UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ALL
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF ARIZONA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT INTRODUCTION
Jason Gambert Plaintiff, Pro Se, now come before this Court and complains of the United States Government, namely the United States Patent & Trademark Organization as follows:
I.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
1. Plaintiff lives in the state of Arizona and thus is a resident of the district of Arizona furthermore owns registered businesses in the state of Arizona and at the time of filing was conducting this business in state precedent.
2. The claims herein are brought against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. §2671, et seq.) and 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b)(1), for money damages as compensation for loss of property and personal injuries that were caused by the negligent and wrongful acts and omissions of employees of the United States Government while acting within the scope of their offices and employment under circumstances where the United States if a private person would be liable to the Plaintiff in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona.
3. Venue is proper where the plaintiff resides. All of the acts and omissions forming the basis of these claims occurred by the United States Patent and Trademark Organization namely the Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards employees. Gross negligence arose from the prosecution of a filing that was required to have been time barred by law being Opposition 91183740 against Plaintiff. The agency of the United States Government and its agents continue their wrongful acts and further their malicious conduct by obstructing required issuance from an original filing from within Arizona.
4. Plaintiff is fully complying with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2675 of the Federal Tort Claims Act by providing this CIVIL ACTION NOTICE OF COMPAINT AND CLAIM to the United States Patent and Trademark Organization and appropriate federal agencies including the justice department.
5. This suit shall be filed, in that Plaintiffs timely service notice of the claims on both The United States Patent and Trademark Organization and The United States Department of Justice conclude insufficient for proper resolution. The U.S. Department of Justice or the United States Patent and Trademark Organization should assume responsibility for processing this claim on its agencies. The USPTO in spite of the filing PETITION TO THE DIRECTOR TO EXERCISE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY FOR REINSTATEMENT DUE TO AN OFFICE ERROR sustains a willful and malicious conduct of gross negligence upon Plaintiffs’ claims, therefore other recourse must be instituted. No decision was ever rendered correctly according to the laws that govern, and by such actions the USPTO has shown insubordinate lawlessness, and continues to show nothing less than evasive and dilatory uses of tactics imbedded in with erroneous judgments intended to thwart their liabilities from Applicant who is now Plaintiff.
II.
EVENTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE CLAIMS
- Jason Gambert is suffering continued losses from the USPTO withholding his property, a loss of property, personal injury resulting from wrongful acts, gross negligence, and malicious conduct performed on part by employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Organization hereinafter, “USPTO.”
- The product deficient online filing submission system for the USPTO namely; “ESTTA” originally acted outside of the legal opposition periods timing parameters functioning outside the thirty days permitted by allowing the filing to be paid for late. ESTTA emitted an online opposition filing to take place against the Applicant illegally and the laws that govern the agency including federal statutes were not programmed correctly or within the legal ramifications of the opposition period to be able to lawfully file against applicant from within ESTTA. Employees of the USPTO prosecuted what was required to have been a time barred case by the rules negligently, and must have manually moved the case forward against Applicant maliciously by acting outside of their legal capacities to do so by Federal Statutes and applicable laws.
- The publication period that had begun for Plaintiffs approved trademark in the official Gazette of the USPTO for the mark SEO in case 77171330 had a late Opposition 91183740 Oppose the Plaintiff outside of the thirty days permitted by the rules of the USPTO and Federal Statutes. The online filing system “ESTTA” acted deficiently by allowing the payment to be made from the Opposition filing to be accepted late. The interlocutory Attorney assigned to the case prosecuted the case negligently and must have moved the case forward maliciously acting outside her legal authority by prosecuting the case against the rules. Ann Linnehan including but not necessarily limited to Administrative Trademark Judges; Bucher, Kuhlke, Bergsman, Seeherman, Rogers, and Ritchie, now including staff attorney Montia Pressey Givens, and upon information and belief the Commissioner of trademarks, and the Director David Kappos for the USPTO must by now know of this insubordinate American injustice.
- Linnehan, Bucher, Kuhlke, Bergsman, Seeherman, Rogers, Ritchie, Kappos, and Montia Givens Pressey are agents of the USPTO hired employees and Attorneys at law who hold licenses in Washington DC and are a part of the American Bar Association which is a self governed organization falling within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2679 (b), thus, a claim for loss of property, and personal injury may be constituted from the arising result of their gross negligence and wrongful acts by allowing what is required to be stricken by law from record to move forward, this being a time barred filing 91183740 prosecuted against Plaintiff illegally, which has resulted in withholding of property, loss of property, and personal injury.
