No. 20-7747

Anthony A. Patel v. Charles Robinson, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-04-14
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: article-iii civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-interpretation due-process judicial-discretion jurisdiction ninth-circuit political-discrimination standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference: 2021-06-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does Article III of the U.S. Constitution belong to the legal profession or to the American people?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Does Article III of the U.S. Constitution belong to the legal profession or to the American people? 2. Do Americans still have the inherent and unalienable ; rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 3. Are lawyers and judges in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit permitted to escape the self-evident truths that underpin our entire society since July 4, 1776? 4. May the bar association of a state (such as California) discriminate against a United States citizen on the basis of his/her peaceful political views and civic beliefs? 5. Do the federal civil rights laws protect the rights of minorities in America to respect 46 presidential administrations? 6. May lawyers and judges in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit refuse to understand the world since Sept. 11, 2001? 7. Is volunteering to perform public service for U.S. military and troops inconsistent with moral character or fitness , required to function as a member of the U.S. legal profession? 8. How long will the United States Supreme Court permit the Ninth Circuit to presume that judges and lawyers know the law better than the governed citizens themselves? 9. Is it a mistake for the next-generation of Americans to waste their time and efforts in public service of their Nation? 10. Will Americans suffer for Posterity because their legal system mistakes mental intellect for mental illness? 11. How should the United Nations discipline lawyers, judges and state actors who violate an individual’s human rights? 2 Petition for Writ Certiorari

Docket Entries

2021-06-07
Petition DENIED.
2021-05-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/3/2021.
2021-05-05
Waiver of right of respondent Maranga Morgenstern to respond filed.
2021-04-27
Waiver of right of respondent The Regents of the University of California, Amy Blum, Jane Boubelik, George Kieffer, John Mazziotta, Janet Napolitano, Louise Nelson, John Perez, and Charles Robinson to respond filed.
2021-04-26
Waiver of right of respondent MCLA Psychiatric Medical Group to respond filed.
2021-04-23
Waiver of right of respondents Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP and Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP to respond filed.
2021-04-22
Waiver of right of respondent The State Bar of California to respond filed.
2021-04-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 14, 2021)

Attorneys

Anthony A. Patel
Anthony A. Patel — Petitioner
Anthony A. Patel — Petitioner
Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP and Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Corey Evan KleinKendall Brill & Kelly LLP, Respondent
Corey Evan KleinKendall Brill & Kelly LLP, Respondent
Maranga Morgenstern
Marta A. AlcumbracRobie & Matthai, APC, Respondent
Marta A. AlcumbracRobie & Matthai, APC, Respondent
MCLA Psychiatric Medical Group
Kenneth R PedrozaCole Pedroza LLP, Respondent
Kenneth R PedrozaCole Pedroza LLP, Respondent
The Regents of the University of California, Amy Blum, Jane Boubelik, George Kieffer, John Mazziotta, Janet Napolitano, Louise Nelson, John Perez, and Charles Robinson
Mary-Christine SungailaBuchalter. A Professional Corporation, Respondent
Mary-Christine SungailaBuchalter. A Professional Corporation, Respondent
The State Bar of California
Robert G. RetanaThe State Bar of California, Respondent
Robert G. RetanaThe State Bar of California, Respondent