NO.30,019
`
`N THE
`
`A
`o5-23-zoos
`u.s. Patentsr TMOfc)TM Mail HcptDt. #26
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trademark trial and Appeal Board
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513
`
`PAMLEA HENRY f/k/a
`PAMELA HOLMES d/b/a
`PRO SE-PETITIONER
`PAMELA’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ
`
`Ii
`;
`
`vs.
`
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP,
`A Texas Limited Partnership,
`
`Motion to Dismiss
`
`RESPONDENTI (s)
`3
`
`J
`f
`
`$3.
`gs
`
`39
`
`9?
`(.0
`*‘
`
`Before Karyn K. Ryan, Interlocutory Attorney
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:
`
`:
`/
`
`I asked the courts to not suspended my case. I filed on Nov. 18, 2002 in the U.S Supreme
`Court and I have heard nothing on the status of petition for writ of certiorari. I do not have a case
`number and don’t know if the Supreme Court chooses to hear my case. But as to your response
`I’m repositioning the Supreme Court with my file require a status on my case.
`,'
`i
`Ifthe court choose to suspended by case until I hear from the Supreme Court for appeal
`on petition for writ of certiorari. Will I be able to reopen my case‘? (What is the tiine frame, to
`reopen a case?)
`.5
`I thank the courts in suggesting that I hire an attorney for my case. If I had the funds to
`do so I would never have ended up with such a gross fine. I would have never been denied my
`constitutional rights for a trail by jury for Copyright infringement award of statutory damages.
`Denied the right to have any witness or no evidence was presented on my behalf.‘ I understand
`that the courts would rater deal with an attorney that is more acquainted with the technicalities of
`the procedural, but since my attorney abandon my case I have no chose but to be an Pro se. Other
`Courts have been so kind in providing a copy oftheir fees and set oftheir rules.;i But ifthe
`Trademark Office set of rules does not allow a copy ofthe set rules, or a copy (if fees to be
`mailed. Then I have no choose but to drive to Virginia to require a copy of3101.111’ rules. I’m not
`on the Internet but I will go to the library to look up my case file.
`'
`I thank the court for taking time in reviewing my case.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Pamela’s Razz Pizzazz
`5226 Old River Drive
`
`Moline, Illinois 61265
`309-762-5010 w/
`
`4
`1
`
`’
`
`4
`
`

`
`A§'§"Z"-*
`
`NO.30,019
`
`N THE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trademark trial and Appeal Board
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513
`
`PAMLEA HENRY f/k/a
`
`PAMELA HOLMES dfb/a
`PAMELA’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ
`
`-PETITIONER "
`,
`
`VS.
`
`J
`
`3
`
`5
`3'
`\‘
`
`.
`
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP,
`A Texas Limited Partnership,
`
`RESPONDENIIF (S)
`1 57‘;
`2002, as
`‘_’ 535% &'9\
`I
`I, Pamela Henry , do swear or declare that on this date,
`required by Trademark Rule 2.119 I have served the enclosed PETI ION on each party to the
`proceeding or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served], by positing
`an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each
`of them and with first~class postage prepaid.
`*
`
`Julia D. Mannix
`Davis, Marmix & Mc Grath
`125 South Wacker Drive
`Suite 1700
`
`1
`
`"
`«’
`
`Chicago, Illinios 60606
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on W
`‘‘“‘%‘‘’‘‘’'‘‘v'
`
`2003
`
`<
`
`"
`I.
`
`Pamela Henry
`
`

`
`; W5
`
`
`
` / A0 450 ggv. 5/852 Judgme_n_t_i_n a Civil Case - . I
`
`
`Qbtniteh étates %i5t1’I'£t (Court
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`.
`I
`_
`JOHN ‘
`'
`-
`'.
`JUDGMENTIN A CIVIL CAs1gENTu.$, gfgggacrgas, cm
`FOR ATTORNEYS FEES
`DISTRICT ggflfifmo
`
`.
`
`Is
`
`Lyons Partnership LP, a Texas
`limited partnership
`
`vs.
`
`I
`
`I Case Number:
`
`98-4006
`
`Pamela Holmes, individually and dba
`' Pamela's Razz Pizzazz; Patti Jo Weidner
`individually and dba Costumes by Patti Jo
`
`;
`
`.
`
`I
`/
`
`9
`
`[X] DECISION BYTHE COURT. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have
`been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
`
`IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that attomey fees in the amount of5,543.57 are awarded to the
`plaintiff and against defendant Pamela Holmes.--—----------—--—--—--—---——---—1-----+---—-—----—--—----------------—--
`
`I
`
`I
`
`ENTER this 6th day of Septerjnber, 2001
`)7’/. £1’/b»'@(,4
`‘
`J I-INM._WATERS,
`
`géremp
`
`
`BY: DEPUTY CILERK
`
`I
`
`1/
`
`I
`
`

