Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Samuel Rivera Rosado, Petitioner v. Lucid Energy, Inc.

Supreme Court briefJul 1, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

I-

PROVIDED TO

SOUTH FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER

No.

ft*

rn-tc o Q Q

on 7 / lllffL FOR MAILING.

BY:

C.d

OFFICER’S INITIALS

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SAMUEL RIVERA ROSADO - PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,

vs.

LUCID ENERGY, INC. - DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH

CIRCUIT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

filed

CASE NO. 18-10551-E

JUL 09 2019

SUPREEMEFCOURTLN,c;K

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ra h-t, 1

SAMUEL RIVERA ROSADO

imu

! P b. $

SOUTH FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER, SOUTH UNIT

13910 NW 41st STREET

DORAL, FLORIDA 33178-3014

JUL 2 3 2019

\i id Li ittiisil

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

FIRST QUESTION

Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot allow a

company to steal a person's copyright ownership, design, drawing and blueprints

and secure a patent for the designs and drawings with the same specifications that

belong to the Plaintiff and build the project for monetary gain without paying the

the Plaintiff compensation for the stolen copyright designs and literary works

project according to Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution.

SECOND QUESTION

Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall review the

Plaintiffs copyright registration of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline

design, drawings, blueprints and literary works that were registered with the

§410(a)(c), §411, and §106(3).

The Defendant, Lucid Energy Inc., filed for

blueprints and literary works of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline with the

specifications that belong to the Plaintiff that were filed by the Plaintiff in the

owners of the same copyrighted project according to Amendment V of the U.S.

Constitution and Title 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(4).

THIRD QUESTION

Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall or must

make a decision regarding the statutory provisions of Article I, §VIII of the U.S.

Constitution and the statutory provision of the United States Congress. The

Plaintiffs Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design is protected by the

Certificate of Registration of Copyright under Title 17 U.S.C. §411, §410(a) and

§106(3) which were filed on May 21, 2001 and March 10, 2003. The Defendants

Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design was filed in 2007 and 2016 in direct

conflict with Title 17 U.S.C. §411, §410(a) and §106(3) and Title 35 U.S.C.

§ 154(a)(4), “Patent Registration and Copyrights.” The Plaintiffs drawings cannot

be part of the Defendant's, Lucid Energy Inc., patent drawings which are annexed

to the patent and are a part of such patent. The fact is the Plaintiffs original

patent.

FOURTH QUESTION

Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall hear this

case because there cannot be but one Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design

with the same literary works with two different copyright owners with the same

drawings, design, blueprints and literary works. Here there are two projects with

different registrations in different years and different protections by different

statutory provisions from the same Article I, §VIII of the U.S. Constitution. The

Laws are clear that the first registration for copyright protection filed with the U.S.

Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission shall constitute

prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and the facts stated in the

certificate; the evidentiary weight being accorded to the Certificate of Registration

made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the Court. (See Appendix “4” pgs.

78 to 102).

LIST OF PARTIES

S. C. Rule 12.3, Rule 14.1(b), Rule 29.2, and Rule 39.1

['O All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

K] All parties to the proceedings in the court whose judgment is the subject

of Plaintiffs Petition are as follows: All persons served are deemed Defendants for

all purposes in the proceedings in this Court.

All parties to the proceedings in the Court whose judgment is sought to be

reviewed are deemed parties entitled to file documents in the Court after the case is

placed on the docket. Counsel for Defendants shall ensure that Counsel of Record

for all parties receive notice of its intention to file a brief in support within 30 days

after the case is placed on the docket.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

Lucid Energy, Inc. through Counsel

Edelman and Dicker, LLC

Attention Wilson Edelman

100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 3800

Miami, Florida 33131

Samuel Rivera Rosado

South Florida Reception Center

South Unit

13910 N.W. 41st Street

Doral, Florida 33178-3014

United States Court of Appeal

Eleventh Circuit

Office of the Clerk

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on July

if7 . 2019.

Samuel Rivera Rosado, Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

LIST OF PARTIES..............

TABLE OF CONTENTS.....

