2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contrary to law and the Constitution and demonstrates collusive adjudication to hide fraud on

the public.

I. Plaintiff provides new information for the Court to consider.

See LA LAW WESTLAW DATA BASE:

“ANY EVIDENCE OF FRAUD - EXTRINSIC OR INTRINSIC MUST BE

RECOGNIZED AND THE DECISION REVERSED OR NEW HEARING

BASED ON COURT FRAUD"

INTRODUCTION INFO - FRAUD UPON THE COURT (CASES

SEPERATED BY LINE):

2011 WL 4537028

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

United States District Court,

E.D. Michigan,

Southern Division.

Dennis Edward FRASER, Plaintiff,

v.

LAW OFFICES OF PARKER AND PARKER, Robert E. Parker, Tara Black, and

Shana Adkins, Defendants.

No. 11–10585.

“Plaintiff cites a Seventh Circuit case which states “a decision produced by fraud

upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.” Kenner v.

C.I.R., 387 F.2d 689 (7th Cir.1968). Plaintiff seems to assert the fraud exception to

res judicata. The fraud exception only applies when extrinsic fraud occurs. Sprague

v. Buhagiar, 213 Mich.App. 310, 314, 539 N.W.2d 587 (Mich.App.1995). Extrinsic

fraud is fraud “that prevents the losing party from having an adversarial trial on a

significant issue.” Rogoski v. Muskegon, 107 Mich.App. 730, 736, 309 N.W.2d 718

(Mich.App.1981). Extrinsic fraud can be contrasted with intrinsic fraud, which is

fraud within a cause of action. Perjury is an example of intrinsic fraud. Id. at 737, 309

N.W.2d 718. For example, in St. John v. Richard, the Michigan Supreme Court

precluded a cause of action based on a fraudulent land contract because the merits of

the land contract were already litigated, and plaintiff did not allege fraud during that

first round of litigation. St. John v. Richard, 272 Mich. 670, 262, N.W. 437

(Mich.1939).”

____________________________________________________________________

2016 WL 8672962

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

Christopher A. WOODY, Petitioner, v. Warden Robert STEVENSON, Respondent.

Civil Action No.:2:15-cv-2574-MBS-MGB

Signed 01/29/2016

________________________________________________________________________

Chevron Corp. v. Donziger

United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 04, 2014 974 F.Supp.2d 362

2014 WL 815923 11 CIV. 0691 LAK

“Consistent with its statement that it would not “refer at all” to Chevron's specific

allegations “of fraud and corruption of plaintiffs, counsel and representatives,” the

intermediate appellate court failed largely to address the question whether these

commonalities supported Chevron's claim of misconduct. The LAPs sought

clarification of the...

...“Relief is always possible for ‘extrinsic’ fraud ” and for “ fraud on the court,”

which often is confused with or treated as a subset of extrinsic fraud. 12 Moore's

Federal Practice § 60.81[1][b]....

...[22] In considering whether a litigant is entitled to relief from a prior judgment on

the ground of fraud, courts frequently consider whether (1) the fraud (whether

intrinsic or extrinsic) prevented a full and fair presentation or determination of the

litigant's claim or defense in the prior action or otherwise would render it

unconscionable to give effect to the prior judgment, (2) the party seeking relief was

diligent in discovering the fraud and attacking the judgment, and (3) evidence of the

fraud is clear and convincing.”

________________________________________________________________________

United Merchants & Mfrs. v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co.

United States District Court W.D. South Carolina. Spartanburg Division. June 05,

1953 113 F.Supp. 257 1953 WL 79329 1321

“Action for damages for fraud and deceit on ground that defendant utility had by

fraudulent misrepresentation as to rate which would be charged if plaintiff would

withdraw its opposition application for rate increase, induced plaintiff to withdraw

such opposition, with result that rate increase was granted and defendant charged rate

in accordance...

...“* * * Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his

case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him

away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had

knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an

attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives

at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client's

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

interest to the other side,- these, and similar cases which show that there has never

been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new...