- The unlawful acts of the hired employees of the USPTO maliciously moved forward what was required to be a time barred case against Applicant; Plaintiff has reason to believe this to be true from ESTTA showing no record of instituting 91183740 as an official opposition. Overt actions by these Agents continue their lawless behavior and are in direct violation to the TTAB Agency law, including but not limited to Federal Statutes of the United States, State law, and the Constitution. With the hired Agents of the Agency being in such clear violation to the rule of law with their continued prejudice conduct, such action may be pursued against the United States by law:
§ 2679. Exclusiveness of remedy (b)
(1) The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346 (b) and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of their office or employment is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against the employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim or against the estate of such employee. Any other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the employee or the employee’s estate is precluded without regard to when the act or omission occurred.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government—
(A) Which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States, or
(B) Which is brought for a violation of a statute of the United States under which such action against an individual is otherwise authorized.
By further denying the rights of Jason Gambert to his intellectual property for the mark “SEO” in case 77171330 the Agency through its Agents have now become “Mere Men” and “Mere Women” by the greater (A) and (B) rubric above. Although now are not protected by any immunities are still today “Acting” in power withholding his property against the law. The rules that govern the USPTO and the Lanham Acts Federal Statutes required the case 91183740 to be time barred from ever being instituted. With the TTAB’s prejudice rulings sustaining the Opposition this constitutes; “Taking of Property without Just Compensation,” and is in direct violation to the 5th amendment of the United States.
Furthermore by prosecuting the case against Statute constitutes a violation of due process found in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Agents that so overtly 1.) Break Federal Statutes 2.) Pay no attention to their own Agencies laws that govern their conduct, actions, and decision 3.) Violate constitutional amendments and civil rights 4.) Are suspected to have conspired judicial outcomes 5.) Violate citizens’ rights whereby beaching their civil duties owed to the public should be prosecuted if found guilty for: I. Obstruction of Justice II. Conspiracy and III. High Treason. Plaintiff suspects there must have been an agreement by two or more persons of impeding the Applicants seeking of justice inside the Agency and their courts. This is a clear violation of allegiance to their sovereign, being the people of the United States. Overt acts of betraying our trusts, breaching our faith, and violating our confidences constitutes careless actions of treachery against the Public and all participants must be held accountable.
A VIOLATION OF STATUTE AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79-489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 6, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch.22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.
15 USC 1063 OPPOSITION TO REGISTRATION
(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.”
(B) “UNLESS REGISTRATION IS SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSED
(1) “THE MARK ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION ON THE PRINCIPAL REGISTER BASED ON AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 1(A) [15 USC 1051(A) ] OR PURSUANT TO SECTION 44 [15 USC 1126] SHALL BE REGISTERED IN THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION SHALL BE ISSUED AND NOTICE OF THE REGISTRATION SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE.
§1119. POWER OF COURT OVER REGISTRATION
IN ANY ACTION INVOLVING A REGISTERED MARK THE COURT MAY DETERMINE THE RIGHT TO REGISTRATION, ORDER THE CANCELATION OF REGISTRATIONS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, RESTORE CANCELED REGISTRATIONS, AND OTHERWISE RECTIFY THE REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE REGISTRATIONS OF ANY PARTY TO THE ACTION. DECREES AND ORDERS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY THE COURT TO THE DIRECTOR, WHO SHALL MAKE APPROPRIATE ENTRY UPON THE RECORDS OF THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND SHALL BE CONTROLLED THEREBY.
HOLY UNITED STATES TRADEMARK CHAPTER 300 PLEADINGS
I. 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.
ACCORDINGLY, AN OPPOSITION FILED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE WOULD-BE OPPOSER’S TIME FOR OPPOSING MUST BE DENIED BY THE BOARD AS LATE.
A VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.
AMENDMENT 5 – COMPENSATION FOR TAKINGS
NOR SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
AMENDMENT 14 – CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS
NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
NO PERSON SHALL BE A SENATOR OR REPRESNTATIVE 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.
THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE, BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.