Vll

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Vll

INTRODUCTION,

,V111

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

STATUTES AND RULES

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

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

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

CONCLUSION

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX “1” Decision of the United States District Court of Florida....................... ,24

APPENDIX “2” Copyright Registration of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline

with the U.S. Copyright Office belonging to the Plaintiff................... 25

APPENDIX “3” Lucid Energy's Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline Design

Stolen form the Plaintiff....................................................................... 26

APPENDIX “4” Decision regarding Plaintiffs Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline

Belonging to Plaintiff and not Lucid Energy, Inc............... ................ 27

APPENDIX “5” Decision of the United States District Court of Appeal for the

Eleventh Circuit.................................................................................. 28

APPENDIX “6” Decision on Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals to the

United States Supreme Court with Affidavit accompanying Motion

for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.............................................. 29

Vll

INTRODUCTION

In this Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Plaintiff is the Appellant below and

the Defendant, Lucid Energy, Inc., is the Appellee. The parties will be referred to’

as they appear before this Court. All emphasis has been supplied unless otherwise

indicated.

The symbol “App.” will be used to refer to an Appendix.

The symbol “pg.” or “pgs.” will be used to refer to pages.

Numbers from “1” through “173” will be used to refer to Appendix page

numbers for the Court record.

Vlll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Case

Page

Bateman v. Mnemonic, Inc., 79 F. 3d 1523, 1541 (11th Cir. 1996)....

Constant v. Advances Microdevices, Inc., 848 F. 2d 1560, 1564 N. 4

(Fed. Cir. 1988).............................................................................

Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC Interactive Corp., 606 F. 3d 612, 612 (CA 9, 2010).... 3

Eldred. v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 123 S Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003)

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall Street Com. LLC, et al,

S.U. Supreme Court January 8, 2019 - decided March 4, 2019.............

2,18

Fox Film Corp. v. Doyle, 286 U.S. 123, 127, 52 S.Ct. 546, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932) 15

Freeman v. 3M, 697 F. Supp. 134 (3rd Cir. 1988)...................

Ganz Bros. Toys v. Midwest Importers of Cannon Falls, Inc.,

834 F. Supp. 896, 899-901 (E. D. Va. 1993)......................

Grave Tank, et Mfg. Co. v. Kinde Air Products, Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950). ...16

Kaseberg v. Conaco, LLC., 260 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 1243 (D.D. Cal. 2017)

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Son, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 557, 133 S.Ct. 1350(2012)....19

Lyons Partnership v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F. 3d 789, 801 (4th Cir. 2001)...16

Roberts v. Lord, 877 F. 3d 1024, 1025 (11th Cir. 2015)....................................

Satellite Board of Commons Assn. v. FCC, 275 F. 3d 336, 367 (4th Cir. 2001).... 17

STATUTES AND RULES

Supreme Court Rule 12.3..................................................

Supreme Court Rule 14.1..................................................

Supreme Court Rule 29.....................................................

5,23

Supreme Court Rule 39.1..................................................

Title 17U.S.C. §102..........................................................

8,9

Title 17U.S.C. §106..........................................................

ii, iii, 10, 17, 19

Title 17U.S.C. §410.................................................

.........n, in

Title 17U.S.C. §411..........................................................

ii, iii, 3, 17

Title 17U.S.C. §501..........................................................

Title 17 U.S.C.A. §506......................................................

14, 17

Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1344....................................................

8, 18

Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1365....................................................

8, 18

Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1962....................................................

Title 18 U.S.C.A. §2319....................................................

....................14, 17

Title 28 U.S.C. §1746........................................................

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

Title 28 U.S.C. §1915........................................................

Title 35 U.S.C. §154..........................................................

n, m

United States Constitution Amendment V.........................

ii, 4, 7, 11, 13,21

United States Constitution Amendment VII......................

4, 14

United States Constitution Amendment XI........................

4, 7, 14

United States Constitution Amendment XIV.....................

2,21

United States Constitution Article I, §8.............................

iii, 13, 17

United States Constitution Article III, §2...........................

4, 13

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Plaintiff respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment

below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[S] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix “5”

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

________ or,

K] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix “1”,

pages 13 to 18. to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[S] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix___

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals appears at

Appendix___

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

i, or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

[S] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was

February 19, 2019 a copy of that decision appears at_________________ .

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

K] a timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: April 24. 2019. and a copy of the order

denying rehearing appears at Appendix 5. pgs. 109 to 113. and pg. 131.

