`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`Alejandro Evaristo Perez,
`
`Pro Se Petitioner
`
`v.
`The Walt Disney Company,
`
`Responder
`
`To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth
`Circuit (#22-20084)
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`PRO SE PETITIONER:
`ALEJANDRO EVARISTO PEREZ
`9233 WESTHEIMER, #405
`HOUSTON, TX 77063
`(214) 762-0075
`aleiandro.evaristo.nerez@gmail.com
`
`RESPONDER:
`ELIZABETH KRISTIN DUFFY
`2200 ROSS AVENUE
`SUITE 2800
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`(214) 740-8800
`eduffy@lockelord.com
`
`received
`JUN - 8 2023
`
`
`
`1
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`The question is “Whether conspiring against and failing to
`
`defend a copyright holder in his own Federal Jurisdiction is
`
`a violation of US Code Title 17 (Copyrights), a violation of
`
`US Code Title 15 (Monopolies Restricting Trade), and
`
`violates legal precedence of ‘Rossi V. Motion Picture
`
`Association Of America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000. 1007 (9th Cir.
`
`2004)’? Or whether the US Supreme Court wants additional
`
`criminal charges to the conspirators like perjury (US Code
`
`Title 18. § 1621), tampering with evidence (18 U.S. Code §
`
`1519). fraud (18 U.S. Code § 1341) and other criminal
`
`charges?”. The choices presented are between politely
`
`forcing the Federal Judges to do their “Umpire” jobs, or clean
`
`their own Judicial System by jailing conspirators and
`
`retiring Fallen Judges. Below are the questions that the 5th
`
`Circuit Judges were supposed to be answer^ “Why do the
`
`Conspirators just buy the Pro Se Party’s US copyrights via
`
`royalty agreement and depublished or monetize at will?”;
`
`
`
`11
`
`“Why are our TXSD Federal Judges failing to protect the
`
`resident copyright holders who entitled to any Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment (FRCP 56)?”; “Why are our TXSD
`
`Federal Judges choosing to violate docket sequences, violate
`
`chronology, and legal precedence?”; “Why are our TXSD
`
`Federal Judges pretending that the Appellee(s) do not
`
`operate in the TXSD Jurisdiction?”; “Why are our TXSD
`
`Federal Judges allowing an Unsigned Magistrate (No
`
`Consent Form) to openly violate 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)?”; “Why
`
`are our TXSD Federal Judges choosing late incomplete
`
`motions without proposed orders that violate FRCP 12
`
`(‘Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.’(A)(i)’s 21-day
`
`deadline) and FRCP 15 (1st Amended Complaint as ‘Matter
`
`of Course’)?”; “Are the TXSD Federal Judges determining
`
`venue choices for total strangers without any legal contracts
`
`without any Change of Venue?”; “Are the TXSD Federal
`
`Judges part of the unnecessary conspiracy to restrict trade
`
`and stalled the copyright holder’s US Code 17 rights?”.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Ill
`
`LIST OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`US Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit
`
`22-20084
`
`Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Appellant. The Walt
`
`Disney Company, Appellee
`
`Date of Final Opinion: April 26 2023
`
`Texas Southern District (TXSD) Federal Court
`
`4:21-cv-00765
`
`Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Plaintiff v. “Disney
`
`Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, et la”, Defendant
`
`Date of Final Opinion: February 09, 2022
`
`California Central District (CACD) Federal Court
`
`2:21-cv-03490-JFW-E
`
`Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Plaintiff v. The Walt
`
`Disney Company, Defendant
`
`Date of Final Opinion: July 01, 2021
`
`
`
`IV
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`LIST OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`OPINION BELOW
`
`1
`
`1X1
`
`IV
`
`,vi
`
`1
`
`1
`
`JURISDICTION AND INTERESTED PARTIES...... 1
`
`STATUTES & CASES PROVISIONS INVOLVED ....4
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`APPENDIX & ADMIN REQUIREMENTS
`
`19
`
`25
`
`27
`
`30
`
`31
`
`
`
`V
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
`
`APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Opinion by Appeal Judges who broke legal precedence when
`
`failing to enforce the agreed-on case of “Rossi V. Motion
`
`Picture Association Of America Inc.” in an attempt to
`
`comprise between Parties, (April 26, 2023)
`
`la
`
`Opinion by the Fallen Judge Keith Ellison who failed to
`
`protect the copyright holder in their own jurisdiction, who
`
`used a late incomplete Motion to Dismiss, ignored caselaw,
`
`and violated many Federal Rules of Civil Procedures
`
`(February 09, 2022)
`
`5a
`
`The Denial Of Informal Petition For Panel Rehearing and
`
`Rehearing En Banc by Judges who failed legal precedence
`
`and failed to enforce the agreed-on case of “Rossi V. Motion
`
`Picture Association Of America Inc.” as a comprise between
`
`Parties, (May 12, 2023)
`
`8a
`
`
`
`VI
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`US CODES
`
`17 U.S.C. Chapter 5 “Copyright Infringements”...!, 4, 27, 28
`
`15 U.S.C. Chapter 1 § 1 “Conspiracy”
`
`i, 4, 5, 127, 28
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1654 “Personal Appearance”
`
`5
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1341 “Frauds and Swindles”
`
`i, 6, 27, 28
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1519 “Tampering with Evidence”
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1621 “Perjury”
`
`US FEDERAL CASES
`
`i,8
`
`i, 27, 28
`
`Rossi V Motion Picture Association Of America Inc.,
`
`9th Cir, No. 03*16034 (2004)
`
`i, v, 10 * 11,
`
`16, 19, 20 *21, 23* 26, 28, la, 7a, 8a, 9a
`
`Alejandro Evaristo Perez v. Linkedln Corporation,
`
`Sup. Ct. No. 22-726 (2023)
`
`2, 11-12, 15, 24, 33
`
`Sup. Ct. No. 21M120 (2022)
`
`2, 11-12, 15
`
`Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,
`
`9th Circuit, 938 F. 2d 986, 992, (1991)
`
`11, 13, 20
`
`
`
`Vll
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`US FEDERAL CASES
`
`Haines v. Kerner,
`
`Supreme Court, No. 70-5025 (1972)
`
`14, 32
`
`Resnick v. Hayes,
`
`9th Circuit, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (2000)
`
`14, 32
`
`McKinney v. De Bord,
`
`9th Circuit, 507 F.2d 501, 504, (1974)
`
`14, 32
`
`Faretta v. California,
`
`Supreme Court, No. 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
`
`14, 32
`
`USA v. Automated Medical Laboratories,
`
`4th Circuit, 770 F.2d 399 (1985)
`
`15, 30
`
`USA v. Cincotta,
`
`1st Circuit, 689 F.2d 238, 241-42 (1982)
`
`15, 30
`
`State Of Oklahoma v Shriver,
`
`US Supreme Court, No. 21-985 (2022)
`
`15, 33
`
`International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`
`Sup. Ct„ 326 U.S. 310, No. 107 (1945)
`
`16
`
`
`
`Vlll
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
`
`JUDICIAL RULES
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 40 “Veterans and Military”
`
`2, 12, 31, 33, 9a
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(l)(A)(i)’, “21-Day Deadline”
`
`ii, 17, 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)&(b), “Amendments”..ii, 3, 4, 17 - 19, 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, “Default; Default Judgment”
`
`22-23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, “Summary Judgment”
`
`ii, 11, 20, 22
`
`
`
`1
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Alejandro Evaristo Perez, the Pro Se Petitioner, respectfully
`
`petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the unjust
`
`judgment of polite Judges who work in the Court of Appeals
`
`for the Fifth Circuit and the Fallen Judge Ellison from the
`
`Federal District Court of the Southern District of Texas.
`
`OPINION BELOW
`
`The opinion of the Appeal Judges (App. la) in the Fifth
`
`Circuit is reported at 5th Cir. 22-20084 as mentioned in the
`
`Table of Authorities. The opinion of the district court (App.
`
`5a) is reported at TXSD 4:21-cv-00765.
`
`JURISDICTION & INTERESTED PARTIES
`
`The Fifth Circuit entered judgment on April 26 2023,
`
`and ignored an unrequired informal combined petition for
`
`panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on May 12, 2023
`
`(App. 8a). The Judgment Order had a Pro Se Clause of “If
`
`you were unsuccessful in the district court and/or on appeal.
