Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Petitioner v. The Walt Disney Company

Supreme Court briefJun 6, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

IN THE

-3^

Supreme Court of the United States

Alejandro Evaristo Perez,

Pro Se Petitioner

The Walt Disney Company,

Supreme Court,

us:

FILED

Reapon

.FFtCEO!^^1-

To The United States Court Of Appeals For The F:

Circuit (#22-20084)

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PRO SE PETITIONER:

ALEJANDRO EVARISTO PEREZ

9233 WESTHEIMER, #405

HOUSTON, TX 77063

(214) 762-0075

aleiandro.evaristo.perez@gmail.com

RESPONDER:

ELIZABETH KRISTIN DUFFY

2200 ROSS AVENUE

SUITE 2800

DALLAS, TX 75201

(214) 740-8800

eduffy@lockelord.com

RECEIVED

JUN 2 8 2023

SUPREI^COURtf/^

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The question is “Whether conspiring against and failing to

defend a copyright holder in his own Federal Jurisdiction is

a violation of US Code Title 17 (Copyrights), a violation of

US Code Title 15 (Monopolies Restricting Trade), and

violates legal precedence of ‘Rossi V. Motion Picture

Association Of America Inc.. 391 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir.

2004)’? Or whether the US Supreme Court wants additional

criminal charges to the conspirators like perjury (US Code

Title 18, § 1621). tampering with evidence (18 U.S. Code §

1519), fraud (18 U.S. Code § 1341) and other criminal

charges?”.

The choices presented are between politely

forcing the Federal Judges to do their “Umpire” jobs, or clean

their own Judicial System by jailing conspirators and

retiring Fallen Judges. Below are the questions that the 5th

Circuit Judges were supposed to be answer: “Why do the

Conspirators just buy the Pro Se Party’s US copyrights via

royalty agreement and depublished or monetize at will?”;

“Why are our TXSD Federal Judges failing to protect the

resident copyright holders who entitled to any Motion for

Summary Judgment (FRCP 56)?”; “Why are our TXSD

Federal Judges choosing to violate docket sequences, violate

chronology, and legal! precedence?”; “Why are our TXSD

Federal Judges pretending that the Appellee(s) do not

operate in the TXSD Jurisdiction?”; “Why are our TXSD

Federal Judges allowing an Unsigned Magistrate (No

Consent Form) to openly violate 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)?”; “Why

are our TXSD Federal Judges choosing late incomplete

motions without proposed orders that violate FRCP 12

(‘Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.’(A)(i)’s 21-day

deadline) and FRCP 15 (1st Amended Complaint as ‘Matter

of Course’)?”; “Are the TXSD Federal Judges determining

venue choices for total strangers without any legal contracts

without any Change of Venue?”! “Are the TXSD Federal

Judges part of the unnecessary conspiracy to restrict trade

and stalled the copyright holder’s US Code 17 rights?”.

Ill

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

US Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit

22-20084

Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Appellant. The Walt

Disney Company, Appellee

Date of Final Opinion: April 26 2023

Texas Southern District (TXSD) Federal Court

4:21-cv-00765

Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Plaintiff v. “Disney

Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, et la”, Defendant

Date of Final Opinion: February 09, 2022

California Central District (CACD) Federal Court

2:21-cv-03490-JFW-E

Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Plaintiff v. The Walt

Disney Company, Defendant

Date of Final Opinion: July 01, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

OPINION BELOW

JURISDICTION AND INTERESTED PARTIES...... 1

STATUTES & CASES PROVISIONS INVOLVED.... 4

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX & ADMIN REQUIREMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion by Appeal Judges who broke legal precedence when

failing to enforce the agreed-on case of “Rossi V. Motion

Picture Association Of America Inc.” in an attempt to

comprise between Parties, (April 26, 2023)

Opinion by the Fallen Judge Keith Ellison who failed to

protect the copyright holder in their own jurisdiction, who

used a late incomplete Motion to Dismiss, ignored caselaw,

and violated many Federal Rules of Civil Procedures

(February 09, 2022)

