APPENDIX B
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court
Central District of California
Case CV 85 481 RG
LABRANCHE v USOC
PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM OF RELIEF ALLEGES:
JURISDICTION:
Federal questions and the amount in Controversy exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars. Actions arises under the Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 8-clause 3; Article IV section 1 & 2; The First Amendment; the Fifth Amendment; the 9th and 10th Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment; 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; and upon jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1338(b), and 15 U.S.C. sections 2 and 15 as more fully hereinafter appears.
CAUSE OF ACTION
1. On April 26, 1984 the plaintiff was refused the right to register his trademark and design by the P.T.O. pursuant to the section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.
2. On August 1, 1984 a C.B.S. network broadcast titled, "Crossroads" aired and was viewed by the plaintiff, during which the defendant made statements to the effect that, "anyone using the word olympic after 1950 was violating the Act and would be litigated by the defendant.
3. Article in legal trade publication, "Los Angeles Lawyer" (July issue), repeats threat of litigation to all unauthorized users of the word Olympic.
4. An investment of more than $100,000 has been used for the formation and foundation of of plaintiff's business and that is jeopardized by the defendant's statements and threats.
5. Plaintiff formed the New York corporation, Olympic Records, Inc., January 5, 1983 and that entity and its stock owned by the plaintiff is denied full faith and credit and put in jeopardy by the defendant and section 380 of the Act.
6. Plaintiff formed his business on September 15, 1982 and has legally acquired and obtained all licenses and permits necessary to conduct his business and these licenses and permits are denied credit pursuant to the defendant and section 380 of the Act.
TABLE OF CONTENTS - - CHARGES AND OFFENSES
I. Fifth Amendment: Due Process Non-enforcement/selective enforcement
II. Fifth Amendment: Due Process Right to Contract
III. Fifth Amendment: Due Process Pursue Business of Chosen Profession
IV. First Amendment: Freedom from Prior Restraint
V. 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amends. Over breadth of Legislation
VI. Article IV, §1. Full Faith and Credit Denied
VII. Article IV, §2. Property rights in Stock, and trademark
VIII. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection
IX. Fourteenth Amendment: Privileges and Immunities
X. 17 U.S.C. §101 et. seq. Denial of valid Copyrights
XI. Tenth Amendment: Persons and States rights.
XII. Ninth Amendment: Privacy and Reputation
XIII. 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. Illegal Trademark registration
XIV. 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. Unfair Use of Trademark
XV. 15 U.S.C. §2, Sherman Act. Attempted Monopoly
XVI. Article I, §8, clause 3. Attempt to Regulate Interstate Comm.
XVII. 15 U.S.C. §15, Clayton Act. Interference with right to trade and exist
COUNT NO. 1
1). Plaintiff claims section 380 of the Amateur Act is being selectively enforced or not enforced at all in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
2). Plaintiff claims section 380 of the Amateur Act remained dormant for 28 to 30 years in violation of Plaintiff claims section 380 of the Amateur Act.
3). Plaintiff claims, and provides proof, of non-enforcement of §380 of the Amateur Act by the following Federal Agencies:
(a) Internal revenue Service (b) Interstate Commerce Commission (c) Copyright Office (d)Comptroller of the Currency (e) Securities and Exchange Commission (f) F.D.I.C. (g) F.S.L.I.C. in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
4). Plaintiff claims non-enforcement of §380 of the Amateur Act in the following states: NY, MN, IN, WI, NC, OH, IL, FL, GA, MA, TX, VA, RI, AZ, NE, SC. OK, and WA in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
5). Plaintiff claims selective enforcement of §380 of the Amateur Act in the following states: AL, MI, CA in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT NO. 2
Liberty to Contract
6). Plaintiff claims his liberty to contract is prohibited pursuant to §380 of the Amateur Act in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT NO. 3
Pursue Chosen Profession
7). Plaintiff claims his "right to pursue the business of his chosen profession" is denied by Plaintiff claims in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT NO. 4
Prior Restraint of Free Speech
8). Plaintiff claims §380 of the Amateur Act and the defendant require that permission be obtained for use of a "a spoken word" which is an illegal exercise in "prior restraint" in violation of the plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment.