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was

granted to and including____

(date) on

(date) in Application No._A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and Part

III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decisions

of the federal court that were entered. The Plaintiff seeks remedies by the United

States Supreme Court from the denial of due process of laws according to the

United States Constitution Amendments 5 and 14(TL “No person shall be deprived

of any public right or property or take for public use, without just compensation or

deprived from copyright protection without due process of law. Under similarly

situated person are equal under the law and must be treated alike” In the Florida

Law Weekly, Federal Vol 27, Number 47, pages 686-690. Fourth Estate Public

Benefit Corporation v. Wall Street Com. LLC. et al. S.U. Supreme Court January 8,

2019 — decided March 4, 2019, the Court granted Fourth Estate's Petition for

Certiorari to resolve a division among U.S. Courts of Appeal on which registration

occurs in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. §411(a), 585 U.S. 120.18). Compare

e.g., 858 f. 3d at 1341 (case below) (registration has been made under 17 U.S.C.

§411(a), when the registrar of copyrights registers a copyright, with, e.g. Cosmetic

Ideas, Inc. v. IAC Interactive Corp., 606 F. 3d 612, 612 (CA 9, 2010) (Registration

has been made §411 (a) when the copyright claimant's complete application for

registration is received by the copyright office).

Held; The United States Supreme Court delivered the opinion of the Court,

commence an infringement suit when the copyright office registers a copyright upon registration of a copyright, a copyright owner can recover for infringement

that occurred both before and after registration. [See Appendix “2”, pages 27 to 30

and pages 51 to 57]. The Plaintiff Samuel Rivera Rosado's copyright registration

was received by the copyright office on May 21, 2001 and March 10, 2003.

“. . . The Federal Courts will not allow a company to steal a person's property

such as copyright ownership design, drawings and blueprints and put patent on such

property for monetary gain in violation of The United States Constitution Amendment

Y. No person shall deprive any person's property to be taken for public use without

just compensation!”

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

“The United States Constitution. Amendment V.” Holding no persons shall

be deprived of life, liberty,property without due process of law, nor shall private

property be taken for public use without just compensation. Amendment XI. The

judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in

law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by

citizens of another state. Amendment VII. Suits at Common Law. The Plaintiff

court of the United States. Then according to the rules of the common law. And

The United States Constitution. Article III. Section 2. The judicial power shall

extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the law of the

United States.

Provisions of The United States Constitution allow for the courts to grant a

Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis when the Plaintiff is

indigent and he cannot prepay the court cost to proceed in court action to recover

his stolen property from Defendant Lucid Energy, Inc.

The facts in this case show that the Plaintiff is the victim because it is

obvious that Lucid Energy, Inc. stole the Plaintiffs property, the Water Turbine

Energy System Pipeline and the literary work from the book for monetary gain

without paying any compensation. The point of law is that the Plaintiffs copyright

shows the Plaintiff is the owner of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline and

not Lucid Energy, Inc.

Infringement on and stolen property occurred against the Plaintiff when

Lucid Energy, Inc. in 2012, delivered the same project for patent registration of

the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline, which the Plaintiff designed in 2001

and in fact registered with the patent office which delivers clean, safe drinking

water and generates clean electricity by using the city water utility main pipe. The

same project that in 2004 disappeared from the office of the executive secretary of

the U.S. Department of Energy in Washington D.C. and the California Energy

Commission in 2007. [See Appendix “2” pgs. 27 to 50 and Appendix “3” pgs. 61

to 77]. “Now the court stated the Plaintiffs complaint is frivolous because Lucid

Energy Inc. has a patent and the Plaintiff has a copyright when Lucid Energy Inc.

put patent in stolen property how can the court state the Plaintiffs complaint failed

to state a claim of copyright infringement when the Plaintiffs is the victim in this

case? That it is legal to steal a person's copyright design, drawings and literary

work and register a patent for them and the court protects the person that has the

patent.”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Plaintiffs appeal from the denial of due process of laws from the United

States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on November 22, 2017. The

Honorable Donald L. Graham referred to the Plaintiffs lawsuit seeking $250

million dollars prepayment from Lucid Energy Inc. for the stolen Water Turbine

Energy System Pipeline for monetary gain for which Lucid Energy Inc. is not

immune from paying compensation to the Plaintiff for violation of copyright

infringement in which the project actually and legally belongs to the Plaintiff and

not to Lucid Energy.

