No. 22-990

Bright Harry, et al. v. KCG Americas LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-04-12
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: appellate-review civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process federal-appellate-procedure federal-rules-of-appellate-procedure free-speech judicial-procedure pro-se-litigation standing summary-judgment
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment FirstAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-10-27 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Ninth Circuit has statutory authority to deny oral argument to indigent and unrepresented litigants by applying incorrect standards, in conflict with Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. and violating their 1st, 5th and 7th Amendment rights

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED This is an extremely complex commodity futures Case of Respondents’ fraud against Petitioners. Just as this Court held in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-257 (1986), that the "Court of Appeals did not apply the correct standard in reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment", Petitioners similarly hold that the 9th Circuit "Court of Appeals did not apply the correct standard[s] in reviewing the district court[s'] grant of [interlocutory orders that undergird all the subsequent orders and judgment including the judgment order and,] summary judgment”. Thus, the Question Presented is: Whether in arrogant defiance of 36 years of this Court's precedent in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., the Ninth Circuit, just like the other Appellate Courts, has statutory authority to disingenuously combine, e application of incorrect interand intracircuit-split 34(a)(2) instead of the correct FRAP 34(a)(2), to deny Indigents and/or unrepresented Litigants oral argument, e application of incorrect standards for Appellate Review of district courts' grants of summary judgments, and e misapplication of Article I, §2 of the U.S. Constitution, in deploying appellate judicial staff-attorneys, as impostor judges, to adjudicate federal cases, instead of the actual Federal Appellate Judges, to create the devastating perfect legal storm that destroys 99% of Federal Appellate Cases of the most vulnerable Litigants — Indigents and/or Unrepresented (Pro Se), Litigants whose case loss or failure rate is a stunning 99%, with violation of their 1st, 5th and 7th Amendment Rights to boot. Heneeforth, this "devastating combination of misapplication of standards and/or application of incorrect standards " will be shortened to ("Combo"), and interchangeably applied throughout this Petition. i

Docket Entries

2023-10-30
Rehearing DENIED.
2023-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
2023-06-30
2023-06-05
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/1/2023.
2023-05-12
Waiver of right of respondents ION Trading, Inc., Andrea Pignataro, Robert Sylverne, Computer Voice Systems, Inc., Paul Strum and Scott William Benz to respond filed.
2023-04-25
Waiver of right of respondents KCG Americas, LLC, Daniel B. Coleman, Carl Gilmore, Greg Hostetler, Main Street Trading, Inc., Patrick J. Flynn, Wedbush Securities Inc., Edward W. Wedbush, Gary L. Wedbush to respond filed.
2022-10-04

Attorneys

Bright Harry, et al.
Bright Harry — Petitioner
Bright Harry — Petitioner
ION Trading, Inc., Andrea Pignataro, Robert Sylverne, Computer Voice Systems, Inc., Paul Strum and Scott William Benz
Danielle Kono LewisHawkins Parnell & Young LLP, Respondent
Danielle Kono LewisHawkins Parnell & Young LLP, Respondent
KCG Americas, LLC, Daniel B. Coleman, Carl Gilmore, Greg Hostetler, Main Street Trading, Inc., Patrick J. Flynn, Wedbush Securities Inc., Edward W. Wedbush, Gary L. Wedbush
Jeffry M. HendersonGreenberg Traurig LLP, Respondent
Jeffry M. HendersonGreenberg Traurig LLP, Respondent