...The effect of this action in this court, if it succeeds, would be to have the court fix a

rate for the plaintiff, and this the federal courts cannot under any circumstances do

because this is a function which is clearly reserved…”

______________________________________________________

v. Capital Group Companies, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California. May 17, 2010 Slip Copy 2010 WL

11530291 SACV 09-935 DOC (MLGX)

“Before the Court are the following Motions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Alter the

Courts [sic] April 14, 2010 [Judgment] (the “Motion to Alter”); (2) Plaintiff's Motion

to set aside void orders and judgments (the “Motion to Set Aside”); (3) Plaintiff's

Amended Motion for Discovery Sanctions and the Doctrine of Inherent...

‘..However, fraud upon the court “embrace[s] only that species of fraud which does or

attempts to defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court.”...

...Harrison argues that six errors in the Court's April 14, 2010 Order warrant

reconsideration of that Order: (1) the Court's factual summary insofar as it

characterizes the exchange between Bishop and Harrison regarding CGC's

termination of Harrison; (2) the Court's characterization of Plaintiff's motion as a

jurisdictional challenge; (3) the Court's sua sponte consideration of cases “not

provided by Defendant” or Plaintiff; (4) the Court's mischaracterization of the state

appellate court's ruling; (5) the Court's…”

______________________________________________________

II. Material Facts and the Law the Court Failed to Consider:

The Court failed to consider that the claims of the patents-in-suit falsely alleged as invalid

are not invalid, because the JPMorgan Court 12-282-SLR/RGA (D.Del.) failed to consider

Patent Prosecution History, which had already established the claim construction of the terms

alleged falsely as “indefinite” by Defendant JPMorgan, as not indefinite. Based on this

fraudulent and erroneous decision by the JPMorgan Court procured fraudulently by Defendant

JPMorgan, the Fulton Court 14-490-RGA (D.Del.) ⸻ Opposing Counsel Candice Decaire, who

was the opposing Counsel in the Fulton Court as also in the instant Presidio Bank Court⸻

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fraudulently concealed from the Court that Patent Prosecution History was not considered by the

JPMorgan Court or the Fulton Court and propagated a false theory of Collateral Estoppel to all

tribunals, which is moot because (i) Patent Prosecution History estops all other estoppels, as

proven prima facie that Plaintiff has been right all along by (ii) the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling

in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Fed. Cir. Case No. 15-1177, October 4, 2017 that all Decisions

and Order that failed to consider Patent Prosecution History in any Federal District or Appellate

Court and USPTO/PTAB are reversed (which this Court failed to apply in my case) ; and (iii)

the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedential ‘First Impression’ Constitutional Res Judicata Mandated

Prohibition from rescinding Government-Issued Contract Patent Grants “by the most absolute

power” declared by none other than Chief Justice Marshall himself in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S.

87 (1810) and reaffirmed by himself in Dartmouth College (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832),

Ogden v. Saunders (1927), and Justice Brewer in U.S. v. AT&T (1897) and other cases of the

sanctity of contracts that apply to the IP Clause, and that the U.S. Government has a faithful

duty to keep its promises to the Plaintiff/inventor.

III. Plaintiff arguing the Law and continuing to defend the Constitution

and arguing the Law of the Case and Law of the Land persistently ⸻

is not to be taken personally by the Judge as “scurrilous attacks:”

It is an indelible material fact (as indelible and material as the blood flowing through

Plaintiff/inventor’s sinews, as Chief Justice Marshall himself declared) that the Courts,

USPTO/PTAB, Defendants, Attorneys and the Legislature have not considered the material

facts and the law detailed supra in the previous paragraph and have collusively adjudicated as

this Court has, without considering Patent Prosecution History, and disparately denying

Plaintiff the protection of the Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products’ 10/4/17 reversal of all Orders in

all Courts and the USPTO/PTAB that did not consider Patent Prosecution History, and without

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

addressing the “Fletcher Challenge.” In not enforcing the U.S. Constitution as delineated by

Chief Justices Marshall and Brewer and others in Fletcher v. Peck, Dartmouth College, Grant v.

