Pro Se Plaintiff's Affidavit: Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Et Al.

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID# 1839
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS BY "INDIVIDUAL" DEFENDANTS
1. Lines 10-11, p.2:
Insufficient if not misleading: "Plaintiffwas hired by foreign clientsto reviewand file
submission on their behalf with the USPTO."
True to the vet-to-be-proven "un-tamoered and original" USPTO official record: "As
presented in the Complaint and attached exhibits of August 17, 2016, there existed
inconsistence in the so-called 'official' USPTO record presented by Defendant(s):
.(Commissioner's signature on certificate of79/119,128)'
(Commissioner's signatureon Exclusion Ori/er)[PEX 1, G3]

RECEIVED
r;./ r ? ,21112
[PEXl,To]
' KBcbivso RECeWED received REcaveo

Kcsiao hwosmb mi9m
[PEXl.T,] [PEXl.Tj] [PEXl.Tj] [PEXI.T4] [PEXI.T5] [GovEx.520,018783]
Sinccrcly,
' Commissioner tor TnuJcmarks
(Commissioner's stipulated-to-be-authentic (Commissioner's authentic signature on

signature on the Exclusion Order) a registered certificate of 79/119,128)
1
As such, the USPTO official record ofthe consolidated proceedings ofthe Amended
Complaint of D2014-04 and Amended Complaint D2014-31 ('consolidated proceedings'),
when it is proven by USPTO before third parties of Dr. Shia's Congressman and New
York Observer to be original and not tampered, shows the following fact.
The right to bea U.S. representative for foreign applications before USPTO, a property
invested by law and a career Dr. Shia built up since 2006, was unwarrantedly taken away by,
presumably, the former Commissioner in anEXCLUSION ORDER executed inher name.
The right to be a patent agent registered with USPTO, a property owned by Dr. Shia
who has always been qualified under law to possess it and also a professional career she built
up since 2005 after years ofhard work ofobtaining two master degrees and one Ph.D., was also
unwarrantedly taken away bythe USPTO, viaindividual defendants, in itsFinal Order.
AftertheFinal Orderwas published by USPTO, and Dr. Shiawasdeclared byonline
USPTO Public Pair and Private Pair as "inactive" following her name for each and every
patent application she represented before USPTO since 2005, herclients' revocation of Power
of Attorneys were like snowflakes submitted to USPTO, processed and/or granted byUSPTO
as shown by PEX. 8 attached herewith.
After Defendant(s)* multiple unlawful actions, on top of the pain and suffering in
the past 47 months, Dr. Shia has little, if not none, of her career left, but the rest of her
life to pursue in any manners to the truth of the following fact:

For the trademark matters at issue, no notice of violations was ever issued by the
Commissioner (for Trademarks) at USPTO.
All USPTO trademark forms are available at official website to the public as
ready-to-fill, orpromulgated by PTO (for instance, aPTO Form 1478, or0MB No. 0615-0009
promulgated since ate least 1998 is accessible at this point of time at
https://www.pdffiller.com/189271-fillable-1999-pto-form-1478). It is reasonable that foreign
applicants who applied for a U.S. trademark registration would also apply for corresponding
registration through then- respective foreign attorneys m the foreign countries. Information
required by the USPTO Commissioner (for Trademarks) for registration is idiosyncratic and
published immediately for thepublic's opposition, including foreign applicant's name, address,
a trademark image, the date the trademark was used, and the goods or services associated
therewith. Foreigners only need to translate the idiosyncratic information from theu* native
languages toEnglish for registration ofthe same trademark with the USPTO, which requires no
knowledge of trademark lawor any law, and is therefore no practice of law.
The USPTO rule regulating 'electronic' signature, as opposed to that regulating
'hand-written' signature, is provided in 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c). 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c) was
misrepresented by Defendant(s) by missing out 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) in, most if not all,
official records of the consolidated proceedings, evidencing that the matters at issue fall
outside of USPTO's expertise. 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) was indispensably joined with

Casel;16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss by Individual Defendants
2.193(c)(1) by the Boolean operator "or". At all time 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); in addition, due to the effect of the Boolean connector
"or", as a matter of law, there can be no violation of 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c).
USPTO officials and officers, whether former or current, pursued Dr. Shia for aknost
five years about her online activities of typing in information at TEAS since, by the latest
January 23, 2012. And eventually, in a mixed context by swapping back and forth different
terms of an 'electronic' signature, a signature, and a 'hand-written* signature, the
prosecution, as it might appear, concluded with a forgery of 'hand-written signature'- despite
the fact that evidence presented was downloaded from TEAS, which, at all time relevant, did
not have the technology to accept 'graphical, picture-like' hand-written signature at all.
Defendant(s)' years of confusion of 'electronic' signature, a signature, and a 'hand-written'
signature defeats any argument that the matters at issue were within USPTO's expertise.
USPTO attorney Tanya Amosthe Commissioner (for Trademarks) also testified TEAS
is designed to remove e-signatures entered, as evidenced by the hearing transcript at page 214,
when online users do not submit the form right away but choose to save the information
entered in an electronic file for later submission. TEAS coded in XML programming
language "electronic signing" as "create new" which would clear off previous e-signatures
entered, as shown by the Gov Ex. 506-514 in the consolidated proceedings.

