IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JOHN RUDY Office: 209 Huron Avenue, Suite 8 Port Huron, MI 48060

IP
h

IR\

MAR - I2313 [IJ,

CLERK. U.S. DISTRiCT COURT
ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

Telephone (810) 982-4221

Plaintiff

Civil Action No. I \3~C\I'' cJ I O

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE and TERESA

cm 8 ires

STANEK REA, Acting Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and

Acting Director, United States Patent

and Trademark Office - both c/o General

Counsel, Mail Stop 8, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; Telephone (800) 786-9199 and BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAII, in

capacity as President of the United States

or under color of the Office of President

and individually, The White House, 1600

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,

DC 20500; Telephone (202) 456-1414
Defendants
COMPLAINT

Christopher John Rudy, representing himself, brings this action- pursuant to

5 USC 551 etseq., particularly 5 USC 701-706; 28 USC 1331,1338, 1346,1361 and
1391; and the United States Constitution: Article I, Section 7, second Clause; Article II, Section 1, fifth Clause; and Article III, Section 1, and Section 2, first Clause - for

declaratory and injunctive relief againstthe United States Patent and Trademark Office,
and Teresa Stanek Rea, in her capacity as Acting Undersecretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark

Office (PTO), and Barack Hussein Obama II, in his capacity as Presidentof the United

States or actingundercolor of the Officeof or as if he were President of the United States

and individually, and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Christopher John Rudy (Mr. Rudy orPlaintiff) isa citizen ofthe United States. His
home is in Fort Gratiot Township, St. Clair County, and his office is in the City of Port
Huron, both in the State of Michigan, andhe is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

2. The PTO isan agency of the United States government responsible for processing

patent and trademark applications and issuing patents and trademark registrations. 3. Teresa Stanek Rea (Ms. Rea) is Acting Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director ofthe PTO. Ms. Rea is named in her official capacity only.
4. Barack Hussein Obama II (Mr. Obama) is either President of the United States or he is
not President of the United States under the meaning of the United States Constitution,

the determination of which according to the pleadings herein alleging that he is not and

so is only acting under color of the Office of President or only as if he were President, is
fundamental to the disposition of this action. Accordingly, Mr. Obama is named both in
the capacity of President and individually.
JURISDICTION

5. This Courthasjurisdiction in this action underthe Constitution, Article III, Section 1

and Section 2, first Clause; 5 USC 702; and 28 USC 1331, 1338, 1346 and 1361.

6. The PTO issued its final agency action on or about January 29,2013 (its envelope

postmarked JAN 30 2013). That final agency action is reviewable under 5 USC 704.
VENUE

7. Venue is proper in this Court in accordance with 5 USC 703 and 28 USC 1391. The
PTO, Ms. Rea, and Mr. Obama are subject to the Court's personal jurisdiction in this action. The principal office residence of the PTO and Ms. Rea is in Alexandria, Virginia.

The principal office and home residence of Mr. Obama is in Washington, D.C., and a Bill
passed by both Houses of Congress, H.R. 1249, was signed by Mr. Obama in an attempt
to make it Law, so-called Public Law 112-29, in Alexandria, Virginia.
STANDING

8. Mr. Rudy has standing in this action since he suffered an injury in fact. He paid

certain fees to the PTO in patent application No. 10/443,430 in which he is the sole inventor, applicant and owner. He requested refund of a portion of those fees paid, a

portion totaling $90.00. The PTO denied his refund request in its final agency action.

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE ACTION

9. Mr. Rudy seeks refund of the $90.00 since the so-called "Leahy-Smith America

Invents Act" (Public Law 112-29) is null and void because Mr. Obama,who signed H.R.
1249 as if to make it Law, was not and is not eligible to be President of the United States
of America, and thus was not and is not President, since he is not a natural born Citizen

of the United States under the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, fifth Clause. H.R. 1249

did not become law since Congress did not present that passed Bill to a Person who was

President, and it was not signed, nor not returned, by a President as required under the
Constitution, Article I, Section 7, second Clause. Thus, the provisions of Public Law

112-29 including its new fees are invalid. Withthe new fees not promulgated by Rule
making authority, the difference in fees as last in effect versus those listed in the fee
schedule as based on Public Law 112-29 should be refunded.

10. Thus, Mr. Rudy seeks a declaration that constitutionally Mr. Obamawas not and is
not a natural born Citizen, and was not and is not eligible to be, and was not and is not,
President.

11. In turn, Mr. Rudy seeks a declaration that Public Law 112-29 is null and void.

12. And, Mr. Rudy seeks a declaration and/or an injunction for refund of the $90.00.
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS

13. Article II, Section t, fifth Clause, of the Constitution states:

"No Person excepta natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the timeof the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within
the United States."

