(Alexandria Division) : United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria Division) : United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria Division) : United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia
In)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - 9m
(Alexandria Division)
CLERK. U.S.
BANG-ER SHIA, ALEXANDRIA
Plaintiff,
V.
willl^lmr. covey
and Time: 10 AM
MELINDA M. DEATLEY
and
ELIZABETH ULLMER MENDEL
and
JENNIFER A. HARCHICK
Defendants
Plaintiff, Dr. Bang-er Shia, hereby submits her Memorandum along with affidavit
and exhibits PEX. 1-8, in support of her Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (^Motiori). Motion was filed to move the Court to dismiss Dr. Shia's Complaint for
Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can Be Granted, Rule 12(b)(6). As individual
defendants are employed and paid by defendant USPTO while their challenged wrongs
occurred in the line of their respective duty. Rule 12(b)(1) is also discussed herein to provide
1
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 31 PageID# 1809
Preliminary Statement
Dr. Shia was brutally harassed, threatened, and humiliated for 55 months by
Defendants, who used her patent agent license and her family's privacy as hostages to try to
make heryield to their wrongs. Sherefused to feed herselfinto the big monster; she therefore
had to fight with bare hands and swallowed all the pain. It is notjust a 55-month nightmare
from the white terrorists that made her life miserable; it would last through her life.
This is a case of civil tort to seek judicial relief from the government's
unconstitutional wrongs in the line ofduty of individual officials and officers. The remedy Dr.
Shia seeks could NOT be relieved in a 35 U.S.C. 32 administrative review upon a petition
injury or loss. In addition, Ex. AA-AD accompanying Shia's Complaint demonstrated the
USPTO official record was tampered by Defendants to close off any 'meaningful'
administrative review, which relies solely on a certified copy of the USPTO record.
Defendants unlawfully deprived Dr. Shia'slegal rightofa patentagent, and the right of a U.S.
applicants, causing irreparable damages to her reputation and professional career, irreparable
loss of time in responding to Defendants over a truckload of documents since 2012, and an
irreparable loss of 55 months free from fear and threats by Defendants' wrongs.
This case originated from the former Commissioner Deborah Cohen's SHOW CAUSE
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 31 PageID# 1810
letter ('SHOW CAUSE*) of January 23, 2012. In a civil rights action, the court should not
finstrate the broad remedial purpose of the statute by narrowly applying the exceptions to the
limitations period. Briley v. State of Cal, 564 F.2d 849, 855 (CA Cal. 1977). It also arises
"On September 9, 2013, Dr. Shia sent her first Congressional Inquiry, via
Congressman Blake Farenthold, to the Department of Commerce-USPTO,
questioning her rights of a U.S. representative unduly deprived. In less than two
months, she was retaliated with Complaint D2014-04. Complaint D2014-04 of
November 8, 2013 with a 30-day period was sent out on Friday, afternoon, and
received about two weeks before Thanksgiving, 2013. Complaint D2014-04
successfully stayed a response due from the Department of Commerce-USPTO, as a
response would interfere with a then outstanding Complaint D2014-04. After
Complaint D2014-04 was time-barred by ALJ, Amended Complaint D2014-04
followed, and was coupled with a second OED RFI disciplinary investigation
G2341 ... Compliant D2014-31 was later initiated, followed hyAmended Complaint
thereof. Amended Complaint D2014-04 was consolidated with Amended Complaint
D2014-31 to become Consolidated AmendedComplaints. On October6,2014, at the
hearing, the ALJ granted the OED Director's automatic dropping of Amended
Complaint Comp. ^^27-28.
