Petition for Certiorari - Denied Without Opinion Patent Case 93-1413

Affirmative Defenses of Patent Invalidity and Judicial Immunity Are Not Claims for Purposes of Jurisdiction and Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Not Rest on Affirmative Defenses But Must Instead Rest On Affirmative Claims of Federal Rights. Why do Federal Judges Invalidate Patents Without Deciding Patent Claims? With Absolute Judicial Immunity?

Petition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion – Patent Case 93-1413
Affirmative Defenses of Patent Invalidity And Judicial Immunity Trump Claims of Federal Rights

A full text is available at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/355241

No. 93—1413

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1993

________________________________________

In Re: JAMES CONSTANT, Appeal Court Nos 92-55891, 92-56045

Debtor

__________________________________________

JAMES CONSTANT,

Petitioner

V.

STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge;

MANUEL REAL, Chief District Judge;

ROBERT P. AGUILAR, District Judge;

OSCAR DAVIS, Appeals Judge;

WILSON COWEN, Appeals Judge;

EDWARD SMITH, Appeals Judge;

HELEN NIES, Appeals Judge;

PAULINE NEWMAN, Appeals Judge;

HOWARD MARKEY, Chief Appeals Judge;

PAUL MICHEL, Appeals Judge;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Respondents.

JAMES CONSTANT Appeal Court No 92-55995

Petitioner

V.

STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge;

MANUEL REAL, Chief District Judge;

ROBERT P. AGULLAR, District Judge;

OSCAR DAVIS, Appeals Judge;

WILSON COWEN, Appeals Judge;

EDWARD SMITH, Appeals Judge;

HELEN NIES, Appeals Judge;

PAULINE NEWMAN, Appeals Judge;

HOWARD MARKEY, Chief Appeals Judge;

PAUL MICHEL, Appeals Judge;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Respondents.

______________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

James Constant

1603 Danbury Dr

Claremont, CA 91711

(909) 624-1801

Pro-per Petitioner


i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Should this Court resolve direct conflicts between the court of appeal's decisions and decisions of this Court and other Circuit Courts on the following matters:

1. Whether affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and judicial immunity are claims for purposes of final judgements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

2. Whether affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and judicial immunity are claims for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 USC 1338,1331,1343,1334 and 28 USC 157(b)(2)(B) and(C).

3. Whether affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and judicial immunity offend due process when they deprive petitio- ner's right to be heard on claims of his complaints.

4. Whether the appeal court can make its decision without an inquiry into the question of subject matter jurisdiction raised by petitioner in the actions.

5. Whether judgements in earlier cases may be subsequently attacked for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when it appears that the earlier judgements were manifest abuses of authority or have seriously impaired the public interest by deciding complaints on the basis of affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and judicial immunity or have infringed due process of a party's right to be heard on claims of a complaint.


ii

6. Whether a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction of the subject matter.

7. Whether a judge is not immune for violations of constitutional and civil rights.

8. Whether a judge is subject to declaratory and injunctive relief.


4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In earlier (pre-bankruptcy) Cases 1-4, petitioner's complaints were dismissed on issues of affirmative defenses [1]. Petitioner filed for bankruptcy and brought instant Cases 1-3 [2].

______________________________________________________

[1] Earlier Case 1 made claims for patent infringement. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1338. The courts found 2 of petitioner's patents invalid under Rule 56. Constant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (CAFC 88) 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 cert. den. 488 U.S. 892(1988).

Earlier Case 2 made claims that the judgement in earlier Case 1 was procured by fraud, and claims for violations of constitutional, and civil rights. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1331 and 1343. The courts dismissed the case on issues of defense under Rule 56 (collateral estoppel) and Rule 12(b) (absolute immunity). Cases CV 87 6766R17046R1 6592R/73 1 SR Central District, California 1987) aff'd CAFC 88-1195 to 88-1198 CAFC 8/25/8 8 unpublished memorandum decision.

