The Presidents Complaint to The Office of Inspector General,

Today I have been referred by another Agency to open up an investigation within the United States Patent and Trademark organization by way of the “Office of Inspector General” who oversees this Agency.

I filed through their submission system and you can find this example below. Finally, you will be furthermore able to see the date of the requests. From here forward, starts the clock and the communication from this agency; that will hopefully seek out and prosecute any agent found in violation to our laws, statutes, acts, and other things like “The Constitution” in which they are clearly found in violation of:

We shall see…

—–Original Message—–

From: <a href=”mailto:hotline@oig.doc.gov”>hotline@oig.doc.gov</a> <a href=”mailto:[mailto:hotline@oig.doc.gov]”>[mailto:hotline@oig.doc.gov]</a>

Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:13 PM

To: <a href=”mailto:hotline@oig.doc.gov”>hotline@oig.doc.gov</a>

Subject: Hotline – Employee Misconduct

This is a hotline tip submitted via the online form.

Complaint topic: DOC Employee

Bureau involved: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Allegation: Employee Misconduct

Violator information: Judge Rogers

Chief Administrative Trademark Judge

USPTO TTAB

PO 1450

Alexandria          VA          22313

571-272-9950
<h4></h4>
Hi,

I am a United States Citizen and am now currently seeking justice upon the allegations of criminal conduct within the United States Patent and Trademark Organization namely the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and directors offices 2007-2013. It is now imperative that an investigation be opened up to be able to report the findings to the correct agencies especially now that I have notified Congress in full light of the abuse of process and other activities within this Agency under the Department of Commerce. Below was the last filing I made in my continued good faith efforts to force the administration of law and justice to be followed unwaveringly within this Agency of the USPTO.

This must keep escalating until justice is fulfilled. I am Jason Gambert and will be forced into entering into major political functions starting in 2014 campaigning and naming all agents and agencies that do not follow what is clearly written for them to strictly adhere to in the highest laws that govern. I respectfully ask for this agency to be the vehicle to (1.) Further notify the correct Agencies who oversee the USPTO and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and 2.) Open up investigations holding the accountable fully accountable to the law.

My last correspondence is as follows:

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK ORGANIZATION
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
JASON GAMBERT,
PLAINTIFF,

v.

USPTO TTAB
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Defendant

THE CITIZENS NOTICE OF JUDICIAL AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY PIERCING
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT CLAIM &amp; PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF §4

1. This is an action under the § 13 (15 U.S.C. § 1063), 37 CFR § 2.101, 37 CFR § 2.102, U.S.C. § 1063(a), to order the reproduction of trademark SEO, concerning case application 77171330, in which defendant continues improperly withholding this property from plaintiff.

2. This department has the authority and is required to issue the trademark over the TTAB’s abuse of process, gross negligence, and malicious conduct and rulings pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1063 (B)(1).

3. Plaintiff, Jason Gambert, is the original Applicant and is the legal owner of the SEO trademark in application 77171330. Furthermore plaintiff is the lawful requester of the trademark to be reprinted and sent to plaintiff in which defendant is currently withholding his property illegally pursuant to U.S. Const. amend. V &amp; U.S. Const. amend. XIX, 15 U.S.C. 1063 (B)(1), and the agencies 300 pleadings.

Plaintiff demands his property to be released and continues the pressing of the publication and the required records to be fixed by the TTAB &amp; Director according to 15 USC 1063 §1119.

4. Defendant (USPTO) is an agency of the United States and has possession of the document and the property that plaintiff currently owns and seeks.

5. By letter dated 04/18/2013, plaintiff requested his property to be issued from the issuing department in regards to the SEO trademark in application 77171330, in which the USPTO director shall have a copy of this demand letter and furthermore shall be issued to the Department of Justice in Washington, Arizona, and to Congress making sure this department with all its agents are held accountable to the required actions of what is clearly written without any ambiguity in the law.