by noncompliance with the rules, law, and statutes of the United States, for instance, by
misrepresenting, as bases for the challenged wrongs, SHOW CAUSE and the subsequent
EXCLUSION ORDER, both of which fall outside of the 32 statutory purview. The 32
judicial review is incomparable to this civil tort case. 32 provisions provide for review of
PTO Dh'ector's actions only; there is simply no standing for a disciplined"Respondent* to seek
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 31 PageID# 1811
a declaratory relief to annul the former Commissioner's SHOW CAUSE, let alone money
damages Shia is entitled to. In accessing a motion to dismiss in terms of a complaint that
alleges the deprivation of constitutional rights, a court should not "inquire whether the
plaintiffswill ultimately prevail, only whether they are entitled to offer evidence to support
their claims" Langford v. City ofAtlantic City, 235 F.3d 845, 847 (3'^^Cir. 2000) quoting,
Nami v. Fauver, 82 F 3d 63, 65 (3*^^^ 1996) (Emphasis added). The matters at issue are not
within the 32 review of a mere PTO Director's final decision; nor could they be what
Congress had intended for a statutory review. They are 'wholly collateral' to the statutory
review, and fall outside of the expertise and the invested authority of USPTO. Additionally,
there has never been an administrative review available for Shia's claims. The 32 review is
solely based on a certified copy of the USPTO record- a record abeady tampered by
Introduction
Dr. Shia is a non-attorney patent agent registered with PTO since 2005. She also
served as a U.S. representative for foreign trademark clients before USPTO since 2006. She
* Exhibits attached to Shia's Complaint are reattached under PEX 1, with EX. AN
replaced with the complete five-volume hearing transcript.
4
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 31 PageID# 1812
forms she received from her foreign clients, or by re-entering E-signatures removed by TEAS
using a keyboard. The investigation began, by the latest, in January, 2012 and was in charge
by five OED attorneys (one ofthe two in charge of G2081 retired in 2013, and the other, may
also leave), the former USPTO Director, and the former Commissioner Deborah Cohen. On
August 1, 2016, Defendants concluded with two charges against Shia, unauthorized practice
The alleged UPL was based, presumably, on an alleged 'forgery' of foreign applicants'
hand-written signatures, contradicts with the fact that the technology ofTEAS has never been
able to accept graphical, picture-like E-signatures, and no evidence existed supporting the
charge. Also, the term "electronic signatures', or 'E-signature' was replaced by Defendants
demonstrated in her Complaint attached with exhibits. Evidence existed of Dr. Shia's legal
authority to bind the foreign trademark applicants before USPTO, in her hearing testimony
and admitted supporting post-hearing documents, which however was suppressed, relocated,
and removed from the admitted evidence in the official USPTO record.
As to the charge of aiding in foreign attorneys' UPL, no evidence ever existed ofthese
foreign attorneys, at all time relevant, being attorneys registered with the State in the U.S.,
and thus subject to the State's regulation of practice of law. Also, no evidence ever existed in
accessing to the online TEAS or promulgated ready-to-fill forms as the practice of law.
November, 8 2013 to retaliate againsti) Shia's congressional inquires regarding her right of a
U.S. representative unduly deprived, ii) her accidental discovery of file fiuud hidden behind
different signatures of the former Commissioner, and iii) her later discovery of a second OED
[PEXl,To]
[PEX 1,Ti] [PEX 1,T2] [PEX 1,T3] [PEX 1.TJ [PEX 1.T5] [Gov Ex. 520,018783]
The first section (101.a) of The Electronic Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act (ESIGN, 15 U.S.C. ch. 96) provided that a contract or signature "may not be
Sinccicly.
,
^ Commissioner for Tradetnarics
denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form". TEAS
provides ready-to-fill trademark forms online open to the public, not restricted to attorneys.
The PTO rule regulating electronic signature is provided in 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c), which was
2.193(c)(2) was indispensably joined with 2.193(c)(1) by the Boolean operator "or". At all
tune relevant, 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) was insufficiently provided for people to follow, let
alone to violate. As such, there can be no violation of 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2); also, due to the
Boolean connector "or", there can be no violation of 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c), defeating PTO's
On January 23, 2012, SHOW CAUSE was issued in the name of the former
(UPL) in trademark matters before PTO. Shia submitted her clients' privileged authorization
papers she possessed since 2005 and detailed herjob to prove her innocence.
C. The Small got off the mask and sent illegally obtained documents to his leader,for
the leader to show up holding the documents in hands before the public, like a gentleman.
evidence against Shia the documents she submitted under coerce to the Commissioner.
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 8 of 31 PageID# 1815
D, The gentleman told Dr, Shia whatever shesubmittedproved her limbs becutoff, and
it would be easier ifDr. Shia cut off her own limbsthan havingthe gentleman did it,
Shia responded in OED G2081 file the only settlement she would enter is she was
E, TheSmall, wearingthe mask back, cut off and hanged Dr. Shia *s limbsin public.