The Denial Of Informal Petition For Panel Rehearing and

Rehearing En Banc by Judges who failed legal precedence

and failed to enforce the agreed-on case of “Rossi V. Motion

Picture Association Of America Inc.” as a comprise between

Parties, (May 12, 2023)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

US CODES

17 U.S.C. Chapter 5 “Copyright Infringements”...!, 4, 27, 28

15 U.S.C. Chapter 1 § 1 “Conspiracy”

i, 4, 5, 127, 28

28 U.S.C. § 1654 “Personal Appearance”

18 U.S.C. § 1341 “Frauds and Swindles”

i, 6, 27, 28

18 U.S.C. § 1519 “Tampering with Evidence”

i, 8

18 U.S.C. § 1621 “Perjury”

i, 27, 28

US FEDERAL CASES

Rossi V Motion Picture Association OfAmerica Inc.,

9th Cir, No. 03-16034 (2004)

i, v, 10 - 11

16, 19, 20 -21, 23- 26, 28, la, 7a, 8a, 9a

Alejandro Evaristo Perez v. Linkedln Corporation,

Sup. Ct. No. 22-726 (2023)

2, 11-12, 15, 24, 33

Sup. Ct. No. 21M120 (2022)

2, 11-12, 15

Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,

9th Circuit, 938 F. 2d 986, 992, (1991)

11, 13, 20

Vll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

US FEDERAL CASES

Haines v. Kerner,

Supreme Court, No. 70-5025 (1972)

14, 32

Resnick v. Hayes,

9th Circuit, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (2000)

14, 32

McKinney v. De Bord,

9th Circuit, 507 F.2d 501, 504, (1974)

14, 32

Faretta v. California,

Supreme Court, No. 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

14, 32

USA v. Automated Medical Laboratories,

4th Circuit, 770 F.2d 399 (1985)

15, 30

USA v. Cincotta,

1st Circuit, 689 F.2d 238, 241-42 (1982)

15, 30

State Of Oklahoma v Shriver,

US Supreme Court, No. 21-985 (2022)

15, 33

International Shoe Co. v. Washington,

Sup. Ct„ 326 U.S. 310, No. 107 (1945)

Vlll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

JUDICIAL RULES

Sup. Ct. R. 40 “Veterans and Military”

2, 12, 31, 33, 9a

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(l)(A)(i)’, “21-Day Deadline”

ii, 17, 22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)&(b), “Amendments”..ii, 3, 4, 17 - 19, 22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, “Default; Default Judgment”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, “Summary Judgment”

22-23

ii, 11, 20, 22

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Alejandro Evaristo Perez, the Pro Se Petitioner, respectfully

petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the unjust

judgment of polite Judges who work in the Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit and the Fallen Judge Ellison from the

Federal District Court of the Southern District of Texas.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Appeal Judges (App. la) in the Fifth

Circuit is reported at 5th Cir. 22-20084 as mentioned in the

Table of Authorities. The opinion of the district court (App.

5a) is reported at TXSD 4:21-cv00765.

JURISDICTION & INTERESTED PARTIES

The Fifth Circuit entered judgment on April 26 2023,

and ignored an unrequired informal combined petition for

panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on May 12, 2023

(App. 8a). The Judgment Order had a Pro Se Clause of “If

you were unsuccessful in the district court and/or on appeal,

and are considering filing a petition for certiorari in the

United States Supreme Court, you do not need to file a

motion for stay of mandate under Fed. R. App. P. 41. The

issuance of the mandate does not affect the time, or your

right, to file with the Supreme Court.” With such a “Pro Se

Right-To-File” clause granted by the 5th Circuit Court, the

Pro Se Appellant is acting on this clause and thus filing this

official PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the US

Supreme Court.

This Court has jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. Section 1254(l) “Courts of appeals! Certiorari!

Certified Questions”. US Army Officer Alejandro Evaristo

Perez is the Pro Se Petitioner and requesting Rule 40 be

enforced when filing his MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

PROCEED AS A VETERAN. The Pro Se Petitioner is still

politely offering the US Supreme Court to refund the $300

the Pro Se Petitioner and apologize for their multiple Rule

40 violations in “Perez vs Linkedln” (Case No. 22-726 and

No. 21M120.). IAW US Supreme Court Rule 29.6 “corporate

disclosure statement” (CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF

INTERESTED PARTIES) was finally validated on 08 June

2021 in CACD 2:21-cv-03490-JFW-E (Docket#34) with a

Certificate of Service, the Responder, “The Walt Disney

Company” corporation, declared that “The Walt Disney

Company states that is has no parent corporation and that

no publicly held corporation owns more than 10% of The

Walt Disney Company's stock.”. IAW FRCP 15 “Matter of

Course” and once validated in the Federal Courts, the Pro Se

Appellant filed the 1st Amended Complaint in the docket for

case TXSD 4^21-cv'00765, which our Honorable Judge

Charles Eskridge accepted and Parties agreed on, when our

Honorable Judge Charles Eskridge recused himself on 24

January 2022. In fact, our Honorable Judge Charles

Eskridge added both “THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY’ and

