsibility/ either that or remove yourself to where there are no other people.
We begin in the fundamental question: Does social justice extend to basic behavior in work &/ or business relationships? The law says yes it does; through contract laws, harassment, slander, sexual harassment, extortion, anti-discrimination, and so on. All of these are derived from a simple understanding of the word RESPECT! Respect assures a mutual benefit to those involved, assembles a literal and definable RIGHT to be EQUALS in all matters affecting us all, and demands that Justice not only exists for me but for everyone involved.
The failure to uphold a socially definable RESPECT/ is a failure to uphold the basic contract between the public & its government: to protect and defend its citizens against all attacks. An attack exists when a person such as Selimi deliberately and with malice, plans & executes a situation which clearly is intended to hurt another person, such as myself or my nephew/ also when a person such as Selimi deliberately and with malice assails another with words or actions such as he did with Mr. Scott, with the clear & certain intention of demeaning, bullying, or demoralizing another for Selimi own purposes/ OR If deliberate actions constituting a physical, mental, or emotional extortion occur/ then the reality becomes that a criminal action has occurred or must be considered, when sufficient details exist to prove, a fundamental threat IS POSSIBLE, and therefore life disrupted to some extent.
These actions are not exempt from the law instead the whole law is based upon; the critical definitions which create Justice between people to people/ people to nature/ people to environment! The interactions described of Selimi therefore do not consist of a personal freedom BUT the reality of a social injustice, subject to inspection and intervention by the law and its appropriate punishments.
Justice explains, that actions taken, represent either a Agood & useful@ intent, a personal and protected freedom, OR an action taken which clearly develops the human failures of greed, power, pride, lust, and so much more. These actions are therefore meant to harm, and social responsibility exists to intervene.
Justice is the measurement given/ instead of absolute authority to the law. Justice intends and therefore expresses Mercy, as an understanding of the human frailties, such as youth, stupidity, hopelessness, loneliness, and so on.
In the case of Selimi, NO attempt has been made to clearly indicate a regret exists, NO evidence exists to indicate a change in behavior has occurred in the 2 years following (I know people who work, & visit with him), NO evidence means Athe price associated with his own behaviors is NOT yet high enough, to keep him from doing this again@. The critical question again is not Selimi personal behavior (he can be full of shit as he chooses) HOWEVER he is in America now, and it is a RIGHT under the constitution of the U.S. , as a citizen, that the interactions between people according to law appropriate and to Justice (an inherited equality), shall be viewed NOT only as important, but as critical to the peace & happiness & equality of the nation itself.
This statement IS developed by the court itself/ under such things as the Miranda action, whereby even a simple deviation from procedure creates a cause for a murderer to go free (although this is in FACT, an insanity of; law being more valued than life)! Even so, the reality it creates states: The court is responsible for intervening NO matter what the cost to insure the responsibility of the courtroom IS DISCIPLINE & ORDER> a fact lost when a murderer goes free from an infraction rather than a reason. Irregardless it is discipline & order that represents this entire case. Selimi proves the need for an action by the court, by the very simple reality; failure expends a fair business environment, to become a lengthy and burdensome courtroom battle simply to achieve justice rather than peace.
Justice explains our human reality & accepts that we all affect each others life in ways beyond our expectations. Therefore some aspect of every interaction has been developed from present to past. In my defense of this action/ every REASONABLE effort has been granted to limit or explain my own behavior/ every reasonable effort has been made to educate Selimi PRIOR to each step of this process/ every opportunity to apply reasonable comprehension to the realities of court OR to the possibilities which through arrogant pride, combined with cruelty & violence shall alter the lives it touches, except for one.
To be cursed (it means to be Aspecial@ in hell), prove how your life came to be (from a mudhole perhaps, as the evolutionists say) whatever you prefer/ or accept that you do not know, therefore heaven & hell cannot be ignored. Unlike other possibilities, a curse is an eternal threat, not simply a truth & consequence. To clarify & limit useless debate/ a curse represents a belief in Eternity, a consequence not of this earth therefore not, an actionable cause, but a warning of things that no one can guarantee, shall not occur. Clearly and to the point, no attempt is being made to Aconvert@ Selimi/ simply to inform him is enough.
Here we begin the second Adetail@ associated with this case/ the examination of constitutional freedoms, WHAT is a guaranteed right of freedom?
