(Alexandria Division) : United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 31 PageID# 1808
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defenc anlsLMotionto Dismiss
In)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - 9m
(Alexandria Division)
CLERK. U.S.
BANG-ER SHIA, ALEXANDRIA
Plaintiff,
V.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASE NO. l:16-cv-1051-AJr-MSN

OFFICE
and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MICHELLE K. LEE
and
SARAH HARRIS HEARING DATE: JANUARY 6, 2017
and
willl^lmr. covey
and Time: 10 AM
MELINDA M. DEATLEY
and
ELIZABETH ULLMER MENDEL
and
JENNIFER A. HARCHICK
Defendants
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS* MOTION TO DISMISS
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
a better panoramic view of Defendants' wrongs.
1
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
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
by a non-employed, disciplined "Respondent", who has no standing in counterclaiming for
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.
domestic representative and correspondent ('U.S. representative') for foreign trademark
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
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
from Defendants' misuse of disciplinary authority to retaliate against Shia's congressional
inquiries, as cited in her Complaint:
"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.
In particular. Defendants violated Shia's constitutional rights, directlyor indirectly
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
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
Defendants to dead-end any 'meaningful'judicial review.*
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
is not employed by USPTO. The matters at issuearise from Shia'sonlineactivities by typing
in foreign applicants' electronic signatures ('E-signatures') based on the corresponding paper
* Exhibits attached to Shia's Complaint are reattached under PEX 1, with EX. AN
replaced with the complete five-volume hearing transcript.
4
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants* Motionto Dismiss
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
oftrademark law (UPL), and aiding in foreign attorneys' UPL.
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
with 'hand-written' signatures or 'signatures' among a truckload of the USPTO record, as
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
support of Defendants' preempting the State in regulation of practice of law by considering

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
accessing to the online TEAS or promulgated ready-to-fill forms as the practice of law.
Evidence existed of Defendants' misuse of multiple disciplinary proceedings since
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
stamp appearing on a copy of the SHOW CAUSE in EX. 7 submitted by Defendants.
df-LtJ .(Commissioner's signature on certificate of79/119,XXX)^

(Commissioner's signatureon Exclusion Order)\?EX 1, G3]
[PEXl,To]
' RECUlVeO reCEWEO REC6NED RECEIVED RECaveK

tEcaiaa mmm mz9m
[PEX 1,Ti] [PEX 1,T2] [PEX 1,T3] [PEX 1.TJ [PEX 1.T5] [Gov Ex. 520,018783]
A, TheEmperor*s Clothes: alleged violations ofentering E-signature do not exist in law.
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
(Commissioner's stipulated-to-be-authentic (Commissioner'sauthentic signature on

signature on the Exclusion Order) a registered certificate of 79/119,XXX)
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
misrepresented by Defendants by missing out 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2). 37 C.F.R.
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
truckloads of arguments, if not tampered or re-tampered backto an original.
B, ASmall wearing a mask, threateningfor a cause why Dn Shia *s limbsnot be severed.
On January 23, 2012, SHOW CAUSE was issued in the name of the former
Commissioner Deborah Cohento "Mr. BangShia", mandating any documents in 14 calendars
days in proofof innocence to an alleged a criminal charge of unauthorized practice of law
(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.
On November8, 2012, an investigation OED G2081 was mitiated, which included as
evidence against Shia the documents she submitted under coerce to the Commissioner.
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion toDismiss
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
threatened by OED to withdraw herselffrom a U.S. representative. PEX 1,N8-N9.
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 ORDERcertified-mailed on 'March 12,2013' and arrived at PTO on March 15,
2013 was never acknowledged by PTO.
F, After Shia'spetitions were re-filed elextronically andpublished, TSDR was renovated.
On April 10-11, 2013, Shia electronically filed two repeated petitions 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
accessible at TSDR for publicreview, which endedfile fraud.
G Defendants misused multiple disciplinary proceedings to retaliate Shia*s