“DISNEY CORPORATION” on his order, which inspired the

Pro Se Appellant to punish more unethical Disney Villains

via new amended complaints and the use of the “et la”

concept. The TXSD Judges and 5th Circuit Judges accepted

different amended complaints (FRCP

15).

FYI,

the

copyrighted novels had disclaimers to include parody.

STATUTES & CASES PROVISIONS INVOLVED

17 U.S.C. Chapter 5

“§ 501 (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive

rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections

106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section

106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into

the United States in violation of section 602, is an

infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the

case may be.” The Pro Se Appellant owns the

copyrights and submitted the copyrights to evidence,

while the Appellee does not and conspired a shutdown

in the Amazon platform via false claims of ownership.

15 U.S.C. Chapter 1 § 1

Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or

otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or

commerce among the several States, or with foreign

nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who

shall make any contract or engage in any combination

or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be

deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof,

shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000

if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or

by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both

said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”

28 U.S.C. § 1654

Appearance personally or by Counsel

“In all courts of the United States, the parties may

plead and conduct their own cases personally or by

counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively,

are permitted to manage and conduct cause therein.”

18 U.S.C. § 1341

Frauds and Swindles

“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any

scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money

or property (ex. copyrights are intellectual property)

by means of false or fraudulent pretenses (falsely

claiming to own those copyrights), representations, or

promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter,

give away, distribute (or stop distribution in Amazon

platform), supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful

use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation,

security, or other article, or anything represented to

be or intimated (like legal bullying) or held out to be

such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of

executing such scheme (like a unauthorized shutdown

in the Amazon platform of the Pro Se Appellant’s

copyrighted novels) or artifice or attempting so to do,

places in any post office or authorized depository for

mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent

or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or

causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever

to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial

interstate carrier (or stop the Amazon drivers from

distributing the Pro Se Appellant’s copyrighted

novels), or takes or receives therefrom, any such

matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered

by mail or such carrier according to the direction

thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be

delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any

such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the

violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit

authorized, transported, transmitted (the “The Walt

Disney Company” using emails to falsely claim

ownership of Alejandro Evaristo Perez’s copyrighted

novels), transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection

with, a presidentially declared major disaster or

emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102

of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects

a financial institution, such person shall be fined not

more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30

years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 1519

Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in...

“Whoever knowingly alters (like closing a ‘Disney

Store’ in the Houston Galleria within the timeframe

of the cases [Houston Chronicle Article, “Disney to

close Galleria store in next few weeks”, 21SEP2021])

destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or

makes a false entry in any record, document, or

tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or

influence the investigation or proper administration

of any matter within the jurisdiction of any

department (like trying to reduce subsidiaries’ TXSD

jurisdiction presence by closing the Disney Galleria

Store) or agency of the United States or any case filed

under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any

such matter or case, shall be fined under this title,

imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

18 U.S.C. § 1621

Perjury

“Whoever—

l)having taken

an oath before

competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in

which a law of the United States authorizes an oath

to be administered, that he will testify, declare,

depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony

(like the emails between Amazon Inc., “The Walt

Disney Company”, and Alejandro Evaristo Perez

where Pro Se Appellant attached his copyrights files),

declaration (like an Unsigned Magistrate writing on

the Federal Docket), deposition (like filing a late

incomplete Motion to Dismiss as “valid”), or certificate

by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to

such oath states or subscribes any material matter

which he does not believe to be true! or (2)in any

declaration, certificate, verification, or statement

under penalty of perjury as permitted under section

1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully

subscribes as true any material matter which he does

not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall,

except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be

fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five

years, or both. This section is applicable whether the

statement or subscription is made within or without

the United States.”

