Patently Apple has covered many legal cases over the years under Patently Legal and some cases have been valid and interesting while others have been to cover the crazy world of patent trolls. Today, I read the most insane case, bar none. The lawsuit has been filed against Apple, Laurene Powel Jobs and Google. It would appear that the first case didn't pan out for Mr. McSwain and so his case now goes to the U.S Court of Appeals. This self-described indigent constituent, who has been deprived of his elite education, is asking the court to grant him $32 Billion dollars if the defendants are found guilty. Without any proof or patents to support his claims, he testifies that "was omitted from authorship and was not recognized as the true original inventor of Google products." So where does Apple and Laurene Powel Jobs come in? Well, you'll have to read this case for yourself to find out. But I warn you, this is a bizarre case. I have no idea how this ever got to court and the rambling that you're about read is insane; though perhaps its pure genius and I just didn't get it. You be the judge.
Lawsuit: Andre McSwain v. Laurene Jobs
The current file on this appeal isn't available yet. What you're about to read is from the first trial in late 2013. The vast majority of the case as it was presented before the court is found below so that you could judge this for yourself. Other than yellow highlights that Patently Apple has added in a few paragraphs, the rest is the original document re-entered into our blog.
"The amended complaint joindering the additional parties is in the capacity of unjust enrichment, restitution, account of profits, and disgorgement law are binding obligations and may not be set aside due to the caprice of one party or the other unless a statute provides an tacit understanding, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Theft of intellectual property. The paramount purpose of disgorgement is a remedy and seeking disgorgement of "illegally obtained profits." Disgorgement is the act of giving up something such as the profits obtained by illegal or unethical acts on demand or by legal compulsion.
The Court whilst order wrongdoers to pay back illegal profits to prevent further unjust enrichment. In conducting an account of profits, the plaintiff is treated as if s/he was conducting the business of the defendant, and made those profits which were attributable to the defendant's wrongful actions. This can be rather complex in practice, because the defendant's accounting records must be examined (financial records inspection) to determine what portion of their gross profits were derived to the wrongful act in question. Account of profits in copyright law, an assessment showing how much profit has been made on the sales of goods which infringe a copyright or patent, because the plaintiff claims the profits made by the defendants. This complaint is brought to accomplish the determined objectives of restitution because the United States Federal District Court, in the Fourth Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction and the and 'amount in controversy' requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d) 2, and is thus transferred to the Court's exclusive jurisdiction since there's a change in venue, the Federal District is appropriate for copyrights, patents, and trademark subject-matter hence, the venue is proper.
The clear distinction between fixed capital and current accounts of profits consisting of the partnership agreement that provides for a fixed amount of capital of preferable contributions for the amounts credited to those respective partners' capital accounts for drawings, salaries, interests on capital and shares of profits enables the endorsement of transferred ownership.
In the express consent of the all parties, stating the terms orally and dictated by the defendants, at the time of its formation, there is a definite claim that is accepted by the plaintiff, Andre' J. McSwain, to whom the offer is made in a consensual manner that explicitly accepts its terms of sought restitution. Where the circumstances suggest, from facts consistent with the laws of disgorgement, tort, and account of profits, indicates a unanimous consensual intention to restitution; which consists of obligations arising from a mutual agreement and intent to assurance. The defendants knowingly and voluntarily accepted and retained a benefit. The circumstances present in this action render the defendant's retention of those benefits inequitable unless the court recompenses the value of the benefits received. Thus, the defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff entitled to judgment in the amount in controversy, in excess of $32,500,000,000 under Class Action Fairness Act 2005. Alternatively, is entitled to a constructive trust for the amount of these cash accounts given that it would be inequitable for defendants to retain possession of these monies and property.
In finding that the unjust enrichment typically applies when claims of this kind exist are justified by reference to the familiar restitutionary goal of denying a profit from conscious wrongdoing. These types of actions are significant in ascertaining the various legal and equitable remedies and damages available to the aggrieved party, a consequence from the 'unjust enrichment' and a conscionable act is one that is unjust or unduly one-sided in favor of the party who has stolen intellectual property and applied for and was granted a portfolio of copyrights and patents from the Office of Copyrights and the Federal Patent and Trademark Office amassing in immense profits.
The deliberate cause of offenses were conscionable indecent acts that no mentally competent person would accept, thus the courts should find that as a direct result from the exploitation of one indigent constituent, who has been deprived of his elite education, justice, civil liberties, and basic freedoms; merits due recognition and acknowledgement with just compensation in this free capitalist democratic nation.