On February 21, 2013, EXCLUSION ORDER was issued in the name of the former
Commissioner Deborah Cohen, which excluded Shia from participating in trademark matters.
The notice of EXCLUSION ORDER was mailed to over 230 Shia's foreign clients during the
two-month petition period, and was published at TSDR till today. Shia's first petition to
EXCLUSION ORDER using two different trademark applications, which were published
immediately at TSDR. In about two weeks, TSDR was renovated to remove the index "file
No." Trademark files previously assigned with a USPTO file No. were, since then, no longer
on November 8, 2013, Shia was served with a disciplinary Complaint D2014-04, which was
time-barred by the ALJ, later amended, and then coupled with a new disciplinary
investigation OED RFI G2341. A second Complaint D2014-31 followed, which was also
amended, and then coupled with a third disciplinary investigation RFI ofOED G2505.
H, The Big brutally stuffed every opening by which She could get out of the cage,
thereby building up, step bystep, their ownprison.
After thetwo proceedings of D2014-04 and D2014-31 were consolidated, the former
was dropped right before the hearing October 6, 2014. Attorney Catherine Cain for the
Commissioner testified at the hearing if Shia could establish she had the legal authority to
bind her clients, the disciplinary case would fall apart. Shia testified she had the legal
authority to bind the foreign applicants before USPTO and submitted, at the ALJ's order,
her post-hearing documents supporting her hearing testimony, which were admitted into
evidence by the ALJ's court order. Shia's hearing testunony and her supporting documents
Rather, after the hearing, while Dr. Shia was busy preparing her post-hearing brief, a
third OED G2505 was initiated which included her post-hearing documents supporting her
hearing testimony as evidence against her. It was later found Dr. Shia's post-hearing
documents supporting her hearingtestimony were tampered to lose any probative value.
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 10 of 31 PageID# 1817
congressional inquiries was successfully stayed by the two complaints ofD2014-04 and -31,
and the two OED RFI G2341 and G2505. To avoid a default judgment against her, Shiahad
always to reply in a short reply period to multiple RFI's and all kinds of motions of the
L She was advised ifsill askedher severed limbs bestitched back, she would be beheaded.
And, they did behead her in public and in great humiliation.
On August 1, 2016, Shia's patent agent license was revoked by PTO Director's
For each count of Defendants' wrongs, Shia is entitled to money compensation for
irreparable damages to her reputation, and to her professional career. Indeed, there is little use
of her patent agent license when her clients are gone, with or without the adverse final
decision reversed. Her clients witnessed PTO's wrongful accusing the foreign attorneys of
ended Shia's 10-year career built up since 2005, after years of hard work to obtain an M.S.
afterobtaining her Ph.D. This case maybejust the beginning of another 55-month journey, or
till her last breath, to have the matters at issue clarified by all means.
10
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 11 of 31 PageID# 1818
Standard of Review
There is a strong presumption against dismissal. Cottrell, Ltd. v. Biotrol Int'l, Inc., 191
R3d 1248, 1251 (10^ Cir. 1999). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678. In deciding a motion to dismiss,
the Courtdraws "reasonable inferences in favor ofthe Plaintiff." Ballard v. Bank ofAm., N.A.,
734 F.3d 308, 310 (4th Cir. 2013). A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is
'rarely granted.' Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 5 F.Supp 2d 423 (D.Miss. 1998),
citing Clark V. Amoco Prod. Co., 794 F.2d 967,970 (5^ Cir. 1986); Sosa v. Coleman, 646 F.2d
991, 993 (5*^ Cir. 1981). In Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41(1957), the Supreme Court stated
the interplay between Rule 8 (pleading) and Rule 12(b)(6) as follows: "[T] he accepted rule
[is]that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears
beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set offacts in support ofhis claim which would
entitle him to relief." 355 U.S. at 45-46. The Complaint shall not be dismissed unless "it is
clear that no reliefcould be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent
with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). Motion asserts no
11
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 12 of 31 PageID# 1819
"coerced submission
under SHOW CASUE
4th Am. Unreasonable
Search/Seizure IP address search results
Jgublishing ofnon-redacted
Irreparable damages .Loss ofright ofapatent ag^t, reputation, and associated income
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties ofthe United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. In assessing a motion to
12
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 13 of 31 PageID# 1820
dismiss in terms of a complaint that alleges the deprivation of constitutional rights, a court
should not "inquire whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only whether th^ are
entitled tooffer evidence tosupport their claims." Langford v. City ofAtlantic City, 235 F.3d
845, 847 (3"^ Cir. 2000) quoting, Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3'"^ Cir. 1996) (Emphasis
added) Thus, if a complaint alleges sufficient facts giving rise to a plausible claim for the
deprivation of constitutional rights, the motion must be denied, and Plaintiffs must be given
A. Claims of Defendants* violation of Shia's Fifth Amendment due process right are
more than sufficiently alleged, and even demonstrated with evidentiary exhibits.
