Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (809)	8/14/2007 4:05:06 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

Federal District Judge Rudi M. Brewster of the Southern District of California Every federal judge takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 453. Sec. 453. Oaths of justices and judges Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of this office: ''I, _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _ _ _ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.'' Violations of that oath is grounds for impeachment. U. S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, p. 6896 (1990). 28 U.S.C. § 372 (c) (1) permits any person (there is no standing requirement) to complain that a federal judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability. See In re Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, 9 F. 3d 1562, 1567 (U.S. Jud. Conf. 1993). It appears that San Diego federal district judge Rudi M. Brewster is unable to discharge his duties because of serious mental problems. First, it appears that Rudi M. Brewster is unable to comprehend even basic concepts of constitutional law. In the trial transcript in criminal case United States v. Bauer, 95-1839-B-Crim., from page 66, line 12 to page 67, line 12, Judge Brewster confuses concepts that a "man-on-the-street" is supposed to be able to understand. It appears that Judge Brewster: 1. Does not understand the U. S. Constitution or when it was enacted. 2. Cannot tell the difference between simple words like "witness" and "evidence." 3. Cannot understand simple legal concepts like "hearsay evidence." It appears more than a little ridiculous that a criminal defendant, untrained in the law, can understand a simple concept like the Confrontation clause provision of the Sixth Amendment, while a federal judge with many years experience on the bench apparently has no grasp of it. It is also noteworthy that attorneys, Hogan and Ryan, see page 67, lines 22-25 of the transcript in criminal case United States v. Bauer, supra, also seem to understand the concept. Second, it appears that Judge Brewster views the Court of Appeals as merely a vehicle to clean up his mistakes. See page 67, lines 14-19 of the transcript in criminal case United States v. Bauer, supra. Third, Judge Brewster's erratic behavior is described in the attached statement of Tom Gaglia, a federal prisoner who has had a federal habeas corpus proceeding in front of Judge Brewster for so long that his prison sentence on that indictment has expired. A few quotes from other circuits bear repeating: There is a necessity of maintaining public faith in the judiciary as a source of impersonal and reasoned judgments. Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp., 61 F. 3d 1113, 1137 (5th Cir. 1995). It is " . . . crucial to public confidence in the courts that judges be seen as enforcing the law and obeying it themselves." United States v. Muniz, 49 F. 3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1995). No relief can be granted for violating the oath of office by acting contrary to the Constitution. Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 554 n. 14 (D.D.C. 1986). I.e., there is apparently no other way to get a mentally incompetent judge off the bench other than through a 28 U.S.C. § 372 (c) (1) Complaint or a full-blown Congressional investigation and impeachment. Should Judge Brewster be allowed to remain on the bench: 1. He will continue to bring discredit upon the federal judiciary in general and the Ninth Circuit in particular. 2. Other judges in other circuits may follow his example. 3. American citizens will continue to have their Constitutional rights adjudicated by a judge who cannot even recognize those rights. Finally, Judge Brewster appears to have a mental inability to understand and apply Constitutional law in any case.

To: carranza2 who wrote (809)	8/14/2007 5:32:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 9132