COUNT NO. 5
Overbreadth of Legislation
9). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act is unconstitutionally broad because it is susceptible of application to the plaintiff's conduct which is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
10). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act is "invalid as applied" because it is not capable of being enforced against all alike under the same circumstances, in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
11). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act is "invalid as not applied" because the Amateur Act is not enforced by Federal Agencies (except the PTO) and not enforced by 46 +/- 2 states in violation of the plaintiff's rights.
COUNT NO. 6
Full Faith and Credit
12). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies credit to permits and licenses legally acquired in the state of California, in violation of plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Full Faith and Credit provision of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution.
13). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies credit to the New York corporation, Olympic Records, Inc., in violation of plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Full Faith and Credit provision of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
14). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies credit to corporations, businesses, and copyright holders included as evidence in violation of the plaintiff's rights and those "similarly situated" guaranteed by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 7
Violation of Article IV, Section 2
15). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies the right to own or sell stock in the legally formed New York corporation, Olympic Records, Inc., in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution and further guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
16). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies the right to design, own, and register a trademark and design in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.
17). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies the plaintiff's business the right to exist in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 8
Equal Protection of Laws
18). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, violates the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
19). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act is explicit in its prohibitions and as such reach and include all persons in the state of California, with no exceptions, and the state only selectively prohibits corporations using the word olympic and has no enforcement policy regarding any and all others, in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.
20). Plaintiff claims that the State Board of Equalization allows foreign corporations with olympic as apart of their corporate name to obtain a sales Tax resale license issued by the state of California, in violation of the plaintiff's rights and those "similarly situated," guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.
21). Plaintiff claims that that the state of California denies corporate protection (umbrella) for its legally formed businesses using the word olympic, in violation of the plaintiff's rights and those "similarly situated," guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 9
Privileges & Immunities
22). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, forbids persons to incorporate in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunity provision of the Constitution.
23). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California does not treat all person "similarly situated" alike in regard to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunity provision of the Constitution.
24). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, denies plaintiff's right to form a corporation, own stock, design and own a trademark or obtain a foreign corporation license, in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by virtue of National Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunity provision of the Constitution.
25). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, denies plaintiff's "right to protect his business, property, trademark, and his investment of time, effort, and capital in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by virtue of National Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunity provision of the Constitution.
26). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, "authorizes" the state to violate the Equal Protection provision and the Privileges and Immunity provision of the 14th Amendment.
COUNT NO. 10
Violation of 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
27). Plaintiff claims that the federal law and the defendant deny credit and validity to U. S. Copyrights owned or held by the plaintiff in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by 17 U.S.C. §102(2)(5)(7) and further guaranteed by Article I, §8, clause 8 of the Constitution.
28). Plaintiff claims that Copyright registration number SR 49-369 and VA 137-790, owned by the plaintiff, are denied credit and validity by § 380 of the Amateur Act and by the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by 17 U.S.C. §106(1-3) and further guaranteed by Article I, §8, clause 8 of the Constitution.
29). Plaintiff claims that the federal law and the defendant deny credit to ALL copyrights legally issued by the Register of Copyrights to the plaintiff and over five hundred (500) others "similarly situated" in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. and further guaranteed by Article I, §8, clause 8 of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 11
Violation of the Tenth Amendment
30). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act has been ignored, taken exception to, avoided, or otherwise rejected by state officers, state attorneys, state tax boards, and state corporation commissions; and plaintiff claims, and proves in evidence, that 46 +/- 2 of the states have chosen not to violate the rights of their citizens even though the Amateur Act gives (illegal) authority to do so, and consequently §380 of the Amateur Act is in violation of the plaintiff's and the states' rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
31). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act enacted by Congress is defective as applied, and as not applied,and plaintiff claims the Act was brought to the attention of the states in 1978 which plaintiff claims is 28 years too late for the Act to have any effect except an unconstitutional one, and this dormancy of the Act violates plaintiff's and states' rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 12
Violation of the 9th Amendment
32). Plaintiff claims that the defendant and §380 of the Amateur Act are denying plaintiff's right to privacy by intrusions created by the appearance of the defendant on August 1, 1984 network television broadcast during which the defendant 'warned' the general public that all businesses or person using the word Olympic without their permission was violating the Amateur Act and would be litigated by the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's rights under the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.