All time relevant, 18U.S. Code 1512(b)(2)(B), and 1519, respectively provided
Shia's Complaint along with its evidentiary exhibits, alleged more than sufficiently
and even demonstrated Defendants' violation of Shia's Fifth Amendment Right to due process.
13
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 14 of 31 PageID# 1821
and/or via violation of 18 U.S. Code 1512(b)(2)(B) and 1519, directly or indirectly. Comp.
^^127-129. The challenged unconstitutional charges could not have been intended or
1) removing SHOW CAUSE, Ex. C1-C3, and Ex. Di-Da. from the folder "I" of
2) removmg JointEx, 3, SHOW CAUSE, from folder "Joint Exhibits"; Comp. ^106,
3) replacing Ex. T0-T5 of different OED seals with exhibits containing different materials
4) removing Ex. A-R from folder "I", "Respondent's Proposed Exhibits"; Comp. ^108,
7)post-dating thetimely filing date July 3,2016 of Dr. Shia's Reply Briefwith anexpired
9) making a false entry of SHOW CAUSE, which, among others, violated Shia's Fifth
14
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 15 of 31 PageID# 1822
10) absent a prior meaningful notice given at a meaningful time, falsely entering
EXCLUSION ORDER violating Shia's Fifth Amendment right, depriving her right of a U.S.
exclude Shia from being a U.S. representative for foreign trademark clients; Comp. ^61-66,
12) falsely entering three investigations OED RFIG2081, G2341, and G2505 in violation
obtained from SHOW CAUSE, and from IP address search results; Comp. ^25,27-28,32,36,
13) making a false entry of the proceeding of D2014-04 based on EXCLUSION ORDER,
14) makmg a false entiy of the proceeding D2014-31 based on EXCLUSION ORDER
and in violation of 37 C.F.R. 11.22 and 11.32, as evidenced by RFI G2505 initiated to
violation of 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) by applying PTO rules made under 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2)(A) to
govern the proceedmgs (not the practitioners), to govern Dr. Shia; Comp. ^^112-119,
16) making a false entry ofFive PTO Orders with misrepresented 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c) by
15
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 16 of 31 PageID# 1823
17) falsely entering Five PTO Orders in violation of 37 C.RR. 11.1 and 11.505 with a
18) making a false entry of INITIAL DECISION, FINAL ORDER, and ORDER
32anddepriving Shia's rightof a patent agent vested by 37 C.RR. 11.6; Comp. ^1^59-60,
20) concealing Shia's Appeal to Initial Decision, Reply Brief, and her Request or
21) falsely entering Shia's petition to EXCLUSION ORDER with a filing date March
19,2013, inconsistent withU.S. postoffice mail date March 12,2103; Comp. P3, and p. 16,
22) falsely entering a subpoena dated June 23,2014 with a falsified civil case title at the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Comp. p. 17, and Ex. Y,
23) falsely entering IP search results, obtained from a falsified subpoena; Comp. p. 17,
25) making a false entiy of 1) - 8) and 20) above, thereby closing off a 'meaningful' 35
U.S.C. 32 judicial review, which would otherwise be available had the USPTO official
16
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 17 of 31 PageID# 1824
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself." This protection safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment
canbe extended to a witness in a civil proceeding, "where the answers might incriminate [the
witness] inftiture criminal proceedings." Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77(1973). SHOW
CAUSE stated
"The circumstances suggest that you are preparing trademark filings to be submitted
to the USPTO or are otherwise acting on behalf of applicants in connection with the
referenced applications. If so, these actions may constitute the unauthorized practice
of trademark law before the USPTO. See 37 C.F.R. 11.5(b)(2), 11.14; TMEP
608... Therefore, you are hereby provided 14 calendar days to show cause why the
USPTO should not cease use of your contact information for correspondence and
prohibit participation by you as a correspondent or domestic representative in any
trademark cases before USPTO. Any such showing should include evidence for each
case that demonstrated the legitimacy of using your contact information for purposes
ofcorrespondence relatingto trademark matters." Comp. p8.