4. Mr. Gambert also alleges, upon information and belief, the malicious conduct and
“Oversight” by employees of the USPTO and/or (upon information and belief) members of the ABA who are Judges, including high ranking officials may have constructed a strategy for their employees of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States to keep the issuance of the trademark from Jason Gambert by sustaining a time barred case as a diabolical “Barrier” to registration. Further upon finding the informalities were prejudice in their decisions and judicial rulings upon Plaintiff. If subsequent discovery proves this to be true, then the conduct of such USPTO employees and high ranking officials would constitute overt acts of coconspirators who participated in the abuse of process of opposition 91183740 in case 77171330.
5. Mr. Gambert would be entitled to pursue these claims under the laws of the State of
Arizona, including but not necessarily limited to claims in the nature of malicious
process, money damages, personal injury, loss of property, abuse of process, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malpractice, obstruction of justice, and suspected conspiracy.
6. Jason Gambert, as the owner of the SEO trademark would be entitled to pursue
claims under the laws of the State of Arizona on his own behalf, including but not
necessarily limited to claims for loss of property, which is a derivative of the claims
of abuse of process.
7. The claims of Jason Gambert are based upon the acts and events set forth below, all
of which actions were taken (and events were caused) by employees and lawyers who were employed by the United States Government at the time while acting within the scope of their employment.
a. The conduct and actions giving rise to these claims arose from and were
based upon the illegal prosecution of an Opposition instituted against Plaintiff by employees of the USPTO. In combination with deficient software and faulty programming into ESTTA, not in proper alignment with the laws and required regulations, ESTTA the online filing system for the USPTO permitted the filings to be paid for late. The Government is responsible for the product liability of ESTTA and employees of the USPTO’s negligent and malicious conduct. Furthermore both employees and the product failures of ESTTA acting together against the rule of law have caused personal injury and a loss of property.
b. The events began from Opposition 91183740 against 77171330 (Plaintiff) which can be clearly seen by observing the official dated time stamp of A207087 from the Opposition (filed on April 24 2008 at 3:28 pm over 15 hours late). Ann Linnehan was the interlocutory attorney assigned to the case and because of her gross negligence must have maliciously acted outside of anything reasonable and prudent, both of which any other interlocutory attorney working for the USPTO would have clearly and favorably performed. An intermediate decision to render case 91183740 as time barred was required by law and dismissing the case as late was also required from the board by law. This was required from everyone including the director, the commissioner, and anyone else acting within the Agency as Agents under the Government by it’s Federal Statutes to be in undivided agreement.
c. The negligent execution and wrongful acts of maliciously moving this case forward against the Plaintiff is against the rule of law and an abuse of process.
d. During the duration of the long burdensome illegal proceeding against Plaintiff, the Opposition eventually motioned for sanctions against Applicant, outside of any normal remedy being a default request. With an unduly and burdensome request of discovery on Applicant, Plaintiff did however provide what was requested from the Opposition in a timely manner according to service process laws. Even though it was sent and dated timely, due to a carefully crafted ambiguous and prejudice ruling before Bucher, Kuhlke, and Bergsman who were the administrative trademark judges, the would be opposition was sustained and registration was refused to applicant being in clear violation to the rule of law.
e. The government’s Agents acted outside their legal capacity to make judgments on a case that is required to be stricken, and must have never been instituted by the requirements of Trademark Law, The Rules of Practice, and Federal Statutes.
- 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 shall issue a certificate of registration.
- § 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.
- 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.* * * *
- 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. - 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. 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.
f. Thereafter, the Plaintiff received a phone call from Charles Joiner in the trademark issuing department in October of 2010 asking Plaintiff where he would like his trademark sent. Plaintiff explained to Charles about the case 91183740 and Charles explained how he would check with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, hereinafter “TTAB” about what happened. When Charles contacted Plaintiff the second time, he explained how the TTAB barred him from sending anything, in other words obstructed him from issuance. Charles left a message explaining this bold decision to Plaintiff. It is clear the TTAB’s employees are acting outside their narrow roles of their employment now maliciously. The TTAB’s employees have now broken the law and to this day still show no regard to what is right, what is fare, what is just, and most importantly what the law requires them to do. This only furthermore constitutes to the court their continuing example of malicious “Lawlessness” with now clear obstruction of justice.
