NO94-1257

______

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES

October Term, 1994

In Re: JAMES CONSTANT,

PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

James Constant


Pro-per Petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in entering a pre-flhing order, first, on the basis that it made no substantive findings of frivolousness on questions of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter raised in the contents of petitioner's filings and, second, on the basis that the pre-fihing order is overly broad.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals lacked discretion in entering a pre-filing order, first, on the basis that it had a duty to determine the questions of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter raised by petitioner and, second, on the basis that a litigant cannot be coerced into accepting counsel rather than proceeding pro-se.

3. Does the pre-filing order violate petitioner's rights of free speech, petition, and due process as guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments.

4. Whether this Court should exercise its discretion to issue a writ of prohibition/mandamus to stay the pre-filiing order and to mandate that decisions shall be obtained on questions of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner?

ii

5.Whether this Court should determine the merits of questions of jurisdiction raised by petitioner, or should, instead, remand the cause to the Court of Appeals to determine such issues?

6. Whether the questions of jurisdiction set forth in Part VII A and B infra shall be the ones for decision?

7. Whether the principle of finality of judgements shall be permitted to compromise the principle of validity ofjudgements.

PARTIES

The judges of the respondent Court of Appeals are named in the caption of APPENDIX A.

Other parties against whom relief is sought are named in APPENDIX C to this petition.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

OPINION BELOW ................................................................................................................1
THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION ..........................................................................................1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...............................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...............................................................................................2

.............A. Debtor's Case ........................................................................................................4

.............B. Wife's Case ............................................................................................................4

REASONS RELIED ON FOR ALLOWANCE OFTHE WRIT .............................................5
............A. Abuse and Lack of Discretion .................................................................................6
............B. Lack of Jurisdiction .................................................................................................7
............C. Separation of Powers ............................................................................................13
............D. Constitutional Rights ..............................................................................................15

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................17

APPENDIX

.............A. COURT OF APPEALS' ORDER .......................................................................20
.............B. PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO COURT OF APPEALS' ORDER ..................24
.............C. HISTORY OF APPEALS ..................................................................................50
.............D. STATUTES INVOLVED ...................................................................................56

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases .................................................................................................................................Page

Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp.

(CAl 1985), 780 F2d 124,137.cert. den.

106 SCt 2896, 476 US 1172, 90 LEd2d 983 ........................................................................7

Banker's Ljfe & Casualty Co. v. Holland

(1953) 346 US 379,98 LEd 106,74 SCt 145 ........................................................................7

Barenblatt v. United

(1959)360 US 109 ...........................................................................................................15

Chicot County v. Baxter State Bank

(1940)60 SCT317, 308 US 371, 84 LED 329 ..............................................................8,14

Christianson v. Colt Industries

(1988) 108 SCT 2166, 100 LEd2d 811 ........................................................................... 4

De Long v. Hennesy

(CA9 1990) 912 F2d 1144,1148 .....................................................................................6

Dennis v. United States

(1951) 341 US 494 .......................................................................................................15

Durfee v. Duke

(1963), 84 SCt 242. 247 n. 12,

375 US 106, 114 n. 12, 11 LED2d 186 ..........................................................................9

Grubb v. Public Utilities Comm 'n

(1930) 50 SCT 374, 281 US 470. 74 LEd 972 ..............................................................8

Gulfst ream Aerospace Corp. v. Macayamas Corp.

(1988 US) 99 LEd2d 296, 108 SCt 1133 .....................................................................7

La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.

(1957) 1 LEd 290,297 ................................................................................................10

Roche v. Evaporated Milk Asso.

(1943)319US21, 87LEd 1185,63 SCt938 ...................................................................7

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -Continued

Cases .....................................................................................................................Page

Schaefer v. United States

(1920) 251 US 466 .................................................................................................15

Schenk v. United States

(1919) 249 US 47 ..................................................................................................15

Schlagenhauf v. Holder

379 US 104, 13 LEd2d 152, 85 SCt234 ................................................................7

Stoll v. Gottlieb

(1938) 59 SCT 134, 305 US 165, 83 LEd 104 .......................................................8

Swft v. Tyson

(1842) 41 US 1-24 ...............................................................................................14

U.S. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar Co.