Rossi V. Motion Picture Association OfAmerica Inc.,

9th Circuit, No. 03*16034 (2004)

“The Courts favored Motion Picture Association Of

America Inc., who is the copyright holder in their

own jurisdiction like the Alejandro Evaristo Perez, the

Pro Se Appellant and copyright holder in his own

TXSD jurisdiction. The Courts approved the resident

moving party of the Summary Judgment (FRCP 56)

because there were no disputes of material of facts and

the movant owned the copyright. No IIED claims for

infringers nor conspirators. Only copyright holders

can claim IIED, which is been claimed by Alejandro

Evaristo Perez in the District Courts.” This is the only

agreed-on caselaw by all Parties. The Appellees first

cited and first quoted this case in CACD 2:21-cv03490-JFW-E on 08 June 2021 (Docket#32, Page 4,

11). Both “Motion Picture Association Of America

Inc.” and Pro Se Appellant filed Motions for Summary

Judgments (FRCP 56) in their local Federal Courts.

Alejandro Evaristo Perez v. Linkedln Corporation,

Supreme Court, No. 22*726

Supreme Court, No. 21M120

“After several unpatriotic Rule 40 violations, the Pro

Se Party and the US Supreme Court finally agreed

that unethical actions of the Chinese Communist

Party traitors and Fallen Judges was treason, and not

Anti’S LAPP Laws. The petition was written with the

wording of “IF THE SUPREME COURT DENIES

THIS RIGHTEOUS PETITION. THE PRO SE

PETITIONER

WILL

ASSUME

THAT

THE

UNETHICAL RESPONDER AND THE FALLEN

JUDGES’ WRONGFUL ACTIONS ARE FEDERAL

TREASON. THAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES

NOT

WANT

WASTE

THEIR TIME

TRAITORS. AND THAT THE PRO SE HAS EVERY

RIGHT TO HAND THE TRAITORS TO THEIR

RESPECTIVE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO BEGIN

CRIMINIAL PROSECUTION FOR TREASON ON

TREASONOUS US CIVILIANS.”

The similar

“Denied” clause in that petition is been implemented

to this petition to force the US Supreme Court to make

necessary tough decisions.

Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,

9th Circuit, 938 F. 2d 986, 992, (1991)

“4 Elements Criteria for Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress (IIED). (l) the defendant must act

intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct

must be extreme and outrageous! and (3) the conduct

must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.”

The Pro Se Appellant is extreme upset that the Disney

Villains have not purchased the Pro Se Appellant’s

copyrights. Instead, the cheap Disney Villains are

creating more chaos, misleading Amazon Inc., and

creating legal problems for all parties. All of these

paperwork and problems are 100% responsibility of

the unethical Appellee’s conspiracy and the Fallen

Judges who are too cheap and pathetic to purchase the

copyrights. The Pro Se Appellant is still offering to

peacefully settle by selling the copyrights and bypass

this very petition.

Haines v. Kerner,

Supreme Court, No. 70-5025 (1972)

“Pro Se Party’s pleadings, requests, and motions

should be entertained by all Federal Judges.”

Resnick v. Hayes,

9th Circuit, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (2000)

“Pro Se Party must be construed liberally.”

McKinney v. De Bord

9th Circuit, 507 F.2d 501, 504, (1974)

“Every reasonable or warranted factual inference in

the Pro Se Party favor.”

Faretta v. California

Supreme Court, No. 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

“Pro Se Parties (ex. criminal defendants) have both a

constitutional

and

statutory

right

representation in any Federal Court.”

self

USA v. Automated Medical Laboratories,

4th Circuit, 770 F.2d 399 (1985)

“Parent corporations can be convicted of subsidiary’s

actions, even in attempts to disassociate or escapegoat employees.”

USA v. Cincotta,

1st Circuit, 689 F.2d 238, 241-42 (1982)

“criminal liability imposed on the corporations where

the agents are acting within the scope of his

employment.”

State Of Oklahoma v Shriver,

US Supreme Court, 21-985 (2022)

Sample format booklet offered by US Supreme Clerk

Redmond Barnes to follow on 30 November 2022. The

US Supreme Court has accepted other formats is proof

of corruption and violations of Pro Se caselaw. The

same booklet format used in “Perez v. Linkedln”

No.22-726 and No.21M120.

