America Again,
The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law.
The Rule of Law gives the people the power to trust their governments by trusting in themselves and God, and by way of this knowledge able of holding anyone elected accountable to their oaths of office.
— Jason Gambert, United States Power and Advocate for International Nations Boulder Dam Justice.
o.
Definition of JURISDICTION
3
: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2
a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate
b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
1
: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
Definitions, Definitions, Definitions.
3
: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2
a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate
b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
1
: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
Jurisdiction and Judicial Immunity II.I.JI.REVOKED.II.I.JI.
5. If no opposition is filed within the time specified by Section 13(a) of the Statute or by rules 2.101 or 2.102 of the Trademark Rules, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may issue a certificate of registration.
4. § 13 (15 U.S.C. § 1063). Opposition (a) Any person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark upon the principal register, including the registration of any mark which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 1125(c) of this title, may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, file an opposition in the Patent and Trademark Office, stating the grounds therefore, within thirty days after the publication under subsection (a) of section 1062 of this title of the mark sought to be registered. Upon written request prior to the expiration of the thirty-day period, the time for filing opposition shall be extended for an additional thirty days, and further extensions of time for filing opposition may be granted by the Director for good cause when requested prior to the expiration of an extension. The Director shall notify the applicant of each extension of the time for filing opposition. An opposition may be amended under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Director.
3. 37 CFR § 2.101 Filing an opposition. (c) The opposition must be filed within thirty days after publication (§ 2.80) of the application being opposed or within an extension of time (§ 2.102) for filing an opposition.* * * *
2. 37 CFR § 2.102 Extension of time for filing an opposition. (c) The time for filing an opposition shall not be extended beyond 180 days from the date of publication. Any request to extend the time for filing an opposition must be filed before thirty days have expired from the date of publication or before the expiration of a previously granted extension of time, as appropriate.
1. 306.04 Late Opposition Because the timeliness requirements of Section 13(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1063(a), for the filing of an opposition are statutory, they cannot be waived by stipulation of the parties, nor can they be waived by the Director on petition.45 Accordingly, an opposition filed after the expiration of the would-be opposer’s time for opposing must be denied by the Board as late. The opposition will not be instituted, and any submitted opposition fee will be refunded.
FTCA is the route to ultimately deny the “Sovereign Immunity” defense.
12. Judicial Immunity is lost when a Judge lacks Jurisdiction, but in this case it is a matter of administration, and product liability primarily which caused all the problems to escalate. When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost, now when it comes to the “Director” he has been notified, and now is aware. “Aware” may be the big issue now, and we shouldn’t keep this as a big part of our case from moving forward against them, let them prove they had jurisdiction…. WHICH THEY CAN NEVER DO. The bird in the kitchen was put there by them, they had no authority to enter my premises, they broke in against the law, and charged me for having a bald eagle in my kitchen.
11. Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.
10. The agency employees must be acting within their jurisdiction or “Scope of Employment by the laws that govern their actions” hence the scope of their employment. If they act outside of the laws of the agency, and ultimately the constitution and highest laws of the land, they are no longer under the Judicial Immunity, they are just actors, and can be held accountable without any umbrella protection.
9. Their judicial process only has set lawful authority, and they are acting “Outside” of that set authority of jurisdiction and attempting to enforce it beyond the boundaries of law, and to attempt to keep the jurisdiction of the issuing department from issuance is acting outside of their boundaries, and is nothing less than lawless violence.
8. The TTAB and humans are not above their law, or the law of this land. They are all creatures of the law and must obey it, FTCA is the avenue and without it they may have a defense, but with FTCA they lose it by the act of congress. If we didn’t have this card, they don’t have to care, but by law, now they must care. Three elements must be established in every tort action. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his or her behavior accordingly. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant’s breach.
7. We have constitutional rights issues, which can’t be the primary focus of FTCA, but can be added, a 5th and 14th violation, we own property they are holding it against the law, and the time, with their computer systems, rulings, continuances etc., have caused great damage, all in accordance to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Their own statutes govern and mandate to follow administration procedure issues, hence due process claims, in addition to everything the underlying factor is constitutional claims.
6.) The factors demonstrate that while there was an ultimate “Judicial” relation to the nature of the case, the act itself would not be a normal function of a duty performed by a judge in any other case knowing the facts of the law and how the programming of ESTTA acted with grave programming to cause FTCA case. The judicial capacity is lost, the judgment is not only a nullity, but not the main cause of our claims. Hence 2 PRONG TEST by the supreme court to give grounds to “Judicial Immunity”
As the law stands, there is no “absolute judicial immunity” and our Supreme Court requires the two-prong tests:
a. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction;
b. Is the act a judicial act.
