No.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