g. Plaintiff when contacted by the issuing department, namely Charles Joiner, realized there was something very wrong. When Plaintiff started researching what could have caused the confusion, Plaintiff realized there wasn’t any error by the issuing department. The trademark is required to be issued to the Applicant by law. Plaintiff is under the impression the trademark was printed and actually being held in Charles hand at the time of the call. If it was not printed, it would have been, and it was lawfully proper for Charles to have called Plaintiff asking him where he wanted it sent. At this the enormity of the event was finally unveiled and the TTAB and their employees were discovered. The Plaintiff immediately contacted the interlocutory attorney assigned to the case Ann Linnehan, leaving multiple voice mails, explaining the events including the laws found, and telling of them to her asking “Verbal permission” to file in the case, at this time trustingly assuming she was neutral.
h. With blatant disregard to the calls showing further Misfeasance and Nonfeasance from Ms. Linnehan, the interlocutory attorney did not return any of the Plaintiffs calls although she was required to do so in her civil duties owed to Applicant. With her silence being a loud enough answer to Applicant, and without any further delay, Plaintiff did find the laws do not require verbal permission of any kind in extraordinary circumstances. It would not be required of Plaintiff to request any verbal permission to file from Ms. Linnehan in this case. Plaintiff then filed the appropriate “Applicants request for reinstatement due to an office error” filing. It is then we see the appearance of Ms. Ann Linnehan trying to prevent the filing from being heard, by filing hers for it to “Receive no further consideration.”
It would appear Ann Linnehan is further attempting to cover up her Malfeasance and wrongful acts. Here is where we see her attempting to stop the enormity of the events from being exposed, escalated, and unraveled from her filing.
It is legally unjustified, harmful, contrary to law, and a violation of public trust to keep the property owed to Mr. Gambert from him any longer.
i. Ms. Linnehan’s filing was not considered and Plaintiff was contacted by Ms. Pressey (staff attorney in the office of the commissioner for trademarks) with an acknowledgement of receipt January 7th 2011, prescribing a Misfeasance of a “Correct” filing to be named “Petition to the Director to exercise supervisory authority to consider reinstatement” requested $100 petition fee, and gave plaintiff 30 days to file a response.
j. During this time Plaintiff abided to another one of the USPTO’s diabolically and skillfully fashioned design requests and in good faith still filed within the given timeline to assure timeliness. Going above and beyond furthermore named the filing how the USPTO coerced the filing to be named, and witnessed them move it from the Commissioners office to the Directors decision. Plaintiff paid the one hundred dollars requested and filed the alleged “Correct” Petition to the Director filing on January 13th within the time permitted by the acknowledgment of receipt. On the 6th of April 2011 the Petition to Director was denied as untimely. This is just another example of this Agency being double minded in nature, diabolical in connotation, using dilatory and evasive tactics from liability, and are now acting apparently criminal in nature against Plaintiffs rights to registration and issuance. –From this was the acquiring of admissions of Guilt from Pressey Montia Givens on behalf of the USPTO’s procedural errors, Plaintiff captured 2 more major confessions in support of Plaintiffs claims.
8. Mr. Gambert’s rights have been, and continue to be grossly violated by certain individuals inside the USPTO namely the TTAB. This Agency has Agents that have shown no regard to what is fair, what is just, and what the laws require of them to do, and most importantly are now acting apparently criminal in nature. After an illegal opposition was instituted against Mr. Gambert on April 24 2008 at 3:28 pm over 15 hours late, and trial dates were wrongfully sent to Mr. Gambert, with a “Deadline for Discovery Conference” which ended on September 10 2008, the USPTO wrongfully permitted an “Appearance” of Oppositions attorney of record 12 days after the deadline of September 22nd 2008.
9. The Opposition was granted a request for discovery on Applicant by the TTAB, although the discovery deadline had ended, the Oppositions discovery requests were mandated by the board and prescribed upon Applicant to perform. Plaintiff was not required to answer or respond to an Opposition that does not exist according to the law, but still the board favorably overlooked any benefit that was supposed to be with Applicant. What by law was required to have been dismissed, the board and the interlocutory attorney continued their malicious conduct and gross negligence hearing an illegally instituted case against Plaintiff. The board upheld Oppositions requests granting sanctions against Plaintiff and instead of rightfully striking the opposition from the record, what they were required to do and perform by law from the Lanham Acts Federal Statutes and their own agencies rules, they instead dismissed the Applicant. This proves nothing less than gross negligence, malicious conduct, and now can be clearly seen as prejudice by their rulings.
