DEN OF THIEVES (II) - LAB HARVEST
To: USPTO, Art Unit 2857, 1/13/11
To: USPTO, Art Unit 2857, 1/13/11
I am in receipt of your "Final" Final paper communication of 12/28/2010, by which you cancel the finality of your previous paper communication of last fall, and as a "one-time courtesy" offer me a 3-month extension to reply to your Final communication. Let's pretend that that "Final" is final.
I find it laughable that you used such an opportunity (created by yourself in what seems to be a standardized procedure when justifying the theft of ideas in the name of the Government -- read on) to include a bunch of ridiculous statements such as those correcting even more of your own corrections, as well as changing communication status. Furthermore, I find it remarkable that you insert a law citation in a "non-suspicious" place within your communication, by which you actually let me know that the Government, by virtue of a law it itself has passed earlier, is somehow (in that Government's imagination) safeguarded i.e. allowed to steal a published idea as long as such a theft occurs within a year since the idea was published!? (Hurry up, Joe!) I could not believe my eyes that you actually would use such an outright manipulation -- taking a law, meant to regulate life, out of context and waving it as a red rag in front of bull's eyes.
Indeed, all thieves exhibit a distinct behavioral pattern as characterized by (A) clear intention to steal, and (B) clear intention to manipulate in order to justify the stealing once caught. Isn't it remarkable that a Government is no different in this respect than a common petty criminal, displaying an all-absence of moral consciousness. Obviously, the individual-Government turnpike is a two-way road. So the government (in all its branches) shall be held accountable for its crimes just like any petty criminals are. It shall also be held accountable for covering up those activities, regardless the method of crime (laws, police, intelligence, tortures, etc.) unless to an extent there is a national security issue, which any sane minds readily fail to see in my case. Therefore, the Government's above-described behavior is hereby found entirely unacceptable, also given the special "treatment" I received from the US and Canadian governments since I came up with the idea in 1999, as described in my blog. That "treatment" included, but was not limited to, mysterious disappearance of the (really) final draft of my PhD thesis in none other than the US Government's 'US Mail'. Isn't it curious (and convenient for the Government alone) that, had not been for that mystery, the Government could not have patented my idea as its own within a year? Revealing. An Agatha Christie case in all elements.
Even if the law, as you invoke it, were (not) meant to protect thievery, I don't feel obliged by a thief's proclamation in which he finds it OK to rob me within that-and-that time frame. And if I wait long enough, thinks the thief in his twisted mind, I could maybe obtain a patent (hip hip, hooray!) -- only if my idea wasn't "too" interesting to begin with. Says thus the Government: only in such a case where my idea appeared boring, e.g. to the great minds of a Government's lab, could I get a patent that equates some crumbs on the floor. While failing to see why I should even be satisfied with them crumbs (Mr. Gates or Mr. Marconi were not!) while being forced to watch as a big fat thief walks away with my pie, I definitely do not accept the Government's stipulation (as placed in-between your own lines) repelling me "by law" from taking actions to protect my own intellectual property. Down with laws that protect them thieves! More importantly, down with reading of laws that takes laws or their parts out of context and uses them to justify thievery instead of what they are meant for: regulating things for the betterment of the society!
No matter what language you used or what laws (issued by the same Government) you picked to hide behind, the cold truth remains as follows: the Government has stolen the idea from me and patented it as its own. That's what counts, really. It is logically forbidden to expect that this same idea in fundamental sciences could have occurred twice in history, and within such a short period of time. Of course, I could believe in such a coincidence (famous examples do exist) if on the other side of this equation were another sole researcher of at least the caliber as that of Omerbashich, and not a bunch of ready-made FDA lab personnel utilized by the US Government for its reverse-engineering schemes on a massive scale. Your tacitly citing of the above-mentioned law in your "Final" Final communication speaks volumes -- I am now positive beyond any doubt that the Government is well aware of its thievery as described herein and as indicated by its actions including your ready-made assemblage. Moreover, I am somehow confident that you have got even more tools in your ready-made toolbox for repelling us "stupid inventors with great ideas" from bugging such a great government, oh the greatest one of all time (minus that first unlucky year).
But what's even more mind blowing is the fact that the Government has also remunerated me as an inventor by virtue of stealing my idea (to laugh or to cry, that is the question), and then also treated me both as a mentally challenged person and the state enemy No.1, all while pretending that "all is good". The Government thus resembles a 2 year old child who believes closing the eyes makes it too invisible, but also an imbecile who believes having no teeth means he can eat pearls without breaking the jaw. A Government that pretends to be serious while using high-profile wording (or drowning in it, rather), but is in fact and by its essence merely a "mindless thief in a boiler suit", renders your latest (Final?) correspondence, spiced with its ready-made additives, not worthy of further communication. FYI, I reproduce below my extended personal statement Re this case, as it appears in my personal blog. My previously filed requests to Secretary of Health and to USPTO in the same manner remain unabated.
Unlike Mr. Tesla or Mr. Meucci or numerous others that you (the USPTO) also robbed a great deal but who apparently forgave to you all (Tesla, for example, graciously never forgave to his robbers only the fact that "they couldn't come up with those same ideas on their own"), I on the other hand regret that I ever lifted a pen let alone discovered several natural laws as the only laws that need no human approval. When I see who is benefiting from my discoveries, I feel sick to my stomach.
May god have mercy on the planet on which a Den of Thieves you represent is seen as the brightest light of them all.
Dr. Mensur Omerbashich