alleged charge of unauthorized practice of law ('UPL'), a crime regulated by the State. Shia's
answerto SHOW CAUSE might incriminate herself in a ftiture criminal proceeding in Texas
for a criminal charge of UPL. SHOW CAUSE therefore violated Shia's Fifth Amendment
Privilege against self-incrimination because her answer to SHOW CAUSE might incriminate
17
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 18 of 31 PageID# 1825
warrantless searches of non-public records, let alone personal or privileged, or seize them
without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Lack of
probable cause, SHOW CAUSE violated Shia's Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable search and seizure by threatening her for documents supporting her
authorization from her clients. The illegally obtained documents and information, privileged
to Shia, were later used in the disciplinary investigation OED G2081 as evidence against her.
By falsely entering the unlawfully searched and seized documents and information in the
USPTO official record, Defendants, directlyor indirectly, violated Shia's Fourth Amendment
right of privacy and right against unreasonable search and seizure of Shia's coerced
submission under SHOW CAUSE, and the IP address search results obtained upon serving a
The essence of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure is
central to the privacy law. Defendantsviolated Shia and her family's privacy protected by the
Fourth Amendment for noncompliance with the Privacy Act 1974 and 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)
by deliberately exposing Shia and her family's personal identifiable information in the IP
address searches results, but redacting the others not associated with Shia. Comp. P. 17; Ex.
AF. Defendants further violated the Fourth Amendment right of Shia, who represented her
18
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 19 of 31 PageID# 1826
foreign clients before the USPTO, and the Fourth Amendment right ofher family member-
for noncompliance with the Privacy Act 1974 and 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6) by publishing online
without redacting her clients' nor her family member's personal identifiable information. Ex.
AT, at footnote 1.
Dr. Shia is NOT employed by USPTO. Except in this civil tort case, Shia is unable to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Defendants unlawfully deprived
her right tobe a U.S. representative protected by 15 U.S.C. 1058(f) and 37 C.F.R. 2.161(h),
March 2013- by publishing at TSDR the notice of Shia's exclusion from participation
in trademark matters before USPTO, and by mailingthe exclusion notice to over 230
ii) ureparable loss of trademark clients and business income associated with herjob of
agent protected by 37 C.F.R. 11.6(b), published FINAL ORDER and ORDER DENYING
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION online, and publicly announced her "not active"
19
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 20 of 31 PageID# 1827
under her name for each patentapplication represented by her since 2005{see PEX. 8),
iii) causing irreparable loss of patent clients and business income associated with her
iv) causing irreparable loss of time she spent in safeguarding her rights over a
"In the proceeding D2014-04, there are 90 court documents presented before ALJ,
which were contained in one folder, "B", "Administrative D2014-04". In the
proceeding D2014-31, there are 57 documents. In total, there are 147courtdocuments
in the two proceedings. The one single court document, Complaint D2014-31, had
458 paragraphs in 64 pages to be answered by Dr. Shia withm 30-day. So did
AmendedComplaint D2014-31. After ALJ issuedInitial Decision, the 147 documents
were transmitted to PTO, contained in the PTO official record of "Shia record" under
10 sub-folders of "A" to "J". The 147 documents do not include a third OED RFI
investigation of File G2505." Comp. ^29, and
"While preparing for Appeal to Initial Decision to meet the deadline, she missed out a
lifetime opportunity to be present for her family. She could not go out of the country,
either, because emailing from foreign countries may not be received on time by ALJ...
Initial Decision with a limited 30-days to appeal was emailed only; no paper version
was sent." Comp. pi; and
' After PTO published Shia's revocation of patent agent license, some of her patent
clients' foreign attorneys were late in their payments past due, including the PTO official fees
which Shia paid already out of her pocket to PTO. Should these reimbursement not received
in the end, they would be added during discovery to the money damages Shia is entitled to.