Congressional Inquiriessent to Department ofCommerce-USPTO,forcing her toyield.
In September-October, 2013, Shia sent multiple congressional inquiries to the

Department of Commerce-USPTO, questioning thethree petitions shefiled. Two months later,
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
were, however, concealed from the official record by Defendants.
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.
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition toIndividual Defendants* Motion toDismiss
Meanwhile, the response from the Department of Commerce-USPTO to Dr. Shia's
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
complaints, a truckload of documents including exhibits published at TSDR since 2006.
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
ORDER DENYING (REQUEST FOR) RECONSIDERATION, published online.
/. Revocation ofPowerofAttorney submitted likesnowflakesfrom Shia*s patent clients.
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
unauthorized practice of trademark law, directly or indirectly, as published by PTO inthe
partially redacted FINAL ORDER, and ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. There
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
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff's Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion toDismiss
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
factual inadequacy in Shia'sComplaint but seeksdismissal with prejudice.
11
Civil Case: l;16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to ^dividualDefendants' Motion to Dismiss
Grounds for Motion be Denied
Civil Tort -5 use 32

'35USC3(bX2)(A)
-35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)
_ Sth Am. Due Process _18USC1512(b)(2)(B)
-18 use 1519
15U.S.C. 1058(0 and
false entering/ffoncealing^
37C.FJL2.18(c),
Privacy Act 1974 &
5US.C.552(bX6)
Cause of Action Unconstitutional Claims LCJJL 11.32, etc.
_ Sth Am. Self-inaimination show CAUSE
"coerced submission
under SHOW CASUE
4th Am. Unreasonable
Search/Seizure IP address search results
Jgublishing ofnon-redacted
.Loss ofright ofa US representative intrademark matters, reputation,

and income associated herewith
Irreparable damages .Loss ofright ofapatent ag^t, reputation, and associated income
Loss oftime inreqwrnding to a truck ofUSPTO documents
Loss of 55months fieefrom fears andthreats from Ds'wrongs
Declaratory: voiding SHOW CAUSE, EXCLUSION ORDER, etc.

Equitable Relief
-Disjunctive: ending the baseless retaliation for the matters atissue
Entitled relief
Money Damages Compensation for the loss ofclients, income, name, time, etc.
L Defendants^ unconstitutional wrongs could not have been intended or contemplated by

Congressfor a 32judicial review.
Motion failed to demonstrate the 'constitutionality* of Defendants' challenged charges.
"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
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
the opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims.
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
Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another

person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another
person, with intent to cause or induce any person to alter, destroy, mutilate, or
conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for
use in an official proceeding;... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
morethan 20 years, or both, (emphasis added)
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or

makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to
impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter
within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case
filed undertitle 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any suchmatter or case, shall
be fined under thistitle, imprisoned notmore than 20 years, or both.(emphasis added)
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
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
contemplated byCongress for a 32 statutory review, including butnotlimited to,
1) removing SHOW CAUSE, Ex. C1-C3, and Ex. Di-Da. from the folder "I" of
"Respondent's Proposed Exhibits", Comp. ^105,
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
submitted on different dates before the ALJ; Comp. ^107,
4) removing Ex. A-R from folder "I", "Respondent's Proposed Exhibits"; Comp. ^108,
5) misrepresenting the folder "I", "Respondent's Proposed Exhibits", timely submitted on
August 13,2014, with untimely "submitted on September 22,2014"; Comp. ^109,
6) misrepresenting Shia's admitted evidence of post-hearing documents in a folder
marked as "submitted after the hearing"; Comp. ^110, and
7)post-dating thetimely filing date July 3,2016 of Dr. Shia's Reply Briefwith anexpired
untimely filing date ofJuly 6,2016; Comp. ^111,
8) misrepresenting 'electronic signature' with '(written) signature'; Comp. ^^102-103,
9) making a false entry of SHOW CAUSE, which, among others, violated Shia's Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination and Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable search and seizure of documents; Comp. ^ ^37-44,
14
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifPs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
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.
representative under 15 U.S.C. 1058(f) and 37C.F.R. 2.18(c); Comp. ^45-52,99-101,
11) falsely entering EXCLUSION ORDER in violation of 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to
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
of 37 C.F.R. 11.22, unlawfully based on EXCLUSION ORDER, information illegally
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,
in violation of 37 C.F.R. 11.22 and 11.32; Comp. T|^89-94,
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
mvestigatea probable cause allegedly existed in the proceeding D2014-31; id,,
15) falsely entering SHOW CAUSE, EXCLUSION ORDER, INITL\L DECISION,
FINAL ORDER, and ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION ("F/ve PTO Orders'') in
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
leaving out 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2); Comp. ^6 and p.15,
15
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff's Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
17) falsely entering Five PTO Orders in violation of 37 C.RR. 11.1 and 11.505 with a
wrongful charge of unauthorized practice of law (UPL); Comp. ^[1173-81,
18) making a false entry of INITIAL DECISION, FINAL ORDER, and ORDER
DENYING RECONSIDERATION in violation of 37 C.RR. 10.1 and 10.47 with a
wrongful chargeof aiding others in UPL; Comp.11^82-88,
19) falsely entering ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION in violation of 35 U.S.C.
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
Reconsideration from the USPTO official record. Comp. ^29,
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,
24) falsely entering ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION in violation of 5 U.S.C
558(b) for lackofjurisdictionvested under35 U.S.C.32; Comp. 120-123, and
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
record not tampered. Comp. 111|102-111.
16
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition toIndividual Defendants* Motion toDismiss
B. Claims of Defendants' violation of Shia's Fifth Amendment Privilege against

Self-incrimination aremore than sufficiently alleged, anddemonstrated with exhibits.
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.
SHOW CAUSE compelled Dr. Shia to be a witness against herself in defense of an
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
herself in a ftiture criminal proceeding in Texas. Comp. ^^7-44.
C. Claims of Violation of Shia's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and

seizure are more than sufficiently alleged, and demonstrated with evidentiary exhibits.
17
No any U.S. constitutional authority allows a federal government to perform
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
misrepresented subpoena. Comp. ^^95-101.
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
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion toDismiss
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.
2. Defendants* unconstitutional wrongs entitled Shia money damages, notto berelieved

by a disciplined, non-employed 'Respondent*, who has no standing in counterclaiming
under 35 U.S,C, 32 statutory review.
Dr. Shia is NOT employed by USPTO. Except in this civil tort case, Shia is unable to
receive monetary compensation from Defendants' wrongs as requested in her Complaint.
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),
i) causing ureparable damages to Shia's professional reputation and career smce
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
Shia's trademark clients; and
ii) ureparable loss of trademark clients and business income associated with herjob of
a U.S. representative for foreign applicants before USPTO.
Defendantsunlawfully deprived, directly or indirectly, Shia's legal right to be a patent
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
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PiaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defendants* Motion toDismiss
under her name for each patentapplication represented by her since 2005{see PEX. 8),
i) causing irreparable damages to Shia's professional reputation and career,
ii) resultmg in on-going revocation of Power of Attorney submitted likesnowflakes to
USPTO from her patent clients;^ {see PEX. 8),
iii) causing irreparable loss of patent clients and business income associated with her
job as a patent agent;
iv) causing irreparable loss of time she spent in safeguarding her rights over a
truckload of documents, as cited in her Complaint
"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
v) irreparable loss of 55 months free of fear and threats:
' 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
"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
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
Shia's entitledmoneydamages and equitable reliefof injunction and declaratory relief.
J. Defendants* unconstitutional wrongs entitleShia equitable relief, ^wholly collateral' to