5.) They don’t have immunity, and we need to make certain that they are “Aware” in our notice of complaint and claim, because it is heavy, their defense would be in the “Color of their Office” but within their office they must act in their legal capacity, their “Scope” acting outside their scope, which the AG will find in his investigation, shows damages to a united states citizen who is following the laws, while they are clearly not. To grant them immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or threatened, and they must follow the law as everyone must follow the law, a judge can’t pull out a gun and walk down from his high place and blow out the claimants brains while claiming judicial immunity. The laws govern his freedom too.
4. We need to ring a loud bell so that when it comes down to it, not only the director is guilty for intentionally committing a tort. The director is clearly notified, but we must notify all parties that are acting outside of their scope, where the can have the option to do what is right, make a choice, and side with the law, and not against the law. So a notice of complaint and claim needs to be served on all parties named. Not just high ranking officials who will keep the information from the “Employed.” The director has made his decision as a “Trespasser of the law” and others need to choose the side on which they put their trusts. This will make for an interesting finger pointing match to say the least. I already have 4 employees testimonies in support of our claim, in support of the law what is right, what is true and what is ultimately just.
3. Redress of Grievances is a precious liberty I do not fully understand, but if they are preventing us from it, it should be a major issue. If they are using a badge to try and violate my rights, or my constitutional rights, then I am forming a hanging party, and ringing one loud ass bell for them to finally decide if they want mercy or not, if they want to live or commit suicide. Right? Basically…
2. Opposition was afforded a courtesy because of a faulty product ESTTA and due process was violated, notice was not supposed to be given, there was no opportunity for her to be heard, and a right to defend my claim was inflicted upon me against everything the USA stands for. The proceeding was not “Orderly” according to their own laws. Due process is another major issue. They took my property by obtaining judgment from summoning me against the law. I appeared only to fight to keep what they had not legal capacity to move forward ever from the onslaught.
1. Fundamental fairness and substantial justice was neglected.
OH! The judges in the case, if it were a matter of judges in a case, including the director must prove due process of law, and strict adherence to procedures, hence administration laws/statutes again. Scope etc… Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an aggravating factor.
SUMMARY
Judges cannot disregard the Constitution, the laws that give them jurisdiction, and their oaths of office. It may be a stronger case of them being able to claim the highest of immunities “Judicial Immunity” but again, really it is not about judicial immunity at this point. The FTCA we fit under the laws that give us the right to collect damages, the agency acted outside of those regulations causing damage see FTCA.SEO COMPLAINT AND CLAIM. The United States is taking responsibility and says in the FTCA clearly that they will be protected, except it if is a statute and a constitutional issue, wherefore it goes online the same lines of being able to sue all of the named defendants in an Arizona court. The AG will side with the constitution, and once he does an investigation and sees they were acting outside of their scope, it is possible people could be going to jail. Losing their licenses and this is the whole reason they are fighting this tooth and nail, also it is highly probable they are no familiar in the extent of the laws we are discovering, they are too busy. They cannot prove jurisdiction. A good analogy is if I went in and pleaded on a felony case, then was serving my sentence, and about to obtain my freedom, the prosecution for the state of Arizona put me back in jail. This is double jeopardy. We don’t have to get around judicial immunity, that is why there is the FTCA, now if we went to furthermore sue each and every person on the claim, then they would claim Judicial Immunity, but we can refute that, it is clear they were “Acting” outside of their scope, and the major issue at hand is is just happens to be statute X2 and a constitutional issue as well. They are elected officials and have violated my rights, remember, the rights of citizens employ the federal agencies. They have not authority, but only the authority we rest with, but one thing you can’t get me to do is lose this issue at hand, it is up to them to provide a defense, the rolls have switched, I am on the right side of the law, have lots of legal weapons, and am wearing the hat of prosecutor in essence trying to find support form constitutionalists, and militia if must needs deem fit! As simple as I can say it, the director was not acting in his director functions, the judges were not acting in their judicial functions, and the interlocutory attorney including others were not acting in their functions or scopes, and the online filing system was acting outside of the legal programming perimeters. How much more favor do we need? Everything is totally and absolutely in our favor? This is alive like man with a slingshot and a solid rock going against a big blaspheming giant!
DAVID AND GOLIATH IN 2013 ALL OVER WAY BACK THEN AGAIN???
One thing I am 10,000,000,000,000 percent certain is the “giants” have already lost, now I just got to see it all the way through for you America!
