Petition to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice David H. Souter, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Samuel A. Alito
http://www.american-justice.org/
Dr. Yue’s Application for Stay before the U.S. Supreme Court (Referred to the Court for January 2009 Conference)
Supporting Documents to the Application for Stay before the U.S. Supreme Court
Dr. Yue’s Reply Brief for the Yue v. Sun Appeal at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
Appeal at the Ninth Circuit on Disqualification of Due to Conflict of Interest
II.SUN’S SHAM ARGUMENTS
In Defendants’ Answer Brief (“DAB”), Sun claims that Netbula assigned the copyrights to Yue “after the close of discovery” in Netbula-Sun. DAB 2. This is false. The “00-SDK” and “2K4” copyrights were assigned to Yue on September 26, 2007. ER.3:17-20. Netbula deposed Sun’s FRCP 30(b) (6) witness Michael Abramovitz on October 23, 2007. ER.31:27-28; See also, Exhibits to Appellees’ Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, SRJN071. There had been very little discovery in Netbula-Sun. On January 10, 2008, the Netbula-Sun court ordered that the “[d]iscovery issues shall be discussed at next status conference hearing” set for January 22, 2008. See, Civil Minutes (Document 136), Exhibit E to Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RFJN”).
Defendants also contend that Yue’s action was a “parallel lawsuit to circumvent” the Netbula-Sun summary judgment order. This is false. Yue filed this lawsuit on November 19, 2007. The Netbula-Sun court issued its summary judge order on January 18, 2008. Yue could not have predicted the outcome of Yue-Sun when he filed the suit. In fact, the Yue-Sun complaint was directly derived from the Yue’s October 22, 2007 motion to intervene and join Netbula-Sun. That motion was before Sun’s motion for summary judgment in Netbula-Sun.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The above are just two examples.
C. Default Judgment Should Be Entered Against StorageTek and Sun
On January 2, 2008, receiving no response to the FAC, Yue filed the motion for entry of default and default judgment against Sun and StorageTek.
Doc. No. 13 below. At the time, the case was presided over by the Honorable
Susan Illston. There was no order granting defendants enlargement of time,
and there was no order reassigning the case to Judge Jenkins. On January 4,
2008, Sun acknowledged that “[a] formal order relating the cases has yet to
be entered” and the case was presided over by Judge Illston. ER.24:27-28.
On January 9, 2008, after the parties completed the briefing on Yue’s
motion for default, Judge Jenkins entered an order relating Yue-Sun to
Netbula-Sun. The next day, the Executive Committee of the Northern
District of California reassigned the case to Judge Jenkins. ER.29. Even after
reassignment, no order granting Sun enlargement of time was ever entered.
Defendants claim that on December 14, 2007, at a hearing in
Netbula-Sun, Judge Jenkins granted them extension of time…
In any case, on December 14, 2007, Judge Jenkins was not the judge of
the Yue-Sun case, and he had no jurisdiction to grant any extension to the
defendants in Yue-Sun. "[T]he structure of the federal courts does not allow
one judge of a district court to rule directly on the legality of another district
judge’s judicial acts or to deny another district judge his or her lawful
jurisdiction." In Re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208, 225 (fn.11) (5th Cir. 1997)
(citing Dhalluin v. McKibben, 682 F. Supp. 1096 (D. Nev. 1988)). "No
express or implied power is granted a chief judge to affect administratively,
directly or indirectly, litigation assigned to and pending before another judge
of the court." United States v. Heath, 103 F. Supp. 1, 2 (D. Haw. 1952); see
also In re Brown, 346 F.2d 903, 910 (5th Cir. 1965) ("[O]rderly procedure,
of course, forbade Judge Cox to interfere with the handling of a case
assigned to Judge Mize.").
Yue filed judicial misconduct complaints against Jenkins at the Ninth Circuit. Jenkins received the first complaint in December 2007. Yue’s December 17, 2007 letter to the judge re-stated the basis of the complaint: Jenkins might have retaliated against Yue due a blog article Yue wrote.
The facts alleged in Yue’s allegation were fully capable of proof by discovery. In the complaint Yue filed against Jenkins, Yue gave the names of the magistrate judge and the attorneys who heard the story of Jenkins’s retaliatory intent. Jenkins’s denial in his ruling was not evidence. In evaluating the allegation of bias, "the judge must assume that the factual averments . . . are true, even if he knows them to be false." United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1199 (7th Cir. 1985).
