Schwartz's lawyer Jedediah Wakefield attemps cheat at Ninth Circuit

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-Sun2. 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.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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-Sun2. 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.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

parallel lawsuit was made by the judge. However, the judge-made parallel lawsuit requasted the plaintiff to pay the damage? In fact, the judge-made parallel lawsuit pre-empyted the second case.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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-Sun2. 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.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Is their a sanction for lying to the Ninth Circuit?
I know trial judges can sanction lawyers for lying. Does court of appeal have the same power, like holding da liar for criminal contempt?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is their a sanction for lying to the Ninth Circuit?
I know trial judges can sanction lawyers for lying. Does court of appeal have the same power, like holding da liar for criminal contempt?

What if the Ninth Circuit takes the lies and makes them facts, or simply ignore the lies?
The guy is just one guy, the other side has a lot of money to buy off judges.
Wait and see, don't be surprised by the result. Remember judges are humans,
they need money to enjoy life. Screwing this one guy to gain a big co's favor is easy.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What if the Ninth Circuit takes the lies and makes them facts, or simply ignore the lies?
The guy is just one guy, the other side has a lot of money to buy off judges.
Wait and see, don't be surprised by the result. Remember judges are humans,
they need money to enjoy life. Screwing this one guy to gain a big co's favor is easy.

Read the other post about the oral argument before a magistrate judge about Taylor v. Sturgell: the judge seemed to be helping Sun on appeal. Money talks. The Ninth Circuit can just issue a summary disposition without even touching all these issues, lies or not. This happens to pro se all the time.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What if the Ninth Circuit takes the lies and makes them facts, or simply ignore the lies?
The guy is just one guy, the other side has a lot of money to buy off judges.
Wait and see, don't be surprised by the result. Remember judges are humans,
they need money to enjoy life. Screwing this one guy to gain a big co's favor is easy.

Are you implying the judges at the court of appeal will also lie by endorsing the lies of the dumb lawyer who is digging a hole for himself?

How absurd. These judges are appointed by the president and went through a rigorous confirmation process. Ninth Circuit is the best in the U.S. The judges will never take bribes from anyone. If the lawyer lied, you bet he will get disbarred for good.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Are you implying the judges at the court of appeal will also lie by endorsing the lies of the dumb lawyer who is digging a hole for himself?

How absurd. These judges are appointed by the president and went through a rigorous confirmation process. Ninth Circuit is the best in the U.S. The judges will never take bribes from anyone. If the lawyer lied, you bet he will get disbarred for good.

All federal judges are appointed by the Prez and confirmed by congress, not just court appeal judges. Everyone has a price. The difference is the amount. For a district judge, the going rate is $100K. google Robert F. Collins. FBI raided his chambers and found stacks of cash. Collins may be black, but race is not a factor.

Under table deals can be made without cash exchange. Favors can be repaid later ...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

All federal judges are appointed by the Prez and confirmed by congress, not just court appeal judges. Everyone has a price. The difference is the amount. For a district judge, the going rate is $100K. google Robert F. Collins. FBI raided his chambers and found stacks of cash. Collins may be black, but race is not a factor.

Under table deals can be made without cash exchange. Favors can be repaid later ...

District Judge Michael Walker and Judge Vernon Claville of the Caddo Parish juvenile court were convicted on one count each of racketeering after taking bribes in return for setting low bail bonds or removing court restrictions on defendants
Bishop Hugh Latimer, referring to the judiciary, said: "They all love bribes. Bribery is a princely kind of thieving." Sir William De Thorpe, the Chief Justice, was thrown off the bench for taking bribes.

The known and reviled practice of bribing a judge can, though, be used to the advantage of a clever lawyer.

Sun has so much money, it can buy off anyone as long as it is willing to pay.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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-Sun2. 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.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Money makes lawyers "brave." Recall "The Firm"? Those mafia bosses can even get their lawyers to commit felonies.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

All federal judges are appointed by the Prez and confirmed by congress, not just court appeal judges. Everyone has a price. The difference is the amount. For a district judge, the going rate is $100K. google Robert F. Collins. FBI raided his chambers and found stacks of cash. Collins may be black, but race is not a factor.

Under table deals can be made without cash exchange. Favors can be repaid later ...

When you see these bogus cases, there is always bribes involved, cash or non-cash. It is easy for the judges to handle, because one side is a pro se. The judge can say to the defendant years later: "Hi, remember me? I got your off that copyright infringement case by ignoring all the evidence against you, now you can show some appreciation." He does not have to say that in those words...

The amount depends on the judge's income. Robert F. Collins was bought off for $100K probably because he was black and did not have other money.