So, Watchtower made their petition to the Supreme Court. And then Zalkin made an opposing position to the court as to why the court should not visit this case. And then Watchtower again responded to Zalkin.
From Zalkin response to Watchtower petition. (Below)
While the Constitutional positions taken in the petition [by Watchtower] are radical and overreaching, this Court need not delve into them before declining review because of the myriad infirmities with the petition itself, which is permeated with blatant misrepresentations and intentionally-deceptive omissions. [Liars] The petition makes no attempt to explain how any of its questions presented were properly preserved. (U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 14(1)(g).) Indeed, the Court of Appeal decision under review (“the Opinion”) did not address any of these allegedly “important” issues because none were presented to it. Nor does the petition explain why the Opinion meets any of the criteria for review identified in Rule 10. (See U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 10, 14(1)(h).) The failures to timely raise and preserve issues, and to comply with Rule 14, each present an independent and adequate basis for denial of the petition. (U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 14(4).) Given that Watchtower’s answer was stricken and its default entered, appellate review is limited to a consideration of whether the Complaint adequately alleges any cause of action. (Steven M. Garber & Associates v. Eskanderian, 150 Cal.App.4th 813, 822–823 (2007).) Watchtower refuses to accept this procedural posture. Instead, it asks this Court to resolve factual issues on a record devoid of facts and to accept factual representations that are either demonstrably false or lacking in evidentiary support because they were never litigated at the trial court level. Watchtower’s positions are inextricably fact based, and because of the default, the facts to adjudicate those claims are not before this Court. Given Watchtower’s disrespect for the legal system, penchant for violating court orders and habitual disregard for the rules of the court from which it is begging for mercy, it is not the litigant to champion any allegedly important issue before this Court. This is not a case that warrants this Court’s time.
Imagine that you have three arguments that you want the court to consider, and that these arguments are sugar cubes. Imagine the court system is a rainstorm.
You must preserve your sugar cubes. You have to get a big umbrella over them, else they wash away.
So, Watchtower made their sugar cubes, and then put an umbrella over them. The court said the umbrella was the wrong one, and they took it away. Then the court system rained on them.
,,, bye bye sugar.