`
`°
`
`0
`
`5
`
`I
`
`
`
`$211120 étatzs mutt at appeals
`-
`Forflm:SewHnh(3hcuk
`'
`
`'
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60604
`JUDGMBNT- WITHbUT ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Lie: April 13. 2002
`:§ohn-
`Honorable WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`
`‘
`
`j
`
`Honorable MICHAEL s. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`
`'
`
`_ Honorable-DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`
`{, 01-3640
`:
`J
`EONS PARTNERSHIP, a-Texas Limited Partnership,
`I
`‘
`Plaintiff - Appellee
`"
`'.
`] v.
`individually aha doing . business‘
`mm HOLMES,
`I PAMELA'S RAZZ PIZZAZZ,
`’
`'
`'.
`Defendant
`
`— Appellant
`
`
`
`xpeal from the United States District Court for the
`antral District of Illinois
`an
`#
`>. 98 C*Z006, Joe B. McDade. Chief qndge
`
`'
`
`Tne judgment of the District~Court=is.AFFIRMD; with/costs,
`in accordance with the decision 92 this court entered on this date.
`
`.060—110393)
`
`

`
`“V
`
`I
`
`I
`
`‘
`
`’
`
`5
`
`5
`
`I,
`
`/
`’
`
`UNPUBLISHED ORDER
`Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
`
`flnitzh étates Qtnurt of Qppeals
`
`For the Seventh Circuit
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60604
`
`Submitted April 18, 2002’
`Decided April 18, 2002
`
`Before
`
`Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`
`Hon. MICHAEL s. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`
`Hon. DIANE P- WOOD, Circuit Judge
`
`No. 01-3640
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP, LP.,
`' Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`Appeal from the United States
`District Court for the,
`Central District of Illinois.
`
`0.
`
`“
`
`No. -98-4006
`
`°
`
`FKMELA HOLMES, d-b.a.
`PAMELA’S RAZZPIZZAZZ
`
`Joe B. McDade, chief’ Judge.
`L
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`okomn
`
`l
`
`the dinosaur
`Lyons Partnership, owner of the intellectual property rights
`featured in the children’s television series “Barney and! Friends," sued
`costume shop owner Pamela Henry (formerly Pamela _ Holmes) for renting and
`performing in costumes that infringed on its copyrights. The
`court defaulted
`Henryon the issue ofliability and, after a benchtrial on damages, found that Henry
`had willfully infiinged Lyons’s copyrights with respect to the characters “Barney” and
`“Baby Bop” and awarded statutory damages of $22,500 for each work as well as
`
`' Afizer an examination ofthe briefs and the record. we have concluded that oral
`argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.
`See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
`
`I
`
`/
`I
`I
`/
`}
`
`,
`
`,
`I
`
`

`
`No. 013640
`
`Page 2
`
`$55,543 in attorney’s fees and $2,100 in costs- Henry appeals.
`
`Henry first challenges the district court’s decision to sanction her discovery
`misconduct by" entering a default on liability and precluding her from‘ defending
`against an award of statutory damages by introducing evidence that she was already
`using her own “purple dinosaur" costume when Lyons registered its Barney character.
`Henry's prior use, if established, Vwould have prevented Lyons fromf recovering
`statutory damages and attorney’s fees, see 17 U.S.C. § 412; Budget Cinfema, Inc. v.
`Watertower Assocs., 81 F.3d 729, 733 (7th Cir. 1996), but the district court found the
`prior use theory to be at odds with Henry’s discovery responses. Lyons’ had served
`Henrywith detailed discovery requests describing Barney as “a purple, hijghly stylized
`‘Tyrannosaurus Rex’ type dinosaur character” and requesting information on all
`potentially infringing “putative Barnef costumes, which the interrogatdry defined as
`
`any adult size character costume which may resemble, imitate or’ bear a
`likeness to Barney®, including but not limited to costumes manufactured
`by National Discount Costumes, Inc., Mask U-S., Inc., Heads Ablove the
`Rest, Inc. and Alinco Costumes, Inc. . . . “Putative Barney’ shall also refer
`to any purple, magenta, violet or similarly-colored adult-sized costume
`resembling or imitating a dinosaur, hippopotamus, dragon, . reptile,
`‘ alligator, or similar creature, andlor referred to by any name, including
`but not limited to “Purple Dino," “Purple Dinosaur,” “Hillary the] Hippo,”
`“Purple Hippo," “Dufl'y the Dragon,” “Purple Alligator,” “Dino,”i “Purple
`Gator" or “Purple Monster-”
`4
`*
`
`’
`‘""'"'
`
`character,
`Lyons served similar requests pertaining to “Baby Bop," its green
`and included color photographs of genuine Barney and Baby Bop costumes and of
`infringing “knock—ofi” costumes.
`
`In herpro se responses to Lyons’s requests, Henry repeatedly denied ever
`_,or renting “putative Barney” or “putative Baby Bop" costumes, but in
`“supplemental” responses Henry filed nearly a year later, with the assistance of an
`attorney, she maintained that she possessed a purple dinosaur costume and a green
`‘dinosaur costume as early as 1984 but that these costumes were outside the scope of
`Lyons's requests.
`
`Lyons moved to strike the supplemental responses and for the imposition of
`sanctions, and the magistrate judge to whom the motion was referred concluded that
`sanctions were appropriate:
`
`. There is no way to characterize [Henry's] initial discovery
`.
`.
`.
`responses but “dishonest” and that dishonesty was willful—-—‘-who better
`
`mg‘
`
`

