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

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, • application of incorrect inter- and intra- eireuit-split Local-Rule-Modified-FRAP 34(a)(2) instead of the correct FRAP 34(a)(2), to deny Indigents and/or unrepresented Litigants oral argument, • application of incorrect standards for Appellate Review of district courts' grants of summary judgments, and • misapplication of Article n, §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. Henceforth, this"devastating combination of misapplication of standards and/or application of incorrect standards" will be shortened to ("Combo"), and inter­ changeably applied throughout this Petition.