`
`
`
`2
`
`and are considering filing a petition for certiorari in the
`
`United States Supreme Court, you do not need to file a
`
`motion for stay of mandate under Fed. R. App. P. 41. The
`
`issuance of the mandate does not affect the time, or your
`
`right, to file with the Supreme Court.” With such a “Pro Se
`
`Right-To-File” clause granted by the 5th Circuit Court, the
`
`Pro Se Appellant is acting on this clause and thus filing this
`
`official PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the US
`
`Supreme Court.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. Section 1254(l) “Courts of appeals! Certiorari;
`
`Certified Questions”. US Army Officer Alejandro Evaristo
`
`Perez is the Pro Se Petitioner and requesting Rule 40 be
`
`enforced when filing his MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`
`PROCEED AS A VETERAN. The Pro Se Petitioner is still
`
`politely offering the US Supreme Court to refund the $300
`
`the Pro Se Petitioner and apologize for their multiple Rule
`
`40 violations in “Perez vs Linkedln” (Case No. 22-726 and
`
`No. 21M120.). IAW US Supreme Court Rule 29.6 “corporate
`
`
`
`3
`
`disclosure statement” (CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF
`
`INTERESTED PARTIES) was finally validated on 08 June
`
`2021 in CACD 2:21-cv-03490-JFW-E (Docket#34) with a
`
`Certificate of Service, the Responder, “The Walt Disney
`
`Company” corporation, declared that “The Walt Disney
`
`Company states that is has no parent corporation and that
`
`no publicly held corporation owns more than 10% of The
`
`Walt Disney Company's stockIAW FRCP 15 “Matter of
`
`Course” and once validated in the Federal Courts, the Pro Se
`
`Appellant filed the 1st Amended Complaint in the docket for
`
`case TXSD 4:21-cv00765, which our Honorable Judge
`
`Charles Eskridge accepted and Parties agreed on, when our
`
`Honorable Judge Charles Eskridge recused himself on 24
`
`January 2022. In fact, our Honorable Judge Charles
`
`Eskridge added both “THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY’ and
`
`“DISNEY CORPORATION” on his order, which inspired the
`
`Pro Se Appellant to punish more unethical Disney Villains
`
`via new amended complaints and the use of the “et la”
`
`
`
`4
`
`concept. The TXSD Judges and 5th Circuit Judges accepted
`
`different amended complaints (FRCP 15). FYI, the
`
`copyrighted novels had disclaimers to include parody.
`
`STATUTES & CASES PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`17 U.S.C. Chapter 5
`
`Copyright Infringements and Remedies
`
`Ҥ 501 (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive
`
`rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections
`
`106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section
`
`106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into
`
`the United States in violation of section 602, is an
`
`infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the
`
`case may be.” The Pro Se Appellant owns the
`
`copyrights and submitted the copyrights to evidence,
`
`while the Appellee does not and conspired a shutdown
`
`in the Amazon platform via false claims of ownership.
`
`15 U.S.C. Chapter 1 § 1
`
`
`
`5
`
`Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
`
`“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or
`
`otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
`
`commerce among the several States, or with foreign
`
`nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who
`
`shall make any contract or engage in any combination
`
`or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be
`
`deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof,
`
`shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000
`
`if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or
`
`by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both
`
`said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1654
`
`Appearance personally or by Counsel
`
`“In all courts of the United States, the parties may
`
`plead and conduct their own cases personally or by
`
`counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively,
`
`are permitted to manage and conduct cause therein.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1341
`
`Frauds and Swindles
`
`“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any
`
`scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money
`
`or property (ex. copyrights are intellectual property)
`
`by means of false or fraudulent pretenses (falsely
`
`claiming to own those copyrights), representations, or
`
`promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter,
`
`give away, distribute (or stop distribution in Amazon
`
`platform), supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful
`
`use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation,
`
`security, or other article, or anything represented to
`
`be or intimated (like legal bullying) or held out to be
`
`such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of
`
`executing such scheme (like a unauthorized shutdown
`
`in the Amazon platform of the Pro Se Appellant’s
`
`copyrighted novels) or artifice or attempting so to do,
`
`places in any post office or authorized depository for
`
`
`
`7
`
`mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent
`
`or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or
`
`causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever
`
`to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial
`
`interstate carrier (or stop the Amazon drivers from
`
`distributing the Pro Se Appellant’s copyrighted
`
`novels), or takes or receives therefrom, any such
`
`matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered
`
`by mail or such carrier according to the direction
`
`thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be
`
`delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any
`
`such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or
`
`imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the
`
`violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit
`
`authorized, transported, transmitted (the “The Walt
`
`Disney Company” using emails to falsely claim
`
`ownership of Alejandro Evaristo Perez’s copyrighted
`
`novels), transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection
`
`
`
`8
`
`with, a presidentially declared major disaster or
`
`emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102
`
`of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
`
`Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects
`
`a financial institution, such person shall be fined not
`
`more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30
`
`years, or both.