`
`__
`
`_
`
`_
`
`,___
`
`_
`
`_
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.....
`
`...¢...
`
`....
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ......_..._—...._.._.-....._.-..._.
`
`5
`
`9
`
`No. 01-3640
`
`Page 3
`
`.
`
`1,
`T
`
`‘
`’
`
`"
`
`than the defendant herself would know about the existence ofcostumes
`that were responsive to the requests. The only interpretation possible is
`that she was attempting to defend herself by lying to the plaintifl’. Even-
`now, she attemptsto argue that there was no lie, but the record
`much louder than her protestations. .
`.
`. The “supplements” are’ not
`supplements; they are a complete recantation of earlier answers-—!—at a
`later date when it suits her purpose-
`
`I
`i
`
`’
`
`I
`i/
`:’
`1’
`
`can
`I find that the defendant has beenwillfully dishonest.
`conceive of no sanction less than default that will not in some fashion
`reward defendant
`for her willful misrepresentation of the ,‘ facts
`underlying this dispute, so I further find that default would"be -an
`appropriate sanction.
`
`The district court agreed and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, noting
`that “default is the only appropriate sanction" and_ that Henry had “willfully
`misrepresented facts to the Court and [the] Defendant.” When Lyonslater sought
`statutory damages, the court decided to preclude Henry from introducinig evidence of
`prior use because of her “past misconduct” and “willful dishonesty":
`
`Repeatedly, Defendant denied having any costume and failed to pfroduce
`any documents in response to Plaintifls discovery requests. Throughout
`this litigation Defendant asserted facts that could only lead; to the
`conclusion that use prior to registration did not exist. This Court
`not
`allow Defendant in the eleventh hour to assert that _she had such
`costumes when it is now favorable for her to do so.
`
`. . [W']here Defendant's manipulation ofdiscovery would hinder
`. .
`Plaintifls ability to prove that it is entitled to statutory damages and
`attorney fees, the Court will not allow Defendant to prevent reciovery.
`
`Henry contests both the district court's conclusion that her misconduct was
`and the court’s choice ofsanctions. She first contends that her
`discovery
`responses were the result not ofbad faith but an honest mistake; she
`that she
`misunderstood the term “putative” in Lyons’s discovery requests. But[Henry concedes
`that she knew “putative” meant “supposed,” and in any event the discovery requests
`themselves defined the term. Moreover, the district judge who heard’ testimony from
`Henry believed that she was not confused but merely dissemblingj Henry has not
`shown this conclusion to be clearly erroneous. See, e.g., In re Golant, 231 F.3d 931, 936
`(7th Cir. 2001) (district court's finding that party against whom discovery sanctions are
`imposed displayed willfulness, bad faith, or fault is reviewed for clear error). Indeed,
`her admission in her reply brief that she also has five purple hippopotamus costumes
`
`,
`
`I
`
`,
`1’
`
`(I
`/
`I)
`
`4
`
`

`
`No. 01-3640
`
`Page 4
`
`and one pink dinosaur costume seems to suggest that even her supplemental discovery
`responses failed to disclose all costumes covered by Lyons’s requests.
`W
`_
`~
`
`Henry next suggests that the sanctions were disproportionate to the prejudice
`Lyons suflered, noting that in her answer she alerted Lyons to the existence of a
`“purple dinosaur’ costume no longer in her possession and that Lyons eventually was
`able to inspect the costume in the hands of a third party. But Henry does not assert
`that Lyons’s ability to obtain discovery relating to her green dinosaur costume was
`unafiected, and we are not convinced that the district court's choice of sanction was
`fundamentally wrong. See, e.g., Johnson v. J.B. Hunt Tran.-:p., Inc., 280 F.3d 1125,
`1130-31 (7th Cir. 2002=)-(reviewing exclusion of testimony as discovery sanction for
`abuse of discretion); Golant, 239 F.3d at 937 (showing that court abused
`discretion
`in choice of sanction is an “uphill battle”).
`
`in denying
`Finally, Henry suggests that the district court abused its
`her belated oral request for a jury trial on damages. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`38 provides that failure to file and serve a jury demand within ten daysgafizer service
`of the last pleading constitutes a waiver of the right to a jury trial, andthe Rule
`applies equally to pro se litigants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), ((1); Members? 0. Paige, 140
`F.3d 699, 701-02 (7th Cir. 1998). Passage of the deadline gives rise to aj presumption
`against a jury trial, seeMembers, 140 F.3d at 703-04; Henry's request caine more than
`a: year and a half late, and she does not claim to have oflered the district court any
`'e3iplanation for the delay. In any event we cannot review the issue
`Henry has
`failed to provide a record ofthe telephonic status hearing during which
`motion was
`made and denied. Contrary to Henry’s suggestion, the court was not required to
`transcribe the hearing, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(b), but the absence of a transcript does not
`necessarily prevent review, see United States v. Nolan, 910 F.2d 1553,1560 (7th Cir.
`1996). Henry could have reconstructed the record of the hearing under Federal Rule
`ofAppellate Procedure 10(c) but did not, and we will not assume that the district judge
`afforded her belated jury trial request anything less than the “thoughtfiil exercise of
`required. See Members, 140 F.3d at 703.
`
`

