SherryAE wrote:
> Hello. It's my first time posting, but long time viewing this
> newsgroup. Recently, my parent's home was destroyed by two huge trees
> in the course of 3 days. I've been trying to find ways to help my
> family, financially, emotionally, and also trying to figure out ways
> to get some of the repairs done ourselves. Instead of telling the
> whole long story, here's a link
> to an auction where I'm trying to raise funds for my parent's home.
> It tells the whole story.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5602221945
>
>
> I have a newspaper article posted on the webpage which tells the story.
> My question to anyone who might be interested... Do you know of who I
> can ask for financial assistance? I've contacted Habitat, Fema, Red
> Cross, Salvation Army, even Lowes, Menards, and Home Depot ... no one
> can help.
> I'm wondering if there's another organization I'm simply unaware of???
>
> Thanks!
> ~Sherry
If it wasn't such a tragic set of circumstances, I wouldn't have seen
much beyond an elaborate ploy.
I wish I was in a position to help Sherry, but the reason you can't get
any assistance from Federal agencies is because you're "evil" White
people with Christian values.
You see, this is why Germans wanted to cleanse their country of the
jews disrupting their orderly lives and stealing their wealth, and as
you can see, the real fascists are doing the same thing to us here.
If you were anything less, the Jimmy Carter brigade would have answered
the disaster call before you had a chance to ask, but since the snouts
are now in control of OUR government, here's more proof:
=========================
=========================
==
Feds Rule "White Pride" is "Offensive" and "Immoral" -- Anti-White Hate
Speech
More news stories on Anti-White Discrimination Justin J. Moritz, AR
News exclusive, Aug. 2
If you are looking for more evidence that the United States government
is biased against white people, you can add their decision in my
trademark case.
In February, 2004, I applied for a trademark on the words "White Pride
Country Wide." I did it as an exercise against political correctness.
I intentionally did not choose "white power" "white supremacy" or "the
white race" because of the negative connotations of those terms.
Trademarks can be denied to offensive phrases.
When I later searched United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
records, I found that "Black Power" "Black Supremacy" and "La Raza"
(Spanish for "The Race") had all been approved by the USPTO and been
found not to be offensive.
The USPTO had also approved and registered "The Black Panther Party"
and "Burn, Baby, Burn," the party's slogan. The Black Panthers had
assassinated white police officers but neither term was found to be
offensive or immoral.
To me, "white pride" was a non-offensive, positive term, or at least I
thought so. On December 23, 2004, I received my Christmas present from
the USPTO.
In an Office Action prepared by Barbara Rutland, it denied my
trademark, ruling that the "white pride" part of my request was
"offensive," "immoral," and "scandalous."
Here are her very words:
Section 2(a) Refusal
"Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or
comprises immoral or scandalous matter. Trademark Act Section 2(a)
U.S.C. 1052(a); TMEP 1203.01. According to the attached evidence from a
Lexis/Nexis database and a search of the Internet using the search
engine www.google.com, the "WHITE PRIDE" element of the proposed mark
is considered offensive and therefore scandalous."
My Appeal-
On January 1, 2005, I decided to appeal the USPTO decision, but not
before doing some research. I found that that the following "pride"
terms have all been registered as trademarks by the U.S Government:
"African Pride," "African Man Pride," "Asian Pride," "Bahama Pride,"
"Black Pride," "Brazilian Pride," "China-Pride," "Chippewa Pride,"
"Choctaw Pride," "Colombian Pride," "Cuban Pride," "Dakota Pride,"
"Dominican Pride," "El Salvador Pride," "Ecuador Pride," "Gay Pride
Apparel," "Guyanese Pride," "Havana Pride," "Honduran Pride," "Indian
Pride," "Jamaica's Pride," "Jewish Pride," "Kwanzaa Pride," "Long Beach
Lesbian and Gay Pride," "Mayan Pride," "Mexican Pride," "Native
Pride!," "Nicaraguan Pride," "Orgullo Hispano" (Hispanic Pride),
(Dominican Republic Pride), "Rainbow Pride Coach," "Red Pride," "San
Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride," "Spanish Pride," and
"West Indian Pride."
The factual evidence for my appeal was overwhelming, or at least I
thought so. It seemed as though the federal government wanted everybody
to have pride, except white people. It seemed to be a clear case of
discrimination.
USPTO denies appeal-
In February 2005, the USPTO issued their "FINAL OFFICE ACTION." It was
again prepared by Barbara Rutland. The USPTO upheld its original
denial, explaining:
in registering different marks are without evidentiary value (emphasis
added) and are not binding upon the Office."
In plain English, the USPTO was saying that their own records cannot be
used against it. Imagine a taxpayer being audited by the IRS. Could he
sit back and say, "Go ahead, audit me, but you can't use my records
against me"?
I lost my $1,300 non-refundable trademark application fee. ACLU denies
assistance and adds insult. My next step was to seek outside help from
the Minnesota branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
I sent a brief letter to the ACLU-MN summarizing my case and asking if
they were interested. They initially said they were willing to review
the case, so I sent them pages of documentation.
I thought I might have a chance since the ACLU prides itself on
defending the rights of the little guy. I am white, male, heterosexual,
married, employed, native born, English speaking, Christian-valued,
have no criminal record, and am a retired law enforcement officer.
I could be the perfect "token" case outside their mainstream clientele,
or at least I thought so. In March 2005, the ACLU not only turned my
case down but took the opportunity to slam white people and Christians.
Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for the ACLU-MN, wrote:
"Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz's mark, their rejection of his mark
was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning i.e.
superiority of what he term (sic) 'the white race' over all other races
and their brand of Christianity over the other religions."
The ACLU was fully aware of all the other "pride" trademarks I had
listed in my documents. If a "pride" trademark had been turned down for
any group of people, other than whites, the ACLU would be in court
screaming "Discrimination by the United States Government!"
Center for Individual Rights (CIR) provides assistance-
My next step was to seek help from the Center for Individual Rights.
They are the conservative response to the ACLU. They are political
opposites but much smaller than the ACLU. I corresponded with the CIR
through mail, email, and telephone conversations.
In June 2005, the CIR politely and professionally declined my request
for help, but because of monetary, not ideological considerations.
The CIR did help by putting my case on the Federalist website, a
conservative site where attorneys can take pro bono cases.
As of August 2005, I had not received any responses.
You can help-
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the
right of the people to "petition the government for a redress of
grievances."
If you disagree with the decision of the USPTO in my case, please
petition the government.
1. Send an email to the Commissioner of Trademarks
lynne.beresford@uspto.gov
2. Send a letter to:
Lynne Beresford, Commissioner of Trademarks United States Patent and
Trademark Office
P. O. 1451
3. Send copies of this article to other people by email or mail.
The Author-
Justin J. Moritz is my real name. I am a retired law enforcement
officer and have served as a city police officer, a county deputy, a
state special agent, and a training director. I hold Associate,
Bachelor's, and Master's degrees from three Minnesota colleges.
(Posted on August 3, 2005)
|
|