33). Plaintiff claims that the defendant in the act of supporting the Amateur Act by appearing on network television has blatantly, obnoxiously, unwarrantedly, and with reckless disregard, attacked the plaintiff, and all others "similarly situated," in violation of the plaintiff's right of Privacy and Reputation guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 13
Illegal Trademark Registration - the word Olympic
34). Plaintiff claims that trademark registration number 968,566 (trademark/servicemark/collective membership mark- the word olympic) owned and used by the defendant is in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1064(c) because the defendant has no control over use of the mark and for all practical purposes the mark has been abandoned to the public (who always owned it) in violation of the Trademark Act of 1946 [15 U.S.C. 1064 (c)] and the plaintiff's rights under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
35). Plaintiff claims this registered trademark has been used, and is being used, to further an attempt to partially monopolize using this illegal and invalid registration by attempting to preclude all others from registering any mark in any class of goods using the word olympic, and this mark has been used for and as unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(7) and violates plaintiff's right to be afforded protection of a Registration on the Principal Register of the P.T.O..
36). Plaintiff claims hat this registration was obtained and issued in error because the year the registration was issued (1971) there were, and still are, numerous (1000's) of legal businesses and corporations using the word olympic in each of the classes of goods the defendant claims exclusive rights in, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1064 (c) and the plaintiff's rights under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 14
Unfair Use of Trademark 980,734
37). Plaintiff claim's the defendant's mark, registration no. 980,734, has been used for the purposes on unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1115(b)(7) of the Trademark Act and the plaintiff's right to be admitted on the register of the P.T.O..
38). Plaintiff claims that in 1978 the defendant gave notice to all the states that §380 of Amateur Act was in effect and that each state should now prevent their citizens, and the citizens of other states, from forming corporations using the word olympic, and also requested enforcement assistance (this mark was used on the notice) in violation of plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
39). Plaintiff claims unfair competition regarding this mark because the notice to the states suggests no policy regarding unincorporated businesses, and in effect, discriminates against corporations in violation of the rights of the class (corporations) of which the plaintiff claims membership, guaranteed by the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 15
Violation of Sherman Act, section 2
40). Plaintiff re-alleges jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §1338(b), as this and proceeding counts are associated with Counts No. 13 & 14.
41). Plaintiff claims that defendant is attempting to exclude the plaintiff, and others "similarly situated" fro doing legal, unobstructed interstates commerce in the violation of the plaintiff's rights under 15 U.S.C. section 2.
42). Plaintiff claims the defendant has warned the general public, including the plaintiff, that litigation will follow any unauthorized use of the word olympic, which under present circumstances, is "impossible," due to the several thousand legitimate businesses and corporations now in existence, in violation of plaintiff's rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and in violation of the Sherman Act, section 2.
43). Plaintiff claims that the defendant appeared on network television August 1, 1984 to proclaim the Amateur Act and their rights under it, and this appearance was a blatant example of attempted monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act, section 2.
44). Plaintiff claims actions of the defendant's part designed to intimidate weaker opponents, while avoiding confrontations with those stronger than the defendant, is an illegal attempt to perpetuate a partial monopoly at the expense of the weaker party or parties, violation of the plaintiff's rights, and the rights of all others similarly situated, under 15 U.S.C. section 2.
COUNT NO. 16
Violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
45). Plaintiff claims that the defendant is attempting to regulate interstate commerce, in violation of the rights of the plaintiff, and all others "similarly situated," guaranteed by Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution.
46). Plaintiff claims the Amateur Act includes illegal provisions which entitle the defendant to act in a predatory manner, to attempt to regulate legal commercial businesses and corporations in violation of the rights of the plaintiff, and all others "similarly situated," guaranteed by Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution.
47). Plaintiff claims that the Amateur Act is explicit in its prohibitions, and these prohibitions reach and include all persons, natural and artificial, in the United States, yet the defendant suggests to the states that they only prohibit corporations, in contravention of the Amateur Act itself, which prohibits all person, in violation of the rights of the plaintiff, and all others "similarly situated," guaranteed by Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution.
