No. 89-425

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1989

_______________________________________________

JAMES CONSTANT

Petitioner,

V.

HITACHI AMERICA,LTD. ,TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., ANALOG DEVICES, INC., NEC ELECTRONICS, INC., SPENSLEY HORN JUBAS & LUBITZ, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON,

HOPGOOD CALIMAFDE KALIL & BLAUSTEIN, and ROBERT HILLMAN,

Respondents.

_______________________________________________

JAMES CONSTANT,

Petitioner,

V.

MARCIAN HOFF, ROBERT HILLMAN, INTEL, INC., TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, and MAKER SMITH & MILLS,

Respondents.

____________________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

______________________________________________

James Constant

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Pro se petitioner


QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether sanctions under FRCP 11 and FRAP 38 against petitioner are arbitrary because:

1. the fraud complaint and appeal were well grounded in facts (the special master admitted that he was unqualified in any technology and was not qualified to testify under oath; see EXHIBITS) and warranted by existing law (decisions of other federal courts of appeal);

2. the dismissal of the fraud cases against the master and the judge on grounds of absolute immunity is arbitrary in the clear absence of all jurisdiction (the district court cannot perform but can only review the Patent Office function);

3. the retention of jurisdiction by the district court to invalidate petitioner's patents in the earlier patent case, using prior art not considered by the Patent Office in granting petitioner's patents, deprives petitioner's due process to obtain a determination of issue under 35 USC 303;

4. the granting of corporate respondent's motions for summary judgement on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel is arbitrary because different claims and issues were involved in the fraud and earlier patent cases;

5. in the absence of the same claims and issues in the fraud and earlier patent cases, the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel deprive petitioner's liberty and property without due process of law;

6. the decisions of other federal circuits, and the applicable decisions of this Court, support petitioner's position (both the Congressional policy under 35 USC 302 et seq. and the case law support petitioner's position, the courts below have failed to show any bad faith on the part of petitioner, sanctions actually assessed are grossly duplicative, unreasonable and do not take into account petitioner's ability to pay);

7, sanctions violate the due process clause because they were made without giving petitioner the opportunity to submit a response to respondent's applications for attorney's fees in the court of appeals; and

8. sanctions deny petitioner's equal protection because FRCP 11 and FRAP 38 treat pro se petitioner and corporate respondents differently.


 

Go back to http://courtreform.coolissues.com/fcourts_2.htm

https://www.smashwords.com/books/byseries/6524