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff's Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
Dr. Shia and her business International Patent Office of Bang Shia, were authorized
by foreign applicants, and/or their respective foreign attorneys, as a U.S. domestic
representative or correspondent before the Commissioner to safeguard their submission, as
published at TSDR for public review since 2006. A natural person or a business entity is
equally qualified under law to be a U.S. representative or correspondent. Nevertheless, right
after Dr. Shia filed on Sep. 9, 2013 to the Department of Commerce-USPTO her first
congressional inquuy, questioning the former Commissioner's unduly deprivation of her
fundamental right of a U.S. representative or correspondent, her business received a survey
for the first time in life, which mandating her to reply to.
As a U.S. representative or correspondent for foreign trademark applicants, Dr. Shia
worked like a typist, a proof-reader, and a mailwoman, which requires no knowledge of
trademark law, but requires her to pay the USPTO official fees out of her expenses long
before she was reimbursed by foreign applicants- should no faults on herpartoccurred, such
as typos, missing pages of paper, or information missing or miscoded due to
across-the-countiy computer systemcompatibility.
Dr. Shia recovered her client's electronic signature erased by the TEAS, based on the
corresponding hand-written signatures before submission to the former Commissioner, with
the authority and liability vested by her foreign clients. Six years later, in 2012 PTO
investigated Dr. Shia's vested authority from her foreign clients and excluded her from
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
trademark matters in 2013. After Dr. Shia's multiple congressional inquires were sent to the
Department ofCommerce-USPTO, she was served with two OED disciplinary investigations
G2341 and G2505, plus two complaints PTO D2014-04, and D2014-31. The former was
time-barred, amended, consolidated to a later filed complaint D2014-31, and eventually
dropped right before the hearing. After 47 months of prosecution. Dr. Shia was charged by
Defendant(s), in the Final Order of the proceeding of complaint D2014-31, with i)
unauthorized practice oftrademark law, presumably, for her recovering the missing electronic
signatures and Applicant's street address erased by the TEAS, along with ii) aiding in
foreigner's unauthorized practice of law.
PTO disciplinaiy rule 37 C.F.R. 11.505 provided 'Unauthorized Practice of Law',
(UPL) modeled after American Bar Association Rule 5.5, 'Unauthorized Practice of Law;
Multijurisdictional Practice ofLaw', which requires "apractitioner topractice law". Likewise,
disciplinary rule 37 C.F.R. 10.47 provided aiding UPL, which requires 'a practitioner toaid
another in practicing law'. UPL is a crime regulated by the State. Dr. Shia resided in Texas.
Defendant(s) presented no evidence of Texas statutory law or case law, supporting the
allegations thatactivities at TEAS constitutes 'practicing law' inTexas. Noncompliant with 37
C.F.R. 11.505 and 10.47, Defendant(s) charged Dr. Shia in the lack of evidence withtwo
counts of a state crime, UPL and aiding the foreign attorneys' UPL.
Unless otherwise proven to the contrary, it is not reasonable for Defendants(s) to

assume foreign attorneys would fly thousands ofmiles from their foreign countries tothe U.S.
simply to access ready-to-fill trademark forms promulgated to the public and/or published at
USPTO website equally accessible from their countries. It then appeared that Defendant(s)
assumed foreign attorneys filled in the promulgated ready-to-fill forms in their foreign
countries, and believed that a federal 'administrative' agency USPTO, as opposed to a state
judicial system which governs the (unauthorized) practice of law in its state, has jurisdiction
to regulate the foreign attorneys' practice of law by charging their accessing to PTO
promulgated forms with 'unauthorized' practice of law (which even occurred outside of the
U.S.).
Dr. Shia was excluded by Defendant(s) in the Final Order from participating in any
matters before the USPTO. Dr. Shia deserves a civil judicial review for a claim against
USPTO through the individual Defendants(s) actions for USPTO's soliciting or aiding Dr.
Shia's accessing promulgating trademark forms, for USPTO's revoking her patent agent
license, and for her professional reputation and career damaged therefrom, which falls outside
of thejurisdiction of an administrative review of the Final Order only.
Likewise, foreign attorneys, whose personal identifiable information were not
redacted in the Final Order, deserve a non-administrative, civil judicial action in a future class
suit for USPTO's baseless charges of UPL against them, based on their access to the
promulgated USPTO trademark forms, which presumably occurred in their foreign countries.
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying (^position toMotion toDbmiss by Individual Defendants
Moreover, the so-far uninformed TEAS users who never authorized USPTO TEAS to delete
their origmal signatures may also have a class claim against USPTO."
2. Lines 11-13, p.2:
Insufficient if not misleading: "Plaintiff is not and never been an attorney, and was not
qualified to practice in trademark matters beforethe USPTO."
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "original and un-tampered " USPTO official record: "The
official USPTO record of the consolidated proceedings, when proven by USPTO before
independent third parties includingDr. Shia's Congressman and New York Observer to
be original and not tampered, depictsthe following fact.
Even though Plaintiff is notandnever been an attorney, shewas qualified, like anyone
else, to access allthe online or paper trademark forms, promulgated by PTO as ready-to-fill-in
for the public, as evidence by the hearing transcript. Access to PTO promulgated trademark
forms is nopractice of law- unless, PTO discriminates Plaintifffrom sunilarly situated others,
self-incriminates itselffor aiding or soliciting Dr. Shia(and her foreign clients) to access the
promulgated trademark forms, and/or is unable to tell the difference between electronic
signatures v. hand-written signatures, let alone the different USPTO rules that govern
electronic signatures v. hand-written signatures, which may all be open for a judicial review in
another future civil case, for a response to a future congressional inquiry, etc.
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying (^position to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
Attorney Tanya Amos for the Commissioner testified at the hearing that whether a
signatory has thefirsthand knowledge (ofthe facts ofatrademark application) isnot a matter to
be determined by PTO. Defendants' denying Dr. Shia's authority entrusted by her foreign
clients amounts to issuing a substantive rule, crating a new law, or effecting a change in the
existing law that USPTO does not have substantive rule-making authority. No evidence
presented byUSPTO that deference by PTO isnot restricted to procedural rules governing the
conduct of the 'proceedings' (such as the registration of trademarks), as opposed to
non-procedural and/or substantive rules governing theconduct of the 'practitioners'."
3. Lines 13-14, p. 2:
False: "Plaintiff impermissibly represented multiple foreign trademark applicants
before the Office."
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "original and un-tamoered" USPTO official record: "The
official USPTO record, when first proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia*s Congressman and
New York Observer to be original and not tampered, depicts the followmg fact.
The Commissioner (for Trademarks) recognized Plaintiff Dr. Shia as a U.S.
representative and correspondent since 2006, as published at Trademark System and
Document Retrieval (TSDR) under each application she submitted.
To expedite the prosecution of an application, PTO trademark examining attorneys
would always call Dr. Shia to reach an examiner-initiated amendment, and recorded the
examiner-initiated teleconference intheirrespective Office Action published at TSDR; SeeEx.
U ofAugust 17,2016;
Dr. Shiatestified at the hearing shehad the legal authority to bindthe foreign clients, as
supported by her post-hearmg authorization documents admitted into evidence by the ALJ.
Attorney Catherine Cain for the Commissioner also testified at the hearing if Dr. Shia could
establish she had the legal authority to bind her clients, this disciplinary case Amended
Complaint D2014-31 would fall apart. Nevertheless, Dr. Shia's hearing testimony to have the
legal authority to bind her clients before the PTO, and her post-hearing documents supporting
her testimony to bind herclients, admitted into evidence, were allmissing from the fact inthe
four official documents. Initial Decision^ Brieffor Appellee-the OEDDirector^ Final Order,
and Order DenyingRequestfor Reconsideration.
Despite thatneither herhearmg testimony norheradmitted supporting documents was
included in above-cited four official decisions by Defendants, a thirddisciplinary investigation
RFI OED G2505 was initiated, which however included as evidence against Dr. Shia her
hearing testimony and/or admitted legal authorization documents, as shown by the exhibits
attached to the Complaint ofthis action.
Evidence existed of Defendant(s)' selective enforcement targeting Dr. Shia.
Defendant(s)' levelsofscrutiny targeting Dr. Shiadiffered from similarly situated others. PTO
10
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying exposition toMotion toDismiss byIndividual Defendants
accepted authority of different signatories from different locations, even in the absence of
supporting authorization documents.
In an attempt to sustain the baseless charges against Dr. Shia, noncompliance with law
in violation of Dr. Shia'sConstitutional rightswas inevitably to occur.IP addresses searched by
an internetvendor showed submissionofthree applications, ofwhich the last three digits were
identified as '869, '531 and '310, was not associated with Dr. Shia. Instead, the three
applications were related to other non-parties, whose names, address, emails, and phone
numbers were carefully redacted in "white" (not even in "black") and protected by
Defendants. But, Dr. Shia was charged with UPL associated with the three applications. Also,
personal identifiable information of Dr. Shia's family was not redacted in the IP addresses
search results, and their names and relationship to Dr. Shia were identified at the hearing by
Defendants, even though Dr. Shia's family is non-party in the disciplmary proceeding to be
disciplined."
4. Lines 15-19, p.2:
Hearsav: "On February 21, 2013, in a proceeding under the authority of the
Commissioner for Trademarks in which Plaintiffwas afforded-and exercised-an opportunity to
defend herself. Plaintiff was excluded from participating as a correspondence address and
domestic representative, because it was determined that she was acting beyond these limited
roles and actually engagingin the unauthorized practice oftrademark law before the Office."
11
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss by Individual Defendants
True to the vet-to-be-proven "original and un-tampered" USPTO official record:
"Evidence of the USPTO official record, when proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia's
Congressman and New York Observer to be original and not tampered, depicts the
following fact.
As early onJanuary 23,2012, a SHOW CAUSE letter lacking any USPTO identifiable
file No. was sent, without attaching supporting evidence, in the name of the former
Commissioner to "Mr. Bang Shia", mandating evidence in proof of an alleged charge of
unauthorized practice oflaw against Mr. Bang Shia. Acopy ofSHOW CAUSE presented atthe
hearing oi Amended Complaint D2014-31 showed a different OED seal of "NOV 8, 2012",
exactly a year before the Complaint D2014-04 submitted on Nov. 8,2013 would otherwise fail
statutory limitations. Despite ofthis second, peculiar OED seal, the alleged misconduct cited in
Complaint D2014-04 was time-barred by ALJ. The SHOW CAUSE contains the following
paragraph
""...The circumstances suggest that you arepreparing trademark filings to besubmitted