20
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 21 of 31 PageID# 1828
"She trusted a federal government agency. But, she feltshe was executed by USPTO
with a sward of EXCLUSION ORDER in front of her foreign clients... Six
months later, she filed Congressional Inquiries to the Department of
Commerce-USPTO. In less than two months, she was served with Complaint
D2014-04, followed by Complaint D2014-31, and two more OED RFI investigations,
G2341 and G2505. Would her pain be much lesser, had EXCLUSION ORDER
been a steel sword, which would be a quick and fast one-time pain?" Comp. ^134.
"Dr. Shia was leashed by her patent agent license in the hands of the OED, and
hnprisoned at her residence in an invisible disciplinary cage by OED... They just
pulled her out of that invisible cage by the leash under their unbridled disciplinary
authority, repeatedly interrogated her, intimidated her, and humiliated her and even
her family at the hearing with illegally obtained evidence, and by serving complaints
containing hundreds of questions, overloaded simultaneously with OED RFI
mvestigations, invading her and her family's privacy by searching IP addresses. She
hopelessly witness PTO invading her family's privacy. She did not know when she
could stop living in fear and under threats... It was veiy difficult for her to
understand all the legal documents, let alone responding properly on time... PTO
officers and officials were all attorneys familiar with the administrative law and PTO
rules. She was alone by herself. Her life changed; even her family's life was affected.
If she yields, she is definitely not the first nor the last one who yields. A big evil
would grow to a giant evil to ure more innocent people like her, making her a
part of the giant evil. An unfavorable disciplinary decision would also make her life
impossible to move on, either as a patent agent or in legal education. She had a
memory breakdown at the hearing. She did not remember exactly why she appeared
before the ALJ, except for repeating "They did illegal things. I am innocent." Comp.
P5. (emphasis added)
For the irreparable loss of reputation, clients, income, time, and 55 months free from
fear and threats, Shia is entitled to money damages from Defendants' civil wrongs. As
opposed to a Plaintiffin a civil tort case, in the 32review schema, a disciplined 'Respondent'
has no standing to seek money damages. What is the use of a 'recovered* patent agent
license, when Shia's clients left one by one after PTO published the revocation of her
21
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 22 of 31 PageID# 1829
CivilCase: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
license? A decision of preclusion would thus close off all review of Defendants' wrongs and
The court can even invalidate a USPTO regulation if it is inconsistent with statutory
purpose. Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Complaint establishes the
basis to move the Court for an entry of an Order, granting declaratory and injunctive relief,
AND ORDER, INITIAL DECISION, FINAL ORDER, and ORDER DENYING REQUEST
ii) granting injunctive relief by directing USPTO to dispose any documents illegally
obtained, including the submission under coerce by the SHOW CAUSE, and the IP search
iii) constrainmg Defendants from retaliating against Dr. Shiaby all means.
To nullify its own orders and constrain itself from retaliation are outside of PTO's
expertise, not intended by Congress for 32review, and thus are "wholly collateral" to it.
22
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 23 of 31 PageID# 1830
In Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 f.3d 920,925 (11^ Cir. 2003), the Court cautioned
"that the district court should only rely on Rule 12 (b)(1) '[I]f the facts necessary to
sustain jurisdiction do not implicate the merits ofplaintiffs cause ofaction. Garcia, 104
F.3d at 1261 (emphasis added). If a jurisdictional challenge does implicate the merits
of the underlying clam then: [T]he propercourse ofactionfor the district court ... is to
find that jurisdiction exists and deal withthe objection as a direct attack on the merits
of the plaintiffs case.... Judicial economy is best promoted when the existence of a
federal right is directly reached and, where no claun is found to exist, the case is
dismissed on the merits. This refusal to treat indirect attacks on the merits as Rule
12(b)(1) motions provides, moreover, a greater level of protection for the plaintiff who
in truth is facing a challenge to the validity of his claim: the defendant is forced to
proceed under Rule 12(b)(6)... or Rule 56 .... both of which place greatrestrictions on
the district court's discretion.... Id (quoting Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404,415-16
(5th Cir.1981)" (emphasis added).