a 32 exclusive review ofthe PTO Director'sfinal decision made beforePTO record only*
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,
including but not limited to,
i) declaring invalid the SHOW CAUSE, EXCLUSION ORDER, MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER, INITIAL DECISION, FINAL ORDER, and ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION, and
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
results obtained by a falsified subpoena with a made-up civil case; and
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.
4. No additional, alternativeavenue ofreview existed, exceptfor this civiltort case,
A. Shia's equitable reliefand money damages bringher claimsoutside of32purview,
22
Civil Case: l;16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsOpposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
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
or so suspended or excluded." (emphasis added) 32 provides for a review of the mere
"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).
(emphasis added) A 32 review is thus exclusively restricted to PTO Director's actions,
providing no standing for a disciplined 'Respondent' to take the initiative counterclaiming for
money damages and declaratory relief, for instance, of nullifying EXCLUSION ORDER,
and any subsequent orders that relied thereon.
23
Civil Case: l:16^v-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants* Motion to Dismiss
B. The 32 *meanmgfuV reviewclosed byDefendants* tampering with the official record
The local rule of the Court also specifies that the Court's review under 32 relies solely
on a certified copy the USPTO official record ofthe disciplinary proceedings:
"A person refused recognition to practice or suspended or excludedform practice before

the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO') may seek judicial review of
such action by filing in the Alexandria Division of this Court a petition agamst the
Under Secretary of Commerce of Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO
("Director") within 30 days after the date of the order recording the Director's action.
Service ofthe petition shall be effected in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2).Within
60 days after service of the sunmions and petition on the U.S. Attorney, the Director
shall respond to the petition and file a certified copy of the record and proceedings
before the USPTO, which shall constitute the sole basis for the Court's review. The
Court may, in its discretion, require briefing and argument prior to making a decision on
the petition." (emphasis added)
As demonstrated by exhibits accompanying her Complaint, reattached herein, the PTO
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.
C. Broad structural or systematic constitutional challenges are distinct from 35 U.S,C

32 review and 'wholly collateral* to it,
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
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PiaintifTs Opposition toIndividual Defendants' Motion toDismiss
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?
For instance, is USPTO empowered to allow the Commissioner to exercise her
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
Non-disciplinary proceeding Disciplinary Proceeding
SHOW CAUSE 37 CFR 11.22

OEDRFIG2081
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
Consolidated Amended Complaints
ALJ's INITIAL DECISION

Appeal tp INITIAL DECISION
37 CFR 11.55,11.56
Appeal to JjiJISPTO Director
1331 Jurisdiction 32 Statutory Review
Review of whole matter before review of Director's final decisions only

Non-tampered record before the 'tampered' USPTO official record
equii relief money damages
declaratory ^ loss of rights and income, etc.

injunctive
26
Civil Case: l;16-cv-10Sl-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
D. Subject mattersfall outside ofPTO*s expertise^ not intended by Congressfor 32 review.
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
the 32 review of the PTO Director's final actions, as illustrated above.
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
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
Defendants- the moment Defendantstampered with the USPTO official record.
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
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)).
Defendants' wrongs in violation of Shia's constitutional and statutory rights, clearly
established at the time when the wrongs occurred, were demonstrated in Shia'sComplaint,
6. Arguments in Motion are baselessfor lack ofadmissible exhibits in support thereof.
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
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
RECONSIDERATION) falsely entered, directly or indirectly, unconstitutional SHOW
CAUSE and EXCLUSION ORDER, and coerced information obtained therefrom. Absent
admissible exhibits, facts and arguments in Motion are therefore baseless.
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,
Dr. Bang-er shia December 2.2016
102 LINDENCREST CT., SUGAR LAND TX 77479-5201
30
Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
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:
Office ofClerk (Civil No. l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN)
US District Court Eastern District of Virginia
401 Courthouse Square
Alexandria Virginia 22314-5798
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ayana N. Free
Office ofthe U.S. Attorney
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
December 2.2016
Dr. Ban ?-er Shia
102LINDENCRESTCT.,
SUGAR LAND TX 77479-5201
31

(Alexandria Division) : United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

(Alexandria Division) : United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 31 PageID# 1808

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defenc anlsLMotionto Dismiss

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASE NO. l:16-cv-1051-AJr-MSN

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO

a better panoramic view of Defendants' wrongs.