Jenkins would not even allow Yue to speak about his pro se case. “[N]o procedure firmly rooted in the practices of our people can be so ‘fundamentally unfair’ as to deny due process of law.” Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991)(concurring opinion by Justice Scalia). The bias was total.
When Yue tried to make an argument against the “cease and desist” order, Jenkins’s reaction was: “Mr. Yue, I am going to have you taken out if you don’t be quiet.” This is not a situation where judicial temperament occasionally turns into judicial temper. “Arrogance and bullying by individual judges expose the judicial branch to the citizens’ justifiable contempt.” McBryde v. COMM. TO REV. CIR. COUNCIL CONDUCT, 264 F.3d 52, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2001). When a federal judge threatens force instead of resorting to reasoning in a civil litigation involving due process concerns, he fails to maintain the appearance of justice and his judgment is inherently flawed.
Sun is a large corporation. In the district court, it spares no effort emphasizing that Yue is just one-man. That may have been a factor in the decision below. However, comparing to the interest of United States and its rule of law, Sun and its CEO are negligible and utterly insignificant. The Court must reverse the district court’s erroneous ruling poisoned by apparent personal animus to restore justice and fundamental fairness in federal district court.
Thursday, January 8th, 2009 1:09 pm
Jason 
January 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Laporte
The following is from the July 22, 2008 hearing transcript before Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte on Sun’s motion for fees. The exchange was about the recent Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Sturgell (June 12, 2008).
Mr. Yue argued Pro Se.
Jedediah Wakefield for Sun Microsystems
Before Elizabeth D. Laporte
From pages 4-6 of the TRANSCRIPT:
MR. YUE: The procedure is for the plaintiff to move for 60(b) motion in the District Court. If the judge indicated he would grant the motion, then, I would go to the Ninth Circuit and seek a remand. So at this point —
THE COURT: Right.
MR. YUE: You know —
THE COURT: I mean, all of that would be very unusual, but it’s still a possibility. Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.
MR. WAKEFIELD: I’ll have to confess that I haven’t studied the Sturgell decision,…
…
THE COURT: Um-hmm.
MR. YUE: Your Honor, I think the Taylor versus Sturgell case did disapprove the legal grounds for precluding me from this litigation. I was a nonparty to the — Netbula versus Sun. And, the whole ground by Judge Jenkins was the theory of virtual representation. And, in my papers, I argue that I could not be virtually represented by Netbula because I was already precluded —
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. YUE: — from that case.
THE COURT: All right. Again, it’s going to be up to — I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me, it’s before either the Ninth Circuit or unless the 60(b) motion is granted.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Powered by U.S. Legal Forms
Old Sep 23rd, 2008, 11:18 AM #2
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Big Grin Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Lapor
THE COURT: “Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.”
THE COURT: I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me
That was a “brief question”? It was a long question plus an answer (correct or not)
Last edited by top_admin : Sep 23rd, 2008 at 07:35 PM. Reason: fixing bold tag
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23rd, 2008, 06:50 PM #3
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Lapor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
THE COURT: “Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.”
THE COURT: I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me
That was a “brief question”? It was a long question plus an answer (correct or not)
If pro se did not know the case law Taylor v. Sturgell, the judge would be happy rling against pro se. However, the defent attorny did not knoe the case law, the judge remanded him.
Last edited by top_admin : Sep 24th, 2008 at 06:23 PM. Reason: bold bbcode fixed
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th, 2008, 01:50 PM #4
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Lapor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
THE COURT: “Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.”
THE COURT: I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me
That was a “brief question”? It was a long question plus an answer (correct or not)
That was so sham-ful: full of sham. Did defendants hire the judge?
The pro se clearly pwned the lawyer, he knew the case, and the dumb lawyer never heard of it. A classic pwnage in court movies. Instead of ordering the lawyer to go back to law school for a reading session, the judge quickly cut the pro se off at his key argument.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th, 2008, 02:03 PM #5
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Lapor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
That was so sham-ful: full of sham. Did defendants hire the judge?
The pro se clearly pwned the lawyer, he knew the case, and the dumb lawyer never heard of it. A classic pwnage in court movies. Instead of ordering the lawyer to go back to law school for a reading session, the judge quickly cut the pro se off at his key argument.