First, that the defendant was enriched. Second, that this was at the plaintiff s expense, and thirdly that the plaintiff expected payment. The law presumes that a person expects repayment or satisfaction of a debt or obligation. All of the circumstances existing at the time, were such that equity and good conscience require the defendants to make restitution, including the relationships between the plaintiff and defendants, and the present and previous dealings, should be considered. Furthermore, the plaintiff's expectation of payment is reasonable, and regarded as binding themselves jointly to the measure of fair market value, which the obligation is founded upon, acquisitions, advertisements, conversion of: cash flow accounts, liquidated units of ownership (preferred stocks (convertible adjustable), gross profits and royalties (Google products: Google TV, Nexus Series (Galaxy), and Motorola Mobility & X smartphones/tablets/ handheld devices/portable electronics) Advertising services, Search tools, Communication and publishing tools, Development tools, Statistical tools, Operating systems, Mobile applications, Mobile standalone applications, and patent and copyright documents; set forth, submitted as evidence and to be executed and not thereafter. An individual's expectation of payment is reasonable when, under all the facts and circumstances existing at the time, of ordinary prudence and intelligence would have expected to be paid; and, thereafter the defendants remain unjustly enriched and insolvent, while accepting the terms with the knowledge or having reason to know that the plaintiff expected to be paid. One "knows" of a thing when s/he has actual knowledge of it.
The law identifies these kinds of facts which are material: establishing such claims and debts, one cannot repudiate his/her wrongdoings, the legal relation existing between two certain parties, whereby one is authorized to demand, that the other perform a certain exploit evidencing it, which has a monetary value. In this there are two stages, first, a primary or sanctioned personal right antecedent to wrong, and, afterwards, a secondary or sanctioning personal right consequent on a wrong, in light of the surrounding circumstances.
Which were voluntarily undertaken and owed to a specific person, and obligations in tort which are based on the wrongful infliction of harm to certain protected interests, reflecting constitutive motives, liable in tort for the exploitive and willful actions, and liability in restitution for unjustly taking or retaining the benefit of the plaintiff s money or work.
The defendants, Laurene Powell Jobs, Apple Inc., and Google Inc., willfully and knowledgably attests that all allegations of fact are undeniably true with unanimous, expressed, and implied consent, by not showing any indication of denial justifies the cause for this legal action. A promise or duty is absolute or unconditional when it does not depend on any external events. Nothing but a lapse of time is necessary to make its performance due. This is alleged as the basis for the obligation owed by reasonable deduction from all of the circumstances and relations that a mentally competent people cause law suits these constitutional rights violations, "Civil Rights Act of 1871" amended in 1983, are remedied by 'account of profits.'
The relationship between the facts pied and the legal theories thereby tendered provides on the premise that the claim so pleaded is consistent. A discretionary remedy in equity exercises the right to demand that the defendants be ordered in the judgment based upon the intentional tortuous wrongdoings, amount in controversy and subject matter will sufficiently reward the plaintiff as well as damages and other equitable remedies, the presiding judge should then issue a specific order to the defendant's legal representation to actually compel and deliver the unique items claimed such as the portfolio of copyrights and patents for ownership transfer.
The portfolios of copyrights/patents and investments compounded with sworn testimonies and/or depositions acknowledging that I was omitted from authorship and was not recognized as the true original inventor of Google products: Google TV, Nexus Series (Galaxy), & Motorola Mobility & X. The title to personal property was originally attained, obtained, and inveigled by means of acquisition, possession, and occupancy via intellectual labor; as, copyrights and patents for inventions which is by act of law and judgment to be reassigned, transferred, and returned back to the rightful owner.
This occurred when the defendants, who were legally competent to act declared that they would accept complete knowledge of all material facts and circumstances, and sufficient oral acknowledgment of the constitutes, thus entitling the plaintiff. The plaintiff should be placed in the position that he would have occupied, and is entitled to receive the benefit of the bargains, the net gain that was accrued to them ordinarily assessed due to the complainant, of which to be collected as just compensation.
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed, to the determination of what royalty would be reasonable under 35 U.S.C. § 284 Damages The Lanham Act of 1946 formally known as the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117a, 15 U.S.C. § 1120 et seq., ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427 [1988 & Supp. V 1993]) where 15 U.S.C. § 1117 Recovery for violation of rights. (a) Profits, damages and costs, attorney fees the costs of the action, under 15 U.S.C. § 1120 Civil liability for false or fraudulent registration. Any person who shall procure registration in the Patent and Trademark Office of a mark by a false or fraudulent declaration or representation, oral or in writing, or by any false means, shall be liable in a civil action by any person injured thereby for any damages sustained in consequence thereof.
The law identifies these kinds of facts which are material: the defense has contemplated falsifying their answers and testimonies (perverting the course of justice) originating in the deceitfulness of both party's attempt to avoid a disgorgement claim, formed on the analogy of the claim in restitution for the full account of profits of the intentional torts and theft of intellectual property, gives the plaintiff the realized benefits.