10. Ultimately, the late Opposition against Plaintiff was sustained and Plaintiffs trademark was taken without just compensation on March 11th 2008 against the laws of the USPTO and the United States. The last correspondence making this filing timely was the “Untimely” denial in March of 2011. The registration was refused to Applicant while the Governments employees never possessed the authority by law upon which Mr. Gambert could have been prevented registration, in that:
a. The would be “Opposition” was actually never instituted legally and what the opposition purchased as an Opposition should have never been charged against opposition in the online filing and submission system “ESTTA” and which did not constitute a lawful submission, but an illegally instituted late opposition against Federal Statutes and the USPTO’s own internal laws that govern everyone inside the agency including their directors, commissioners, judges, attorneys, and employees, set up for everyone to follow with strict required adherence.
b. The government never possessed any tangible evidence that either Ms. Drysdale or her attorney of record were ever legally accepted into a position as an official Opposition at the USPTO that constitutes a lawful Opposition under the agencies regulations and the Federal Statutes guidelines found in the Lanham Act.
c. The government never had any other tangible evidence that the Opposition could have ever been instituted past the Federal Statutes and the high laws that govern the agency.
d. The Government never had any tangible evidence showing that the Opposition was “Unknowingly” instituted, but without any regard “Manually” instituted on the “Back End” and maliciously moved forward against the laws that govern.
e. The USPTO/TTAB did not breach their civil duties owed to Plaintiff.
11. Not withstanding the lack of evidence establishing an official opposition, the Plaintiffs case was still dismissed after the government’s agents instituted a filing that is required to have been stricken from record and time barred by law almost 4 years previous to the filing, furthering to pressure Mr. Gambert into abandoning the trademark the TTAB’s judgments and decisions were fabricated into an ambiguous and favorable manner for the Oppositions predetermined thought outcome which is clearly prejudice.
12. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the government’s agents are acting criminal in their behavior and the only “evidence” of oppositions timeliness consists of the uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, and fabricated malicious manual installment of an “Opposition” being 91183740, who the USPTO must also assert that:
a. The USPTO/TTAB obtained an “Opposition” in a timely manner according to the trademark rules of practice and Federal law.
b. The USPTO/TTAB did not know the filing was late and illegal to allow any further proceedings against Applicant.
c. The USPTO did not breach their civil duties owed to Mr. Gambert for allowing an illegally prosecuted late filing to move forward against the Applicant.
d. The USPTO/TTAB’s agents are not personally liable to the claimant in accordance with the laws of the agency where the acts and omissions occurred.
e. The USPTO’s online filing computer system (ESTTA) was not programmed deficiently and ESTTA did not act against the law by accepting payment late. The USPTO’s product liability of ESTTA’s end product did not cause damage initially by its programming not being in alignment with the laws requirements.
f. The USPTO/TTAB did not knowingly cover up, falsify, or make a false entry in the record of the Opposition 91183740 with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence proper administration of the matter within the jurisdiction of the TTAB which is an agency of the United States in relation to case 77171330 and such matter.
g. The USPTO/TTAB did not knowingly direct the obstructive act to affect the issue and matter within the jurisdiction of the Trademark Issuing Department and the outcome of the issuance of the trademark to Plaintiff. The TTAB did not intentionally obstruct justice by barring the Trademark Issuing Department from rightful issuance to Plaintiff.
h. The Employees of the USPTO did not act at least “in relation to” or “in contemplation” of such matter of the allowance of an illegal opposition.
i. The USPTO in the department of “ESTTA” did not abscond from providing an answer of an inquiry about the late filing issues and faulty programming, but did deliberately keep evidence from Plaintiff.
j. The USPTO did not publish “Highly Confidential Sealed Documents” to the public by mistake in case 91183449.
k. The USPTO did not allow another late Opposition filing to proceed illegally against Plaintiff being Hochman and associates 91184116.
l. The trademark was not issued once already or within a hands reach of Charles Joiner inside the issuing department of the USPTO, it was not ordered destroyed.
m. A higher ranking Agent of Montia Pressey Givens did not suppress or obstruct her further conversations with Plaintiff. A higher ranking Agent did not further obstruct her civil duties owed by suppressing her from any more actions of assisting the proper administration of justice to be performed to the Plaintiff.
n. The Petition to Director for consideration of reinstatement was not timely.
o. The USPTO/TTAB by not performing with Plaintiff was not prejudice
However, upon information and belief neither the USPTO, or the TTAB, nor any other department of the Government or its agencies have possessed or will possess any evidence that Opposition 91183740 was ever officially instituted and that these Agents are not acting outside their immunities of the laws that govern.