`
`mniteh étatzs ¢nurt of flppeals
`for the éthentb tliirtuit
`Ebicagn, Zfllinuis 60604
`
`June 20, 2002
`
`Before
`
`Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge '
`
`Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`
`Hon.
`
`P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`
`Appeal from the United States
`District Court for the
`
`Central District of Illinoié
`
`I ] I
`
`]
`] No. 98-4006
`
`A
`
`1 I ] I
`
`No. 01-3640
`
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,
`Plaintz]3Appellee,
`v.
`
`PAMELA HOLMES, d.b.a.
`_
`PAMELA’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ,
`-
`Defendan_t—AppeIlant.
`
`ORDEQ
`
`On consideration of the petition for rehearing filed defendant-appellant, pro se, on May
`1, 2002, all members of the panel have voted to DENY the petition.
`
`Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is hereby DI-:Nn-:1).
`
`

`
`No:
`
`Appeal No.01-3640
`
`INTHE
`
`éunreme Ginurt of the mutual! étatns
`
`PAMELA HOLMES, individually and
`Doing business as PAMELA’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ
`
`PRO SE PETIHONISR
`I
`
`Vs.
`
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP,
`A Texas Limited Partnership,
`
`RESPONDEN'I'(S)‘
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO the
`
`District Court Information:
`No. 9801006
`
`Chief Judge Joe Billy McDade
`Cmtral District of Illinois
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
`Appeal No. 01-3640
`Submitted April 18, 2002
`Decided April 18, 2002
`Befiore
`
`»
`
`Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`Han. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`
`_ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
`Appeal No. 01-3540
`Denied June 20,2002
`Before
`
`Hen. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE,-Circuit Judge
`Hm. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`“
`
`Pamela Henry ‘Af/k/a
`Pamela
`d/b/a
`Pamela’s Razz‘ Pizzazz
`5226 Old River Drive
`Molina, Illinoifi 61265
`309-762 5010
`
`~-
`
`.'~:«."."
`
`M
`
`

`
`NO.
`
`INTHE
`
`SUPREME COURT or THE UNITED STATES
`
`PAMLEA HENRY f7k/a
`
`—PETITIONER
`PAMELA HOLMES d/b/a
`PAl\rIELA’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ
`
`VS.
`
`“ '
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP,
`A Texas Limited Partnership,
`
`RESPONDENT(S)
`
`2602, as
`i
`A
`1, Pamela Henry , do swear or declare that on this date,
`OF
`required bt supreme court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed ETITION FOR A
`CERTIORARI on each party to the proceeding or that party’s counsel, and on every other person
`requiredto be served, by positing an envelope containingthe above documarts in the United
`States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid.
`
`Julia D. Mannix
`
`Davis, Mannix & Mc Grath
`125 South Wacker Drive
`Suite 1700
`4
`
`Chicago, lllinios 60606
`
`I declare under penaltu of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executedon 35g :2
`
`,2oo2
`
`A
`
`J
`
`Q
`
`Pamela
`
`-*-‘-
`
`

