Administrative Record of Evidence

Judge Kirsch conditionally granted IFP subject to § 1915 screening and directed the clerk to withhold summons and formal service pending review. On the same day — without request from any party, before any defendant had appeared, and before formal service had been authorized — the Court forwarded the complaint and TRO motion directly to John Basiak, Chief of Civil Division, U.S. Attorney's Office. No Federal Rule requires or authorizes this notification at this stage. Service is the plaintiff's obligation under FRCP 4. The Court acted sua sponte, on day one, in favor of the party that had not yet appeared.

Patent Application No. 18/973,067 published on its mandatory statutory date. The publication deadline argument within the TRO was mooted. A second, distinct, irreversible deadline now governed: April 2, 2026 — the date on which the application would be permanently abandoned if the $4,122 penalty remained unpaid. No extensions were available under any circumstances — confirmed in writing by the USPTO.

AUSA Junis L. Baldon filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Defendant John Squires. The Court's February 25 order had placed formal service on hold. No summons had been issued. No formal service had occurred. The government entered the case through the Court's sua sponte day-one notification — not through required legal process. The two emergency motions filed February 24 remained pending. Thirteen days had elapsed without ruling.

Plaintiff filed a letter notifying the Court that: (1) the application had published but the conduct and penalty remained unresolved; (2) April 2 was 19 days away with no extensions available; (3) to prevent permanent abandonment while the emergency motion sat unresolved, Plaintiff had entered discussions with a private investor who would cover the penalty in exchange for a significant equity interest in the patent — worth orders of magnitude more than the penalty itself. Plaintiff explicitly placed the Court on notice that his damages claim was not limited to $4,122 and that the compelled equity transfer constituted a direct and foreseeable consequential loss. Read Letter →

Baldon had proposed voluntary dismissal and directed Plaintiff to the USPTO's petition process. Plaintiff filed a formal rejection letter rebutting the exhaustion argument on five independent grounds — each established by the USPTO's own employees on the USPTO's own recorded lines: futility under Withrow v. Larkin; timeline impracticability; agency-created impossibility; partial exhaustion already completed; and constitutional violations not remediable through administrative process. Read Rejection →

ECF No. 10 was filed under the authority of Todd Blanche, U.S. Deputy Attorney General, and Jordan Fox, Chief of Staff and Associate Deputy Attorney General. The filing requested seven days — until March 25 — to file a letter brief on jurisdiction and threshold issues before the Court took further action on the merits. The Deputy Attorney General of the United States does not appear in pro se patent penalty cases in district courts. Two emergency motions had been pending for 22 days. April 2 was 15 days away. Read ECF No. 10 →

At 2:00 AM, Plaintiff filed his response through ADS. Plaintiff did not oppose the letter brief. Plaintiff opposed any briefing schedule that would functionally eliminate the Court's ability to rule before April 2. Plaintiff requested specifically that the Court, in granting the extension, simultaneously direct that the pending TRO motion be ruled upon no later than April 1, 2026 — one day before the irreversible deadline — regardless of the briefing schedule. The response also disclosed for the first time that the evidentiary record on the institutional blackout extended beyond what had been filed — additional recordings across multiple USPTO offices on multiple dates — and identified Michele Eason as Lead Paralegal Specialist, a senior institutional actor. Read Response →

The Court's ADS system processed Plaintiff's response and assigned it FileNumber 20508320-0, docketed at 9:23 AM. This Court's own published filing policy states: "The date the Clerk's Office receives a document submitted through ADS will be considered the date of filing." File numbers in this Court's electronic system are assigned automatically and sequentially at the moment of electronic receipt. No paper documents are involved.

Eleven minutes after Plaintiff's response entered the electronic filing system, the Court's Letter Order was docketed bearing FileNumber 20508409-0. The order bears a signature date of March 18, 2026 — the previous day. In a fully electronic filing system, a signature date and a submission date are two distinct events. The order was signed on March 18. It did not enter the electronic filing system until March 19 — eleven minutes after Plaintiff's letter, which carries the lower sequential number, had already done so. Under this Court's own published policy, the filing date is the date of electronic receipt. Plaintiff's letter entered first. The Court's order entered second. Both facts are documented in the Court's own automated sequential numbering system.

The Court's Letter Order granted Defendant's request for a seven-day extension. Defendant would file its letter brief by March 25, 2026. The order said nothing else. It did not address Plaintiff's request — filed that same morning, already in the electronic system — that the Court simultaneously direct a ruling no later than April 1. It did not acknowledge the April 2 abandonment deadline. It set no ruling schedule. It addressed the government's request. It was silent on Plaintiff's. The two emergency motions had now been pending for 23 days. April 2 was 14 days away.

Each entry below is independently verifiable on PACER. On February 25 — the day this action was filed — the Court took it upon itself to notify Defendant without request, before any defendant had appeared, before formal service had been authorized. No rule required this. On March 18, Defendant's request for a seven-day extension was granted the same day it was filed. Plaintiff's TRO motion had been pending 23 days without ruling. Plaintiff's expedited discovery and preservation order motion had been pending 23 days without ruling. Plaintiff's request for an April 1 ruling deadline was not addressed in an order entered the same morning that request was filed. A Temporary Restraining Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) may issue without notice to the adverse party upon a showing of immediate irreversible harm. The irreversible deadline was documented on the face of Plaintiff's original filing. No defendant engagement is required — or contemplated by the rule — before a court acts on a TRO motion. Plaintiff states these facts for the record without characterization.

Having observed the sequential file numbers from the Court's own electronic system, having awaited judicial intervention on two emergency motions for 24 days without ruling, and having concluded that he could not rely on this forum to protect his property right in the time that remained, Plaintiff secured that right by making direct payment to the USPTO and filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Payment was made simultaneously under protest and under economic duress, solely to prevent permanent abandonment on April 2, 2026, with full reservation of all claims under Frost v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583 (1926). The equity interest surrendered to fund the payment is documented and preserved as part of the damages claim. All recordings, all claims, and all undisclosed evidence are preserved. Read Dismissal →

The case is dismissed without prejudice. The claims are not. Every recording, every admission, every docket entry, and every piece of undisclosed evidence — including recordings documenting the institutional blackout operating across multiple USPTO offices on multiple dates, never produced in this proceeding — is preserved in full. The refiled complaint will be filed in a forum Plaintiff selects, at a time of Plaintiff's choosing, when the evidentiary record is most complete and the damages most fully documented. This repository will be updated when that occurs.