'Anticipatory obstruction of justice'
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The relationship between the facts pied and the legal theories thereby tendered provides for relevant measures in an obvious, clear, unambiguous manner unequivocal and pertinent to the law of obligations, along with tort, unjust enrichment, and restitution.
The Civil Rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by theft of international property, trespass. and invasion of privacy and of Human Rights Articles 17-19, Intellectual freedom is the right to freedom of thought and of expression of thought, as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 states (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18 states Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, and Article 19 states Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. While embarking in countless frivolous litigations over property that should never been theirs rightfully and justifiably, by law.
An intentional tort is any deliberate interference with a legally recognized interest, such as the rights to bodily integrity, emotional tranquility, dominion over property, seclusion from public scrutiny, and freedom from confinement or deception. These interests are violated by the intentional torts of trespass and invasion of privacy (Tort Claims Act), while engaging in unscrupulous, unethical, and immoral acts with several partners against the plaintiff concerned with prolonging all of their and associates' lives, while purposefully shortening my days (simultaneously trying to exonerate themselves from any malicious wrongdoing for the duration of years.) The defendants have and continue endangering the plaintiff s life, causing inimical harm and mental anguish, to the plaintiffs' brain, while indulgent in avarice billionaire lifestyles garnering and accruing immeasurable financial gains. The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the mere wanton tortuous acts with the desire to bring about inimical harm, it's substantially certain that such consequences should follow, moreover rendering the defendant liable in tort for several willful civil wrongs.
The embedded rule by which its materiality is to be measured, the right or interest which a man has in things personal; it consists of things temporary and movable, and includes all subjects of property had in them, are personal property. The real property interests lies where the wrongdoer appropriates a tangible property interest in the course of a trespass to real property. Under the term personal property, includes in its nature immovable, distinguished by the real property should be thought of as a group of rights like a bundle of stocks or mutual funds which can be divided not of a freehold nature, nor descendible to the heirs at law, which lay for one who had the right of property, against another who had possession and the actual occupation. The writ properly lay only to recover corporeal property; but there were other writs, said to be "in the nature of a writ of right," available for the recovery of incorporeal property, effectually having legal force or binding effect; able, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.
Intangible property, also known as incorporeal property, comprised of such rights as stocks, bonds, patents, and copyrights describes something which a person or corporation can have ownership of and can transfer ownership of to another person, the plaintiff.
(1) TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHT -The property right in a registered design, or a design for which an application for registration has been or may be filed, may be reassigned, granted, and conveyed by an instrument in writing, signed by the copyright owners, Google Inc., an Execution of transfers of copyright ownership, under 17 U.S.C. § 204 (a and b).
(2) Oath or Acknowledgment of Transfer – An oath and acknowledgment under 17 U.S.C. § 1312 shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of an assignment, grant, conveyance, or mortgage under subsection (a).
It generally refers to statutory creations such as copyright, trademarks, or patents: competitive intangible property therefore results in the sources that create intellectual property (knowledge in its source form, collaboration, process-engagement, etc.) escaping quantification. It is a general principle of American law, that stock held in corporations, is to be considered as personal property; property in personal is either absolute or qualified; absolute, when the owner has a complete title and full dominion over it; qualified, when they have a temporary or special interest, liable to be totally divested on the happening of indebtedness. Considered in relation to its use, personal property is either in possession, that is, in the actual enjoyment of Google Inc., not in the plaintiff's possession, but in the possession of another the defendant, and recoverable by action title transfer.
In pleading the question, the complaint states in ordinary and concise language facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action, since the allegations in the defendant's answer do not contradict the allegations in the complaint, the plaintiff, makes a motion for Judgment on Pleadings. The pleadings, other documents in the file, and other items of discovery and delivery are relevant to the motion. The court is asked to decide the case in favor of the plaintiff, deem the complaint adequate in pleading as conclusions of law, and the manifestation of the policy of ensuring fair notice to the defendants with regard to the claim the mere final and ultimate conclusion."
Update 3:07 PST. I've been asked by many in emails whether this was filed by a law firm or by Mr. McSwain himself. The case was filed in North Carolina by Mr. McSwain. No law firm is noted in the filing.
Patently Apple presents only a brief summary of certain legal cases/ lawsuits which are part of the public record for journalistic news purposes. Readers are cautioned that Patently Apple does not offer a legal opinion on the merit of the case. A lawyer should be consulted for any further details or analysis. About Making Comments on our Site: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit any comments. Comments are reviewed daily from 4am to 7pm PST and sporadically over the weekend.