to the USPTO or are otherwise acting on behalfof 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 14calendar 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 of
correspondence relating to trademark matters."
12
Casel :16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss by Individual Defendants
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
can be extended to a witness in a civil proceeding, 'Svhere the answers might incriminate [the
witness] in future criminal proceedings." Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973).
SHOW CAUSE compelled Dr. Shia to be a witness against herself in defense of an
alleged charge ofUPL by a federal administrative agency USPTO. UPL isa crime regulated
by the State. At all time relevant. Dr. Shia resided in Texas, UPL in Texas is applicable to
non-attorneys like Dr. Shia. Davis v. Unauthorized Practice Committee of State Barof Texas,
431 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. Civ.App. Tyler 1968, writ refd n.r.e.)
Dr. Shia's answer to SHOW CAUSE might incriminate herself in a future criminal
proceeding in Texas for a criminal charge ofUPL. SHOW CAUSE violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination because her answer to SHOW CAUSE
might incriminate herselfin a future criminal proceeding in Texas.
Dr. Shia non-voluntarily submitted to the former Commissioner her privileged legal
documents in proof of irmocence to the alleged charge. These privileged documents Dr. Shia
submitted under coerce, however, was used in the OED disciplinary investigation G2081 of
November 8,2012 as evidence against her.
2. EXCLUSION ORDER stated
"This letter is to notify you that effective immediately, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) is excluding you from participating as a U.S.
13
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss byIndividual Defendants
representative in any trademark matters before the USPTO....a sufficient and