COUNT NO.17
Violation of 15 U.S.C., Section 15
48). Plaintiff claims that the defendant has illegally interfered with the plaintiff's right to trade, and plaintiff's business the right to exist in violation of the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court
Central District of California
Case CV 85 481 RG
LABRANCHE v USOC
PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM OF RELIEF ALLEGES:
JURISDICTION:
Federal questions and the amount in Controversy exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars. Actions arises under the Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 8-clause 3; Article IV section 1 & 2; The First Amendment; the Fifth Amendment; the 9th and 10th Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment; 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.; and upon jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1338(b), and 15 U.S.C. sections 2 and 15 as more fully hereinafter appears.
CAUSE OF ACTION
1. On April 26, 1984 the plaintiff was refused the right to register his trademark and design by the P.T.O. pursuant to the section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.
2. On August 1, 1984 a C.B.S. network broadcast titled, "Crossroads" aired and was viewed by the plaintiff, during which the defendant made statements to the effect that, "anyone using the word olympic after 1950 was violating the Act and would be litigated by the defendant.
3. Article in legal trade publication, "Los Angeles Lawyer" (July issue), repeats threat of litigation to all unauthorized users of the word Olympic.
4. An investment of more than $100,000 has been used for the formation and foundation of of plaintiff's business and that is jeopardized by the defendant's statements and threats.
5. Plaintiff formed the New York corporation, Olympic Records, Inc., January 5, 1983 and that entity and its stock owned by the plaintiff is denied full faith and credit and put in jeopardy by the defendant and section 380 of the Act.
6. Plaintiff formed his business on September 15, 1982 and has legally acquired and obtained all licenses and permits necessary to conduct his business and these licenses and permits are denied credit pursuant to the defendant and section 380 of the Act.
TABLE OF CONTENTS - - CHARGES AND OFFENSES
I. Fifth Amendment: Due Process Non-enforcement/selective enforcement
II. Fifth Amendment: Due Process Right to Contract
III. Fifth Amendment: Due Process Pursue Business of Chosen Profession
IV. First Amendment: Freedom from Prior Restraint
V. 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amends. Over breadth of Legislation
VI. Article IV, §1. Full Faith and Credit Denied
VII. Article IV, §2. Property rights in Stock, and trademark
VIII. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection
IX. Fourteenth Amendment: Privileges and Immunities
X. 17 U.S.C. §101 et. seq. Denial of valid Copyrights
XI. Tenth Amendment: Persons and States rights.
XII. Ninth Amendment: Privacy and Reputation
XIII. 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. Illegal Trademark registration
XIV. 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. Unfair Use of Trademark
XV. 15 U.S.C. §2, Sherman Act. Attempted Monopoly
XVI. Article I, §8, clause 3. Attempt to Regulate Interstate Comm.
XVII. 15 U.S.C. §15, Clayton Act. Interference with right to trade and exist
COUNT NO. 1
1). Plaintiff claims section 380 of the Amateur Act is being selectively enforced or not enforced at all in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
2). Plaintiff claims section 380 of the Amateur Act remained dormant for 28 to 30 years in violation of Plaintiff claims section 380 of the Amateur Act.
3). Plaintiff claims, and provides proof, of non-enforcement of §380 of the Amateur Act by the following Federal Agencies:
(a) Internal revenue Service (b) Interstate Commerce Commission (c) Copyright Office (d)Comptroller of the Currency (e) Securities and Exchange Commission (f) F.D.I.C. (g) F.S.L.I.C. in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
4). Plaintiff claims non-enforcement of §380 of the Amateur Act in the following states: NY, MN, IN, WI, NC, OH, IL, FL, GA, MA, TX, VA, RI, AZ, NE, SC. OK, and WA in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
5). Plaintiff claims selective enforcement of §380 of the Amateur Act in the following states: AL, MI, CA in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT NO. 2
Liberty to Contract
6). Plaintiff claims his liberty to contract is prohibited pursuant to §380 of the Amateur Act in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT NO. 3
Pursue Chosen Profession
7). Plaintiff claims his "right to pursue the business of his chosen profession" is denied by Plaintiff claims in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT NO. 4
Prior Restraint of Free Speech
8). Plaintiff claims §380 of the Amateur Act and the defendant require that permission be obtained for use of a "a spoken word" which is an illegal exercise in "prior restraint" in violation of the plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment.