13. Even though the United States Government never obtained any actual evidence in support of the would-be Opposition in case 91183740 or any realistic results substantiating any official Opposition, the TTAB must have “Overlooked” or neglected to see something as major as the Rule of Law, Federal Statutes, and Agency Law, all of which require the Opposition of 91183740 not to be considered and never allowed to be prosecuted in the first place, especially to be moved forward from outside the thirty days set in solid stone statutes – not from Ms. Linnehan; not from her own findings; and not from any other source- the TTAB nevertheless maliciously prosecuted an illegally instituted opposition against Mr. Gambert against the law for years before finally “Successfully” taking his property and dismissing his rights to the trademark without just compensation.
14. There are multiple witnesses at the USPTO in support of Plaintiff, who are other Agency employees, who furthermore have been documented telling of the truth, what is right, what is just, what is fair and what the correct filing deadlines are, who at the time understood the interpretations of the law against Opposition 91183740 in favor of Applicant. They include department employees inside the TTAB, The Issuing Department, Law Office 107, and the Commissioner of Trademarks office. They are Tyrone Craven, Jennifer Chikoski, Charles Joiner, Alyssa Paladino, and with now Montia Pressey Givens. Currently there are employees who stand with the law and others who stand divided against it overtly acting within the Agency. The Agency is currently divided and the law is written for the reason to stand undivided. Anyone standing divided against the law are clearly those who stand for breaking the law, who stand against us all.
Their views, while at the time were without subordinate persuasion, were unequivocally in support of Plaintiffs corroboration and what the law clearly states is truth undivided.
15. The Opposition and subsequent prosecution of Ms. Drysdales filing 91183740 was maliciously pursued from the United States Government’s Agents. The online filing system ESTTA appears to not have recorded the registration, and it appears to be manually entered on the back end, and those conspiring that knew, or should have known Ms. Drysdales filing was late, furthermore should have not refused registration or barred issuance of the trademark to Mr. Gambert, or show such prejudice favor to an Opposition that by law could have never been and was required to never have been prosecuted.
16. Further, the Government continued its prosecution of Opposition case 91183740 even after it became, or should have become apparent to the United States Government’s Agents and legal counsel of record, or those in particular conspiring with them that the purported Opposition 91183740 was late. With the deliberate omission of leaving out the critical information the Opposition was time barred, just like the Oppositions attorney of records appearance was late and so required to have been time barred. Therefore any allegations from her counsel were devoid of any indicia of reliability because the government never possessed any tangible physical evidence to corroborate the allegations in support of Opposition 91183740 or her counsel of record was timely. Accordingly the filing and prosecution with her attorney of record were all required to be time barred by law, this being an undisputable irrefutable requirement to have been all dismissed.
Anyone who continues to stand on the wrong side of 91183740 stands against themselves, because 91183740 is time barred by high laws, although considered a nullity, still maliciously prosecuted outside the window of opportunity given by law being “Within” 30 days of publication. The English is not ambiguous or objectionable, and anyone within the Agency who stands on the wrong side of this clear English stands against the law.
17. After a long burdensome legal proceeding with an unduly, burdensome, and illegal discovery request granted from the TTAB, although the Opposition was required to have been stricken by law, the United States agencies employees at the TTAB represented to their own court careless lawlessness and so deficiently warranted the imposition of discovery sanctions against Mr. Gambert. With the TTAB’s continuing efforts to pressure Mr. Gambert to being coerced into ending the matter, the Board warned Mr. Gambert that if he should not comply with discovery “In any way” the board would not hesitate to enter the sanctions of judgment by siding with the Opposition. This erroneous judgment and “Prejudice Invitation” shows their clear intent, and their already predetermined thought outcome, they were in favor of the Opposition no matter what the Applicant did to defend his rights to registration. No matter what Plaintiff filed then or would file later, the TTAB would always deliberately concoct something that appeared to be lawful and right according to the law on the outside, but on the inside everyone knew the truth, and still does know the truth of the matter. The truth is the TTAB and the USPTO’s employees, who were Government Agents, are clearly prejudice against the Plaintiffs American God given rights to registration success and critically important trademark issuance.