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1519
`
`Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in;..
`
`“Whoever knowingly alters (like closing a ‘Disney
`
`Store’ in the Houston Galleria within the timeframe
`
`of the cases [Houston Chronicle Article, “Disney to
`
`close Galleria store in next few weeks”, 21SEP2021]),
`
`destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or
`
`makes a false entry in any record, document, or
`
`tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or
`
`influence the investigation or proper administration
`
`of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
`
`
`
`9
`
`department (like trying to reduce subsidiaries’ TXSD
`
`jurisdiction presence by closing the Disney Galleria
`
`Store) or agency of the United States or any case filed
`
`under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any
`
`such matter or case, shall be fined under this title,
`
`imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1621
`
`Perjury
`
`“Whoever— l)having taken an oath before a
`
`competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in
`
`which a law of the United States authorizes an oath
`
`to be administered, that he will testify, declare,
`
`depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony
`
`(like the emails between Amazon Inc., “The Walt
`
`Disney Company”, and Alejandro Evaristo Perez
`
`where Pro Se Appellant attached his copyrights files),
`
`declaration (like an Unsigned Magistrate writing on
`
`the Federal Docket), deposition (like filing a late
`
`
`
`10
`
`incomplete Motion to Dismiss as “valid”), or certificate
`
`by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to
`
`such oath states or subscribes any material matter
`
`which he does not believe to be true; or (2)in any
`
`declaration, certificate, verification, or statement
`
`under penalty of perjury as permitted under section
`
`1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully
`
`subscribes as true any material matter which he does
`
`not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall,
`
`except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be
`
`fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
`
`years, or both. This section is applicable whether the
`
`statement or subscription is made within or without
`
`the United States.”
`
`Rossi V. Motion Picture Association Of America Inc.,
`
`9th Circuit, No. 03-16034 (2004)
`
`“The Courts favored Motion Picture Association Of
`
`America Inc., who is the copyright holder in their
`
`
`
`11
`
`own jurisdiction like the Alejandro Evaristo Perez, the
`
`Pro Se Appellant and copyright holder in his own
`
`TXSD jurisdiction. The Courts approved the resident
`
`moving party of the Summary Judgment (FRCP 56),
`
`because there were no disputes of material of facts and
`
`the movant owned the copyright. No IIED claims for
`
`infringers nor conspirators. Only copyright holders
`
`can claim IIED, which is been claimed by Alejandro
`
`Evaristo Perez in the District Courts.” This is the only
`
`agreed-on caselaw by all Parties. The Appellees first
`
`cited and first quoted this case in CACD 2:21-cv-
`
`03490-JFW-E on 08 June 2021 (Docket#32, Page 4,
`
`11). Both “Motion Picture Association Of America
`
`Inc.” and Pro Se Appellant filed Motions for Summary
`
`Judgments (FRCP 56) in their local FederaLCourts.
`
`Alejandro Evaristo Perez v. Unkedln Corporation,
`
`Supreme Court, No. 22-726
`
`Supreme Court, No. 21M120
`
`
`
`12
`
`“After several unpatriotic Rule 40 violations, the Pro
`
`Se Party and the US Supreme Court finally agreed
`
`that unethical actions of the Chinese Communist
`
`Party traitors and Fallen Judges was treason, and not
`
`Anti'SLAPP Laws. The petition was written with the
`
`wording of “IF THE SUPREME COURT DENIES
`
`THIS RIGHTEOUS PETITION, THE PRO SE
`
`PETITIONER WILL ASSUME THAT THE
`
`UNETHICAL RESPONDER AND THE FALLEN
`
`JUDGES’ WRONGFUL ACTIONS ARE FEDERAL
`
`TREASON. THAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES
`
`NOT WANT TO WASTE THEIR TIME ON
`
`TRAITORS. AND THAT THE PRO SE HAS EVERY
`
`RIGHT TO HAND THE TRAITORS TO THEIR
`
`RESPECTIVE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO BEGIN
`
`CRIMINLAL PROSECUTION FOR TREASON ON
`
`TREASONOUS US CIVILIANS.”
`
`The similar
`
`“Denied” clause in that petition is been implemented
`
`
`
`13
`
`to this petition to force the US Supreme Court to make
`
`necessary tough decisions.
