…”In the case at bar, the Court notes that since this matter was filed on July 22, 2009, Neeley has fleshed out his initial Complaint by Magistrate's Addendum, and amended it two more times. He moved to amend a third time but later withdrew that motion. Despite all this activity, the essential claims have not changed from those outlined in ¶1 of this Order. The Court concludes that, to the extent there are deficiencies in Neeley's pleadings, he has repeatedly failed to cure them”

2. There in no explanation of deficiency in the complaint listed in the order except by the implications of actually having deficiencies. The pro se party is not entitled to legal assistance but a plain description of why claims evidenced in the record are not allowed to be added would have been nice to have had explained. This belief lies near the fundamental right to be advised of accusations instead bare abuse of discretion. Ignorance is no excuse, but the Plaintiff remains unable to recognize how claims supported in evidence are still not allowed when Federal Rules of CP 15 (d) states is plain English as follows.

SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS. On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental pleading within a specified time.

The Court may allow Plaintiffs; it appears, to submit supplementation even if the original pleadings are defective unless mystical “Dennis Factors” are used for repeat denial of claims seen in evidence due to mysterious deficiencies the Plaintiff is unable to understand in the Western District of Arkansas. No deficiencies were claimed by any party or stated to exist besides the mysterious “Dennis Factors” quoted as from the Eighth Circuit denial.
3. The wire communication exhibit was not evidence of the Plaintiff acting in bad-faith. The wire communication exhibit reveal utter confusion as to what could possibly be wrong with adding claims that are supported soundly in evidence and utter determination not to cease prosecuting this case even if it must now be done after the “first” final judgment. The Plaintiff will not appeal anything else pending and will await “final” judgment to appeal everything denied to this point contrary to the evidence already in the record or on the wires but not allowed due to “Dennis Factors” that are unconstitutional on their face and are a fraud altogether wherein the diligent good-faith research of the Plaintiff into the illogical and mysterious “Dennis Factors” is added now so that the Court can properly identify a sanction as a sanction instead of attempting to call them “Dennis Factors” in a TOTAL FRAUD violating the intent of Federal Rules of CP.

1-2-3-4-5-6-7