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

by a non-employed, disciplined "Respondent", who has no standing in counterclaiming for

domestic representative and correspondent ('U.S. representative') for foreign trademark

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

from Defendants' misuse of disciplinary authority to retaliate against Shia's congressional

inquiries, as cited in her Complaint:

In particular. Defendants violated Shia's constitutional rights, directlyor indirectly

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Defendants to dead-end any 'meaningful'judicial review.*

is not employed by USPTO. The matters at issuearise from Shia'sonlineactivities by typing

in foreign applicants' electronic signatures ('E-signatures') based on the corresponding paper

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants* Motionto Dismiss

oftrademark law (UPL), and aiding in foreign attorneys' UPL.

with 'hand-written' signatures or 'signatures' among a truckload of the USPTO record, as

support of Defendants' preempting the State in regulation of practice of law by considering

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN PlaintifTs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Evidence existed of Defendants' misuse of multiple disciplinary proceedings since

stamp appearing on a copy of the SHOW CAUSE in EX. 7 submitted by Defendants.

df-LtJ .(Commissioner's signature on certificate of79/119,XXX)^

' RECUlVeO reCEWEO REC6NED RECEIVED RECaveK

A, TheEmperor*s Clothes: alleged violations ofentering E-signature do not exist in law.

(Commissioner's stipulated-to-be-authentic (Commissioner'sauthentic signature on

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

misrepresented by Defendants by missing out 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2). 37 C.F.R.

truckloads of arguments, if not tampered or re-tampered backto an original.

B, ASmall wearing a mask, threateningfor a cause why Dn Shia *s limbsnot be severed.

Commissioner Deborah Cohento "Mr. BangShia", mandating any documents in 14 calendars

days in proofof innocence to an alleged a criminal charge of unauthorized practice of law

On November8, 2012, an investigation OED G2081 was mitiated, which included as

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion toDismiss

threatened by OED to withdraw herselffrom a U.S. representative. PEX 1,N8-N9.

EXCLUSION ORDERcertified-mailed on 'March 12,2013' and arrived at PTO on March 15,

2013 was never acknowledged by PTO.

F, After Shia'spetitions were re-filed elextronically andpublished, TSDR was renovated.

On April 10-11, 2013, Shia electronically filed two repeated petitions to

accessible at TSDR for publicreview, which endedfile fraud.

G Defendants misused multiple disciplinary proceedings to retaliate Shia*s

In September-October, 2013, Shia sent multiple congressional inquiries to the

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Department of Commerce-USPTO, questioning thethree petitions shefiled. Two months later,

were, however, concealed from the official record by Defendants.

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition toIndividual Defendants* Motion toDismiss

Meanwhile, the response from the Department of Commerce-USPTO to Dr. Shia's

complaints, a truckload of documents including exhibits published at TSDR since 2006.

ORDER DENYING (REQUEST FOR) RECONSIDERATION, published online.

/. Revocation ofPowerofAttorney submitted likesnowflakesfrom Shia*s patent clients.

unauthorized practice of trademark law, directly or indirectly, as published by PTO inthe

partially redacted FINAL ORDER, and ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. There

Civil Case: l:16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff's Opposition to Individual Defendants' Motion toDismiss

factual inadequacy in Shia'sComplaint but seeksdismissal with prejudice.

Civil Case: l;16-cv-1051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Opposition to ^dividualDefendants' Motion to Dismiss

Grounds for Motion be Denied

Civil Tort -5 use 32

.Loss ofright ofa US representative intrademark matters, reputation,

Loss oftime inreqwrnding to a truck ofUSPTO documents

Loss of 55months fieefrom fears andthreats from Ds'wrongs

Declaratory: voiding SHOW CAUSE, EXCLUSION ORDER, etc.

L Defendants^ unconstitutional wrongs could not have been intended or contemplated by