6. The required trademark issuance has not been provided, plaintiff was denied access to the requested property by the TTAB’s deliberate abuse of process, although the Applicant who is now Plaintiff has always been timely according to the law in all his proceedings, in all motions, and all filings, this case has been maliciously ignored by the Trademark Trial &amp; Appeal board who has from the evidenced past has and continues to attempt to cover up its gross negligence’s and malicious conducts. The applicant who is now Plaintiff has suffered great damages accordingly and does hereby seek this further required relief which includes the resignations of:

I.) Resignation of Chief Administrative Judge Gerald Rogers.
II.) Resignation of Administrative Judge Mark Bergsman.
III.) Resignation of Administrative Judge David Bucher.
IV.) Resignation of Administrative Judge Lorei Ritchie.
V.) Resignation of Administrative Judge Ellen Seeherman.
VI.) Resignation of Administrative Judge Karen Kuhlke.
VII.) Resignation of Interlocutory Anne Linnehan.
VIII.) The resignation of David Kappos has been satisfied 01/2013.

The above required resignations must be turned in for the deliberate participation of unlawful attempts at cover-ups, gross negligence, abuse of process, malicious conduct, the obstruction of justice in the required issuance of trademark 77171330 to plaintiff in accordance to 15 USC 1063 (B) while deliberately failing the citizens who are the tax payers of the United States, and other things.

7. Although Plaintiff has notified (1.) Rebecca Blank in the U.S. Department of Commerce and who is currently acting as Secretary, (2.) Bernard Knight in the office of the general counsel, (3.) William R. Covey director for discipline in the office of enrollment and Discipline, (4.) Former Director David Kappos, (5.) Current Director Teresa Stanek Rea, and since there has been no correspondence or required justice performed to this date from any of these agents or any attempts at fixing this deliberate diminution from Defendant, it is now required that 2, 3, and 4, provide an official statement to Plaintiff.

Furthermore it is also required I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, to provide an official statement to satisfy Plaintiffs legal deliberations.

8. Although every attempt from Applicant 77171330, and now who is Plaintiff, did attempt in a good faith effort to correct the findings of the extraordinary circumstances whereby filing the appropriate petitions timely, although they were erroneously denied as untimely, even though the truth is they were certainly not untimely, and by the provided evidence in the filings it clearly shows the actions by the defendant are no longer merited as a matter of timeliness, but merited to the plaintiff as a matter of justice. This case is resolved totally and absolutely by Federal Statute, Internal Agency Law, The 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States, The Lanham Act, and The Rule of Law already.

There is no legal standing for any Agent inside this or any other Agency to consider any late filings, or any other nullity issues acting outside of any accordance to the highest laws that govern any Agency, it’s Agents, and or its employees. The illegal actions against Applicant 77171330 must be defended against, and the unlawful “Would Be” opposition 91183740 shall be considered a nullity and the error is to be fixed in accordance to 15 USC 1063 (B) of the Lanham Act and the United States Chapter 300 pleadings 306.04 late opposition.

9. Plaintiff has a right to access the requested property under 15 USC 1063 (B)(1) and there is no such legal basis for defendant to deny plaintiff such access or provisions required.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests this Agency or its responsible and accountable Agents to:

(1) Order the issuing department to provide the requested SEO trademark document to Plaintiff.
(2) Expedite this proceeding providing no more delay or further evidence of deliberate diminution.
(3) Hold the accountable; accountable and further investigate providing the findings to Plaintiff.
(4) Provide an Official United States Patent and Trademark Organization apology to Plaintiff justly.
(5) Fix the record correctly, truthfully, and honestly as required by what is written in the law.
(6) Provide Plaintiff the required official statements and resignations from the named above.
(7) Grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper.

Thank you to the “The Office of Inspector General” for your investigations of this gross violation found within the Agency of the USPTO & TTAB… Exposing their continued conduct of reflecting overt “Gross American Injustice” to U.S. all as Americans…

— Jason Gambert, United States Servant and Advocate for Personal Process.

II.I.JI.EXPO.II.I.JI.

II.I.JI.

JI.

I.

.

0 Comments

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

American Restoration

©2022 The Americans Justice Party and "Official Movement"  In "American Restoration" powered by LightningArrows Inc.

PRIVACY POLICY | DMCA | COPYRIGHT | TERMS OF SERVICE

CONTACT US

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Sending

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?