COUNT NO. 5
Overbreadth of Legislation
9). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act is unconstitutionally broad because it is susceptible of application to the plaintiff's conduct which is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
10). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act is "invalid as applied" because it is not capable of being enforced against all alike under the same circumstances, in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
11). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act is "invalid as not applied" because the Amateur Act is not enforced by Federal Agencies (except the PTO) and not enforced by 46 +/- 2 states in violation of the plaintiff's rights.
COUNT NO. 6
Full Faith and Credit
12). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies credit to permits and licenses legally acquired in the state of California, in violation of plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Full Faith and Credit provision of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution.
13). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies credit to the New York corporation, Olympic Records, Inc., in violation of plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Full Faith and Credit provision of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
14). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies credit to corporations, businesses, and copyright holders included as evidence in violation of the plaintiff's rights and those "similarly situated" guaranteed by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 7
Violation of Article IV, Section 2
15). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies the right to own or sell stock in the legally formed New York corporation, Olympic Records, Inc., in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution and further guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
16). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies the right to design, own, and register a trademark and design in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.
17). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act denies the plaintiff's business the right to exist in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 8
Equal Protection of Laws
18). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, violates the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
19). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act is explicit in its prohibitions and as such reach and include all persons in the state of California, with no exceptions, and the state only selectively prohibits corporations using the word olympic and has no enforcement policy regarding any and all others, in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.
20). Plaintiff claims that the State Board of Equalization allows foreign corporations with olympic as apart of their corporate name to obtain a sales Tax resale license issued by the state of California, in violation of the plaintiff's rights and those "similarly situated," guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.
21). Plaintiff claims that that the state of California denies corporate protection (umbrella) for its legally formed businesses using the word olympic, in violation of the plaintiff's rights and those "similarly situated," guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 9
Privileges & Immunities
22). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, forbids persons to incorporate in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunity provision of the Constitution.
23). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California does not treat all person "similarly situated" alike in regard to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunity provision of the Constitution.
24). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, denies plaintiff's right to form a corporation, own stock, design and own a trademark or obtain a foreign corporation license, in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by virtue of National Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunity provision of the Constitution.
25). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, denies plaintiff's "right to protect his business, property, trademark, and his investment of time, effort, and capital in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by virtue of National Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunity provision of the Constitution.
26). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act, selectively enforced by the state of California, "authorizes" the state to violate the Equal Protection provision and the Privileges and Immunity provision of the 14th Amendment.
COUNT NO. 10
Violation of 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
27). Plaintiff claims that the federal law and the defendant deny credit and validity to U. S. Copyrights owned or held by the plaintiff in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by 17 U.S.C. §102(2)(5)(7) and further guaranteed by Article I, §8, clause 8 of the Constitution.
28). Plaintiff claims that Copyright registration number SR 49-369 and VA 137-790, owned by the plaintiff, are denied credit and validity by § 380 of the Amateur Act and by the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by 17 U.S.C. §106(1-3) and further guaranteed by Article I, §8, clause 8 of the Constitution.
29). Plaintiff claims that the federal law and the defendant deny credit to ALL copyrights legally issued by the Register of Copyrights to the plaintiff and over five hundred (500) others "similarly situated" in violation of the plaintiff's rights guaranteed by 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. and further guaranteed by Article I, §8, clause 8 of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 11
Violation of the Tenth Amendment
30). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act has been ignored, taken exception to, avoided, or otherwise rejected by state officers, state attorneys, state tax boards, and state corporation commissions; and plaintiff claims, and proves in evidence, that 46 +/- 2 of the states have chosen not to violate the rights of their citizens even though the Amateur Act gives (illegal) authority to do so, and consequently §380 of the Amateur Act is in violation of the plaintiff's and the states' rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
31). Plaintiff claims that §380 of the Amateur Act enacted by Congress is defective as applied, and as not applied,and plaintiff claims the Act was brought to the attention of the states in 1978 which plaintiff claims is 28 years too late for the Act to have any effect except an unconstitutional one, and this dormancy of the Act violates plaintiff's and states' rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 12
Violation of the 9th Amendment
32). Plaintiff claims that the defendant and §380 of the Amateur Act are denying plaintiff's right to privacy by intrusions created by the appearance of the defendant on August 1, 1984 network television broadcast during which the defendant 'warned' the general public that all businesses or person using the word Olympic without their permission was violating the Amateur Act and would be litigated by the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's rights under the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.
