No.94-782

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES

October Term, 1994

________________________________________________________

In Re: JAMES CONSTANT,

Debtor.

________________________________________________________

ARGEREY CONSTANT, JAMES CONSTANT

Petitioners,

V.

DAVID L. RAY, SALTZBURG, RAY & BERGMAN,

Respondents.

________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Argerey Constant

James Constant

Pro-per Petitioners

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

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

Does Civil Rule 12(h)(3) require that a court must decide a question of jurisdiction before it?

Does patent statute 35 USC 261 bar a court's jurisdiction to void the assignment of United States Patents by operation of California State laws?

Does judgement lien statute 28 USC 1962 bar a court's jurisdiction to hear a suit to void the assignment of United States patents by operation of California State laws?

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

OPINIONS BELOW .............................................................................................................2

JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................................2

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..........................................................................3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................................3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..........................................................................5

A. Civil Rule 12(h)(3) Requires That A Court Must Decide A Question of Jurisdiction
Before It ...............................................................................................................................6

B. Patent Statute 35 USC 261 Bars the Jurisdiction of a Court To Void The Assignment of United States Patents By Operation Of California State Law .................................................8

C. Judgement Lien Statute 28 USC 1962 Bars The Jurisdiction of A Court To Hear A Suit To Void The Assignment of United States Patents By Operation Of California State Law .........10

D. Conflicts Of Decisions ...................................................................................................11

(a) Courts Must Decide Questions On Jurisdiction Before Them .........................................11

(b) Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Void The Assignment of United States Patents ByOperation Of California State Law ..........................................................................................................13

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

(c) Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Hear Suits To Void The Assignment of United States Patents By Operation of California StateLaw 14

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................15

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A. Memorandum of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered 12 September,1994

Appendix B. Order Dismissing Appeal And Awarding Sanctions of the District Court entered 24 November, 1993

Appendix C. Statutes And Rules Involved

28 USC 1334
28 USC 157(b)(2)(H)
11 USC 544(b)
Bankruptcy Rule 7012(h)(3)
28 USC 1962
35 USC 261

 FULL BOOK AVAILABLE AT https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/333336