The Court Judge overlooked the appendices and the Plaintiffs motion to

proceed in forma pauperis showing the Plaintiffs claims are not frivolous or

malicious because the Plaintiff is the victim in this case. Lucid Energy stole the

Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design from the Plaintiff and built the

project for monetary gain. Now Lucid Energy, Inc. has not paid Plaintiff over

Plaintiffs protest. Thus since the Plaintiff does not have any money to pay the

court cost, the judge dismissed the Plaintiffs complaint because the Plaintiff is

currently a prisoner in the South Florida Reception Center. [See Appendix “1” pgs.

13 to 26 and Appendix “5” pgs 104 to 108].

The Magistrate Judge never looked into this issue! Also, the Magistrate

Judge's recommendation that was made without the court first receiving the U.S.

to the Plaintiff not Lucid Energy Inc., that would have been the right action by the

court in this claim regarding a copyright infringement that was committed by

Lucid Energy, Inc. for stealing the Plaintiffs property. The court's denial and

dismissal without properly reviewing the U.S. Copyright Office's reply is a denial

of due process under Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution. [See Appendix “1”

pgs. 3 to 12].

Plaintiff filed direct appeal to the United States District Court, Southern

District of Florida and to the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh

Circuit looking for justice. However, justice and due process of laws failed and the

legal process was defective and broke down when the court held that the Plaintiff

sought monetary relief from a Defendant, Lucid Energy, Inc., who is immune from

such relief, 28 U.S.C. §1915(e¥2L

The court erred when it misapplied the controlling laws holding that Lucid

Energy, Inc. has the protection of immunity from prosecution under The United

States Constitution. Amendment XI.

Here, will take notice that the only

departments that have this immunity protection in this case are the California

Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy and Washington D.C., not

Lucid Energy, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit stated the scope

of copyright protection for designs and literary work is limited, however, in that it

does not “extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,

concept, principle, or discovery regardless of the form in which it is described,

explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”

“If the designs, technical

drawings, and blueprints that are not stolen property, there is no problem,” but

since the project is stolen property, there is a crime because the copyright

registration by the United States Copyright Office is under the seal of the

In 17 U.S.C. §102flf). §106 A(a.y3L unlike a patent, which protects

duplication of an invention if the invention is not stolen property, if the copyright

designs, technical drawings, blueprints and literary works are stolen from the

Plaintiff, the patent is invalid and Lucid Energy, Inc. committed a crime for

tampering with illegally obtained designs, technical drawings and literary works of

the Plaintiffs Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline that was stolen property from

the Plaintiff. This is a crime, an offense in violation of Title 18U.S.C.A. §1365(4L

§ 1962(a)(b) or (c) and §1344(T)(2) (2018L [See Appendix “5” pgs. 114 to 129].

The Plaintiffs complaint, the allegations of which must be taken as true,

establishes these elements. Plaintiff files this action against Lucid Energy, Inc.,

Defendant in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, for

distribution of Plaintiffs literary work of the copyright-protected Water Turbine

Energy System Pipeline, registered with the United States Copyright Office,

. Registration Numbers VAU-529-047 and TXU1-097-049.

Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant's infringement was willful and

substantial is also taken as true. Plaintiff has valid and enforceable rights in his

original copyrighted work registered with the United States Copyright Office,

Registration Numbers VAU-529-047 and TXU1-097-049.

Defendant has directly, indirectly and/or contributorily infringed on

Plaintiffs exclusive rights under the Copyright Act by copying and distributing

material showing technical drawings and blueprints of Plaintiffs invention,

contributing to the infringement of Plaintiffs exclusive right under the Copyright

Act causing Plaintiff economic harm. This infringement has been willful.

In the form of conclusory allegations and legal conclusions, the evidence

presented must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs record and

appendices between the the conflict in the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's.

The Plaintiffs claims as deemed fully admitted are not frivolous. Plaintiffs

motivation

is to enforce its rights as it is action in the industry.

protection inures “original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of

expression,” including designs, 17 U.S.C. 102(^X1X81 and 102(aX5T Generally,

the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to distribute or display the

copyrighted work to the public the designs of the Water Turbine Energy System

Pipeline projects 17 U.S.C. 106(AYaX2Y3) and lOOC?). The initial ownership of a

copyrighted work vests in the author of the work.