International Shoe Co. V. Washington,

Sup. Ct., 326 U.S. 310, No. 107 (1945)

“Federal Courts have ‘Long-arm Statute’. Personal

Jurisdiction over any self-proclaimed ‘out-the-state’

Defendant

that

operates

their

respective

jurisdictions.” This caselaw is been challenged by the

unethical Appellee, which is why the focus in the

agreed-on caselaw of “Rossi V. Motion Picture

Association Of America Inc.” 9th Circuit, No. 03*16034

(2004), where the focus is the copyright holder in their

own jurisdiction like the Pro Se Appellant is the

Sup. Ct. R. 40

Rule 40. Veterans, Seamen, and Military Cases.

“A veteran suing under any provision of the law

excepting veterans from the payment of fees or court

costs, may proceed without prepayment of frees or

costs of furnishing security therefore and may

(optional) file a motion for leave to proceed on

papers...”. Pro Se Party is an Honorable US War

Veteran and an Honorable US Army Officer, and filed

two motions; which the Court intentionally rejected

and insulted the US War Hero.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(l)(A)(i)

“21-Day Deadline”

“(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.(l) In

General. Unless another time is specified by this rule

or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive

pleading is as follows: (A) A defendant must serve an

answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the

summons

and

complaint;

or...”

The

unethical

Appellee failed to file on time and filed an incomplete

Motion to Dismiss.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) & (b)

“Amendments Before Trial, During, and After Trial”

(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.(l) In

General. Unless another time is specified by this rule

or a federal statute, the time for serving a responsive

pleading is as follows^ (A) A defendant must serve an

answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the

summons and complaint; or (a) Amendments Before

Trial, (l) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party

may amend its pleading once as a matter of course

withim (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the

pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is

required, 21 days after service of a responsive

pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under

Rule 12(b), (e), or (£), whichever is earlier. (2) Other

Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend

its pleading only with the opposing party's written

consent or the court's leave. The court should freely

give leave when justice so requires....”

The 1st

Amended Complaint regarding the naming-game of

“The Walt Disney Company” required the unethical

Appellee to file a 2nd Motion to Dismiss to match “The

Walt Disney Company” naming. The Appellee failed

to file the 2nd Motion to Dismiss in the TXSD after the

Amended Complaint was accepted.

The Table of Authorities and the above are a snapshot and

synopsis as a reminder to our Supreme Court Justices of

following Statutes, Rules, and Case Law. To be fair, the Pro

Se Petitioner did agreed with the unethical Appellee’s

caselaw of “Rossi V. Motion Picture Association Of America

Inc., 9th Circuit, No. 03-16034 (2004)”, so most of the caselaw

from both Parties is represented in this petition.

INTRODUCTION

The Pro Se Appellant is the victim of a very

unnecessary conspiracy to restrict trade against his

copyrighted novels by cheap unethical conspirators (the

Appellee/s) in the Amazon e-commerce platform. The Pro Se

Appellant is still offering to sell his multiple related

copyrights (ex. “The Real Lord VadeF The Destroyer of Star

Wars”, “Empire of God”, etc...) to the cheap unethical

conspirators to end these multijurisdictional Federal Cases

in order to avoid further IIED by the Appellee(s), avoid the

criminal prosecution of the conspirators, and avoid more

unnecessary paperwork. In contrast, the cheap unethical

conspirators are playing legal mind-games to create chaos

with a late incomplete “Motion to Dismiss”, failed Responses

to Summary Judgments (FRCP 56), false Jurisdiction

arguments, name games, tampering with evidence (ex.

closing the “Disney Store” in the Houston Gallery Store),

and utilizing their brands and resources to misguide an

Unsigned Magistrate Judge, stall the TXSD Docket, stall the

CACD Docket, and stall the Fifth Circuit Docket in order to

further inflict IIED on the Pro Se Party, who offered to sell

the copyrights. The only thing that all Parties can agree on

is the legal case of “Rossi V. Motion Picture Association Of

America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 2004)”, because

the unethical conspirators first cited the legal case of “Rossi

V. Motion Picture Association Of America Inc.,” in the CACD

Court (CACD 2:21-cv-0349OJFW-E), and the Pro Se Party

agreed. Yes, the Pro Se Party agreed, because the Pro Se

Party is the “Motion Picture Association Of America Inc.” in

both local jurisdiction and in copyright ownership. The

original decision favored “Motion Picture Association Of

America Inc.” and so the Court protected the local copyright

holder in their local jurisdiction against external infringers

and external conspirators. The Pro Se Appellant’s local

jurisdiction in the TXSD.