The question of jurisdiction and the merits of an action will normally be considered
intertwined. 35 U.S.C. 32 provided "TheUnited States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia under such conditions and upon such proceedings as it by its rules determines,
may review the action of the Director upon the petition of the person so refused recognition
"action of the Director". "Only a decision of the USPTO Director regarding denial of a
petition constitutes a final decision for the purpose of judicial review." 37 C.F.R. 11.2(e).
providing no standing for a disciplined 'Respondent' to take the initiative counterclaiming for
money damages and declaratory relief, for instance, of nullifying EXCLUSION ORDER,
23
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 24 of 31 PageID# 1831
The local rule of the Court also specifies that the Court's review under 32 relies solely
record of the then outstanding proceeding Amended Complaint D2014-31 was tampered to
nullify admitted evidence in favor of Shia and adverse to PTO. Comp. ^^102-111. As such,
'meaningful' 32 statutory review of Shia's claims was shut down by Defendants by, at least,
the last date of which a petition is be filed for the review, i.e. August 30,2016.
Shia's Complaint clearly demonstrated with exhibits that in the past 55 months, she had
tried every effort to clarify the matters at issue via every possible channel, starting from her
coerced submission under SHOW CAUSE, three repeated Petitions to EXCLUSION ORDER,
24
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 25 of 31 PageID# 1832
three Congressional Inquiries, numerous responses to three OED RFI investigations G2081,
2341 and 2505, numerous responses to all kinds of motions and Complaint and Amendment
Complaint D2014-04 and Complaint and Amendment Complaint D2014-31, Petition to the
ALJ's INITIAL DECISION, Petitionto FINAL ORDER, and Request for Reconsideration by
the PTO Director. She just suffered to no avail. Did the entity USPTO created under its
organic statute 35 U.S.C. 2exist inthe past 55 months while Defendants' wrongs occurred?
authority under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to exclude Shia from being a U.S. representative? Is
USPTO empowered to allow the OED to open one investigation after another without
grounds to harass Dr. Shia? Is USPTO empowered to design TEAS to erase an E-signature
and charge Shia with unauthorized practice of law when she recovered her client's
E-signature? Didthe USPTO created under 35 U.S.C. 2 understand what kind of damage
it caused to an innocent person's name, career and life when it excluded Shia from
trademark matters, from patent matters, and hanged her severed limbs and head in
public? Or, what existed when allthewrongs happened is a group of white terrorist wearing
the mask of USPTO at the command of Department of Commerce, where Dr. Shia's
congressional inquiries were sent to? Shia's broad structural or systematic constitutional
challenges to the existence of PTO are what the Supreme Court has held to be collateral to
32 review. Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 US 477 (2010); see also Jarkesy, 804 F.3d.
25
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 26 of 31 PageID# 1833
EXCLUSION ORDER
35 use 32
MEMO AND ORDER Complaint D2014-0^
37 CFR 11.22
Amended Complaint OED RFI G234]
D2014-04
35 use 32
Complaint D2014-3
Amended Complaint
D2014-31
37 CFR 11.55,11.56
Appeal to JjiJISPTO Director
1331 Jurisdiction 32 Statutory Review
26
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 27 of 31 PageID# 1834
The cause of this civil action is deeply rooted in SHOW CAUSE and its subsequent
EXCLUSION ORDER, both of which were issued in the name of the former Commissioner
Deborah Cohen, At all time relevant, the Commissioner for Trademarks had not been
authorized to participate in the 37 C.F.R. 11.22 disciplinary investigation OED RFI, nor in a
35 U.S.C. 32 proceeding of a complaint. As such, Shia's claims for relief, arismg originally
from SHOW CAUSE and EXCLUSION ORDER, such as declaratory relief to nullify the
SHOW CAUSE and EXCLUSION ORDER are distinct from 32 and "wholly collateral" to
Shia's constitutional challenges arise from the actions Defendants could not take in
the course of the 32 scheme, i.e. overruling SHOW CAUSE and EXCLUSION ORDER,
which is thus 'wholly collateral' to the 32 review Congress had intended it to be; to quash
its own orders are outside of PTO's expertise. Shia's Constitutional claims arising from
SHOW CAUSE and EXCLUSION ORDER are therefore not "of the type Congress intended
to be reviewed within this statutory structure." Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 207.