The law establishes copyright infringement. Two elements must be shown:

“(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the

work that are original.” [See Appendix “2” pgs. 27 to 30 and pg. 51]. (“Once the

Plaintiff produces a Certificate of Copyright, the burden shifts to the Defendant to

demonstrate why the claim of copyright of technical drawings and blueprints is

invalid of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline that was built by Lucid

Energy, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overlooked and

misapprehended the complaint and Appendices Records.

On June 10, 2004, the Plaintiff sent a package to the Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Energy in Washington, D.C. that contained 151 pages and 44

technical drawings that deal with new technology to produce clean electricity by

using only water. That package was sent via Certified Mail and was received on

June 17, 2004. The Office of the Executive Secretary extensively searched their

files and could not find the 151 pages and 44 technical drawings with blueprints

that were received by the U.S. Department of Energy because the package was

stolen by someone. [See Appendix “4” pgs. 81 to 86].

On May 24, 2007, the Plaintiff sent a copy of the same portfolio via

Certified Mail to the Department of Energy in Washington D.C. and to the

California Energy Commission with 151 pages and 44 technical drawings along

with blueprints of six different clean and renewable energy sources. The package

was received by the California Energy Commission on May 24, 2007. On October

3, 2007, the Plaintiff requested that the Director of the California Energy

Commission advise the Plaintiff regarding the status of the portfolio for the Water

Turbine Energy System Pipeline but never received a reply. [See Appendix “4”

pgs. 92 to 97]. Now the fact is that there is evidence that supports the Plaintiffs

Plaintiff and built by other person in violation of Amendment V of the U.S.

Constitution.

Lucid Energy, Inc.'s copyright and patent that were filed in 2007 and 2015

contain the same literary work as the Plaintiffs book with the same specifications,

drawings and designs as the Plaintiffs, Samuel Rivera Rosado, architectural work

and designs that are contained in the Plaintiffs copyright. Now, Lucid Energy,

Inc.'s project contains the same literary language, facts, theory, topics and detail

that are found in the Plaintiffs manual book, “The New Super-Power Square

Pipeline that Produces Electricity from Fresh or Seawater” that was registered by

pgs. 27-60 and Appendix “3” pgs. 61-77]. The Court cannot allow Lucid Energy,

Inc. to operate with stolen property relating to racketeering.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The court cannot allow the company to steal or take a person's copyright

design, drawings or literary work and then patent and copyright the original

owner's property because The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

holds that no person shall be deprived of private property to be taken for public use

without just compensation.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution holding that: to

promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited to authors

and inventors the exclusive right of copyright to their respective writing and

discoveries. This approach is consistent with the Copyright Act. A patent owner, a

“Copyright and patent is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits.”

(Internal quotation mark omitted). The Patent Act, the Copyright Act, provide that

courts “may” grant injunctive relief on such terms as it may deem reasonable to

prevent or restrain infringement of copyright.

The Plaintiffs complaint against Lucid Energy, Inc. for stolen property,

designs and drawings, should be otherwise re-examined by the United States

Supreme Court on the merits according to Article III. §2 of the United States

Constitution. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in laws and equity

arising under this constitution. The laws of the United States, the Plaintiffs civil

complaint in violation of Copyright Act by Lucid Energy, Inc., that shall be re

examined by the United States Supreme Court under Amendments VII and XI of

the United States Constitution. The Judicial power of the United States shall not

be construed to extend to any suit.

The United States Supreme Court shall, and must, protect any person, like

the Plaintiffs property from being stolen or taken or infringed upon from a

company like Lucid Energy, Inc. The Plaintiffs stolen copyright design, technical

drawings and blueprints of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline that was

built by Lucid Energy, Inc. for commercial advantage and private monetary gain

makes millions of dollars for Lucid Energy, Inc. for years to come in violation of

Title 17 U.S.C.A. $506ta¥U(A) and Title 18 U.S.C.A., §2319. [See Appendix “5”

pgs. 123 to 125].

Here, the District Court dismissed the complaint and the Eleventh Circuit

affirmed the dismissal holding that Plaintiff Samuel Rivera Rosado would not be

entitled to relief even after accepting as true that Mr. Samuel Rivera Rosado has a

valid copyright and his technical drawings had been used to create a water turbine

energy system pipeline without his permission. Id. To properly seek relief for

Lucid Energy, Inc's. Alleged reliance on his copyright infringement because Lucid

Energy, Inc. filed for patent and the Plaintiff has a copyright. The court overlooked

and misapprehended laws and the constitution. In Eldred. v. Ashcroft. 537 U.S.