14. A natural born Citizen under the Constitution is a Person bom in the United States of parents who both were citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of that Person.

15. The Founders were familiarwith the meaning of natural bom Citizen as stated above.

16. Thatstandard for the Office of President is still supreme Lawof the Land.
17. Article I, Section 7, second Clause, of the Constitution states:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;

If heapprove he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to thatHouse in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at
large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration

two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and
if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their
Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

18. That standard for enactment of a Bill into Law is still supreme Law of the Land.
FACTS RELEVANT TO MR. OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP STATUS

19. In 2008 Mr. Obama released or caused to be released a representation of a Hawaiian

CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH (short form) that he said was his, and in 2011 he

released or caused to be released the short form and a representation of a Hawaiian CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (long form) that he said was his. These list Barack
Hussein Obama (Mr. Obama, Sr.) as Mr. Obama's father, and the date and hour of the

birth of Mr. Obama as August 4, 1961, 7:24 p.m. See, Exhibit I.A (attached).
20. The long form states that the usual occupation of Mr. Obama, Sr. then was student.
21. At the time of Mr. Obama's birth, Mr. Obama, Sr. was not a citizen of the United

States but an alien with permission from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to

visit the United States on a temporary visa as a student. See, Exhibit I.B (attached).
22. Mr. Obama, Sr. acknowledged Mr. Obama to be, and Mr. Obama is, his son. 23. Mr. Obama acknowledges Mr. Obama, Sr. to be, and Mr. Obama, Sr. is, his father.
FACTS PERTAINING TO THE SIGNING OF H.R. 1249

24. Mr. Obama signed H.R. 1249 on September 16,2011 in Alexandria, Virginia.
FACTS PERTAINING TO THE REFUND REQUEST AND ITS HISTORY 25. Exhibits I.A and I.B were filed in the PTO on June 14,2012 in a DECLARATION

accompanying a REQUEST FOR REFUND, which first requested the $90.00 refund. See, Exhibit I, with the Exhibits I.A and I.B found within the Exhibit I (attached).

26. As noted on the first page of the REQUEST FOR REFUND. Mr. Rudy requested
that pursuant to 35 USC 2(b)(2) and 42(d), 37 CFR 1.26, and MPEP 607.02 or their

equivalent or substitute, the sum of $90.00 berefunded for excess fees filed and paid in
his patentapplication No. 10/443,430 on January 25,2012 with a NOTICE OF APPEAL

and on April 27,2012 with an Appellant's Briefw/Extension. with that sum being the

N.

difference of fees in effect prior to September 16, 2011, the date of purported enactment
of Public Law 112-29, the so-called "Leahy-Smith America Invents Act," on which date

Mr. Obama signed H.R. 1249 as if to render the Bill into Law, and by which the
increased fees were said to be effective, as follows (with Mr. Rudy being a small entity):
Small entity fee Before On/After Difference

Notice of appeal
First month extension

$270.00
$65.00

$310.00
$75.00

$40.00
$10.00

Brief in support of appeal

$270.00

$310.00

$40.00.

27. On June 21,2012, the PTO denied the REQUEST FOR REFUND, stating that the

correct fee was charged under the fee schedule. See, Exhibit II (attached).
28. On June 28, 2012, Mr. Rudy filed a REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IN
REQUEST FOR REFUND with an accompanying SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

in reply to the PTO's June 21,2012 denial of refund. On July 27,2012, inquiring about the status of his submission and on learning that it was not in the PTO system, Mr. Rudy
resubmitted that submission through a paper styled, "Resubmission of REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION IN REQUEST FOR REFUND Filed on 28 June 2012." He thus

reiterated his previous request, supplied additional information, and invited the PTO to
make of record any information they may have had showing that Mr. Obama is a natural

bom Citizen under the Constitution. See, Exhibit III (attached).

29. On August 8,2012, the PTO denied the REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IN

REQUEST FOR REFUND, acknowledging that Mr. Rudy was alleging that Public Law
112-29 was null and void because Mr. Obama was not a natural born Citizen under the

Constitution, and stating that no fee was paid by error or in excess and that the issue of whether or not Public Law 112-29 was valid under the Constitution was not a petitionable
matter. Therein, the PTO referred to Mr. Obama as President Obama. Therewith, no

information was provided to Mr. Rudy to show that Mr. Obama is a natural born Citizen
under the Constitution. See, Exhibit IV (attached).
30. On August 23, 2012, Mr. Rudy filed a Renewed Petition under 37 CFR 1.181 with an

accompanying DECLARATION SUPPLEMENT in reply to the PTO's August 8,2012

denial of refund. On October 23, 2012, inquiring about the status of his submission and
on hearing an Office official report that he did not see it in the PTO system, Mr. Rudy

resubmitted that submission through a paper styled, "Resubmission of Renewed Petition

under 37CFR 1.181." Hethus reiterated his previous requests and supplied additional
information to the PTO. See, Exhibit V (attached).