Raymond, Ogden v. Saunders, U.S. v. AT&T and other cases, it is a material fact that the

Judiciary, USPTO, PTAB, Defendants, Attorneys and the Legislature (inserting the re-

examination provision into the AIA, in breach of contract with the inventor) and the U. S.

Supreme Court (except the dissenting Justices Gorsuch and Roberts, and now Justice

Kavanaugh) in its Oil States ruling constitutionalizing the AIA re-examination provision and

violating the Separation of Powers, Supremacy and Contract Clauses of the U.S. Constitution,

have warred against the Constitution and have breached their solemn oaths of office and have

lost their jurisdiction and immunities, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron

(1958). Judge Hixsom is not alone in warring against the Constitution. Judge Hixsom has

collusively adjudicated along with the entire Judiciary, USPTO, PTAB, Legislature, Defendants,

Attorneys and the U.S. Supreme Court, without considering Patent Prosecution History or the

Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products’ ruling that they disparately failed to apply to Plaintiff’s cases

and reverse their Orders as they failed to consider Patent Prosecution History, and without

addressing the “Fletcher Challenge”⸻ Judge Hixsom has not mentioned the word “Fletcher”

even once in any of his Orders. This Court nor any of the Judiciary, Agency or Legislature is

allowed to tiptoe around this significant “Fletcher Challenge.” Chief Justice Marshall in

Marbury v. Madison (1803) has adjudicated that Courts cannot shirk their duty from adjudicating

issues, even though they present complex Constitutional challenges, as here. No Court can

reverse the Constitution ⸻ as delineated in Fletcher, Dartmouth College, Grant v. Raymond,

U.S. v. AT&T and others upholding the sanctity of contracts.

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In America, the President is not allowed to suspend the Constitution; and the Separation

of Powers cannot be suspended by a state of emergency or declaration of war. Treason against

the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their

enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The Judiciary, USPTO, PTAB, Legislature, Defendants,

Attorenys are the enemy here. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of

two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Why would this Court join

all the other Courts that collusively adjudicated in a concerted conspiracy as part of a corrupt

enterprise, without considering Patent Prosecution History, Aqua Products’ reversal or the

“Fletcher Challenge” !!! This Court is adamantly refusing to understand that this Court and all

the other tribunals have failed to give Plaintiff Equal Protection of the Laws and access to justice

and to the Courts. This Court can reverse itself and do the right thing by Plaintiff and uphold her

protected rights to the Constitution, Fletcher, Aqua Produtcs and Patent Prosecution History.

U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 states:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against

them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person

shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same

overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to

declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work

corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.”

Any Judge or Government official violating their legally binding Oath to protect Our

Constitution is, in point of Fact, working against the Nation and could be used to adhere to the

enemies of Our nation by giving them aid and comfort in protection from Our Laws. So, in

1868, they added this bit to make it crystal clear “the Congressional Oath of Office was, in Fact,

legally binding and that any who violated it should be thrown bodily from the Capitol.”

U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3 states:

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of

President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the

United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a

member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of

any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support

the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or

rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But

Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

“What this bit does is define Treason against the Constitution as a High

Crime and mandates that any Public Official in the US who subverts, evades,

or rebellion against Our Constitution be thrown from office and banned

forever from service in any Public Office... whether they were elected or

appointed.”

“For Government officials and judges, who have breached their solemn oaths of

office, (in all of Plaintiff’s cases), there is precisely zero wiggle room here.

They are specifically bound by the Constitution and actions which attempt to

"change" our Constitution without the use of the Constitutionally mandated

Amendment Process and all its inherent protections, are committing

"insurrection or rebellion against the United States Constitution."