reasonable basis exists to conclude that you are engaging in unauthorized practice
before the USPTO...Under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) the Commissioner for Trademarks
possesses theauthority to manage and direct allaspects of theactivities of the USPTO
that affectthe administration of trademark operations, which necessarily includes the
ability to exclude particular individuals from practicing before the USPTO in
trademark matters or serving as correspondent or domestic representative in such
matters... If you choose to appeal, the petition must be filed within two months of this
letter's mailing date. See 37 C.F.R. 2.146(d)."
At all time relevant, no evidence showsthe formerCommissioner is was authorized to
issue the EXCLUSION ORDER with her authority vested under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to
participate in an administrative disciplinary proceeding, let alone to exclude anyone from
participation in trademark matters before USPTO. Defendants also failed to identify 'Mr.
Bang Shia" with the Plaintiff, Dr. orMs. Bang-er Shia, when being questioned by the ALJ at
the hearing
However, on February 21, 2013, outside of a disciplinary proceeding, without being
afforded, let alone exercising an opportunity to defend herself, an EXCLUSION ORDER
lacking a USPTO identifiable file No. was issued in the name of the former Commissioner,
which charged "Mr. BangShia", in the absence of any evidence, with unauthorized practice
oftrademarklaw before USPTO, and excludedMr. Bang Shia from participationin trademark
matters beforePTO. EXCLUSION ORDER was specified with a two-month petition period
for Dr. Shia to respond to, as shown in the very last sentence thereof right above Ms. Debra
Cohen's single blue-ink signature, which was not quite similar to her official signature
14
Casel:16-cV'01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff'sAffidavit accompanying Opposition to Motionto Dismissby Individual Defendants
published on trademark certificates. The notice ofEXCLUSION ORDER was executed during
the two-month petition period and mailed to Dr. Shia's over 200 foreign clients, while she was
still waiting for a justified answer to her first petition certified-mailed to the Commissioner's
address shown on the EXCLUSION ORDER. Till today, the notice of EXCLUSION ORDER
was still published under each application Dr. Shia submitted at TSDR."
5. Line 20, p.2 - line 1, p. 3:
False: "On March 19,2013, Plaintiff petitioned for review of the exclusion order."
USPTO official record, when first proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia's Congressman and
New York Observer to be original and not tampered, provides the following fact.
On March 12, 2013, Dr. Shia sent by U.S. certified mail her first petition to the
EXCLUSION ORDER. Her first petition associated with over 200 applications was never
published at TSDR, presumably for lackof an identifiable PTO No. On April 10, and 11, Dr.
Shia electronically a repeated second and third petition by TEAS under two trademark
application No., which were immediately published at TSDR. Day after day, she waited for a
justified response fi-om the Commissioner. No response. Six months later, in September to
October, 2013, she filed multiple congressional inquiries to the Department of
Commerce-USPTO. On November 8, 2013, she was served with the complaint D2014-04,
which was first time-barred by the ALJ, then amended, and ultimately, automatically dropped
15
right before the hearing." which was erroneously post-dated as March 19,2013. According to
the Congressman Blake Farenthold's Office, USPTO's responses to Dr. Shia's congressional
mquuies were stayed orpostponed by the disciplinary proceedings initiated after the mquiries
were sent."
6. Lines 1-2, p. 3:
False: "Her petition was reviewed and ultimately denied bythe USPTO Director on
December 27,2013."
NewYork Observer to be original and not tampered, provides the following fact.
Dr. Shia's petition certified-mailed on March 12, 2013 and arrived at PTO on March
15, 2013 was never reviewed, let alone denied, by the then acting USPTO Director on
December 27,2013."
7. Lines 4-5, p. 3:
Insufficient if not misleading: "After an independent committee of USPTO employees
found probable cause..."
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "un-tamoered and original" USPTO official record: "37
C.F.R. 11.49, Burden ofproof, provided "Ina disciplinary proceeding, theOEDDirector shall
have the burden of proving the violation by clear and convincing evidence and a respondent
16
shall have the burden of proving any affirmative defense by clear and convincing evidence.
The official USPTO record, when it is first proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia's
Congressman and New York Observer to be original and not tampered, shows no
evidence admitted was presented that an independent committee of USPTO employees found
probable cause."
8. Lines 7-8, p. 3:
False and misleading: "Specifically the OED Director alleged that Plaintiff (a)
improperly signed documents..."
True to the vet-to-be-proven "un-tamoered and original" USPTO official record: "The
New YorkObserver to be original and not tampered, shows theOED Director alleged that
Plaintiff(a) improperly electronically entered documents ..."
9. Lines 16-17, p. 3:
Tnsufficient if not misleading: "OnApril 22,2015, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision..."
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "un-tamoered and original" USPTO official record: "The
USPTO official record, when proven before Dr. Shia's Congressman and New York
Observer to be original and not tampered, on April 22, 2015, the ALJ issued an Initial
Decision without stating his jurisdiction thereover, if any,..."
10. Lines 19-20, p. 3:
17
False: "Plaintiffconcealed the fact she was continuing to serve as domestic representative
despite beingexcluded by the Commissioner"
True to the vet-to-be-oroven un-tamoered. original USPTO official record: "The USPTO
official record, when proven by USPTO to be original and not tamperedbefore Dr. Shia's
Congressman and New York Observer, shows Dr. Shia did not identify herself as a U.S.
representative after the EXCLUSION ORDER was issued. In fact. Commissioner continued to
receive her payment and trademark filings, and also emailed Office Action to her the moment
the Office Action was published at USPTO TSDR website for public review. In addition, the
statement that her Ryu204 email address had not been identified by PTO as belonging to her
contradicts with the following evidence:
i) Gov 507, at G17862 of Application '031 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (03/30/2012, at 15:21:41 pm), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name)
for the Ryu204 email.
ii) Gov 510, at G18117 of Application '340 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (08/24/2012, at 15:15:48 pm), XML atuto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name)
iii) Gov 512, at G18255 of Application '741 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (10/07/2012, at 21:18:04), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name) f
iv) Gov 508, at G17939 of Application '869 shows as early as at the real-tune of Dr.
Shia's filing (04/12/2012; at 12:34:33), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name) for
the Ryu204.
18
v) Gov 508, at G17964 ofApplication '869 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (01/22/2013; at 17:43:58), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (asreply-name) for
the Ryu204.
vi) Gov 513, at G18333 ofApplication '531 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (10/08/2012; at 18:44:54), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name) for
the reply-email of Ryu204.
11. Lines 10, p. 4:
Insufficient if not misleading: "Plaintiff did not seek judicial review."
True to the vet-to-be-proven un-tamoered. original USPTO official record: "The USPTO
official record, when proven before Dr. Shia's Congressman and New York Observer to
be original and not tampered, shows Dr. Shia was unable to seek judicial review by end of
August, 2016 simply because the so-called USPTO official record was, at that time,
tampered to remove all evidence in favor of Dr. Shia."
12. Lines 17-19, p. 4:
False:. "Plaintiff alleges their actions violated her Fifth Amendment right to due
process, her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and her Fourth Amendment
rightagainst unreasonable search and seizure."
True to the vet-to-be-oroven un-tampered. original USPTO official record: "The
USPTO official record, when first proven by USPTO to be original and not tampered
before Dr. Shia's Congressman and New York Observer, showsthe following fact.
In Consolidated Amended Complaints, presented before ALJ until October6,2014, in
19
Amended Complaint of D2014-31, and in OED investigations G2081, G2341, and G2505,
USPTO via the individual defendants' unlawful actions violated Dr. Shia's Fourth
Amendment rights to privacy against unreasonable search and seizure, Fifth Amendment
right to due process of law, and Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, for
reasons set forth below.
a) Ratifying SHOW CAUSE as a basis, which itself violated Dr. Shia's Fourth
Amendment rights against unreasonable search into her privileged privacy with her clients
and seizure of her clients' authorization documents, and Fifth Amendment right to procedural
due process and rights against self-incrimination;
b) Ratifying EXCLUSION ORDER as a basis, which itself violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
Amendment rights to due process, and Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search
into her privileged privacy with her clients and seizure of documents submitted under
coercion by SHOWCAUSE; in particular,
i) Relying on information illegally obtained from SHOW CAUSE as evidence for
alleged charges;
ii) Misrepresenting Commissioner's authority vested under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A)
with the right to exclude Dr. Shia as a U.S. representative;
iii) Misrepresenting Commissioner's authority vested under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to
have an immediate effect on the date EXCLUSION ORDER was issued, ratifying the
20
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff's Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss byIndividual Defendants
online posting anddissemination of Dr. Shia's exclusion to the public;
iv) Absenting evidence of violation, alleging violation of PTO procedural rules of
TMEP 602 and 608.01, which only govern the conduct of the proceedmgs, not the
conduct ofpractitioners; and
v) Misrepresenting 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c) with only the provision of 37 C.F.R.
2.193(c)(1), and leaving out 2.193(c)(2), which is indispensably connected to its
counterpart 2.193(c)(l) witha Boolean operator "or";
c) Ratifying as a basis MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (MEMO AND OEDER) of
December 27, 2013, issued by the acting chief of staff, Office of Policy and International
Affairs, PTO, on behalfofCommissioner for Patents, Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Proper and Director ofUSPTO, which affirmed EXCLUSION ORDER, violating Dr. Shia's
Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure of documents non-voluntarily
submitted under SHOW CAUSE and retained by EXCLUSION ORDER, and Fifth
Amendment rights to due process; MEMO AND ORDER also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
Amendment due process
i) by misrepresenting the official filing date March 12,2013 ofDr. Shia's first petition
mailed by U.S. post office certified mails as March 19, 2013, thereby making MEMO
AND ORDER non-responsive to Dr. Shia's Petition to EXCLUSION ORDER, or
alternatively, nullifying the effectofMEMO ANDORDER, if any; and
21
ii) by citing, as evidence against Dr. Shia, phone interviews initiated by PTO
examining attorneys regarding proposed Examiner's Amendment to expedite the
examination of applications, thereby self-incriminating PTO attorneys who aided and
abet Dr. Shia intothe alleged UPL by answering to the USPTO-initiated calls;
d) Initiating without grounds Complaint and Amended Complaint of D2014-04;
e) Initiating without grounds Complaint and the Amended Complaint ofD2014-31;
f) Interfering with the due administration of justice by destruction of admitted
evidence in the PTO official record of "Shia Record";
g) Designing TEAS to systematically remove the original electronic signatures
without grounds, whenever a filled-in file is uploaded back to TEAS, and charging Dr. Shia
UPL, based on her recovering the erasedelectronic signatures;
h) TEAS's sporadic removing the street names from Dr. Shia's clients' correspondence
without grounds, and charging Dr. Shia UPL, based on her recovering the erased street
names;
i) Preemptmg the State in regulation of practice of law bycharging Dr. Shia with UPL
and withaidingUPL, based on her online activities at TEAS;
j) Serving an internet vendor with a misrepresented subpoena containing a falsified
civil case title "OED, USPTO v. Dr. Bang-er Shia", and a civil case No. "D2014-31" at the
Eastern District ofArkansas;
22
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion toDismiss byIndividual Defendants
k) Searching IP addresses of trademark filings associated with Dr. Shia and her
family;
1) Discriminating and intentional invading Dr. Shia's family's privacy by leaving her
family's personal identifiable information not redacted in IP addresses search results;
m) Construmg the legal binding between Dr. Shia and her clients as a matter within
the jurisdiction of USPTO, inconsistent with the Law of Contract and USPTO's authority of
35 U.S.C 2.
n) Excluding without grounds from consideration Dr. Shia's hearing testimony of her
legal authority to bind her clients;
o) Initiating an investigation G2505 to scrutinize Dr. Shia hearing testimony, which
was otherwise excluded from consideration in Amended Complaint D2014-31;
p) Excluding without grounds from consideration, Dr. Shia's admitted evidence of
post-hearing documents supporting herhearing testimony; and
q) Initiating an investigation G2505 to scrutinize admitted evidence of Dr. Shia's
post-hearing documents, which were otherwise excluded from consideration in Amended
Complaint D2014-31.
Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
SHOW CAUSE stated
""...The circumstances suggest that you are preparing trademark filmgs to be