Therefore, the TXSD Federal

Court must favor and protect the Pro Se Appellant, who is

the local copyright holder in his own jurisdiction like “Motion

Picture Association Of America Inc.”.

Instead following

legal precedence, the Fallen Judge Ellison and Unsigned

Magistrate Judge Sheldon broke and dishonored the

Honorable Federal Judges in “Rossi V. Motion Picture

Association Of America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir.

2004)”. The Fallen Judge Ellison and Unsigned Magistrate

Judge Sheldon ignored the resident copyright holder’s

“Motion for Summary Judgment” in his own jurisdiction

citing this agreed-on case law. The Fallen Judge Ellison

made the unjust decision to choose a fake jurisdiction

argument in a late incomplete 1st Motion to Dismiss, which

violates

FRCP

(“Time

Serve

Responsive

Pleading.”(A)(i)’s 21-day deadline), violates FRCP 15 (1st

Amended Complaint as “Matter of Course”), violate FRCP 79

(civil docket chaos), and violates the only agreed-on caselaw.

Even worst, the unjust decision based on Unsigned

Magistrate Judge, who openly and knowingly violated 28

U.S.C. § 636(c) repeatedly.

Consequently, their late

incomplete motion violates PROCEDURAL LAW. The cheap

unethical Appellee(s) never RESPONDED to any motion by

the Pro Se Party, which is technically a default in favor the

Pro Se Party IAW FRCP 55. The Pro Se Appellant

did apply for multiple Default Judgment IAW FRCP 55, yet

the docket entries were ignored. To stay legally compliant,

the Pro Se Party did file timely complete OPPOSING

motions with a proposed order. On 15FEB2022, the Pro Se

Appellant turned to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal for

justice, to stop this unnecessary conspiracy to restrict trade

against his copyrighted novel, and politely correct the Fallen

Judge Ellison.

On 26APR2023, the Appeal Judges

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART. The Pro

Se Appellant likes the Appeal Judges’

attempt to

compromise (Dismiss “Without Prejudice”) while politely

correcting the

Fallen

Judge

Ellison

and

Unsigned

Magistrate Judge Sheldon. However, the Pro Se Appellant

politely disagrees in order to remain as the copyright holder

in his own jurisdiction like “Motion Picture Association Of

America Inc.”.

The Pro Se Appellant files this PRO SE

APPELLANT’S PETITION/S (PANEL REHEARING & EN

BANC) like the Pro Se Party did before for the Federal 9th

Circuit Court for case number 21-15234 “Alejandro Evaristo

Perez vs. Linkedln”, where 4 Fallen Judges have been

charged with treason by the US Supreme Court (22-726).

The Pro Se Party prays that the Appeal Judges enforce the

only agreed-on caselaw of “Rossi V. Motion Picture

Association Of America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir.

2004)”, protect the copyright holder in his own jurisdiction,

and save the Fallen Judge Ellison before it is too late. The

Pro Se Appellant gives the Appeal Judges “Safe Passage”,

since the Appeal Judges’ compromise was a polite attempt to

defuse the legal fight. The “Safe Passage” terms will also

apply to Unsigned Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon as a favor

to the Honorable Judge Charles Eskridge, who politely

recused himself to save his Unsigned Magistrate from all his

own unethical illegal mistakes. All Judges have to respect

US Army Officer Alejandro Evaristo Perez (the Pro Se Party)

like other Honorable Federal Judges respected the “Motion

Picture Association Of America Inc.” as the copyright holder

in his own jurisdiction. Will the 5th Circuit Appeal Judges

finally enforce the only agreed-on “Rossi V. Motion Picture

Association Of America Inc.” caselaw by protecting copyright

holder in his own jurisdiction, save the Fallen Judge Ellison

from his own mistake, and save some pathetic Disney

Villains conspirators? Or will the cheap Disney Villains

simply purchase the Pro Se Party’s copyrights and peacefully

settle the case?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 12 May 2023, the Pro Se Petitioner politely went

the extra step of petitioned our unethical Responder, Judge

Jacques Wiener, Judge Jennifer Elrod, Judge Kurt

Engelhardt, and our Fallen Judge Keith Elison via an

informal petition of en bank and for panel rehearsing. The

Pro Se Appellant is allowed to file a “PETITION FOR A

WRIT OF CERTIORARI” IAW the Judgement Order within

a 90 day period as mentioned earlier. The 5th Circuit choose

to follow ignore the informal petition due to timing and allow

the Pro Se Appellant to file a “PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI”. Before the US Supreme Court, the choices

are as follows:

CHOICE l: (GRANT) “Only A Trade Conspiracy and

conspiring against and failing to defend a copyright holder

in his own Federal Jurisdiction is a violation of US Code Title

17 (Copyrights), a violation of US Code Title 15 (Monopolies

Restricting Trade), and violates legal precedence of‘Rossi V.

Motion Picture Association Of America Inc., 391 F.3d 1000,

1007 (9th Cir. 2004)’? The US Supreme Court has the chance

to limit the scope to only the above violations and the Court

must to explain to the Pro Se Appellant why not additional

crimes and criminal charges should be filed.

CHOICE 2: (DENY) “Conspiracies, Copyrights, and

Felonies. Oh, my!” - The second question is “Or whether

the US Supreme Court wants additional criminal charges

to the conspirators like perjury (US Code Title 18, § 1621)

tampering with evidence (18 U.S. Code § 1519), fraud (18

U.S. Code § 1341) and other criminal charges?” This

decision by the Court is technically allowing the Pro Se

Appellant to add as many felonies that Pro Se Appellant

can find on the Appellees during the related cases (TXSD,

CACD, and 5th Circuit).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The US Supreme Court may want to avoid the jailing

1 Fallen Judges and (x) number of unpatriotic Corporatistas

(starting with CEO Bob Iger, former CEO Bob Chapek [still

within the timeframe]) for violating 17 U.S.C. Chapter 5

“Copyright Infringements”, violating 15 U.S.C. Chapter 1 §

1 “Conspiracy”, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341 “Frauds and

Swindles”, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1621 “Perjury”, and

violating the only agreed-on caselaw of “Rossi V. Motion

Picture Association Of America Inc., 9th Circuit, No. 0316034 (2004).” IF THE SUPREME COURT DENIES THIS

RIGHTEOUS PETITION. THE PRO SE PETITIONER

WILL ASSUME THAT THE UNETHICAL RESPONDER

AND THE FALLEN JUDGE’ WRONGFUL ACTIONS ARE

VIOLATING

U.S.C.

CHAPTER

“COPYRIGHT

INFRINGEMENTS”. VIOLATING 15 U.S.C. CHAPTER 1 $

1 “CONSPIRACY’. VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. $ 1341 “FRAUDS

AND

SWINDLES”.

VIOLATING

18 U.S.C.

1621

“PERJURY’. AND VIOLATING THE ONLY AGREED-ON

CASELAW

“ROSSI

MOTION

PICTURE

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC.. 9TH CIRCUIT. NO,

03-16034 (2004). THAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES

NOT WANT TO WASTE THEIR TIME ON FELONS. AND

THAT THE PRO SE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO HAND THE

FELONS

THEIR

RESPECTIVE

DISTRICT

ATTORNEYS TO BEGIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR

SUCH VIOLATIONS. If copyrights never purchased, then

Total Award via US Code 15 ($100M per Conspiracy) + US

Code Title 17 ($150K per Infringement) = $100.150M x 9

corps (IAW TXSD Docket) x 3 Copyrights x 4 cases (lx TXSD,

lx CACD, lx 5th Cir, lx Sup. Ct) = $10,816,200,000 to Pro

Se Petitioner. US Senator John Cornyn (Texas - Republican)

[Dallas_Offi.ce@cornyn.senate.gov] and US Congresswoman

Lizzie

Fletcher

(Texas

[Fletcher.Office@mail.house.gov]

Democrat)

have

been

informed

regarding “The Walt Disney Company” conspiracy against

the Pro Se Petitioner’s copyrighted novels in the Amazon

platform,

since

they

are

the

Petitioners’

civilian

jurisdictional leadership due to current location (Houston,

TX - District 7). The DAs (ex. Kim Ogg, Dan Satterberg, Jeff

Rosen,

George

Gascon)

da@dao. hctx. net,

have

been

inform

via

smckee@redmond.gov,

jrosen@dao.sccgov.org,

and

prose cuting. Attorney@kingcounty. gov,

and

info@da. lacounty. gov.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court has to choose between Choice 1

“Only A Trade Conspiracy and Copyright Violations” or

Choice 2 “Conspiracies, Copyrights, and Felonies. Oh, my!”.