`
`MOTION FOR EXTENSION FOR TIME
`
`Iapologuestothecouxts. Butasyoucanseemycaseflxatlhavebeentypingeveryflfing
`hasgonewrong. Mycomputerkwp shuttingdownonmeandlcannotseentodxangetheformat
`orcornectanything.Iwascopyingfromadiskflxatltypemmycousincomputerbeforelbought
`mime. Everything jumpedto double space and two line semalcesthishappen loweek
`Iwouldgetthe layoutfixandthenmycomputerwould shut down.Andlose
`andI
`wouldhavetostartagain. Fmnotontheintemetbutlmusthavepickupavirusfiomimycousin
`computer. Some how my format dxangedto all lefi hand maxgin and I can’t tab over infthis
`document, Iknow I can't correct I have about 20 Pages not ableto review butthey
`Ineedmoretimetostartanewfileandretypemycase. Whexzltriedtosavetiineby
`copingdocummtsfiomotherfiles sh1ceI’maverypoortypes,thatwhmmyuoubles§larted,I
`havebemtryingforseveralweekknowandeachdaythefilegetsworst,andnowmytimehas
`runout.
`.
`-
`‘
`Iaskfor mercyforthe courts. Pmnotacomputerwiz, [just boughtacomputiertwo
`yearsagoforthis lawsuit. Murphy Law seamstobemy middle name. Everythinghahgone
`wmnginmy file. If you oouldgrantme Extension oftime, please do so.
`Thankyou for your well respected time.
`
`Respectfixl,
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES .
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001
`
`September 25, 2002
`
`AREACODE202
`479-3011
`
`"
`
`V
`
`,
`
`1fI
`
`I‘
`
`WILLIAM K. SUTER
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`Ms. Julia D. Mannix
`
`Davis, Mannix & McGrath
`125 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 1700
`Chicago,
`IL 60606
`
`Re:
`
`Pamela Holmes
`
`v. Lyons Partnership
`Application No. 02A261
`
`Dear Ms. Mannix:
`
`The application for an extension of time within
`which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the
`above~entitled case has been presented to Justice Stevens,
`who on September 25, 2002, extended the time to and
`including November 18, 2002.
`
`This letter has been sent to those designated on the
`attached notification list.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`WILLIAM K. SUTER, C jrk
`
`
`
`Clayton R . Higg
`Assistant Clerk
`
`

`
`No:
`
`-
`
`Appeal No.01-3640
`
`IN THE
`
`Supreme Court ofthe United States
`
`PAMELA HOLMES, individually and
`Doing business as PAMEL~A’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ
`
`PRO SE PETITIONER
`
`Vs.
`
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP,
`A Texas Limited Partnership,
`
`RESPONDENT(S) '
`.
`
`»
`
`-
`
`'
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
`MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIISIE
`District Court Information:
`No. 98C4006
`
`Chief Judge Joe Billy McDade
`Central District of Illinois
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
`Appeal No. 01-3640
`Submitted April 13, 2002
`Decided April. 18, 2002
`Before
`_
`Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
`Appeal No. 01-3640
`Denied June 20,2002
`Before
`
`Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`
`Pamela Henry flk/a
`Pamela Holmes d/b/a
`Pamela’s Razz Pizzazz
`5226 Old River Drive
`
`Moline, Illinois 61265
`309-762 5010 w/
`309-949-2999 hl
`
`