submittedto the USPTO or are otherwise acting on behalf of applicants m connection
23
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying (^position toMotion toDismiss byIndividual Defendants
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 theUSPTO should not cease use of your contact information for correspondence
and prohibit participation byyou asa correspondent or domestic representative inany
trademark cases before USPTO. Any such showing should include evidence for each
case that demonstrated the legitimacy of using your contact information for purposes
of correspondence relatingto trademark matters."
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 theanswers might incriminate [the
witness] infuture criminal proceedings." Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973).
SHOW CAUSE compelled Dr. Shia inanadministrative proceeding to be a witness
against herself in defense of an alleged charge of UPL.
UPL isa crime regulated by the State. Atall time relevant, Dr. Shia resided inTexas,
UPL in Texas is applicable to non-attorneys like Dr. Shia. Davis v. Unauthorized Practice
Committee of State Bar of Texas, 431 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. Civ. App. Tyler 1968, writ refd
n.r.e.)
Dr. Shia's answer to SHOW CAUSE might incriminate herself in a future criminal
proceeding in Texas for a criminal charge of UPL.
SHOW CAUSE violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment Privilege against
self-incrimination because her answer to SHOW CAUSE might incriminate herself in a
future criminal proceeding in Texas.
24
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff's Affidavit accompanying exposition toMotion toDismiss byIndividual Defendants
By ratifying SHOW CAUSE as a basis, Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination.
Violation ofProceduralDueProcess: LackofEvidence of Violation of USPTO Procedural

Rules
EXCLUSION ORDER stated
"This letter is to notify you that effective immediately, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) is excluding you from participating as a U.S. representative in
any trademark matters before the USPTO....a sufficient and reasonable basis exists to
conclude that you areengaging in unauthorized practice before the USPTO...Under 35 U.S.C.
3(b)(2)(A) the Commissioner for Trademarks possesses the authority to manage and direct
all aspects of the activities of the USPTO that affect the administration of trademark
operations, which necessarily includes the ability to exclude particular individuals from
practicing before the USPTO in trademark matters or serving as correspondent or domestic
representative insuch matters... Ifyou choose to appeal, the petition must befiled within two
months of this letter's mailingdate. See 37 C.F.R. 2.146(d)."
The right of a domestic representative or correspondent is authorized under TMEP
1604.14,15 U.S.C. 1058(f), 37 C.F.R. 2.18(c). 37C.F.R. 2.18(c), provided
If an application, registration or proceeding is not being prosecuted by an attorney

but a domestic representative has been appointed, the Office will send
correspondence to the domestic representative, unless the applicant, registrant or party
designates in writinganothercorrespondence address.
At all time relevant, 15 U.S.C. 1058(59, provided
If the owner is not domiciled in the United States, the owner may designate, by a
document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the name and
address of a person resident in the United States on whom may be served noticesor
process in proceedingsaffecting the mark... (emphasis added)
Dr. Shia was entitled to the right of a domesticrepresentative or correspondent for