31. On or about January 29, 2013 the PTO, in a final agency action thatwas postmarked
"JAN 30 2013," DENIED the Renewed Petition under 37 CFR 1.181. The PTO stated:

"Petitioner bears the burden to show thatthe action or inaction of any employee or operation withinthe [PTO] is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise in violation
of law. Petitioner fails to carry this burden.

"Petitioner requests that $90 in fees be refunded because, he asserts, Public Law 112-29, which increased the relevant fees paid by Petitioner by $40and $10 respectively, is null and void because President Obama is not eligible to be the

President of the United States and, in turn, cannot sign any bills passed by Congress. Petitioner further argues thatthe Office has provided no evidence that President Obama is a citizen of the United States and, thus, eligible to be
President."

The PTO stated inthe final agency action that they did not have the authority to challenge
Mr. Obama's citizenship. See, Exhibit VI (attached).
32. In turn, Mr. Rudy brings this action before this Court.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF

33. The Plaintiff, Mr. Rudy, hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges all
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth in this Claim for Relief.

34. Agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed must be compelled, per
5 USC 706(1); and agency action, findings, and conclusions must be held unlawful and

set aside if found to be, among other things, contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, per 5 USC 706(2)(B); ultra vires, in excess ofstatutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short ofstatutory right, per 5 USC 706(2)(C); or arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, orotherwise not in accordance with law, per
5 USC 706(2)(A).

35. The PTO cannot charge new fees under provisions of so-called Public Law 112-29

because Mr. Obama did notand does not have authority to hold the Office of President
underthe Constitution since - owing to the fact that Mr. Obama, Sr. was not a citizen of

the United States at the time of the birth ofhis son, Mr. Obama - both ofthe parents of Mr. Obama were not citizens ofthe United States atthe time ofhis birth so that, although
he may be a citizen of the United States, Mr. Obama was not and is not a natural bom

Citizen of the United States as required for the Office of President under the Constitution,
Article II, Section 1, fifth Clause, and hence he was not and is not eligible to be President

of the United States, and accordingly he was not and is not President, and therefore, his

signature on H.R. 1249 could not and did not make that Bill into Law; and thus Public
Law 112-29and its provisions, including its new fees, are null and void. And so, the
PTO lacks authority to carry out its provisions, including charging the new fees. 36. The PTO carried out provisions of the null and void Public Law 112-29, including

charging its new fees, and denied Mr. Rudy a refund of $90.00, the portions of fees that
were attributed to those new fees as increases after he requested the refund - which in the
end is in violation of the Constitution as aforesaid, the provisions of which must be

interpreted by this Court under 5 USC 706 first paragraph, with the agency action coming
into violation of constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; and, in turn, being agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; ultra vires, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; or arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Declare that Barack Hussein Obama II was and is ineligible to be, and hence
was not and is not, President of the United States because he was not and is not a natural

bom Citizen of the United States as required of a Person to hold the Office of President
under the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, fifth Clause.

2. Declare that Public Law 112-29 is null and void because H.R. 1249, which

was presented to and signed by Barack Hussein Obama II, did not become Law because

Congress did not present that passed Bill to a Person who was President, and it was not
signed, nor not returned, by a President as required under the Constitution, Article I,
Section 7, second Clause.

3. Declare and/or enjoin that, with new fees from the null and void Public Law
112-29 not having been promulgated by Rule-making authority, the difference in fees as
last in effect versus those listed in the fee schedule as based on Public Law 112-29 should

be refunded, in particular, that the Defendant, the United States Patent and Trademark
Office and Teresa Stanek Rea, Acting Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual

Property and Acting Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, in her official

capacity, or hersuccessor, refund the $90.00 as the Plaintiff requested of the Defendant.
4. Grant such other relief as maybe necessary and appropriate or as the Court
deems just and proper, including all fees and expenses herein incurred.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 28.2013 A.D.

CHRISTOPHER JOH^RUDY
Pro se

209 Huron Avenue, Suite 8

Port Huron, Michigan 48060 E-mail: cirudy@rc.net Telephone (810) 982-4221

Attmt: Exhibits I-VI