No. 22-7800

Mac Truong v. Richard Michael DeWine, Governor of Ohio, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-06-15
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: abortion abortion-rights civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process free-speech intellectual-property pro-se-litigation standing standing-doctrine
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment Patent Copyright Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does Petitioner have standing to sue Defendants for violating his copyrighted intellectual property and constitutional rights?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does Petitioner, Dmt MacTruong, a male U.S. citizen living in New Jersey, have standing to sue in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, fourteen Defendants, six of whom reside in Ohio, or Indiana, the rest in Washington, DC, who have maliciously and discreetly acted in concert to achieve their Trumpist MAGA racist and misogynist agenda for America by making unconstitutional anti-abortion legislation in violation of Petitioner’s original copyrighted intellectual property entitled the CCO Network that was minutely and articulately expressed as a legal playwright scenario in two tangible media [4 printed pages, A: 11-14, and a 2014 4-hour full-feature motion picture available | 24/7 on DMTMOVIES.COM, [A: 25-28] to help law enforcers to effectively detect and prosecute criminal conspiracies? 2. Does Petitioner, Dmt MacTruong, a male U.S. citizen living in New Jersey, have standing to respectfully and urgently request that this U.S. Supreme Court declares null and void Respondents’ April 11 2019 self-styled Ohio’s Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act (HRHPA), which bans abortion in the State of Ohio after the embryonic cardiac activity is detectable, and/or any similar or related anti-abortion legislation, and/or any U.S. State’s statutes banning almost all types of abortions, which were and still are legal and allowed by this Court’s 1973 Constitutional Roe v. Wade ruling? 3. In the event all elected Democratic and Republican representatives and leaders of America have publicly failed to perform their duties of defending and upholding the most important values, highest goals, and principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, would a U.S. citizen have both the sacred duty and legal standing to move a U.S. Court of competent jurisdiction or ultimately this USSC to unmask and hold accountable racist and misogynist criminals, such as the Respondents herein, who have acted. in concert under color of State law by misrepresentations of fact or law to rape and murder innocent child-bearing-aged (CBA) women, sometimes as young as 10 years of age, in egregious violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness, the 13" and 14 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 1866 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts, and the constitutional Roe v. Wade ruling by this Court in 1973? 2

Docket Entries

2023-10-02
Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court." The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED
2023-07-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-06-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 17, 2023)

Attorneys

Mac Troung
Mac Truong — Petitioner