25
foreign clients.
Commissioner did not know TEAS forms can be downloaded into an electronic file,
attached to an email, sent fi*om foreign countries to Dr. Shia, and uploaded back to TEAS for
submission. The mere speculative argument in EXCLUSION ORDER had no probative
value:
"As it is highly unlikely that all of these applicants, most of whom are foreign, are
traveling to your location to complete an sign these electronic signature, its may be
presumed thatyou are completing, signing, and submitting these filings yourself."
(emphasis added)
The Fifth Amendment requires that"due process of law" be part of any proceeding
that denies a citizen "life, liberty or property".
The right to be a U.S. representative for foreign applications before USPTO
is a property. It is also a job,a careerDr. Shia built up since 2006. It was unwarrantedly
taken away by the former Commissioner's EXCLUSION ORDER.
In violation of Fifth Amendment due process, EXCLUSION ORDER deprived Dr.
Shia ofthe property, the right of a domestic representative, inthe absence of evidence for the
alleged UPL.
Defendants including USPTO violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due
process by endorsingEXCLUSION ORDERas a basis.
Violation ofSubstantive Due Process: EXCLUSION ORDER Noncompliant with 35 U.S,C
26
32
35 U.S.C. 32, "Suspension or Exclusion from Practice", provided "The Director
may, after notice and opportunity for ahearing, suspend or exclude, either generally or in any
particular case, from further practice before the Patent and Trademark Office,... (emphasis
added)
35 U.S.C. 32 vested the authority of excluding any person from further practice
with the USPTO Director only. It is the USPTO Director that has the authority to exclude
licensed practitioners (notnon-attorneys) from practice.
Aperson with an address in the United States can serve as a U.S. representative.
A non-attorney U.S. representative does not practice (trademark) law before
USPTO.
35 U.S.C. 32 isnot applicable to non-attorney U.S. representatives, like Dr. Shia.
No one, not even USPTO Director, is authorized under 35 U.S.C. 32 to exclude
Dr. Shia from being a U.S. representative.
EXCLUSION ORDER violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process
for noncompliance with 35 U.S.C. 32.
Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by
ratifying as a basis EXCLUSION ORDER, noncompliant with 35 U.S.C. 32.
Violation ofDue Process: Noncompliance With 35 U,S,C, (3)(b)(2)(A)
27
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff's Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss byIndividual Defendants
EXCLUSION ORDER was issued under the authority of 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A).
At all time relevant, 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A), provided
"...The Commissioner for Patents and the Commissioner for Trademarks shall serve as
the chief operating officers for the operations of the Office relating to patents and
trademarks, respectively, and shall be responsible for the management and direction
of all aspects of the activities of the Office that affect the administration of patent
and trademark operations, respectively..."
An agency's determination of the scope of its own authority is not entitled to
Chevron deference. Borlem S.A. Empreedimentos Industrials v. United States^ 913 F.2d 933,
937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Commissioner was not authorized to interpret her authority to manage the
administrative activities under 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A) to exclude a person from bemg a U.S.
representative, which even exceeded the PTO Director's right to exclude under 35 U.S.C.
32.
Therefore, EXCLUSION ORDER violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights of
due process, among otherthings, for noncompliance with35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A).
Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights of due process for
ratifymg EXCLUSION ORDER, thereby noncompliant with 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A).
Violation ofProcedural Due Process: Right Deprived before Being Given an Opportunity
to be Heard
The "root requirement" of the Due Process Clause is an individual be given an
28
opportunity to be heard before she is deprived of any significant property interest. Fuentes v.
Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971); Armstrong
V. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) (the fundamental requbement of due process is the
opportunity to beheard "at a meaningful time and ina meaningful manner").
SHOW CAUSE of January 23, 2012 failed to be an opportunity for Dr. Shia to be
heardofa violationbefore being excluded, for reasons set forth below:
i) SHOW CAUSE was not issued at a meaningfiil time 6 years after Dr. Shia filed
papers;
ii) SHOW CAUSE was not issued in a meaningful manner because it did not inform
Dr. Shia of a defect in trademark papers she filed, if any; and
iii) SHOW CAUSE itself violated Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights ofFourth and Fifth
Amendments.
As such, prior to EXCLUSION ORDER, Dr. Shia was not never given an
opportunity to be heard of a violation before she was deprived of the right of a U.S.
representative.
Absent a meaningful notice issued at a meaningful time, EXCLUSION ORDER
violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment due process rights by depriving her the right of a U. S.
representative.
Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by ratifying
29
Casel:16-cv-01051-AIT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss by Individual Defendants
EXCLUSION ORDER, which deprived Dr. Shia of the right of a U.S. representative before
giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Defendants further violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by
ratifying EXCLUSION ORDER'S immediate effect on the date it was issued.
Violation ofDueProcess: Noncompliant with 37 CER, ILl and 1LS05
37 C.F.R. 11.505, Unauthorized Practice ofLaw,^ provided

Apractitioner shall not practice law in ajurisdiction in violation ofthe regulation of
the legal profession in thatjurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.
(emphasis added)
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 11.49, in a disciplinary proceeding, the OED Director shall
have the burden of proving the violation by clearandconvincing evidence.
Defendants failed to prove Dr. Shia was a "practitioner", who "practiced (trademark)
law" while accessing TEAS, which violated the Texas law, asrequired by37 C.F.R. 11.505.
Defendants failed to prove with evidence, in statutory or case law. Dr. Shia's online
activities at TEAS constitutes "practicing law" inTexas, as required by 37 C.F.R. 11.505.
Absentevidence. Defendants' charge of UPLis in violation of 37 C.F.R. 11.505.
Defendants therefore violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
noncompliance with 37 C.F.R. 11.505.
^ As evidenced by Federal Register (vol. 78, p. 20179-20211), USPTO disciplinary rules of 37 C.F.R.
10 and 11 conform to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American BarAssociation
(ABA), versions of which have been adopted by 49 states and the District of Columbia. 50 FR 5158
(Feb. 6,1985).
30
Absent evidence, by charging Dr. Shia with UPL, Defendants essentially defined
activities at TEAS constitutes "practicing law", which preempts Texas in regulation of
practice of (trademark) law.
Preempting the State ofTexas in regulation of practice of law is not permitted by37
C.F.R. 11.1. Defendants therefore violated 37 C.F.R. 11.1.
Violation ofDueProcess: Noncompliant with 37 CRR, 10,1 and 10.47

At all time relevant, 37 C.F.R. 10.47, Aidingunauthorized practice of law,
provided
(a) Apractitioner shall not aid a non-practitioner inthe unauthorized practice oflaw
before the Office.
(b) Apractitioner shall not aid a suspended orexcluded practitioner inthe practice
of law before the Office.
(c) A practitioner shall not aid a non-lawyer inthe unauthorized practice of law.
Defendants failed to prove with convincing evidence Dr. Shia was a "practitioner"
who aid, presumably, herclients in "practicing law", as required by 37C.F.R. 10.47.
Defendants also failed to prove with convincing evidence, in statutory or case law,
that foreign applicants' or foreign attorneys' online activities at TEAS constitute "practicing
law", as required by 37 C.F.R. 10.47.
Lack of evidence. Defendants charged Dr. Shia with aiding UPL, in violation of 37
C.F.R. 10.47.
31
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
Defendants thus violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
noncompliance with 37 C.RR. 10.47.
Lack of evidence mTexas law, Defendants charged Dr. Shia of aiding UPL, which
preempts Texas in regulation of practice of (trademark) law, thereby noncompliant with 37
C.F.R. 10.1,
Violation ofDueProcess: Noncompliance with 37 C,EIL lL22(i) and 11,32
At all time relevant, 37 C.F.R, 11.22(i) provided the OED Director shall terminate
an mvestigation and decline to refer a matter to the Conunittee on Discipline if the OED
Director determines that:
(1) The information or evidence is unfounded;

