A good ruling by the court but did it go far enough ? Good ruling but is it far enough to protect innovation ?
I have been fighting for justice since the beginning of the horror occurring in the 1990s’. I have been defamed , robbed of my good name and blackballed from the hiring of an attorney and that has not helped with my 30 year quest for Justice because I began immediately to try and fight back but what can one do against a tide and that is precisely what happened when I came under attack by governmental authorities while I was being robbed ripped off of everything that I had worked for and achieved over a lifetime .See more of the story about the web’s biggest secret.
The following are the cases that I filed in Appellate Courts after the local courts in Philadelphia , Pa. violated my constitutional and civil rights in taking my personal property that included real estate as well Courts in Washington D.C. taking my intellectual property NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE DOROTHY M. HARTMAN
______________________
2013-1070
(Serial No. 11/003,123)
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
______________________
Decided: March 8, 2013
______________________
DOROTHY M. HARTMAN, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
pro se.
RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria,
Virginia, for appellee. With him on the brief were
NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy Solicitor, BENJAMIN T.
HICKMAN, Associate Solicitor and SYDNEY O. JOHNSON,
Presiding Judges in United States Circuit Ct. of Appeals
Opinion based on Briefs by Appellant Hartman and Appellees
Decided March 8 , 2013
Before NEWMAN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Motion for Extraordinary Relief
Complainant moves for Extraordinary Relief to ask the Court to remove Mandate . Extraordinary circumstances exist in this case . The Complainant continued her Pro Se Status having been hampered by a blacklisting of her name to prevent attorney representation by a State Agency acting under color of law but continued her fight for justice to the filing of a Writ of Mandamus that was not denied by the Supreme Court until
From Rules of the Court :
(b) When Issued. The court’s mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later. The court may shorten or extend the time by order.
(c) Effective Date. The mandate is effective when issued. ………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(4) Issuance of Mandate. The court of appeals must issue the mandate immediately on receiving a copy of a Supreme Court order denying the petition, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
See the following filings :
No. 12-10884
Title: Dorothy M. Hartman, Petitioner
v.
Patent and Trademark Office
Docketed: June 20, 2013
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Nos.: (2013-1070)
Decision Date: March 8, 2013
Rehearing Denied: May 7, 2013
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 14 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 22, 2013)
Jun 27 2013 Waiver of right of respondent Patent and Trademark Office to respond filed.
Jul 3 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.
Jul 8 2013 Supplemental brief filed by petitioner Dorothy M. Hartman. (Distributed)
Aug 27 2013 Second supplemental brief of petitioner Dorothy M. Hartman filed. (Distributed)
Oct 7 2013 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 28, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Oct 23 2013 Petitioner complied with order of October 7, 2013.
Oct 31 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 15, 2013.
Nov 18 2013 Petition DENIED.
No. 13-10188
Title: In Re Dorothy M. Hartman, Petitioner
v.
Docketed: May 21, 2014
Linked with 14A7
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 13 2014 Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 20, 2014)
May 28 2014 Waiver of right of respondent to respond filed.
Jun 4 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.
Jun 10 2014 Supplemental brief of petitioner filed. (Distributed)
Jun 23 2014 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 14, 2014, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Jun 25 2014 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
Jun 25 2014 Application (14A7) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of June 23, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jul 2 2014 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
Jul 3 2014 Application (14A7) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 14, 2014.
Oct 6 2014 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
Nov 12 2014 Petitioner complied with order of June 23, 2014.
Nov 20 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2014.
Dec 8 2014 Petition DENIED.
Dec 30 2014 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Jan 28 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 20, 2015.
Feb 23 2015 Rehearing DENIED.
No. 13-10188
Title: In Re Dorothy M. Hartman, Petitioner
v.
Docketed: May 21, 2014
Linked with 14A7
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 13 2014 Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 20, 2014)
May 28 2014 Waiver of right of respondent to respond filed.
Jun 4 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.
Jun 10 2014 Supplemental brief of petitioner filed. (Distributed)
Jun 23 2014 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 14, 2014, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Jun 25 2014 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
Jun 25 2014 Application (14A7) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of June 23, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jul 2 2014 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
Jul 3 2014 Application (14A7) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 14, 2014.
Oct 6 2014 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
Nov 12 2014 Petitioner complied with order of June 23, 2014.
Nov 20 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2014.
Dec 8 2014 Petition DENIED.
Dec 30 2014 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Jan 28 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 20, 2015.
Feb 23 2015 Rehearing DENIED.
Dorothy M. Hartman , is an African-American Inventor who claims that she is the true inventor of today’s Internet and Worldwide Web that reaches practically all over the world . She alleges that she has been treated horribly while the government stole her ideas from government program(s) in 1990 , assaulted her in her personal life and that she has continuously been denied the opportunity to have her claims heard by a legal court . She claims illegal takings of both of her homes and intellectual property, the attacks managed and set up by crooked judges in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania. She has continuously been denied access to legal trials and she complains thus far that her experiences have not changed even at Appellate levels in the Courts . She invites you to follow the progress of her case
You are invited to follow the cases on your own in Pacer.gov and make up your own minds as no comments are invited on her blogs as they are designed to simply tell her story as it has been hidden thus far by censure and injustice . You may register at Pacer.gov and download court documents or view documents of your choosing at usually 10 Cents per sheet .
Dorothy M. Hartman vs. The United States in the following court cases .
Court for Federal Claims …… Case no. 20-832C [short version] or case number 20-cv-000832
Now on Appeal in
Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit ……. Case No. 21-1535 , case number 2021-1535
Questions to be considered ? Should the United States Supreme Court rule to cover up crimes by the United States government against its own citizens ? How much fraud and misinformation should be allowed in supposedly ruling bodies that are supposed to protect the citizens of the country not rip them off and then legislate themselves as being right about it ?