Since Judge Hixsom failed to uphold the Constitution and warred against the

Constitution, he breached his solemn oath of office and lost his jurisdiction and immunity. This

is why Plaintiff moved for him to recuse, not because he ruled “adversely,” as Judge Hixsom

alleges without comprehending the breadth of the significant Constitutional issues, ⸻ Judge

Hixsom has failed to address that he failed to consider Patent Prosecution History, Aqua

Products’ reversal, the “Fletcher Challenge” and disparately failed to give Equal Protection of

the Laws and access to justice and the Courts to Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION: WHEREFORE, this Court must seriously try to understand the

significant issues of law ⸻ the Law of the Case and Law of the Land ⸻ and the facts, by

allowing a Hearing to take place, so that these issues can be presented clearly to Judge Hixsom,

in person at the Hearing, as a picture is worth a thousand words and a Powerpoint presentation

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

can do more justice than pages and pages of briefs, and with this Judge taking it personally, that

he has violated the Constitution in his very first case on the bench since he took office in

September 2018, as he was induced by Attorneys’ fraudulent Solicitations to breach his solemn

oath of office and to buy their false collateral estoppel theory and be adverse to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff respectfully pleads with this Judge to reverse his erroneous and fraudulent

decisions, Orders and Judgment and do the right thing by Plaintiff and uphold her protected

rights to the Constitution, Fletcher, Aqua Produtcs and Patent Prosecution History, and to

adjudicate consistent with Procedural Rules and ‘Law of the Case’ and ‘Law of the Land’ ⸻ the

‘Fletcher Challenge.’ Why would Judge Hixsom deny Plaintiff due process ⸻ a Hearing?

Plaintiff strongly recommends that Judge Hixsom not join the collusive conspiracy whose sole

object is to deprive her of her royalties to her significant patents on the Internet of Things ⸻

Web applications displayed on a Web browser ⸻ which she invented prior to 1995, by

breaching their solemn oaths of office and violating the Constitution ⸻ the “Fletcher

Challenge,” which must be addressed. Plaintiff, a 70-year old female inventor citizen, will

continue defending the Constitution in multiple forums and audiences in order for the Judiciary,

USPTO, PTAB, Defendants, Legislature and Attorneys to stop being the enemy and to uphold

the Constitution.

"It ain't over till it's over." “Well, you can't argue with that. American baseball

legend Yogi Berra first uttered the phrase about baseball's 1973 National League pennant race.

His team was a long way behind when he said it and they did eventually rally to win the division

title.” This Court has failed to understand that Plaintiff never gives up on a task until she has

successfully completed it. Plaintiff will continue to defend the Constitution. These are not

“scurrilous attacks” on the Judge or the Judiciary or the Agency or the Legislature, as

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam’s Declaration in Support of the Above Captioned Motion

I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, residing at 222 Stanford Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025, do declare,

under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and of California, that I am the

inventor of the patents-in-suit in this case and that the above statements in the above-captioned

Motion and my statements in this Declaration are true to the best of my knowledge.

October 22, 2018

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM

222 Stanford Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025

(650) 690-0995; laks22002@yahoo.com

PROPOSED ORDER

It is hereby ordered that:

1) Plaintiff’s Sua Sponte Dismissal of the Court’s Order (D.I. 138) Violating the

Constitution; and Motion to Enter a New and Different Order Consistent with

Procedural Rules and ‘Law of the Case’ and ‘Law of the Land’ ⸻ the ‘Fletcher

Challenge’ is granted.

2) The Court’s Orders are void and reversed, as they contravene the Constitution.

Dated: October __, 2018 _________________________

Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, hereby certify that on October 22, 2018, I filed via

CM/ECF the foregoing document and caused to be served on all counsel of record the same and

mailed 2 copies (one copy as a Chambers’ copy) of the same to the Clerk of the Court, United

States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division at 450

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA.

Date: October 22, 2018

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam

222 Stanford Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025

650 690 0995, Laks22002@yahoo.com