(2) The information orevidence relates to matters not within the jurisdiction ofthe
Office;
(3) As a matter of law, the conduct about which information or evidence has been
obtained does not constitute grounds for discipline, even ifthe conduct may involve a legal
dispute; or
(4) The available evidence is insufficient to conclude that there is probable cause to
believe that grounds existfor disciplme.
37 C.F.R. 11.32, Instituting a disciplinary proceeding, provided

If after conducting an investigation under 11.22(a). the OED Director is of the
opmion that grounds exist for discipline under 11.19fb). the OED Director, after
complying where necessary with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 558(c), may convene a
meeting of a panel of the Committee on Discipline. If convened, the panel of the
Committee on Discipline shall then determine asspecified in 11.23(b) whether there
32
is probable cause to bring disciplinary charges. If the panel of the Committee on

Discipline determines that probable cause exists to bring charges, the OED Director
may institute a disciplinary proceeding by filing a complaint under 11.34,
37C.F.R. 11.32 specifically requires the OED Director notto form anopinion that
ground exists for discipline until after conducting an investigation under 37 C.F.R. 11.22(a).
And, no disciplinary proceeding shall be instituted by filing a complaint under 11.34, unless
probable cause isdetermined to exist tobring charges under 11.19(b).
Nevertheless, at the hearing, Mendel asked Dr. Shia for documents of her authority
to bind herclients, evidencing theOED Director's noncompliance with 37C.F.R. 11.32.
Evidence shows the OED Director first moved Dr. Shia to testify in the court by
serving Amended Complaint D2014-31, and then started to investigate Dr. Shia's legal
authority to bind her clients by opening a new RFI investigation OED G2505, noncompliant
with 37 C.F.R. 11.32.
Defendants therefore violated Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights to due process of law
for noncompliance with 37 C.F.R. 11.32.
Fourth Amendment Right against UnreasonableSearch and Seizure
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search
and seizure, shall not be violated. The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people's
right to privacy and fi-eedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions.

33
SHOW CAUSEcame with no evidence supporting the alleged UPL; it violated Dr.
Shia's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches into the privileged privacy
between her and her foreign clients.
SHOW CAUSE also violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable, coerced seizure of authorization documents entrusted by Dr. Shia's clients.
EXCLUSION ORDER violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable seizure by retaining the coerced submission from SHOW CAUSE.
By ratifying SHOW CAUSE and EXCLUSION ORDER, Defendants violated Dr.
Shia's Fourth Amendment right of privacy between her and her clients.
Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right to personal privacy against
unreasonable searches and seizure by searching IP addresses targeting Dr. Shia.
Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right to her family privacy
against unreasonable searches and seizure by presenting at the hearing IP addresses search
results, exposing non-party personal identifiable information associated with Dr. Shia.
Violation of Due Process: Misrepresenting "Electronic" Signatures with "written"

Signatures
Defendants misrepresented "electronic signature" with "(written) signature".
TEAS technology did NOT permit a graphical, pictorial signature (as opposed to
electronicsignatures entered from a keyboard).
Fifth AmendmentDue Process: Tampering with AdmittedEvidence and Filing Dates
34
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion toDismiss byIndividual Defendants
On October 10, 2014, Dr. Shia's exhibits A-Z were received in the entirety at the
hearingand admitted into evidence by the ALJ.
Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of SHOW CAUSE, i.e.
Respondent's Exhibit C1-C3, and D1-D3, by removing it from the folder "I" of "Respondent's
Proposed Exhibits";
Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of SHOW CAUSE, i.e. Joint
Exhibit #3, by removmg it from the folder"JointExhibits";
Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of T0-T5 containing different
OED seals by replacing them with another set of exhibits containing different materials
submitted on different dates before ALJ;
Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of exhibits A-R by removing
them from the folder "I" of "Respondent's ProposedExhibits";
Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of exhibits S-Z, timely
submitted on August 13, 2014 by misrepresenting folder "I" of "Respondent's Proposed
Exhibits" as "submitted on September 22,2014";
In the official record "Shia Record", Defendants failed to include in the admitted
evidence Dr. Shia's post-hearing documents (supporting her hearing testimony of her legal
authority to bind her clients). The folder containing Dr. Shia's post-hearing documents was
misleadingly marked as "submitted after the hearing".
35
Defendants tampered and nullified the timely filing date July 3, 2016 of Dr. Shia's
Reply Brief by postdating ittoan expired untimely filing date ofJuly6,2016.
Violation ofDueProcess: Noncompliant with 35 U,S,C, 2(b)(2)
USPTO's authority of 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) must be consistent with law, without
creatmg new law or effecting a change in law. The provisions of35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2)(A)
and (2)(b)(2)(D) are exclusive of each other; the former, applicable to the conduct of
"proceedmgs", and thelatter, the conduct of "practitioners".
35 U.S.C. 2 (b)(2) provides PTO may establish regulations, not inconsistent with
law, which
(A) shall govern the conduct ofproceedings inthe Office;....
36
Casel:16-cv-0105I-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit dLGcovapdm^z Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
(D) may govern therecognition and conduct of agents, attorneys, orother persons
representing applicants or other parties beforethe Office,...;
The rules cited by Defendants, mcluding 37 C.F.R. 2.17(c)(l)-(2), and 2.193(a),
(c), (e)(1), and TMEP 601, 608.01, and 611.06, were made under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A)
to regulate the conduct of proceedings (e.g. in registering a trademark), notapplicable to Dr.
Shia.
No notice of violation of PTO procedural rules made under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A)
existed for any applications associated with Dr. Shia.
Defendants misapplied procedural rules to govern the conduct of Dr. Shia,
noncompliant with 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2), whichrequires consistence with law.
PTO's interpretation of its rule was not entitled to deference under Chevron v.
NRDC. J^eth v. Kappas, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7,2010)
PTO is not authorized to make substantive law, nor to create new law or effect
changes in the existing law.
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) provided PTO may establish regulations, not inconsistent with
the law. Butthisauthority does NOT grant the PTO the authority to issue "substantive" rules.
Merck & Co. Inc., v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543, 1549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1996). "Arule is 'substantive'
when it 'effects a change in existing law or policy' which 'aflfect[s] mdividual rights and
37
obligations." Legal Def. Fund, v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 927 (Fed. Cir.1991).^
Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment right to due process for
noncompliance with 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2).
Violation ofDue Process: Noncompliance with 35U.S.C. 32 and 5 U.S.C. 558 (b)
Noncompliance with 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2) forfeits the jurisdiction USPTO would
otherwise have under 35 U.S.C. 32 to suspend or exclude from practice before the Office
any practitioner. The court can even invalidate a PTO regulation if it is inconsistent with
statutorypurpose. 849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
At all time relevant, 5 U.S.C. 558 (b) provided
A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within
jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.
Lackof thejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 32, USPTO Director's Final Orderof an
exclusion decision was issued in violation of 5 U.S.C. 558(b).
By means of its action recited above, USPTO, through individual defendants' actions
violated and continue to violate Dr. Shia's rights against self-incrimination protected by the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The actions of the Defendants entitle Dr. Shia to both
injunctive and monetary relief
^See Intellectual Ventures IILLC v. JPMorgan Chase &Co. 781 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Federal Circuit's precedent was clear that Chevron deference should be accorded to procedural
rules promulgated under 35 U.S.C 2(b)(a)(A) and section 132(b) ofthe Patent Act Tafas v. Doll, 559
F.3d. 1345, 1349-50 (Fed.Cir. 2009).
38
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
By means of its action recited above, USPTO, through the individual defendants'
actions violated and continued to violate Dr. Shia's rights to due process of law safeguarded
by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Defendants' actions entitle Dr. Shia to both
injunctive and monetary relief.
By means of its action recited above, USPTO, through individual defendants' actions
violated andcontinued to violate Dr. Shia's rights of privacy against unreasonable search into
personal privacy, family privacy, privacy with her foreign clients, and IP addresses, against
unreasonable seizure of authorization documents submitted under coercion and relied on by
Defendants, and IP address search results, safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution. Defendants' actions entitle Dr. Shia to both injunctive and monetary relief."
The above-cited fact and statements thereof are also applicable to defendant(s)'
unverified facts, which are disputable but not additionally referenced above. This Affidavit
contains graphical illustration of two different signatures executed in the name of the former
Commissioner, and two different OED date stamps on page 1,with the size in WORD of 270
KB (276,992 bytes) and 272 KB (278,528 bytes) on disk before being executed by the
undersigned Plaintiff and the notary public. The line and page numbers are based, should no
inadvertent typos or miscount of lines occurred, on the corresponding mailed paper form of
Motion to Dismiss Dr. Shia received on 11/17/2016, about a week before the Thanksgiving.
39
Casel:l6-cv-0105l-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
I SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING
REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF.
I1/^^
Date Dr. Bang-er Shia
(102 LINDENCREST CT., SUGAR LAND, TX)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, the undersigned Notary Public, do hereby affirm that Bang-er Shia personally appeared
before me on the day of November 2016, and signed the above Affidavit.
SARAH VERDUN
Notary Public MyCommission Expires
October 16. 2017
?'i Of
40