`
`Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,
`
`9th Circuit, 938 F. 2d 986, 992, (1991)
`
`“4 Elements Criteria for Intentional Infliction of
`
`Emotional Distress (IIED). (l) the defendant must act
`
`intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct
`
`must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct
`
`must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.”
`
`The Pro Se Appellant is extreme upset that the Disney
`
`Villains have not purchased the Pro Se Appellant’s
`
`copyrights. Instead, the cheap Disney Villains are
`
`creating more chaos, misleading Amazon Inc., and
`
`creating legal problems for all parties. All of these
`
`paperwork and problems are 100% responsibility of
`
`the unethical Appellee’s conspiracy and the Fallen
`
`Judges who are too cheap and pathetic to purchase the
`
`copyrights. The Pro Se Appellant is still offering to
`
`
`
`14
`
`peacefully settle by selling the copyrights and bypass
`
`this very petition.
`
`Haines v. Kerner,
`
`Supreme Court, No. 70-5025 (1972)
`
`“Pro Se Party’s pleadings, requests, and motions
`
`should be entertained by all Federal Judges.”
`
`Resnick v. Hayes,
`
`9th Circuit, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (2000)
`
`“Pro Se Party must be construed liberally.”
`
`McKinney v. De Bord
`
`9th Circuit, 507 F.2d 501, 504, (1974)
`
`“Every reasonable or warranted factual inference in
`
`the Pro Se Party favor.”
`
`Faretta v. California
`
`Supreme Court, No. 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
`
`“Pro Se Parties (ex. criminal defendants) have both a
`
`constitutional and statutory right to self
`
`representation in any Federal Court.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`USA v. Automated Medical Laboratories,
`
`4th Circuit, 770 F.2d 399 (1985)
`
`“Parent corporations can be convicted of subsidiary’s
`
`actions, even in attempts to disassociate or escape-
`
`goat employees.”
`
`USA v. Cincotta,
`
`1st Circuit, 689 F.2d 238, 241-42 (1982)
`
`“criminal liability imposed on the corporations where
`
`the agents are acting within the scope of his
`
`employment.”
`
`State Of Oklahoma v Shriver,
`
`US Supreme Court, 21-985 (2022)
`
`Sample format booklet offered by US Supreme Clerk
`
`Redmond Barnes to follow on 30 November 2022. The
`
`US Supreme Court has accepted other formats is proof
`
`of corruption and violations of Pro Se caselaw. The
`
`same booklet format used in “Perez v. Linkedln”
`
`No.22-726 and No.21M120.
`
`
`
`16
`
`International Shoe Co. V. Washington,
`
`Sup. Ct., 326 U.S. 310, No. 107 (1945)
`
`“Federal Courts have ‘Long-arm Statute’ Personal
`
`Jurisdiction over any self-proclaimed ‘out-the-state’
`
`Defendant that operates in their respective
`
`jurisdictions.” This caselaw is been challenged by the
`
`unethical Appellee, which is why the focus in the
`
`agreed-on caselaw of “Rossi V. Motion Picture
`
`Association Of America Inc.” 9th Circuit, No. 03-16034
`
`(2004), where the focus is the copyright holder in their
`
`own jurisdiction like the Pro Se Appellant is the
`
`copyright holder in their own TXSD jurisdiction.
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 40
`
`Rule 40. Veterans, Seamen, and Military Cases.
`
`“A veteran suing under any provision of the law
`
`excepting veterans from the payment of fees or court
`
`costs, may proceed without prepayment of frees or
`
`costs of furnishing security therefore and may
`
`
`
`17
`
`(optional) file a motion for leave to proceed on
`
`papers...”. Pro Se Party is an Honorable US War
`
`Veteran and an Honorable US Army Officer, and filed
`
`two motions; which the Court intentionally rejected
`
`and insulted the US War Hero.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(l)(A)(i)
`
`“21-Day Deadline”
`
`“(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.(l) In
`
`General. Unless another time is specified by this rule
`
`or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive
`
`pleading is as follows: (A) A defendant must serve an
`
`answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the
`
`summons and complaint; or...” The unethical
`
`Appellee failed to file on time and filed an incomplete
`
`Motion to Dismiss.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) & (b)
`
`“Amendments Before Trial, During, and After Trial”
`
`
`
`18
`
`(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.(l) In
`
`General. Unless another time is specified by this rule
`
`or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive
`
`pleading is as follows: (A) A defendant must serve an
`
`answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the
`
`summons and complaint; or (a) Amendments Before
`
`Trial, (l) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party
`
`may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
`
`within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the
`
`pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
`
`required, 21 days after service of a responsive
`
`pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under
`
`Rule 12(b), (e), or (£), whichever is earlier. (2) Other
`
`Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend
`
`its pleading only with the opposing party's written
`
`consent or the court's leave. The court should freely
`
`give leave when justice so requires....”