C2, being a registered international legal expert, hereinafter, ultra vires is my caveat emptor decision: Finding Number 1. Judge Brewster found QUALCOMM lost the case. Consequence = Broadcom gets away with it. Broadcom costs to be paid by QUALCOMM since they brought the case, forcing Broadcom to incur reasonable legal expenses. Finding Number 2. Judge Brewster invented a QUALCOMM plot to conceal a patent [which is not possible to do], ambush the whole industry to collect money or undue licensing agreements or restrict trade, which they did not do. They didn't even bring a case against Broadcom until they got into a fight with them because of Broadcom attacking QUALCOMM because they couldn't get a licence to use QUALCOMM's amazing patent wall. No penalty against QUALCOMM. There was no plot to "ambush" the industry. Finding Number 3. Brewster made up that QUALCOMM "out of the blue" brought the case with no attempt to license etc. The Honourable Judge was apparently not aware that there were no negotiations of any consequence as Broadcom had set its heart on destroying QUALCOMM's worldwide licensing position by a greedy demand using the USA courts over a plop [poxy little obvious patent] to hold QUALCOMM hostage. Judge Brewster is acting for Broadcom in their plan to hold the USA hostage to plops. Contrary to Brewster's idea, the hostage is QUALCOMM, not Broadcom or "the industry". QUALCOMM's law suit was not "out of the blue". It was part of the ongoing attempts by Broadcom to gain some leverage using the unreasonable force of the courts and ignorance of juries to attack QUALCOMM over an accidental infringement of a few plops. A pro forma "negotiation" prior to filing the law suit would have just been gratuitous and disingenuous. The point of it was to show Broadcom that there were a few skeletons they had rattling around in the closet. Judge Brewster is acting in conspiracy with Broadcom to hold QUALCOMM hostage with a few plops. Finding Number 4. The witnesses gave reasonable answers such as "Nobody from QUALCOMM attended." A consultant is not "somebody from QUALCOMM". Judge Brewster drew too many conclusions from the responses of the witnesses. A longer questioning rounding out the thoughts and memories of the witnesses would have arrived at a more accurate impression of what went on than taking a reasonable answer and pushing it into the form of something it wasn't. Very often, people want me to give a very simple answer to a question which has many dimensions. It's frustrating to give silly little answers which are not useful, but then get a life of their own as though they are truth. To then be held accountable for falsely derived conclusions is unreasonable. No consequence for the witnesses if the quotes given were the sole evidence of perjury. The quotes do not amount to perjury. Finding Number 5. The discovery process was not stonewalled. Broadcom was unduly broad in their requests. All the discovery process showed was that there was at least some monitoring of the standards process by QUALCOMM people. The impression given during court proceedings was that there was no participation, which is difference from attendance. I have attended many things and have even been a member, but have not participated and have even been in opposition to a standard being developed and was instrumental in killing a re-refined oil standard which was under development I have attended and participated and attempted to kill European diesel fuel standards. I killed the Eurograde 95 standard. Attending is not participating and does not necessarily mean one is willing to have one's intellectual property used and abused in a monopolistic anti-competitive trust [which is what the original trust-busters aimed to stop]. No consequence for requiring proper search criteria. There's, more, but it's breakfast time. Overall, no consequence. But also, of course Broadcom was in breach. I have spake, Mqurice

To: carranza2 who wrote (809)	8/14/2007 11:40:44 PM
From: seti	Respond to of 9132

That he called all the lawyers who represented Q to stand before him tells me he is going to lower the boom. Unfortunately the shareholders will also have to "stand before him" for having hired such people.

To: carranza2 who wrote (809)	8/15/2007 3:43:26 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

It doesn't look very cloak and dagger, hiding in bushes C2. I asked Google about JVT and there is a LOT of it. It was all documented. For example <Document: JVT-E005 Filename: JVT-E005.doc Joint Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T SG16 Q.6) 5th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 9-17 October, 2002 Title: AHG Report: JVT Project Management Status: Input Document to JVT Purpose: Report Author(s) or Contact(s): Gary Sullivan, Rapp. \| Chair Ajay Luthra, Assoc. Rapp. \| Co-Chair Thomas Wiegand, Assoc. Rapp \| Co-Chair Tel: Email: garysull@microsoft.com wiegand@hhi.de aluthra@motorola.com Source: JVT Project Management AHG _____________________________ The following meeting plan and agenda were proposed by email on 9/20 without objection. It was noted that there may be some overlap in impact between agenda items 4(f), 4(g), and 4(l). We thus should coordinate the discussion of related issues in these areas. Some rearrangement of the order of consideration of various topics may be necessary to coordinate full and coordinated consideration of contributions. We expect a busy meeting, particularly in light of the 140+ contribution documents and 120 attendees currently registered. Use of weekend and evening meeting sessions are expected. > 120 attendees registered. Maybe the QUALCOMM people registered under the names Donald Duck and Goofy and called their company some obscure name. Maybe they didn't. Somewhere in all the files will be the names of those who attended. After 20 minutes of a few random clicks and reads there is an impression of what it was all about. Typical of such things, it's a bureaucratic paradise, with agendas, notes, proposals and all recorded. Chen of Broadcom might have noticed QUALCOMM people, as might Sullivan. And others. Mqurice