Pro Se Plaintiff's Affidavit: Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Et Al.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pro Se Plaintiff's Affidavit: Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Et Al.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 40 PageID# 1839

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants

PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS BY "INDIVIDUAL" DEFENDANTS

1. Lines 10-11, p.2:

Insufficient if not misleading: "Plaintiffwas hired by foreign clientsto reviewand file

submission on their behalf with the USPTO."

inconsistence in the so-called 'official' USPTO record presented by Defendant(s):

.(Commissioner's signature on certificate of79/119,128)'

(Commissioner's signatureon Exclusion Ori/er)[PEX 1, G3]

' KBcbivso RECeWED received REcaveo

[PEXl.T,] [PEXl.Tj] [PEXl.Tj] [PEXI.T4] [PEXI.T5] [GovEx.520,018783]

' Commissioner tor TnuJcmarks

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

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants

Complaint of D2014-04 and Amended Complaint D2014-31 ('consolidated proceedings'),

presumably, the former Commissioner in anEXCLUSION ORDER executed inher name.

unwarrantedly taken away bythe USPTO, viaindividual defendants, in itsFinal Order.

AftertheFinal Orderwas published by USPTO, and Dr. Shiawasdeclared byonline

as shown by PEX. 8 attached herewith.

life to pursue in any manners to the truth of the following fact:

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants

Commissioner (for Trademarks) at USPTO.

promulgated since ate least 1998 is accessible at this point of time at

https://www.pdffiller.com/189271-fillable-1999-pto-form-1478). It is reasonable that foreign

knowledge of trademark lawor any law, and is therefore no practice of law.

The USPTO rule regulating 'electronic' signature, as opposed to that regulating

'hand-written' signature, is provided in 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c). 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c) was

outside of USPTO's expertise. 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) was indispensably joined with

Casel;16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss by Individual Defendants

"or", as a matter of law, there can be no violation of 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c).

terms of an 'electronic' signature, a signature, and a 'hand-written* signature, the

prosecution, as it might appear, concluded with a forgery of 'hand-written signature'- despite

Defendant(s)' years of confusion of 'electronic' signature, a signature, and a 'hand-written'

entered, as shown by the Gov Ex. 506-514 in the consolidated proceedings.

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiff's Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants

by foreign applicants, and/or their respective foreign attorneys, as a U.S. domestic

representative or correspondent before the Commissioner to safeguard their submission, as

equally qualified under law to be a U.S. representative or correspondent. Nevertheless, right

congressional inquuy, questioning the former Commissioner's unduly deprivation of her

fundamental right of a U.S. representative or correspondent, her business received a survey

As a U.S. representative or correspondent for foreign trademark applicants, Dr. Shia

worked like a typist, a proof-reader, and a mailwoman, which requires no knowledge of

as typos, missing pages of paper, or information missing or miscoded due to

across-the-countiy computer systemcompatibility.

corresponding hand-written signatures before submission to the former Commissioner, with

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants

time-barred, amended, consolidated to a later filed complaint D2014-31, and eventually

Defendant(s), in the Final Order of the proceeding of complaint D2014-31, with i)

foreigner's unauthorized practice of law.

PTO disciplinaiy rule 37 C.F.R. 11.505 provided 'Unauthorized Practice of Law',

Multijurisdictional Practice ofLaw', which requires "apractitioner topractice law". Likewise,

allegations thatactivities at TEAS constitutes 'practicing law' inTexas. Noncompliant with 37

Unless otherwise proven to the contrary, it is not reasonable for Defendants(s) to

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants

of thejurisdiction of an administrative review of the Final Order only.

Likewise, foreign attorneys, whose personal identifiable information were not

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying (^position toMotion toDbmiss by Individual Defendants

2. Lines 11-13, p.2:

qualified to practice in trademark matters beforethe USPTO."

be original and not tampered, depictsthe following fact.

Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying (^position to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants

conduct of the 'proceedings' (such as the registration of trademarks), as opposed to