Petition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257
()
About this ebook
Petition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257.
9th Circuit pre-filing Order Trumps Lack of Jurisdiction Claim. The method followed was standard, namely, forget jurisdiction and decide accused respondent’s defenses (or apply court ordered pre filing order) without reviewing the petitioner’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied petitions without opinion making them, and many others like them, stand as law of the land. As precedents, these cases have totally corrupted the law.
James Constant
writes on law, government, mathematics and science, as they are and as they should be
Read more from James Constant
Related to Petition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257
Titles in the series (10)
Questions Presented Supreme Court Cases Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari: Denied Without Opinion Patent Case 93-1413 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion: Patent Case 93-1518 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion: Patent Case 96-1178 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion: Patent Case 98-1972. Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari – Patent Case 01-438 - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari – Patent Case 99-396 - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) Patent Assignment Statute 35 USC 261 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion: Patent Case 98-1151 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related ebooks
Supreme Court Petition No 10-1275 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion: Patent Case 98-1151 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHow one of my Pro-se cases got destroyed by federal rogue judges Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari – Patent Case 01-438 - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari – Patent Case 99-396 - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) Patent Assignment Statute 35 USC 261 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAn Inexplicable Deception: A State Corruption of Justice Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsKeeter & Sinquefield's Habeas Cite Book Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsStop Judicial Abuse Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion: Patent Case 96-1178 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCivil Appellate Practice in the Minnesota Court of Appeals Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Art of Recusing a Judge - With Ultimate Loopholes and a Sample Motion to Recuse Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Book of Writs - With Sample Writs of Quo Warranto, Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5An Introduction To Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHow to Process a Legal Appeal Successfully Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Guide to District Court Civil Forms in the State of Hawaii Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsObtaining A Criminal Pardon: Clear Your Name Legally Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCourts and Procedure in England and in New Jersey Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSupreme Court Eminent Domain Case 09-381 Denied Without Opinion Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsQuestions Presented Supreme Court Cases Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAnti-SLAPP Law Modernized: The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Self-Help Guide to the Law: Know Your Constitutional Rights: Guide for Non-Lawyers, #7 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Principles of Pleading and Practice in Civil Actions in the High Court of Justice Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Putnam's Handy Law Book for the Layman Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRule Haiku: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCalifornia Supreme Court Petition: S173448 – Denied Without Opinion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Petition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion: Patent Case 93-1518 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFRAUD ON—and in—THE COURT Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Law For You
The Pro Se Litigant's Civil Litigation Handbook: How to Represent Yourself in a Civil Lawsuit Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Criminal Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLaw For Dummies Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Win In Court Every Time Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The ZERO Percent: Secrets of the United States, the Power of Trust, Nationality, Banking and ZERO TAXES! Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Legal Words You Should Know: Over 1,000 Essential Terms to Understand Contracts, Wills, and the Legal System Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Know Your Rights: A Survival Guide for Non-Lawyers Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLegal Writing in Plain English: A Text with Exercises Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Estate & Trust Administration For Dummies Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLegal Writing: QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Paralegal's Handbook: A Complete Reference for All Your Daily Tasks Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Think Like a Lawyer--and Why: A Common-Sense Guide to Everyday Dilemmas Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Wills and Trusts Kit For Dummies Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Verbal Judo, Second Edition: The Gentle Art of Persuasion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Everything Guide To Being A Paralegal: Winning Secrets to a Successful Career! Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Drafting Affidavits and Statements Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail--Every Place, Every Time Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/58 Living Trust Forms: Legal Self-Help Guide Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks For Dummies Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Family Trusts: A Guide for Beneficiaries, Trustees, Trust Protectors, and Trust Creators Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Jews Don’t Count Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Legal Demand Letters: A+ Guides to Writing, #10 Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Science Fiction Collection Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Law Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for Petition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Petition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257 - James Constant
Petition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257
Court Pre-filing Order Trumps Lack of Jurisdiction Claim
By James Constant
Smashwords Edition
Copyright © 1994 by James Constant
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
CASE BACKGROUND IN THE INVENTOR’S OWN WORDS IN PLAIN ENGLISH
This case illustrates why the American judicial system has become the greatest threat to inventor’s rights. When a patent owner claims patent infringement of his patent by a corporation, the federal court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim and the alleged infringer has a right to bring up his defense. It is important to follow this order because, if the court decides, as required by its jurisdiction, that the owner’s patent infringes the corporation’s patent the corporation will hesitate to bring up its defense of patent invalidity lest its own patent also becomes invalid. However, to protect corporate interests, judges decide the corporation defense of patent invalidity without hearing and deciding the owner’s claim of patent infringement. This happens most frequently when the patent owner is an individual and the alleged infringer is a large corporation. In theory, judges who hear and decide cases without jurisdiction lose immunity and, just like other government employees, should be subject to civil rights violations. In practice, to protect themselves and their corporate sponsors, judges have no fear to jump the law.
In 1985, Mr. Constant brought suit in the Central District of California against twenty companies for patent infringement. Judge Wilson granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in that action, finding Constant's patents invalid and his constitutional challenges to 35 U.S.C. 282 without merit. Constant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Case No. CV 85-0262-SVW (hereinafter First Patent Case
) Judge Wilson's decision was upheld on appeal, and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. Constant v. Advanced Micro Devices,Inc. (CAFC 88)848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 cert. den. 109 S.Ct. 228 (1988)
This is a 15 year case. Following the lower court’s finding that his patents were invalid, without hearing his claims for patent infringement, Mr. Constant sought relief by making appeals seeking review to reverse the lower court’s decision. Some dozen appeals reaching the Supreme Court were filed against corporate defendants and judges. In each appeal, Constant raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for finding his patents invalid without deciding his claims for patent infringement. Under pressure for payment of costs and attorney’s fees to corporations, he declared bankruptcy and his corporate adversaries, always with the assistance of judges, claimed and obtained the balance of his intellectual property.
The courts denied Constant’s petitions, some without opinion, and some setting their opinions not for publication and sanctions and pre filing orders were made. The method followed was standard, namely, forget jurisdiction and decide accused respondent’s defenses (or apply court ordered pre filing order) without reviewing the petitioner’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied Constant’s petitions without opinion making them, and many others like them, stand as law of the land. As precedents, these cases have totally corrupted the law. Mr. Constant’s large patent portfolio was confiscated in bankruptcy, his business was ruined and he was left penniless. For Constant, the judicial system turns the individual’s constitutional rights into mythology. For details of this inventor’s ordeal see
http://www.coolissues.com/patentcases/jamesconstant.htm
Appendix A