Limited to a discussion of; does freedom mean Ahe may treat people any way he wants, Irregardless of damage done@? Of course he may not, all law refutes this. May he speak in any way he wants/ the guaranteed freedom of speech is an assertion of ideals or ideology, not a blanket statement without responsibility. Law supports this. The guaranteed freedom to be protected from oppression is an understanding between the court, the government, & the citizen that justice NOT might, NOT power, NOT wealth, BUT the blessings of liberty belong to each one EQUALLY!
As it applies to this case Selimi has made his decision: that his pride is worth more than the dollars indicated in the trial transcripts/ that my life & work & a respect for me as a person is irrelevant to him. And as a result the courtroom shall decide if his gamble has paid off for him/ it is America, and no one can guarantee an outcome (just look at the Simpson trial).
This controversy increases as; not what is fair, But more simply as to what degree are these things owed? Then to what degree is the respect owed to each member of society compromised (who will be next).
The contractual arguments are simple.
The injury created by Selimi, will be measured by the realities involved.
The respect demanded in Social Rights; a matter of personal rights versus the reality of probable public jeopardy.
The question here begins as IF a person without respect, controls & manipulates distinct property or people, Does he/she not compel people in ways that harm society & destroy a peaceful existence for us all. Does he/she not enter the experience of the people whose limited means force them to endure, and thereby change their lives, by a very basic influence of association (prejudice dictates this is a very powerful force in every society).
These are NOT small & insignificant matters & does enter the realm of employer/ employee/ business associate relationships. The clear & significant difference between what MUST be tolerated and what MUST be examined, comes from the purpose ingrained within the reason!
Selimi waited until all the work he needed me for was done/ then like an ass spewing shit, his purpose, his plan, his intent, & his determination in attempting to control me (by taking, in theft, what I needed at that time) and then rejoicing in the expectation of harm describes a purpose which Social responsibility says Athe power, he took for himself, should be removed@.
The assembly of law in this matter enter criminal as well as, civil responsibility (true harassment is the decision to invade & control the life of another, for your own amusement)/ the power is known as the money withheld. The influence, becomes the need to alter life to compensate for the specific damage done. Physical damage has been previously noted.
The question before the court develops as the foundation of discipline & order which appears in every legal question/ the assembly of constitutional intent, Justice, and the obligation of the society itself to create a Aliving breathing expression, of peace and harmony through the opportunity of shared purposes@, in this case it examines the need and the right to limit damage done, and then extends to the reality of intervention by eliminating the possibility through the specific evaluation of money as power/ and power as the existence of control and manipulation when the effects of power/ money exceed a responsible action.
The Constitutional effect, found in the words of the Declaration of Independence: A Y.laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness@. CLEARLY express the definitions of Society, co-exist with personal freedoms as dominant, NOT inferior to personal freedoms. This is a relationship to safety, that can not be dismissed/ The association of BAD behaviors, must be dealt with effectively or society suffers. Our relationship to happiness exists in personal freedom/ therefore when one person controls & manipulates other people, in ways which constitute little more than the definitions of ridicule & absolute arrogance. These DO erupt in violence and evil for society either from those who are abused or from the abuser. Ridicule and arrogance because of a lack of direction in life and love, become for those who have goals, and play games, a demand they accept Aloser@ as their status in life/ some surrender, some quit playing games and learn better, some turn aggressive and volatile. These things are a defiance to the concept of EQUALITY, and work to destroy the various levels of society, a direct attack against the fundamental quest of the Constitution itself, which is HAPPINESS through the ability to choose. Therefore to refuse to intervene in such a bad behavior, is an opening door to HATRED!
Here the jury question becomes evident: Do the arrogant expressions of pride as is seen in the realities of power (the control of others/ the consumption of resources/ and the destruction of other lives, by reducing their freedom and their happiness) constitute a CLEAR AND DEFINABLE INJUSTICE and in reality, a fundamental DISRESPECT for the lives who work for, fought for, & died for a FREEDOM explained by the words: WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to YY..alterY..and to instituteYits foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.
This is NOT a revolutionary statement/ INSTEAD this is a statement understanding that the peace and happiness of any society is dependent upon an HONEST RESPECT FOR ALL CITIZENS! The second question to the jury becomes, when does too much power become detrimental to society? And then, when does personal freedoms deter from society to the extent that they NEED to be reined in?
Some will say, this is not a question for the citizenry of a nation/ yet this nation says it is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people! Therefore that excuse is not relevant here!