186, 123 S Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003), the United States Supreme Court

dissent by Stevens Breyer. 4. “The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes

reward to the owner a secondary consideration.” In Fox Film Corn, v. Dovle. 286

U.S. 123, 127, 52 S.Ct. 546, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932); see also id. at 127, 128 52 S.Ct.

546. (Copyright at Patent is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits

bestowed by the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects.”

(Internal quotation marks omitted). The Patent Act, the Copy-right Act, provides

that courts “may” grant injunctive relief on such terms as it may deem reasonable

to prevent or restrain infringement of copyright.

The Plaintiff has “exclusive rights” ownership under the copyright

registration by the copyright office of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline

that produces clean electricity by using the city water utility main pipe, the same

system that was built by Lucid Energy, Inc. without the Plaintiffs permission or

any agreement in violation of copyright infringement. There cannot be two water

turbine energy system pipelines by two different owners or two different systems

that do the same work. In Kasebere v. Conaco. LLC.. 260 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 1243

(D.D. Cal. 2017), the District Court held: “To determine whether two works are

substantially similar in copyright infringement action, a two-part analysis and

extrinsic test is applied for summary judgment, only the extrinsic test is

important.” (Internal quotation marks are omitted). Ganz Bros. Toys v. Midwest

Importers of Cannon Falls. Inc.. 834 F. Supp. 896, 899-901 (E. D. Va. 1993). The

two works are extrinsically and intrinsically similar. Lyons Partnership v. Morris

Costumes, Inc., 243 F. 3d 789, 801 (4th Cir. 2001). The two Water Turbine Energy

System Pipelines in the Plaintiffs and Lucid Energy, Inc.'s copyright are the same

as stated in the Plaintiffs book “The New Super Power Square Pipeline That

Produces Electricity by Using Fresh Water or Seawater. ” The Plaintiffs design

and technical drawings consist of “unique original expression based on similarities

of design, theory and invention ideas on which it is founded.”

In both the Plaintiffs and Lucid Energy, Inc.'s Water Turbine Energy System

Pipeline [See Appendix “2” pgs. 27 to 60 and Appendix “3” pgs. 61 to 771. these

two devices do the exact same work with substantially the same result. They are

the same even though they differ in name, form or shape.”

The doctrine of

operates not only in favor of the patentee, see in Freeman v. 3M. 697 F. Supp. 134

(3rd Cir. 1988). The court held that: to prove this infringement claim, he would

have to prove that they performed substantially the same function in substantially

the same way to achieve the same result. Grave Tank, et Mfz. Co. v. Kinde Air

Products. Co.. 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950).

The Plaintiffs copyright infringement complaint against Lucid Energy, Inc.

must be reviewed on the merit because the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline

works are substantially similar.

The Lucid Energy, Inc. Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design does

not work without the Plaintiffs design, ideas, and invention under the Plaintiffs

property copyright protection. Lucid Energy, Inc. operated with stolen property in

violation of Title 17 U.S.C.A. S506fam Title 18 §2319. Title 17. U.S.C. §106

through §122 and Title 17, U.S.C. §501. Infringement copyright section (b) the

legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled subject

to the requirements of Title 17 U.S.C. $411(a).

In the language of the day,

“science” includes work of authorship of the Plaintiff Water Turbine Energy

System Pipeline in Constant v. Advances Microdevices. Inc.. 848 F. 2d 1560, 1564

N. 4 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Article I $8 of The United States Constitution has

consistently construed the patent and copyright clause to permit judicial review of

patents can be challenged in court. In Satellite Board of Commons Assn, v. FCC.

275 F. 3d 336, 367 (4th Cir. 2001), the court held that: copyright law that congress

passed the Copyright Act of 1876, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541, which

provides that owners of copyrights have the exclusive right to authorize public

performances of those works. Title 17 U.S.C. $106141. Although the Copyright

Act of 1909 had granted copyright holders a similar right to control public

performances. Supra id. at 275 F. 3d 363-367. The United States Supreme Court

has recognized congress act to grant permanent copyright protection to an author

and designer.