Every filing in support of issuance the TTAB has shown nothing less than prejudice discrimination and repression toward Applicants registration and issuance success.
18. Ultimately, the governments hired agents proclaimed that Mr. Gambert had been unsuccessful in providing discovery to Opposition- or the purported orders from the board were not complied with, and the Opposition had allegedly received the requests late, even though after Oppositions attorney of record stated receiving them on the correct date according to service process law, and so timely. Requiring more requests from Mr. Gambert from an illegally instituted case and slowly closing what would appear to be a “Legal” judgment in favor of 91183740, sustaining the Opposition then refusing registration from Mr. Gambert is a violation to the rule of law. In either case no one had the legal capacity to render any judgments on a case by law that was and still is required to be stricken from the record. It is what the Judges are required to do while the Director is to fix the record. The language is clear, unambiguous, and intolerant of the USPTO’s suggested interpretations, it is required to be performed.
19. As the years passed, the agents and agency of the United States government still remain steadfast in their refusal to dismiss Opposition 91183740 and strike the filing from the record. The TTAB remains steadfast in their obstructions to allow any lawful issuance of the trademark to Mr. Gambert again and cease their malicious attempts of withholding Plaintiffs property. The TTAB opt instead to continue their efforts to coerce Mr. Gambert into accepting this injustice and settle with an illegal judgment in favor of a late Opposition whereby they “terminated” his property against the law which has resulted and is resulting in a continued loss of his reputation, in exchange for saving theirs.
20. Ultimately, Mr. Gambert will require the United States to either produce some evidence to support their prosecution of Opposition 91183740 was originally lawful or require the government to strike the filing from the record, provide Mr. Gambert his property and compensation for all his losses in conjunction with criminal investigations from the DOJ.
21. On April 24th 2008, at 3:28 pm- over three years after the United States conducted the allowance of an illegal proceeding against Mr. Gambert; almost five years after the Plaintiffs initial application, the USPTO forced him to suffer the emotional distress and humiliation of losing, although the truth is he never lost anything according to the highest laws that govern the agency. Now is the time to provide Mr. Gambert what is owed being his property and compensations for all his losses from the actions of these Agents.
SUMMARY
These Agents still today do not consider my freedoms or my rights to be truly American, an American who believes in our God Given Rights to be one, and who believes in our Constitution with our God Given rights therein. An American man who still believes in our Government and our people, who furthermore still has faith in our system when everyone follows the rules. An American man who still believes in our Government and our people, who furthermore still has faith in our system when everyone follows the laws.
Finally an American man who believes every citizen has the freedom to exercise his or her own God Given rights of Free Enterprise and Capitalism, especially when acting as Americans within their own country operating within their own land. This United States Citizen who is an American man believes every citizen needs to be constantly reminded they have the duty as fellow Americans to expose any corrupted Government Agents standing to deny any of us of our God Given freedoms, who stand in Opposition to us or our high laws. Freedoms we have need to be continually protected by us and further prevented from ever being taken from us all as fellow Americans. Freedoms we sometimes need to remind our Government Agents we own and I am now personally aware of these freedoms, they are the same ones I have been fighting for from preventing these Agents to be able to simply take from me what is mine against the rule of law without any recourse or remedy against these overt law breakers actions. We simply cannot afford anyone denying us our freedoms because of how they feel or the fear they may have of the ever fast changing future. All Government Agents need to be reminded they do not have the authority or the right to personally prevent what is ours from being fulfilled in any venture that is lawful and according to the rules. They simply do not have the rights to deny us of our freedoms of being American especially as our servants no matter how big it is. We simply don’t need anyone’s personal preventative measures or thought that is contrary to the rule of law already written for everyone inside our Government agencies to follow without any of their personal opinions or malicious obstructions, or their preventative assumptions they are doing good for society, or thinking they are saving something, but in actuality when breaking our laws are hurting us all as fellow citizens and ruining their own reputations.
These Agents who break the law in this way must no longer have the right to be servants of the people. Agents must not deny the people of what is owed to them by their civil duties. No Government Agent has the power to overrule what we own because of how they feel being contrary to the law and this should be an example to every Agency needing to be reminded, Government Agents do not have the authority to make decisions that are in clear violation to the rule of law. Opinions contrary to the law must be looked at for what they truly are, this being a criminal mind in the preliminary nature, a mind in the earliest stages of giving birth to the Opposition of the rule of law. This Opposition affects us all as Americans because it is a spirit divided against us all. We must continue to hold firm to the almighty self-evident truths, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I am that American man it total agreement.