`
`MOTION FOR EXTENSION FOR TIME.
`
`I first apologues to the courts I planedto file my case in a timely matte. But nowwhatflook place
`inmylifethislastweekendnotonlyhasdestroyedmylifeandmyfilestofileinatimelymatter.
`Iwashomefortheweekendtofinishmyfileandtofileontime. Iwasworldngonmyfileinmy
`computer,Ilefimyoomputeronandwhentotownfioraplanonlyacoupleofhours. Ihavebeen
`workingoutoftownandlwasoiffortheweekendsoloouldfinishmycase.
`Iwhenintownto
`gasomemoniesthatfirimdownedmetofilethiscase. Iwenttoswpbymyboyfriendshouseto
`snrprisehimthatlwashome forthe weekend. He l<newIwasworldng7—l2’suntflD_}ecember.I
`gotthe Surprise of a Lifetime. I’mtmlyembarrassedtotellthe Supreme Courtlspendthe
`weekmd in jail. The surprise ofthe other women messed my mindup andmylife. Before this
`weekendlhave nevereventhought sometime atanother personin a rage. Needlesstoisayl beat
`the holy heck out ofmy ex-boyfriend now and got arrested. I don’t know Ifl wasjust !Atime
`bombthatwmtofffinmallthepressureinmylifewiththiscase,almostlosingmyhouseinluly
`from foreclosure. MyAuntdieing over the fourth of Julylikemy father didtwo yearslbefore. ‘I
`have become verydepressthis summer and lost 30 poundsintwo weeks. Andlosing3ofmy
`petsinthelast7months. Ihavebemimderalotofstresswitlltliislawsuitbeingaprbsel
`thought my boyfriend was my only positive thinginmylifeinthis last year and whaijl learned
`hebetrayedmyloveandtxustandplanstomarryandhavebabies. Leamingthatitw;‘asalllies,I
`didzfievenyellathimorher,Ijuststartedtosmileandlaughathimwhenshetoldmetheywere
`getting married and began to beat the Holy heck out of onlyhim for 45 minutes. Iwas surprised
`athowwelllfoughtformyfirstfigbr. Sinceeveryonehasalwayslmovmmeasaladyeventhe
`arresting offieerthatpulled me fromthe scrap,Iwarttohigh School with. Needlesstosay being
`injailfor3daysmyoomputershutdownandllostmyfiles. SoIcannotfileontime'. Ijustread
`todaythatthiswas supposetobeinthecourt 15 daysahead. Ididn’tknowhowdisr‘uptedmy
`lifiewasgoingtobeeome. Iask for mercy fromtheoourttoallow mycasetohaveariextansion
`oftimesolcangetmyheadtogetherandrecreatemycasefile.Inotthinlcingtocleaiglvery
`topceyturby rightknow,Ididn’tliaveacluewhatIwaswalkingintothisweekend.l Imovedher
`inwhilelwas out oftown. I just need moretimeplease. I just abouttolose everytliiriglhave,
`andIdon’tevenhavethe strengthtobeganto fight my caseinareasonable manner,;‘and
`rememberallthatlhadinmy filing. Iembarrassedtoevenexplain my laundxytotlliis high court,
`not dafingin Syearsbeing divorce for 12Ireal1y believelwillliveinacave afierthiswholecase
`isover. LifehasnotbeenatallhowIplanandIdon’tlikewhothepeisonIwasthislate
`weekend. Iwillneverallowapersontohavethatmuoh oontrolovermyheartandllflifeagain to
`goinarageagain. Ijustalittle,noalotmossuprightnowandlneedthis,topleasegrantmy
`caseanextensionoftime.Andlfnot,Iwillexceptthisishowlifejustis.Iknows1inwilltake
`you farthmyouwantgo. Itwillkwp youlongerthenyouwanttostayandmakeyoupayaprioe
`more then youwantto payaprice more thenyouwantedto pay. Iluiowmyactiou‘ were sinful
`thisweekendlknowlwenttofar,stayedtolong,andknowI’mpayingaprioemoi'etha1Iplan
`topay. Imay losemyfilingmycase. Which wouldcostme, my House,carand store. Ihave
`embarrassedmyLordandmyfiunilywiIhmyactions,andIralizebecauseofwhatldidbeing
`arrestedlmaylosemymoodlightingjob. Becausethattherulesnochargesinaafrrest whilein
`theiremployment. Nochargeshavebeenfileatthistime. Ihavetrulymessedyoumylife. I
`have repeated from my action, but I still no the price I may pay for my action. Ifunder the law
`youcangrantmeanymercypleasedoso.Solcanfilemycasetobeheard. Tharikyouforyou
`wellrespectedfirnemthisfimgiestactionandmsanemmnartoftirnemmyfife.
`N
`
`. Resp
`
`:2. \A¢s.7 \\»<>~M
`gamela HenryHolmes
`
`

`
`
`
`No:
`
`Appeal No.0l—3640
`
`INTHE
`
`§uprem2«QlZnurt of the flfiniteb étates
`
`Ir
`
`I
`
`PAMELA HOLMES, individually and
`Doing business as PAMELA’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ
`
`PRO SE PETITIONE'iR
`,
`
`Vs.
`
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP,
`A Texas Limited Partnership,
`
`1'
`
`RESPONDENT (S) ‘J
`/I
`
`i
`
`I
`‘
`
`~
`f
`
`'
`
`3'
`‘
`7
`
`A
`Q
`
`1
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
`
`District Court Infomiation:
`No. 98C4006
`
`Chief Judge Joe Billy McDade
`Central District of Illinois
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
`Appeal No. 01-3640
`Submitted April 18, 2002
`Decided April 18, 2002
`Before
`
`Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS '
`FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
`Appeal No. 01-3640
`Denied June 20,2002
`Before
`
`Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`*
`
`.’
`,1
`
`Pamela Henry fl/k/a
`Pamela Holmes‘ d/b/a
`Pamela’s Razzi Pizzazz
`5225 Old Rivefr Drive
`Moline, Illinois 61265
`309-762 soiolw
`
`

`
`No:
`
`Appeal No.01-3640
`
`INTHE
`
`éupreme Qtnurt of the flliniteh étates
`
`PAMELA HOLMES, individually and
`Doing business as PAMELA’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ
`
`Vs.
`
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP,
`A Texas Limited Partnership,
`
`PRO SE PETITIONER
`
`lI
`
`RESPONDENT (S) {I
`lI1
`
`1II
`
`4
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
`
`A request of status on file Nov. 18, 2002and
`Motion to resubmit,
`
`I have heard nothing since my last filing on Nov. 18, 2002. If I was denied. My case
`30,019 in the United States Patent and trademark Office is suspended, until I have exhfausted all
`avenues of appeal, or if my certiorari has been denied.
`’
`J
`I’m resubmitting my case, as suggested by the trademark office. If I have filed improper
`or if my case will not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Courts please advise me.
`I
`
`Respectfiilly sub ' ted,
` amela Henry f/k/a
`
`Pamela Holmes d/b/a
`
`Pamela’s Razz Pizzazz
`5226 Old River Drive
`
`Moline, Illinois 61265
`309-762-5010 w/
`
`309-949-2999 h/
`
`