E. Preclusion willforeclose all reviews, the most critical factor in deciding the subject
matterjurisdiction,
"Given the painstaking detail with which" Congress set forth the rules governing the
court of appeals' review of Commission action, " it is discernible that Congress intended to
27
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 28 of 31 PageID# 1835
deny [aggrieved respondents] an additional avenue of review in district court." Elgin, 132
S.Ct. at 2134. Shia's unconstitutional charges differ from Elgin where the Court observed
that "petitioners' constitutional claims are the vehicle by which they seek to reverse the
removal decisions, to return to federal employee, and to receive the compensation they would
have earned bur for the adverse employment action." 132 S. Ct. at2139-40; see also Jarkesy,
803F.3dat23.
The constitutional nature of Shia's clauns requires a different result from 32 review.
Here, even ifthe PTO Du-ector's final action is reversed, itdoes not justify the injury and loss
from which Dr. Shiais entitled to seeka relief. A recovered patent agent license would not
bring her clients or business back. Dr. Shia also seeks to nullify SHOW CAUSE and
EXCLUSION ORDER, upon which the INITIAL DECISION and the PTO director's final
decision were based. Since Shia was not employed by PTO, the money damages she seeks in
this civil tortcase cannot be redressed m 32 review. It is also proven the subject matters of
this case are "wholly collateral' to 32 review. In addition, 32 review was foreclosed by
Congress does not intend to limit jurisdiction if "a finding of preclusion could
foreclose all meanmgflil judicial review". Afinding ofpreclusion would foreclose all judicial
review" of Dr. Shia's claims, which the courtviewed to be the "most critical" factor. Thunder
Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 212-213; Bebo, 2015 WL 4998489, at *8. In the case
28
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 29 of 31 PageID# 1836
at bar, there is NO "additional" avenue of review. This Court has the subject matter
jurisdiction inthis matter, the only route for review of Shia's claims.
5. Section 2679(b)(l) immunity collapses before the US, Constitution and statutes.
The immunity of "elected officials" (excluding non-elected officers) does not extend
to "a civil action against an employee of the Government which is brought for a violation of
the Constitution of the United States, or which is brought for a violation of a statute of the
United States..." See 2679(b)(2). "Qualified immunity... protects all government officials
except those who violate a 'statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the
tune ofthe challenged conduct." Jones vChandrasuwan^ 2016 WL 1697682, at *4 (4**^ Cir.
2016) (published opinion) (quoting Carrol v. Carman, 135 S. Ct. 348, 350 (2014)).
established at the time when the wrongs occurred, were demonstrated in Shia'sComplaint,
In Silverthome Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States (251 U.S. 385, 1920), the Supreme
Court of the United States took the position the government could not use knowledge that it
had illegally gained by seizure of the original papers "to call upon the owners in a more
regular form to produce them"; that, if it could it would be to reduce the fourth amendment to
a form of words"; and that the essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence
in a certam way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court
29
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 30 of 31 PageID# 1837
CivilCase: l:16>cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
"but it sliall not be used at all." The Court further noted that knowledge gained by the
government's own wrong cannot be used by it in the way proposed. The Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit in Roger v. UnitedStates (97 F.2d 691, Cir, 1938) relying on Silverthome,
interpreted the Silverthome phrase "but that it shall not be used at all" to render invalid a civil
judgment in the procurement of which evidence illegally obtained was used. United States v.
Physic, 175 F.2d 338 (2"*^ Cir. 1949) (evidence suppressed because of illegal search held not
admissible incivil forfeiture suit); Bolger v. Cleary, 293 F.2d 368 (2"*^ Cir. 1961).
Exhibits DEX. A-F are inadmissible. DEX. B (or EXCLUSION ORDER) and DEX. F
(or SHOW CAUSE) violated Shia's constitutional rights. DEX. A (or FINAL ORDER), EDX.
C (or MEMO), DEX. D (or INITL\L DECISION), and DEX. E (or ODER DENYING
CAUSE and EXCLUSION ORDER, and coerced information obtained therefrom. Absent
Conclusion
For the foregoing, Shia's affidavit, exhibits attached to Complaint and exhibits attached
herein, and those discussed in her Complaint, the Court should deny the Motionto Dismiss.
RespectMly submitted,
30
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 31 of 31 PageID# 1838
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify thatthe foregoing Opposition, affidavit and PEX. 1-8 were served on
December 2.2OI6 on the following persons by U.S. postal service first class certified
mail:
Alexandria, VA 22314
December 2.2016
102LINDENCRESTCT.,
31