Judge and lawyers are in membership, pro se are not. This is judicial cronism. The law is no long a law.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th, 2008, 02:09 PM #6
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Laporte
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
The following is from the July 22, 2008 hearing transcript before Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte on Sun’s motion for fees. The exchange was about the recent Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Sturgell (June 12, 2008).
Mr. Yue argued Pro Se.
Jedediah Wakefield for Sun Microsystems
Before Elizabeth D. Laporte
From pages 4-6 of the TRANSCRIPT:
MR. YUE: The procedure is for the plaintiff to move for 60(b) motion in the District Court. If the judge indicated he would grant the motion, then, I would go to the Ninth Circuit and seek a remand. So at this point —
THE COURT: Right.
MR. YUE: You know —
THE COURT: I mean, all of that would be very unusual, but it’s still a possibility. Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.
MR. WAKEFIELD: I’ll have to confess that I haven’t studied the Sturgell decision,…
…
THE COURT: Um-hmm.
MR. YUE: Your Honor, I think the Taylor versus Sturgell case did disapprove the legal grounds for precluding me from this litigation. I was a nonparty to the — Netbula versus Sun. And, the whole ground by Judge Jenkins was the theory of virtual representation. And, in my papers, I argue that I could not be virtually represented by Netbula because I was already precluded —
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. YUE: — from that case.
THE COURT: All right. Again, it’s going to be up to — I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me, it’s before either the Ninth Circuit or unless the 60(b) motion is granted.
The Taylor v. Sturgell decision just came out in June, it is expected that the defense lawyer not knowing the case. But the court of appeal would know, so the judge was making arguments for defendants’ appeal. You can see that from her later statement that “it’s before … the Ninth Circuit”. From that statement, she basically stated that the Taylor v. Sturgell case was only relevant on appeal, but then why did she make those lengthy statements on that case?
The judge was obviously attempting to find arguments for defendants for an appeal, or in other words, trying to aid the defendants’ in an appeal. Defendants are Sun Microsystems, the maker of Java software, big company.
What was unexpected was that the pro se guy somehow knew the case, and basically said that the Taylor v.Sturgell case disapproved the doctrine of virtual representation — the exact holding of case.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th, 2008, 06:10 PM #7
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Lapor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Judge and lawyers are in membership, pro se are not. This is judicial cronism. The law is no long a law.
It took $100 grand to buy off a federal judge, see
Federal Judge Is Focus of Bribe Inquiry - New York Times
Federal District Judge Robert F. Collins asked for 100K bribes
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th, 2008, 08:04 PM #8
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Lapor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
It took $100 grand to buy off a federal judge, see
Federal Judge Is Focus of Bribe Inquiry - New York Times
Federal District Judge Robert F. Collins asked for 100K bribes
The guy have no chance. Sun have billions. Judges do not take bribes if MS is fighting Sun. But small guy fighting big compnay is perfect oppurtunity for the judges. I do not surprize if judges always rule against the guy. Even they don’t ask bribes now, they made favours to Sun, Sun can pay them in future, like give a job to judge’s children. It is all under the table stuff. FBI can’t detect.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24th, 2008, 08:08 PM #9
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Lapor
I bet $100 if Sun don’t make argument, it still win.
Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25th, 2008, 12:35 AM #10
Unregistered
Unregistered’s Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nonparty preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell - Oral Argument b4 Elizabeth D. Laporte
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
The following is from the July 22, 2008 hearing transcript before Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte on Sun’s motion for fees. The exchange was about the recent Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Sturgell (June 12, 2008).
Mr. Yue argued Pro Se.
Jedediah Wakefield for Sun Microsystems
Before Elizabeth D. Laporte
From pages 4-6 of the TRANSCRIPT:
MR. YUE: The procedure is for the plaintiff to move for 60(b) motion in the District Court. If the judge indicated he would grant the motion, then, I would go to the Ninth Circuit and seek a remand. So at this point —
THE COURT: Right.
MR. YUE: You know —
THE COURT: I mean, all of that would be very unusual, but it’s still a possibility. Now, let me ask, on — the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins’s ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I’m not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.
MR. WAKEFIELD: I’ll have to confess that I haven’t studied the Sturgell decision,…
…
THE COURT: Um-hmm.
MR. YUE: Your Honor, I think the Taylor versus Sturgell case did disapprove the legal grounds for precluding me from this litigation. I was a nonparty to the — Netbula versus Sun. And, the whole ground by Judge Jenkins was the theory of virtual representation. And, in my papers, I argue that I could not be virtually represented by Netbula because I was already precluded —
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. YUE: — from that case.