33). Plaintiff claims that the defendant in the act of supporting the Amateur Act by appearing on network television has blatantly, obnoxiously, unwarrantedly, and with reckless disregard, attacked the plaintiff, and all others "similarly situated," in violation of the plaintiff's right of Privacy and Reputation guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 13
Illegal Trademark Registration - the word Olympic
34). Plaintiff claims that trademark registration number 968,566 (trademark/servicemark/collective membership mark- the word olympic) owned and used by the defendant is in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1064(c) because the defendant has no control over use of the mark and for all practical purposes the mark has been abandoned to the public (who always owned it) in violation of the Trademark Act of 1946 [15 U.S.C. 1064 (c)] and the plaintiff's rights under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
35). Plaintiff claims this registered trademark has been used, and is being used, to further an attempt to partially monopolize using this illegal and invalid registration by attempting to preclude all others from registering any mark in any class of goods using the word olympic, and this mark has been used for and as unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(7) and violates plaintiff's right to be afforded protection of a Registration on the Principal Register of the P.T.O..
36). Plaintiff claims hat this registration was obtained and issued in error because the year the registration was issued (1971) there were, and still are, numerous (1000's) of legal businesses and corporations using the word olympic in each of the classes of goods the defendant claims exclusive rights in, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1064 (c) and the plaintiff's rights under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 14
Unfair Use of Trademark 980,734
37). Plaintiff claim's the defendant's mark, registration no. 980,734, has been used for the purposes on unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1115(b)(7) of the Trademark Act and the plaintiff's right to be admitted on the register of the P.T.O..
38). Plaintiff claims that in 1978 the defendant gave notice to all the states that §380 of Amateur Act was in effect and that each state should now prevent their citizens, and the citizens of other states, from forming corporations using the word olympic, and also requested enforcement assistance (this mark was used on the notice) in violation of plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
39). Plaintiff claims unfair competition regarding this mark because the notice to the states suggests no policy regarding unincorporated businesses, and in effect, discriminates against corporations in violation of the rights of the class (corporations) of which the plaintiff claims membership, guaranteed by the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT NO. 15
Violation of Sherman Act, section 2
40). Plaintiff re-alleges jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §1338(b), as this and proceeding counts are associated with Counts No. 13 & 14.
41). Plaintiff claims that defendant is attempting to exclude the plaintiff, and others "similarly situated" fro doing legal, unobstructed interstates commerce in the violation of the plaintiff's rights under 15 U.S.C. section 2.
42). Plaintiff claims the defendant has warned the general public, including the plaintiff, that litigation will follow any unauthorized use of the word olympic, which under present circumstances, is "impossible," due to the several thousand legitimate businesses and corporations now in existence, in violation of plaintiff's rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and in violation of the Sherman Act, section 2.
43). Plaintiff claims that the defendant appeared on network television August 1, 1984 to proclaim the Amateur Act and their rights under it, and this appearance was a blatant example of attempted monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act, section 2.
44). Plaintiff claims actions of the defendant's part designed to intimidate weaker opponents, while avoiding confrontations with those stronger than the defendant, is an illegal attempt to perpetuate a partial monopoly at the expense of the weaker party or parties, violation of the plaintiff's rights, and the rights of all others similarly situated, under 15 U.S.C. section 2.
COUNT NO. 16
Violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
45). Plaintiff claims that the defendant is attempting to regulate interstate commerce, in violation of the rights of the plaintiff, and all others "similarly situated," guaranteed by Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution.
46). Plaintiff claims the Amateur Act includes illegal provisions which entitle the defendant to act in a predatory manner, to attempt to regulate legal commercial businesses and corporations in violation of the rights of the plaintiff, and all others "similarly situated," guaranteed by Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution.
47). Plaintiff claims that the Amateur Act is explicit in its prohibitions, and these prohibitions reach and include all persons, natural and artificial, in the United States, yet the defendant suggests to the states that they only prohibit corporations, in contravention of the Amateur Act itself, which prohibits all person, in violation of the rights of the plaintiff, and all others "similarly situated," guaranteed by Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution.
COUNT NO.17
Violation of 15 U.S.C., Section 15
48). Plaintiff claims that the defendant has illegally interfered with the plaintiff's right to trade, and plaintiff's business the right to exist in violation of the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts.
No comments:
Post a Comment