`
`‘No:
`
`Appeal No.0]-3640
`
`IN THE
`
`Svupreme Qllnurt at the Uatniteh fitates
`
`3‘1
`
`PAMELA HOLMES, individually and
`Doing business as PAMELA’S RAZZ PIZZAZZ
`
`Vs.
`LYONS PARTNERSHIP,
`A Texas Limited Partnership,
`
`PRO SE PE'I'ITIONI%.R
`‘:1
`
`[1
`RESPONDENT (s);’
`‘
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO the
`
`District Court Infomlationt
`No. 98C4006
`
`Chief Judge Joe Billy McDade
`Central District of Illinois
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FORT!-IE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
`Appeal No. 01-3640
`Submitted April 18, 2002
`Decided April ls, 2002
`Before
`
`Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`Hon. MICHAEL s. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
`Appeal No. 01-3640
`Denied June 20,2002
`Before
`.
`Hun. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
`Hon. MICHAEL s. KANNE, Circuit Judge
`Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`I
`
`1
`
`:
`I
`;
`1
`;
`,1
`1
`
`5
`;
`5
`
`;
`
`1‘
`
`‘
`A
`3
`J
`7
`
`Pamela Henry f!7k/a
`Pamela I-iolmes’ d/b/a
`Pamela’s Razz]Pizzazz
`5226 Old River Drive
`Moline, Illinois 61265
`309-762 5ol0,'wI
`I
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`ll.
`
`QUESTION (S) PRESENTED
`
`I;
`
`J
`Should it not be a mistrial or a rehearing ifthe defendant was denied her
`constitutional rights to a trail by jury for Copyright infringement award of
`' statutory damages and attorney’s fees under both the U.S. Copyright;Act?
`
`Should their not be a rehear, or rule a mistrial that the defendant was denied her
`constitutional rights to have any witness at her hearing to prove her prior use ofher
`dinosaur family of costumes?
`1
`I
`Should not be a rehear or rule a total mistrial, The Defendants attorney Jeff
`Thennisch ‘abandon the defendant during the hearing asking to withdraw as her
`attorney; no evidence was given by defenses. Which is a violation ofThe Defendants
`Fourth, Fifih, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to withhold evidence?
`
`Should their not be a rehearing or rule a mistrial that ifa person is an innocent
`infringed under prior uses that copyn'ght’s statutory damages and attorney’s fees
`under both the U.S. Copyright Act should be able to use all their rights to defend
`their prior use?
`I
`
`Did not the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois committed
`an error by not allowing Defendant-Appellant to amend my Pro Se Answer in
`1999. Pamela should be entitled to reply and present evidence, under the
`provisions of l7u.s.c. 412 and 15 U.S.C. 1115 at Trail...
`'
`
`Did not the US. District Court for the Central District of Illinois .’Committed
`An Error By Entering A Default Judgment Against The Defendatl31t~Appellant
`Since I Attempted to Answer the Discovery to the Best of my Ability:
`and ............. ..
`5
`
`4'
`Did not the U.S. District Court For The Central District ofIllindis Committed
`an error by Not Applying I7 U.S.C. 412 in 2000?
`Should not a rule ofa mistrial or the case thought out, that the llglaintiffDoes
`not have Any Valid Copyright Registrations Under the Law of the Seventh '
`Circuit?
`}
`I
`Why were Sanctions not sited to the Plaintiff for known eely lying,
`withholding and twisting evidence to the courts?
`l
`
`The District Court Improperly Sanctioned the Defendant for Discovery Violations
`
`Plaintifi’Has Withheld Vital Information Concerning The Fact That;Their Attempt
`To Register “BARNBY” for Halloween Costumes Has Been Opposed Before The
`iI
`Trademark Trial And Appeal Board.
`
`

`
` ‘
`
`[x] All parties appear in the caption ofthe case on the cover page.
`
`LIST OF PARTIES
`
`Pamela Henry t7k/a
`Pamela Holmes cl/b/a
`Pame1a’s Razz Pizzazz
`5226 Old River Drive
`Moline, Illinois 61265
`309-762 5010 W
`
`309-949-2999 H
`
`Julia D. Mannix
`
`Davis, Mannix & Mo Grath
`125 South Wacker Drive
`Suite 1700
`
`Chicago, Illinios 60606
`
`TABLEOFCONTENTS
`OPINIONSBELOW......................................................................6
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.........s
`
`ii
`REASONSFORGRANTINGTl-IEWRIT............................................28;
`
`*
`
`7
`
`3
`’
`
`3
`
`;
`
`3
`
`INDEX TO APPENDICES
`
`APPENDIX A Decision ofUnited States District Court Central District ofniinois for statutory
`Damages and attorney’s fees
`I
`1
`APPENDIX B Decision ofUnited States District Court Central District ofmiriois] for statutory
`Damages and attomey’s fees
`,1‘
`1
`APPENDIX c Decision ofUnited States Court ofAppeals for the Seventh circuit Chicago,
`Illinois Denied.
`
`APPENDIX D Decision ofUnited States Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit Chicago,
`Illinois Aairmetiwithcosts.
`,’
`I
`APPENDIX E Decision of United States District Court Central District of Illinois order
`
`APPENDIX F‘ Decision of United States District Court Central District of Illinois Motion to
`
`