Some will say, there is no right of precedent for such a legal question to be presented to a civil court. The first amendment says otherwise: it reads, ACongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances@. Therefore it is stated: Because this matter, exists throughout society and fundamentally deters peace, and creates harm/ the jury (a representation of the citizenry) DOES have the right to petition, NOT CHANGE, but legally require the congress of the United States, to hear our complaint and JUSTIFY why this is so; EXPLAIN the Constitutionality according to documents (These documents are the nation, for they assembled the sacrifice, which bore the nation. As a relationship to reality; George Washington did not create the nation, nor did the writers of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Or the Declaration of Independence/ it was the men and women who found the words worth fighting for that won it, created it, and became it.)
The demand to adhere to Constitutional intent, the obligation to adhere to Constitutional values, the RESPECT which allows the citizen to say to the government/ the RESPECT which requires the government to listen and PROPERLY response to the citizen, are expectations which CANNOT be denied without the existence of TREASON. A reality of HONOR exists or a reality of revolution has invaded the government and created a tyranny and a danger to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it must be changed PEACEFULLY!
Returning to the appropriateness of this case, the reality involved is the analysis of a social right/ a social abuse/ a social punishment. The question of a social right, is not as a personal freedom UNLESS it is personal to YOU! All interactions which directly affect or change any other life, or the environment within which we live (in irreparable ways) is CLEARLY a social issue, and we the people you affect, DO HAVE A RIGHT TO INTERVENE! The issue is the probable or possible (carefully chosen) damage, done to society/ and the descriptions of money or enforcement by power, of Realities which establish a need for social responsibility. Purposes if not beneficial, MUST NOT BE HARMFUL, PROMISES DON=T COUNT!
The question to the jury becomes: Does the constitution regulate the existence of control, over OTHER (not your own)lives in society, by limiting significant harm, to society or the individual? Does it have the constitutional right or the obligation? If it does, then the reality of money, as applied to power that causes harm CLEARLY is also regulated.
The reality of money does express the statement; I worked for this, I want this, I demand this, as the benefit of my freedom.
The reality of money therefore becomes embattled with the responsibility of society to society, to insure EQUALITY to its citizens! Not as the control of money, but as the control of damage created by money or power.
Equality means, that like all laws against discrimination: Ajust because society has allowed you the position to make choices/ society does NOT owe you! Rather you owe society the MINIMUM RESPECT of an honorable decision/ this is the true purpose of the respect society has given to you in allowing you the opportunity to make a choice for us!@
These matters relinquish the definition of this trial from civil to public. As such Society must be involved and educated among the intricacies of the trial, and public access must be granted. Accordingly notice is given that attempts to introduce the public to these matters/ through distribution of the court papers filed, by both parties, shall begin within 12 days of the filing date stamped upon the document by the court.
The only alternative is a gag order by the court, which must be supported by law, and will be contested.
The mistake of being involved with Selimi, and the unexpected surprise of being in court over this matter/ has confronted me with the evidence that some of my work has directly given him power over others, my basic beliefs, Amy religion@ if you will which is my life, demands a minimum response to this matter, of a clear & certain behavioral change or the removal of inappropriate power as was provided by my efforts.
Selimi has been confronted by this fact, and remains unconvinced, therefore it is he who made the decision to substantiate and choose a trial and its consequences/ HE was warned of this in advance, and He has chosen.
Any decision, regarding the use of Asimple-minded language@ to describe Selimi actions against me will be counter-sued in a later trial against the inflammatory words Selimi said to me as I left the job site for the last time, QUOTE: Ahave you been sleeping with dogs@, as he was laughing for himself, as I pulled out of the parking lot.
The social definitions which govern all political & social stability are not limited to a few elected officials? IF IT IS, then this is NOT a government of the people, by the people, and for the people! The demand is a simple one/ to exercise the fundamental rights provided within, the first amendment, and the distinct liberty, of a society wherein the power is not created by any persons hand or voice/ RATHER the words which contain the power, and therefore the right have been selected by the people, as a Constitution, Bill of Rights, And a Declaration. For the clear and simple purpose of a working society, created through cooperation and respect for each other/ NOT a place where power or money runs rampant through the streets, like a bull in a china shop, so to speak/ NOT where money or power are given priority over LIFE!
Issue is taken with regard to the presentation of a full trial as opposed to a simple trial/ the answer is, IF I am dragged into court, THEN WE do need to fix this problem.