(1940) 60 SCT 653,657, 309 U.S.506,514 ...........................................................9

U.S. v. Warner

(CA8 1970), 428 F2d 730,cert. den.91

SCt 194, 400 US 930,27 LEd2d 191 .....................................................................7

U.S. Alkali Export Asso. v. U.S.

(1945) 325 US 196, 89 LEd 1554,

65SCt1120 ...........................................................................................................7

Will v. Calvert Fire ins. Co.

(1978), 437 US 655, 57 LEd2d 504,

98 SCt 2552, on remand (CA 7)

586F2d12 .....................................................................................................11,13

Will v. United States

(1967) 389 US 90, 19 LEd2d 305,

88SCt269 ..........................................................................................................7

vi

UNITEDSTATES CONSTITUTION

.....................................................................................................................Page
First and Fifth Amendments .............................................................................15

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Restatement (Second) of Judgements 12 ..........................................8,10,11,14

Wright, Miller & Cooper Fçderal Procedure

and Practice Jurisdiction 2d 3536 footnote 2 ................................................12

Wall Street Journal 27, May, 1993 ................................................................16

STATUTES

11 USC 544(b) ........................................................................................1,4,15
28 USC 157(b)(2)(B),(C) .................................................................1,2,9,10,13
28 USC 157(b)(2)(H) ..........................................................................1,9,10,13
28 USC 1334 ..........................................................................................1,13,15
28 USC 1331,1338,1343 .............................................................1,2,9,10,13,15
28 USC 1651 ....................................................................................................1
28 USC 1654 ....................................................................................................7
28 USC 1962 .........................................................................................1,3,5,13
35 USC 261 ...................................................................................1,3,4,5,13,15

CIVIL RULES

12(h)(3) ........................................................................................1,10,13,14,15
54(b) ..............................................................................................1,9,13,14,15
60(b) ..............................................................................................................10

vii

CALIFORNIACODES

...................................................................................................................Page
695.010 .........................................................................................................4
3409.04 and 3405.05 ....................................................................................
5

1

PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT TO THECOURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTHCIRCUIT

Petitioner James Constant petitions this Court to issue a writ of prohibition and mandamus to the respondent Court of Appeals, and shows as follows:

OPINION BELOW

The Court of Appeals Order entered on 20 October, 1994 appears in APPENDIX A to this Petition.

THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION

Authority to grant the writ of prohibition/mandamus, sought by petitioner herein, is conferred on this Court by the provisions of Section 1651(a) and (b), Title 28, United States Code, and Rule 20 of the Rules of this Court.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

First Amendment (freedom of speech and petition); Fifth Amendment (due process);jurisdictional statutes 28 USC 1338, 28 USC 1331,28 USC 1343,28 USC 1334,28 USC 157 (b)(2) (B),(C),(H), 11 USC 544(b); Civil Rules 12(h)(3) and 54(b);judgement lien statute 28 USC 1962; and patent statute 35 USC 261 are set forth in APPENDIX D.

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In earlier cases petitioner's 3 complaints for patent infringement and I complaint for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter were dismissed on issues of defense and procedure. No patent claims or claims for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter were actually litigated and expressly determined. in 1989, as a result of demands by creditors in earlier cases, petitioner filed for bankruptcy during which he initiated four adversary proceedings against creditors and judges involved in earlier cases (hereafter "debtor's case"), and the bankruptcy trustee initiated one adversary proceeding against debtor's wife (hereafter "wife's case").

As debtor in his bankruptcy case, petitioner initiated nine appeals. A list of appeals, subject matter jurisdiction and list of adverse parties appears in APPENDIX C. Claims of lack of jurisdiction were raised by debtor in the Bankruptcy and District Courts and in the nine appeals in the Court of Appeals. Thus, debtor initiated a suit against creditors and others under a bankruptcy statute (objections to creditor's money claims and counterclaims against creditors) alleging inter alia lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter'. Creditors defended on grounds

-----------------------------

FULL BOOK AVAILABLE AT https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/358299%20%20