`
`
`
`Dismiss denied
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE NUM$E1<
`
`Age Discrimination in Employment act of 1967 (Adea), I (14) Stat. 02, 29 U.S. @ 621 Jetr. seq.7,
`Anne ch. 19 (1710)
`8,
`Beckford v. Hgfl, 7 TR. 621, 427, 101 Eng. Rep. I164, I167 (K.B. 1798)
`8,
`Borowski v. De Puy, Inc.,850 F.2d.297 (7th.Cir. I997)
`22
`fie: Cinema, @gm__t§g v. Watertower ' 31 F. 3d 729 0“. Cir. 1996) 1
`6,7,12,
`25, 27
`5
`7,17
`1,
`Bggger King ofFlorida v. Hoots, 403 F.2d. 904 (7th.Cir. 1968)
`C. Elvin Feltner. Jr. Petitioner v. Columbia Pictures S.C. U.S. I998 U.S. Lexis 2301 SIO4 © 6,7
`Cmbell v. Qggmll Milling Matg, Co., 893 1'. 2d 925, 927 (7"' Cir. 1990)
`[1
`13
`Central Mills, Inc. v. Iced Apparel, Inc., 1998 U.S.Dist. Lexis 1798 (S.D.N.YI1 I998) 23,
`24, 26
`Ciner Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. S.M. Gold Fashion C052,, 1996 U.S.Dist. Leaks 20353 26
`Citicasters Co. V. oan__n;y Club Communications, 44 USPQ2d (C.D.Cal. 1997)
`,1‘
`21
`Coryell v. Colbaugg, 1 N.J.L. 77 1791
`1
`9
`Curtis v/ Loether, 415 at 193
`1
`3
`Deshmukh v. C0015, 630 F. Supp. 956, 959 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
`E
`24, 26,
`27
`1
`
`Dimick v. Schiedt 293 US. 474, 79 L. ED. 603, 55 s. Ct. 296 (I935)
`Dimick v. Schigjt_, 293 U.S. 474, 79 L. ed., 603, 55 S.CT 296 (I935),
`Driving Force, Inc. v. Manpower, Inc. 498 F.Supp. 21 (E.D.Pa. 1980)
`Duke ofYork v. Pilkingg, 2 Show. 246, 89 Eng. Rep. 918 K.B. 1760)
`,
`Dwight v. Ap_plet1on,§F. Case 183, 185 (SDNY 1843)
`9,
`5
`E.G. Backus V. Gould, 48 US. 798 How. 798, 802, 1221, ed 919 (1849)
`Evan Nwvton Incogggrated v. gage)‘ syw Soflware et a1. 793 F .24 339 0* (gin. I986} 12,
`24, 25, 26
`479 U.S.949, 93 L. Ed 2 d 383 (I986)
`1'
`Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. @ 101 et seg.
`Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Televisigg, Inc. 523 US. 340, 140 L.Ed.2d 438 (1998)
`Genay v. Norris, I S.C. L. 6, 7 (1784)
`1
`eagyr v. rm, 239 F.3d 931 {7"' Cir. 2001}
`
`6,
`9
`21
`
`9 9
`
`12, 25
`7,
`17
`9
`1o
`
`.
`
`I
`
`;
`
`Granfinanciera, s.a.v. Hordberg 492 (*16) US. 492, 42 106 L. Ed.
`
`Haines v. Kemer 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.C. 594, 30 L. Ed 2 d 652 (1972)
`I-Iaines v. Kemer, 404 U.S. 519, 92 so. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 552 (1972)
`I-Iayg v. Sony Corp. of America. 347 F. 2d. 415 ('7“ Cir. 1933)
`H9,g11ev.FruehaufCo1poration, 151 F.R.D.635.639(C.D.IlI. 1993)
`Hgg1_1e v. FruehaufComoratig, 151 F.R.D.635.640 (C.D.IIl. I993).
`Huckle v. Maney, 2 Wilis, 205,95 Eng Rep. 768 (K.B. 1763)
`Hudson &E v. Patten, 1 Root 133, 134 (Conn. Super. Ct 1739)
`14 at 397.
` 935 F. 2d 315, 3190*” Cir. 1991)
` 149 F.3d 494 (6th.Cir. 1993)
`§.__;;Ro;1_dg_1, Punitive damages @,2.2, p. 27 (1930)
`
`Kale v.