`
`The 1st
`
`Amended Complaint regarding the naming-game of
`
`
`
`19
`
`“The Walt Disney Company” required the unethical
`
`Appellee to file a 2nd Motion to Dismiss to match “The
`
`Walt Disney Company” naming. The Appellee failed
`
`to file the 2nd Motion to Dismiss in the TXSD after the
`
`Amended Complaint was accepted.
`
`The Table of Authorities and the above are a snapshot and
`
`synopsis as a reminder to our Supreme Court Justices of
`
`following Statutes, Rules, and Case Law. To be fair, the Pro
`
`Se Petitioner did agreed with the unethical Appellee’s
`
`caselaw of “Rossi V. Motion Picture Association Of America
`
`Inc., 9th Circuit, No. 03-16034 (2004)”, so most of the caselaw
`
`from both Parties is represented in this petition.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Pro Se Appellant is the victim of a very
`
`unnecessary conspiracy to restrict trade against his
`
`copyrighted novels by cheap unethical conspirators (the
`
`Appellee/s) in the Amazon e-commerce platform. The Pro Se
`
`
`
`20
`
`Appellant is still offering to sell his multiple related
`
`copyrights (ex. “The Real Lord VadeU The Destroyer of Star
`
`Wars”, “Empire of God”, etc...) to the cheap unethical
`
`conspirators to end these multijurisdictional Federal Cases
`
`in order to avoid further IIED by the Appellee(s), avoid the
`
`criminal prosecution of the conspirators, and avoid more
`
`unnecessary paperwork. In contrast, the cheap unethical
`
`conspirators are playing legal mind-games to create chaos
`
`with a late incomplete “Motion to Dismiss”, failed Responses
`
`to Summary Judgments (FRCP 56), false Jurisdiction
`
`arguments, name games, tampering with evidence (ex.
`
`closing the “Disney Store” in the Houston Gallery Store),
`
`and utilizing their brands and resources to misguide an
`
`Unsigned Magistrate Judge, stall the TXSD Docket, stall the
`
`CACD Docket, and stall the Fifth Circuit Docket in order to
`
`further inflict IIED on the Pro Se Party, who offered to sell
`
`the copyrights. The only thing that all Parties can agree on
`
`is the legal case of “Rossi V. Motion Picture Association Of
`
`
`
`21
`
`America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 2004)”, because
`
`the unethical conspirators first cited the legal case of “Rossi
`
`V. Motion Picture Association Of America Inc.,” in the CACD
`
`Court (CACD 2-21-cv-03490-JFW-E), and the Pro Se Party
`
`agreed. Yes, the Pro Se Party agreed, because the Pro Se
`
`Party is the “Motion Picture Association Of America Inc.” in
`
`both local jurisdiction and in copyright ownership. The
`
`original decision favored “Motion Picture Association Of
`
`America Inc.” and so the Court protected the local copyright
`
`holder in their local jurisdiction against external infringers
`
`and external conspirators. The Pro Se Appellant’s local
`
`jurisdiction in the TXSD. Therefore, the TXSD Federal
`
`Court must favor and protect the Pro Se Appellant, who is
`
`the local copyright holder in his own jurisdiction like “Motion
`
`Picture Association Of America Inc.”.
`
`Instead following
`
`legal precedence, the Fallen Judge Ellison and Unsigned
`
`Magistrate Judge Sheldon broke and dishonored the
`
`Honorable Federal Judges in “Rossi V. Motion Picture
`
`
`
`22
`
`Association Of America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir.
`
`2004)”. The Fallen Judge Ellison and Unsigned Magistrate
`
`Judge Sheldon ignored the resident copyright holder’s
`
`“Motion for Summary Judgment” in his own jurisdiction
`
`citing this agreed-on case law. The Fallen Judge Ellison
`
`made the unjust decision to choose a fake jurisdiction
`
`argument in a late incomplete 1st Motion to Dismiss, which
`
`violates FRCP 12 (“Time to Serve
`
`a
`
`Responsive
`
`Pleading.”(A)(i)’s 21-day deadline), violates FRCP 15 (1st
`
`Amended Complaint as “Matter of Course”), violate FRCP 79
`
`(civil docket chaos), and violates the only agreed-on caselaw.
