Undercover President Reports,
Today I was contacted by a very nice lady Carla, I advised her of the possibles of whoo may want to come forward and receive the protections that are offered for individuals who are federal employees within the USPTO! I told her there are witnesses, who are federal employees, I gave her their names and told her it would be helpful to call over there to simply just advise them of there rights!
I know the individuals who know the truth are being obstructed currently and may be unaware about the Office of Special Counsel set up for these particular instances, it is possible if Carla wants to be a shining star within the OSC to go above and beyond by contacting the names I gave her to contact! We Shall See…
II.I.JI.JUSTICE.II.I.JI II.I.JI. JI. I!
From: Edwards, Carla [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:38 AM
Subject: OSC Form 12 (DI-13-3001)
Hi Mr. Gambert,
I would like to speak with you to discuss the details in your case in reference to your OSC Form 12 that you filed with our agency. Please contact me at the telephone number listed below.
Carla F. Edwards
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
Today I contacted the agency of the Office of Special Counsel to open up an investigation for the Freedom of Information Act request I made back in November of 2012 and other things. I, as well as the unknowing American Citizens, would like to know why it took up until just recently in the year 2013 to receive the information requested. Whereby only one of the requests were fulfilled this being “All Email.”
Why was this the only one of 24 requests provided while everything else was clearly left out . Finally I have named to this organization above some of the Witnesses acting within the USPTO by name for there own protection and now ask for these individuals who know who they are to come all the way forward to the Office of Special Counsel and by making there own submissions of the truth of what really happened within the USPTO TTAB behind closed doors.
Thank you to these brave Patriots….
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:42 AM
Subject: OSC E-Filing System: Form Submitted
Dear Jason Gambert,
This is to notify you that your electronic complaint has been received by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) E-Filing System. It does not verify that the information in your disclosure has been read. Please print out a copy of this message for your records.
This also serves to notify you of your file number, which is DI-13-3001. If you wish to send additional information or documents concerning this disclosure, please identify this file number on each of your submissions. Documents in support of your disclosure may be sent via facsimile to 202-254-3711 or mailed to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Disclosure Unit, at 1730 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036-4505. Additional information regarding OSC and the procedure concerning how your disclosure will be processed may be found on our web site at www.osc.gov.
An attorney from the Disclosure Unit will be assigned to your disclosure and you will be contacted in the near future. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding your disclosure in the meantime, please contact the Disclosure Unit at 202-254-3640 or 1-800-572-2249. Please have your file number available when you call so that we may more easily assist you.
DU evaluates disclosures, which are separate and distinct from complaints of reprisal or retaliation for whistleblowing activities. A reprisal or retaliation claim is reviewed by OSC’s Complaints Examining Unit (CEU) as a prohibited personnel practice. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(8)(b). Should you wish to file a prohibited personnel practice complaint, please file an OSC Form OSC-11, Complaint of Possible Prohibited Personnel Practice or Other Prohibited Activity. Any questions regarding filing a prohibited personnel practice may be directed to 202-254-3670 or 1-800-572-2249.
OSC E-Filing System
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. It is now imperative that an investigation be opened up to report to the correct agencies now that I have notified Congress in full light of the abuse of process and other things within this Agency under the USPTO. This was the last filing I made in my continued efforts to force the administration of law and justice to be followed unwaveringly within this Agency.
This will keep escalating until justice is fulfilled. I am Jason Gambert and will be entering into a major political function in 2014 starting this campaign naming all agents and agencies that do not follow what is clearly written for them to follow in the law. 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 accountable. My last correspondence is as follows:
THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK ORGANIZATION
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
THE CITIZENS NOTICE OF JUDICIAL AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY PIERCING
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT CLAIM & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 911837140 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 Special Counsel for your understanding of this violation within the Agency of USPTO TTAB and there continued conduct reflecting “Gross American Injustice.”
(Update July 24th 2014 The Below Video Is Now By Invitation Only) However it was a great educational video about how to blow the whistle.
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 Citizen and Advocate for Personal Justice.
§1216. Other matters within the jurisdiction of the Office of Special Counsel
(a) In addition to the authority otherwise provided in this chapter, the Special Counsel shall, except as provided in subsection (b), conduct an investigation of any allegation concerning—
(1) political activity prohibited under subchapter III of chapter 73, relating to political activities by Federal employees;
(2) political activity prohibited under chapter 15, relating to political activities by certain State and local officers and employees;
(3) arbitrary or capricious withholding of information prohibited under section 552, except that the Special Counsel shall make no investigation of any withholding of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information the disclosure of which is specifically prohibited by law or by Executive order;
(4) activities prohibited by any civil service law, rule, or regulation, including any activity relating to political intrusion in personnel decision making; and
(5) involvement by any employee in any prohibited discrimination found by any court or appropriate administrative authority to have occurred in the course of any personnel action.
(b) The Special Counsel shall make no investigation of any allegation of any prohibited activity referred to in subsection (a)(5), if the Special Counsel determines that the allegation may be resolved more appropriately under an administrative appeals procedure.
(c) If the Special Counsel receives an allegation concerning any matter under paragraph (1), (3), (4), or (5) of subsection (a), the Special Counsel may investigate and seek corrective action under section 1214 and disciplinary action under section 1215 in the same way as if a prohibited personnel practice were involved.
(Added Pub. L. 101–12, §3(a)(13), Apr. 10, 1989, 103 Stat. 28; amended Pub. L. 103–94, §3, Oct. 6, 1993, 107 Stat. 1004.)
1993—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–94 amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as follows:
“(1) If an investigation by the Special Counsel under subsection (a)(1) substantiates an allegation relating to any activity prohibited under section 7324, the Special Counsel may petition the Merit Systems Protection Board for any penalties provided for under section 7325.
“(2) If the Special Counsel receives an allegation concerning any matter under paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of subsection (a), the Special Counsel may investigate and seek corrective action under section 1214 in the same way as if a prohibited personnel practice were involved.”
Effective Date of 1993 Amendment; Savings Provision
Amendment by Pub. L. 103–94 effective 120 days after Oct. 6, 1993, but not to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under amended provision, which is to be treated as remaining in force for purpose of that penalty, forfeiture, or liability, and no provision of Pub. L. 103–94 to affect any proceedings with respect to which charges were filed on or before 120 days after Oct. 6, 1993, with orders to be issued in such proceedings and appeals taken therefrom as if Pub. L. 103–94 had not been enacted, see section 12 of Pub. L. 103–94, set out as an Effective Date; Savings Provision note under section 7321 of this title.
Charles, Montia, Jennifer, Tyrone and others….