The United States Supreme Court delivered the opinion of the court held in

Florida Law Weekly, Federal Vol. 27, Number 47. Fourth Estate Public Benefit

Corporation v. Wall Street Com. LLC. et al S.U. Supreme Court, January 8, 2019 decided March 4, 2019. The opinion of the court holding: Copyright infringement

registration occurs and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit

when the copyright office registers a copyright, a copyright owner can recover for

infringement that occurred both before and after registration. The District Court

dismissed the complaint and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed holding the scope of

invention. The court overlooked and misapprehended that Lucid Energy, Inc.'s

Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline is stolen property which makes the patent

invalid for tampering with the stolen copyright design, drawings and blueprints in

violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 1365m and $1344 m(2Y2018L When copyright

infringement occurs from stolen property by Lucid Energy, Inc. with the Plaintiffs

Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline for commercial advantage and private

financial gain, that is fraud for tampering with the stolen copyright design,

drawings and blueprints. Lucid Energy, Inc. is doing illegal transactions with the

U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Copyright Office, the U.S. Patent Office and

the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Lucid is guilty of copyright

infringement, mail fraud and racketeering in violation of the RICO Act and for

being guilty of aiding and abetting with Mr. Gregg Semler. Lucid faces serious

criminal charges. The record is clear. [See Appendix “5” pg. 112] [See Appendix

“1” pg. 16] [See Appendix “1” pg. 23] [See Appendix “2” pgs. 27 to 60] [See

Appendix “3

pgs. 63 to 75]

The Plaintiffs Water Turbine Energy System

Pipeline existed and was designed before Lucid Energy, Inc. became a company in

2007 and built their Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline in 2011.

[See

Appendix “4” pgs. 78 to 102].

The Plaintiffs copyrighted technical drawings and copyrighted new book,

“The New Super-Power Square Pipeline That Produces Electricity by Using Fresh

or Seawater ” are protected by the copyright office registration. The Water Turbine

Energy System Pipeline cannot be built or used for monetary gain without the

Plaintiffs permission. See Kirtsaenz v, John Wilev & Son. Inc.. 568 U.S. 519, 557,

133 S.Ct. 1350(2012).

The United States Supreme Court held that: Title 17

U.S.G.A. §106 of the Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright under this

Title “certain” exclusive rights, “including the right to distribute copies. . . of the

copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership.”

Title 17U.S.C. §106(3):

“No Part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any

means. . . except as permitted under section 107 or 108.”

The Court in this case should direct an award for the Plaintiff for the Water

Turbine Energy System Pipeline that Lucid Energy, Inc. built from the Plaintiff’s

The record and

evidence shows the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline belongs to the Plaintiff

and not to Lucid Energy, Inc. according to Appendix “2” and “4” or as an

alternative, this Court should let this case go to trial to make a verdict according to

Amendment VII of The United States Constitution which must be upheld in this

civil case.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiffs Petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted. The law is

clear in this civil case according to Bateman v. Mnemonic. Inc.. 79 F. 3d 1523,

1541 (11th Cir. 1996).

(Once the Plaintiff produces a certificate of copyright

registration by the copyright office, the burden shifts to the Defendant Lucid

Energy, Inc. to demonstrate why the Plaintiffs claim of copyright protection is

invalid.) Supra in Roberts v. Lord. 877 F. 3d 1024, 1025 (11th Cir. 2015). . . The

issue is that there cannot be two water turbine energy system pipelines that do

essentially the same work and one system is protected with a copyright and the

other with a patent, but the one protected by the patent is a stolen project from the

owner's copyright by Lucid Energy, Inc. The work and design of the two Water

Turbine Energy System Pipelines are essentially the same. [See Appendix “2” and

“3”].

“Now the Court needs to determine the true owner of the Water Turbine

Energy System Pipeline by identifying who was first to design the system.

The requirement of the law and Amendment V of The United States

Constitution require no less under due process of law and the equal protection of

these laws, that no person shall be deprived of any right or property under similar

case law or constitutions situated persons are equal under the law and must be

treated as like one, according to Amendment XIVTP of The United States

Constitution. The United States Supreme Court shall remand this case back to the

U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit to address this case on its merits and

make Lucid Energy, Inc. show cause on the merits.

This Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully Submitted,

W'( VA

Samuel Rivera Rosado DC#180695

South Florida Reception Center

South Unit

13910 N.W. 41st Street

Doral, Florida 33178-3014

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.