`
`Even worst, the unjust decision based on Unsigned
`
`Magistrate Judge, who openly and knowingly violated 28
`
`U.S.C. § 636(c) repeatedly.
`
`Consequently, their late
`
`incomplete motion violates PROCEDURAL LAW. The cheap
`
`unethical Appellee(s) never RESPONDED to any motion by
`
`the Pro Se Party, which is technically a default in favor the
`
`Pro Se Party IAW FRCP 55. The Pro Se Appellant
`
`
`
`23
`
`did apply for multiple Default Judgment IAW FRCP 55, yet
`
`the docket entries were ignored. To stay legally compliant,
`
`the Pro Se Party did file timely complete OPPOSING
`
`motions with a proposed order. On 15FEB2022, the Pro Se
`
`Appellant turned to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal for
`
`justice, to stop this unnecessary conspiracy to restrict trade
`
`against his copyrighted novel, and politely correct the Fallen
`
`Judge Ellison.
`
`On 26APR2023, the Appeal Judges
`
`AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART. The Pro
`
`Se Appellant likes the Appeal Judges’ attempt to
`
`compromise (Dismiss “Without Prejudice”) while politely
`
`correcting the Fallen Judge Ellison and Unsigned
`
`Magistrate Judge Sheldon. However, the Pro Se Appellant
`
`politely disagrees in order to remain as the copyright holder
`
`in his own jurisdiction like “Motion Picture Association Of
`
`America Inc.”. The Pro Se Appellant files this PRO SE
`
`APPELLANT’S PETITION/S (PANEL REHEARING & EN
`
`
`
`24
`
`BANC) like the Pro Se Party did before for the Federal 9th
`
`Circuit Court for case number 21-15234 “Alejandro Evaristo
`
`Perez vs. Linkedln”, where 4 Fallen Judges have been
`
`charged with treason by the US Supreme Court (22-726).
`
`The Pro Se Party prays that the Appeal Judges enforce the
`
`only agreed-on caselaw of “Rossi V. Motion Picture
`
`Association Of America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir.
`
`2004)”, protect the copyright holder in his own jurisdiction.
`
`and save the Fallen Judge Ellison before it is too late. The
`
`Pro Se Appellant gives the Appeal Judges “Safe Passage”,
`
`since the Appeal Judges’ compromise was a polite attempt to
`
`defuse the legal fight. The “Safe Passage” terms will also
`
`apply to Unsigned Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon as a favor
`
`to the Honorable Judge Charles Eskridge, who politely
`
`recused himself to save his Unsigned Magistrate from all his
`
`own unethical illegal mistakes. All Judges have to respect
`
`US Army Officer Alejandro Evaristo Perez (the Pro Se Party)
`
`like other Honorable Federal Judges respected the “Motion
`
`
`
`25
`
`Picture Association Of America Inc.” as the copyright holder
`
`in his own jurisdiction. Will the 5th Circuit Appeal Judges
`
`finally enforce the only agreed-on “Rossi V. Motion Picture
`
`Association Of America Inc.” caselaw by protecting copyright
`
`holder in his own jurisdiction, save the Fallen Judge Ellison
`
`from his own mistake, and save some pathetic Disney
`
`Villains conspirators? Or will the cheap Disney Villains
`
`simply purchase the Pro Se Party’s copyrights and peacefully
`
`settle the case?
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`On 12 May 2023, the Pro Se Petitioner politely went
`
`the extra step of petitioned our unethical Responder, Judge
`
`Jacques Wiener, Judge Jennifer Elrod, Judge Kurt
`
`Engelhardt, and our Fallen Judge Keith Elison via an
`
`informal petition of en bank and for panel rehearsing. The
`
`Pro Se Appellant is allowed to file a “PETITION FOR A
`
`WRIT OF CERTIORARI” IAW the Judgement Order within
`
`
`
`26
`
`a 90 day period as mentioned earlier. The 5th Circuit choose
`
`to follow ignore the informal petition due to timing and allow
`
`the Pro Se Appellant to file a “PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
`
`CERTIORARI”. Before the US Supreme Court, the choices
`
`are as follows:
`
`CHOICE 1‘ (GRANT) “Only A Trade Conspiracy and
`
`Copyright Violations” - The first question is “Whether
`
`conspiring against and failing to defend a copyright holder
`
`in his own Federal Jurisdiction is a violation of US Code Title
`
`17 (Copyrights), a violation of US Code Title 15 (Monopolies
`
`Restricting Trade), and violates legal precedence of‘Rossi V.