No Government Agent anywhere has the right to deny any of us as fellow Americans of these freedoms no matter how they feel, or what service they may think they are performing to the public, especially when denying these liberties they must be held accountable wherever and whenever. Wherever whenever WE simply cannot afford not to hold accountable any obstructive insubordinate disobedient Agents in Opposition to our God Given Rights, and our high laws, we must hold these Government Agents who are drowning in their thoughts, feelings or emotions, who stand in Opposition to our high laws, we need to treat them the way they deserve, it is criminal to have so overtly acted contrary to the rule of law and have crossed the colorful lines being in direct violation to our solid stone cold statutes of law written for everyone to follow without compromise inside our Agencies, they simply must be held accountable if found to have broken these high laws. They should not be given a free ride, a slap on the wrist, a finger pointed at them saying “Now don’t do that again.” Reason being one out of every ten thousand American citizens would ever take it this far and this time it should not be wasted.
This is not a game and all Agents need to be reminded where there feet are, or have been misplaced from where they once stood being on solid grounds. If Agents stand against their oaths something must have happened along the way, the Agents must have been relocated to oppose our laws and have now been found to be sinking in the Quick Sands of Trial in time. Agents are now reminded our laws are for every Federal Agency to stand together strong upon, not against, but together with and upon. All government is still under the government and standing together strong undivided to our high laws is being placed on solid grounds. This solid rock protects us all and is our true power whereby standing together undivided in unity to our laws and this Constitution has worked for hundreds of years. This is our solid bedrock which is our foundational law and our trusts should be placed in what works and has worked for centuries. With our constitutional laws we can be fearless of the future, because the laws do work, and have already been time tested, they have been proven time and time, and again in keeping America the Greatest. No matter what the popular census may think, when we place our trusts in our forefathers laws, we place our trusts written for all of our protections and all of our successes on solid stone grounds safe for every citizen to build upon. By doing this we stand together great as one nation fearlessly undivided and rock solid strong. Wherefore our name: -The United States of America and in God we still do trust.
III.
FIRST CLAIM – VIOLATION OF 28 U.S.C. §2680
1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference herein all allegations set forth above.
2. The acts and events set forth above constitute theft, obstruction of justice, gross negligence, wrongful acts, malicious conduct, abuse of process, nonfeasance, malfeasance, malicious prosecution under the laws of the state of Arizona and others to be further nourished. Because these acts and events were undertaken and caused by certain Agents of the United States, the United States Government is liable for all damages caused by such acts, as provided by 28 U.S.C §2680(a) and 28 U.S.C §2680(h).
IV.
DAMAGES
1. Plaintiff has suffered the following injuries for which he seeks full compensation under the law:
a. Costs incurred in defending the illegal prosecution of Opposition 91183740;
b. Damages to reputation;
c. Emotional distress, humiliation, loss of capitalism and enterprise.
d. Taking/Withholding of property
e. A violation of all United States Citizens God given Rights
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff is entitled to damages from the United States, and do hereby pray that judgment be entered in his favor and against the United States government as follows:
1. Costs of defending the prosecution of Oppositions in the amount of $2,940,000; plus
2. Damage to reputation and reputational injury online in the amount of $2,000,000; plus
3. Emotional distress, humiliation, loss of Capitalism and Enterprise $28,719,600; plus
4. Taking/withholding of property being the intellectual property of the SEO® in case 77171330. To be professionally evaluated by a third party company on a national and international, past, present, and future ongoing basis. An increased amount will be based upon newly discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of presenting this claim to the Federal Agency and the United States government; all in the preliminary total amount of $33,659,600. This settlement requires the issuance of the SEO ™ 77171330 to still be registered and issued to Plaintiff in accordance with the Lanham act, Federal statutes, Trademark law, The United States Citizens God Given Rights, State Law, and the Constitution of the United States +5.
5. The Full Funding for the United States Seal to be sealed on Hoover Dam for the people.
Plaintiff further is entitled and do hereby seeks recovery of all costs and fees incurred by Plaintiff in this civil action, together with for such further and additional relief at law or in equity that this Court may deem appropriate or proper. Respectfully deposited and served through USPS first class mail Tuesday October 17th 2012.
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 Sovereign and Advocate for Personal Justice.