Earlier Case 3 made claims for patent infringement. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1338. The courts dismissed the case under Rule 41(b). Constant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Case CV 88 0784 SVW Central District California CAFC 89-1122 aff'd 4/11/89. 873 F.2d 1451. S Ct 88-1933 cert. den. 10/2/89. ___U.S......., 110 S.Ct. 62.

Creditor's earlier Case 4 made claims for invalidity of petitioner's patents. Petitioner counter- claimed for patent infringement. The district court bad jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1338. The courts found petitioner's patent invalid under Rule 56. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Constant C 88 20101 RPA Northern District, California 1988 aff'd CAFC 89-1432.

[2] Instant Cases 1 and 2 were filed in the bankruptcy court. Instant Case3 was filed in the district court.


5

Instant Case 1 was entitled Objections To Creditor's claims Based On Void Judgements Obtained Through Fraud. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1334 and 28 USC 157(b)(2) (B) and (C). Objections were made under Bankruptcy Rule 3007. Appeal Court No. 92-55891.

Instant Case 2 was entitled Declaratory Judgements That Statutes 28 USC 2072,331,137, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11,12(h), 41(b),56 and General Order 224 [3] Are Unconstitutional. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1334 and 28 USC 157(b)(2)(B) and (C). Appeal Court No. 92-56045.

Instant Case 3 was entitled Deprivation Of Legal And Constitutional Rights, Conspiracy To Obstruct Justice And To Deprive Privileges And Immunities, Neglect To Prevent Conspiracy, And Void Judgements. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1331, and 28 USC 1343(a)(1) and(2). Appeal Court No. 92-55995.

The complaint in instant Case 1 makes four counter-claims objecting to creditor's claims against the estate [4].

1. In earlier Cases 1-4 the courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

_______________________________

[3] Cited statutes were used by the respondents to gain jurisdiction to dismiss the earlier and instant complaints and to sanction petitioner.

[4] A claim objection may raise issues under federal or state law or issues running to the allowability of creditor's claims. When joined with a counterclaim it is filed as an adversary proceeding pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7001 which provides for equitable relief including relief provided by


6

2. In earlier Case 3 the courts lacked personal jurisdic- tion over creditors, and in earlier Case 4 the courts lacked personal jurisdiction over petitioner.

3. In earlier Cases 1-4 judgements against petitioner were obtained in violation of due process.

4. In earlier Cases 1-4 judgements against petitioner were obtained by fraud.

The complaint in instant Case 2 makes 10 counter-claims, namely, that statutes 28 USC 2072,331,137, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11,12(b),41(b),56 and General Order 224 are unconstitutional, that the judiciary's rule-making power is unconstitutional, and that federal rules encroach petitioner's substantive rights.

The complaint in instant Case 3 makes 20 claims for deprivation of legal and constitutional rights (14 claims), conspiracy to obstruct justice and to deprive privileges and immunities (3 claims), neglect to prevent conspiracy (1 claim), void judgements (1 claim), and purging defendants (1 claim).

In its Memorandum, under Dismissal of the Complaint, the Appeals Court held that petitioner's instant actions were barred by judicial immunity [5].

______________________________

Bankruptcy Rule 9024 [Relief from Judgement or Order]. See Collier On Bankruptcy 15th ed. Vol. 8 Chapters 3007,7001,9024. Whether or not a claim is to be allowed is a judicial determination. See Heiser v. Woodruff 327 US 726 (1946).

[5] Because of the relative importance of issues and space limitations, other issues decided by the appeals court (Withdrawal of Reference, and Pre-fihing Order) are not addressed by petitioner here.

**************************************************************************

Federal Judges who protected global corporations by arbitrarily deciding the inventor's patent cases in their favor: See respondents above.

Federal judges who decided this case arbitrarily in favor of federal judges who protected global corporations by refusing to decide the questions presented by the inventor:

Ronald S.W. Lew, U.S. District Judge SD California

Schroeder, Nelson, and Thompson, Circuit Judges, Ninth Circuit

U. S. Supreme Court (denied petition to supervise lower courts)

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