`
`Motion Picture Association Of America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000,
`
`1007 (9th Cir. 2004)’? The US Supreme Court has the chance
`
`to limit the scope to only the above violations and the Court
`
`must to explain to the Pro Se Appellant why not additional
`
`crimes and criminal charges should be filed.
`
`CHOICE 2- (DENY) “Conspiracies, Copyrights, and
`
`Felonies. Oh, my!” - The second question is “Or whether
`
`
`
`27
`
`the US Supreme Court wants additional criminal charges
`
`to the conspirators like perjury (US Code Title 18, § 1621)
`
`tampering with evidence (18 U.S. Code § 1519), fraud (18
`
`U.S. Code § 1341) and other criminal charges?” This
`
`decision by the Court is technically allowing the Pro Se
`
`Appellant to add as many felonies that Pro Se Appellant
`
`can find on the Appellees during the related cases (TXSD,
`
`CACD, and 5th Circuit).
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
`
`The US Supreme Court may want to avoid the jailing
`
`1 Fallen Judges and (x) number of unpatriotic Corporatistas
`
`(starting with CEO Bob Iger, former CEO Bob Chapek [still
`
`within the timeframe]) for violating 17 U.S.C. Chapter 5
`
`“Copyright Infringements”, violating 15 U.S.C. Chapter 1 §
`
`1 “Conspiracy”, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341 “Frauds and
`
`Swindles”
`
`violating 18 U.S.C. § 1621 “Perjury”, and
`
`violating the only agreed-on caselaw of “Rossi V. Motion
`
`
`
`28
`
`Picture Association Of America Inc., 9th Circuit, No. 03-
`
`16034 (2004).” IF THE SUPREME COURT DENIES THIS
`
`RIGHTEOUS PETITION. THE PRO SE PETITIONER
`
`WILL ASSUME THAT THE UNETHICAL RESPONDER
`
`AND THE FALLEN JUDGE’ WRONGFUL ACTIONS ARE
`
`VIOLATING 17 U.S.C. CHAPTER 5 “COPYRIGHT
`
`INFRINGEMENTS”. VIOLATING 15 U.S.C. CHAPTER 1 S
`
`1 “CONSPIRACY’. VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. $ 1341 “FRAUDS
`
`AND SWINDLES”. VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. S 1621
`
`“PERJURY’. AND VIOLATING THE ONLY AGREED ON
`
`CASELAW OF “ROSSI V. MOTION PICTURE
`
`ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC.. 9TH CIRCUIT. NO.
`
`03-16034 (2004).. THAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES
`
`NOT WANT TO WASTE THEIR TIME ON FELONS. AND
`
`THAT THE PRO SE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO HAND THE
`
`TRAITORS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICT
`
`ATTORNEYS TO BEGIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR
`
`SUCH VIOLATIONS. If copyrights never purchased, then
`
`
`
`29
`
`Total Award via US Code 15 ($100M per Conspiracy) + US
`
`Code Title 17 ($150K per Infringement) = $100.150M x 9
`
`corps (IAW TXSD Docket) x 3 Copyrights x 4 cases (lx TXSD,
`
`lx CACD, lx 5th Cir, lx Sup. Ct) = $10,816,200,000 to Pro
`
`Se Petitioner. US Senator John Cornyn (Texas - Republican)
`
`[Dallas_Office@cornyn.senate.gov] and US Congresswoman
`
`Lizzie
`
`Fletcher
`
`(Texas
`
`Democrat)
`
`[Fletcher.Office@mail.house.gov] have been informed
`
`regarding “The Walt Disney Company” conspiracy against
`
`the Pro Se Petitioner’s copyrighted novels in the Amazon
`
`platform, since they are the Petitioners’ civilian
`
`jurisdictional leadership due to current location (Houston.
`
`TX - District 7). The DAs (ex. Kim Ogg, Dan Satterberg, Jeff
`
`Rosen, George Gascon) have been inform via
`
`da@dao.hctx.net,
`
`smckee@redmond.gov,
`
`jrosen@dao.sccgov.org,
`
`prosecuting. Attorney@kingcounty. gov,
`
`info@da.lacounty.gov.
`
`and
`
`and
`
`
`
`30
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Supreme Court has to choose between Choice 1
`