THE COURT: All right. Again, it’s going to be up to — I just raised that question briefly, but that’s really an issue right now that’s not before me, it’s before either the Ninth Circuit or unless the 60(b) motion is granted.
The hearing was a sham because the judge didn’t really have any interest hearing from the pro se. She already chose sides.
Reply With Quote
January 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
37. Min She Please give Dr.Yue fair justice. It is evident that Sun infringe Dr.Yue’s software copyright. �
36. weize xie it is a supurise to me that a solid software piracy case can turn in the other direction, I wonder whether the anti-piracy law is only to protect big company or not �
35. Shenjun Liu Please give Dr. Yue justice! Please explain the ruling! �
34. Y.C. Liu We should write to the Supreme Court — their address is U.S. Supreme Court , 1 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20543 �
33. Steven Liu I strongly support Dr. Yue. �
32. Yongxia Xia Protect intellectual right is the court’s responsibiliy. We want trust the justice of the court. I support Mr. Yue. �0�2
31. Mike Shyong Support Dr. Yue �
30. Mike Shyong Support Dr. Yue �
29. Frank Wang Support Dr. Yue �
28. Steve jiang Support Dr.YUE �
27. Yi Mai Support Dr. Yue �
26. Rixin Zhu Please grant fair and reasonable judgement to this case.
25. Kevn Lei please give Dr. Yue a justice �
24. Jinhui Li Support Dr. Yue �
23. Peter Zhang support �
22. Rongshan Li We need to see the justices Wisconsin, US
21. Xiaogang Gao Please let us beleive that justice is alive Box 63 750 washington st. Boston MA 02111
20. Kinhson Su Justice must be served! NJ, USA
19. Jian Xie Support his petition �
18. Liping Cheng Justice need to be served by Supreme court �
17. Dr. CHONG WANG Based on my own judgment, some personal retaliation has been involved in this case, thus a more objective, thorough, fair trial is need. �
16. Yong Li This is a typical case demonstrated judges’ bias, snoblish, racisim and injustice. �
15. Ming Wei The case will have a profound effect on the protection of copyright including the copyrights of numerous American products worldwide. PA, USA
14. Roy Owens Justice for Yue 2 Otisfield St , Mass
13. Charles Heckman Typical Ninth Circuit tyranny Washington, U.S.A.
12. John Peterson Dr. Yue has the truth and should be granted justice �
11. Facheng Lee save justice! save Dr Yue! �
10. line voided
9. Betsy Combier We must abide by the Constitution and rule of law, and protect Dr. Yue’s due process rights �
8. Carl Bernofsky The shabby treatment of pro-se litigants by the courts must stop. Dr. Yue has clearly stated the case for infringement of his copywrite rights, and the courts must permit genuine due process to go forward in this matter. Shreveport, Louisiana
7. kang li protect the human rights toronto, canada
6. robert lackman Give Dr Yue justice �
5. Carol Long This illegal court abuse is going on all over the USA. In San Diego the courts are a mess. Allowing purjury and many other laws to be broken. What next, please allow Dr. Yue to win this case. �
4. Cheryl Kennedy Dr. Yue has a Constitutional Right to be heard at a jury trial. The corruption and judicial misconduct in the U.S. Court system is a disgrace. Big business harms the small guy intentionally, and payoffs become a big question within the system. �
3. Thomas J. Rodeffer This is a typical example of how corrupt the Judicial system here in the U.S. is! There is no justice for the lay person who is the back-bone of the tax-base! 3923 Ryan Drive, SW
2. George Edward McDermott United States District Court Judge should be removed from office for committing treason against the Constitution and fraud against the court. For denying due process at law to Dr.Yue. And other judicial crimes outlined under annotated within demanding minimal standard of conduct of our appointed judicial officers, as outlined under Title 28 of the United States code of laws. affecting federal judicial officers standard of care in the administration of their offices. 1. Secondly, United States District Court judges lose all jurisdiction over a case once it has been taken on appeal to & until such time as the judicial circuit appellate courts render a decision in writing and in the case is returned to the District Court clerk’s office. Check appellate procedures this judge should also be sued for his biased and prejudiced against Dr.Yue. Under color of law and authority. 143 North Huron Dr. Forrest Heights, MD 20745
1. Chungchi Che Give a chance for Dr. Yu to present his case.