The Pro Se Petitioner submitted his copyrights to the

Federal Courts. The unethical Disney Villains Responders

did not. The Pro Se Petitioner offered to settle by selling his

copyrights for a $230M, which is a tiny fraction compared to

“Perez v. Linkedln” case’s $256BN damages/award. The

unethical Disney Villains Responders failed to purchase the

copyrights and continues to falsely claim ownership of the

Pro Se Petitioner’s copyrights. In accordance with “USA V.

AUTOMATED MEDICAL LABORATORIES” 770 F.2d 399

[1985] and “USA V. CINCOTTA”, 689 F.2d 238, 241-42

[1982], the list of conspirators with criminal liability as

follows^ Disney Corporation, The Walt Disney Corporation

(Parent Company who failed to correct subsidiary),

Conspirator Bob Iger, (The Walt Disney Company’s CEO)

Conspirator Bob Chapek (The Walt Disney Company’s

former CEO), Conspirator Christopher Michael Boeck (evil

TXSD legalist), Conspirator Elizabeth Kristin Duffy (evil

TXSD legalist), Conspirator Harriet Elian Miers (evil TXSD

legalist), Conspirator Thomas A Connop (evil TXSD legalist),

Conspirator

Gregory

Doll

(evil

CACD

legalist),

Conspirator Jamie Kendall (evil CACD legalist), and Fallen

Judge Keith P. Ellison (TXSD Fallen Judge). Any Rule 40

Violators should apologize or resign. The Pro Se Petitioner

provides “Safe Passage” if taken and upon peacefully

settling. What will the US Supreme Court decide with the

conspirators and Fallen Judge Ellison? Or will the cheap

Disney Villains finally peacefully settle by purchasing the

Pro Se Petitioner’s copyrights and end this Federal Case?

APPENDIX & ADMIN REQUIREMENTS

Any Appendixes and additional documents are the

different decisions and administrative items are in uploaded

in the Fifth Circuits’ PACER-CM/ECF System and other

cases associated in the CACD and TXSD. The Pro Se

Petitioner requires the US Supreme Court to obey our US

Codes, our US Supreme Court Rules, caselaws, and in the

Table of Authorities. All Pro Se Party’s petitions, pleadings,

requests, and motions should entertained by all Federal

Judges, which is the Pro Se Party’s Constitutional and

Statutory Right. These “Pro Se Friendly” case law (Haines v.

Kerner,' Resnick v. Hayes! McKinney v. De Bord'/ Faretta v.

California)

and

waivers

includes

all

paperwork,

administrative requirements, docketing, and processing.

These case law includes applies to US Supreme Court Rule

29 “Filing and Service of Documents! Special Notifications!

Corporate Listing”! Rule 33.2 “Document Preparation:

Booklet Format! 8 1/2 - by 11 inch Paper Format”, Rule 34

“Document Preparation: General Requirements”, and the

use of Rule 40 “Veterans, Seamen, and Military Cases” to

comply for Rule 38 “Fees” and Rule 43 “Costs”. The petition

meets the limits of the “under 40 opaque, unglazed white

pages” with around 4,904 words IAW Rule 33. The Pro Se

Petitioner is following complying “State Of Oklahoma v

Shriver” booklet sample and the approved “Perez v.

Linkedln” No. 22-726 booklets from 2023.

As required by US Supreme Court Rule 33.2, the

original of any such document shall be signed by the party

proceeding Pro Se or under any other applicable federal

statute (ex. Title 5 U.S. Code 3331 “Military Officer Oath”).

God bless America,

By:

Alej andrp'Evari;

3330^3033

erez

Date

PRO^SE PETITIONER, US HONORABLE VETERAN, US

ARMY OFFICER, AUTHOR, COPYRIGHT HOLDER IN

HIS OWN JURISDICTION, INNOVATOR, AND MAN

AFTER GOD’S HEART.

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.