16 years in the making...

Now that's not something you see every day!

It depends on what your definition of the word "an" is...

The Chief Justice of The Court of Federal Claims has rendered a decision reference the meaning of the word "an" in my patent case against Uncle Sam (CANVS V USA). Not only has the law been upheld, it just so happens that it is the proper interpretation, and a decision in my favor.

Here is a link to read the decision for yourself:

ORDER158.pdf

I guess I don't know the meaning of the word "prompt"...

69 Days ago I was at The US Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC in front of the Chief Justice of the Court for oral arguments in the claims construction portion of my patent infringement case against Uncle Sam (CANVS V USA). This case was filed on August 11, 2010. It stems from and ongoing battle that began in 2005 (that is 11 years if you are counting). The only issue remaining (for the claim construction portion of the proceedings) was literally the defination of the word "an". A Federal Court in Florida took two and one half years but finally sided with me (and actually upheld the law) on this issue (when used in a patent, if the word "comprising" is followed by the word "an" it means "one or more"). We are still waiting on the Court of Federal Claims decision on the matter. Once the decision is rendered we will finally get a trial date (most likely August 2016 at the earlyest). Let all that sink in as you ponder the inscription on the wall of the Court behind me and my team in the picture...

Six Kamikazes

The story of the six kamikazes, or how to successfully navigate through any bureaucracy and get what you need.

At a recent wedding I attended as one of the groomsmen for my dear friends, I noticed some of the bridesmaids looking pretty bummed out. I went over and asked what was up, they said, they won't pour us kamikaze shots. I asked how many they wanted, they said 6, I said I would be right back. I went over to the bartender and asked for 6 kamikazes, he said he was not allowed to pour shots I asked him to simply put them in glass with some ice cubes that way he wouldn't be pouring shots. So here you have a guy following the rules, no shots, 6 gals bummed out cause they can't get their kamikazes, and just a slight variation on the theme and everyone is happy. I can't believe I managed to make it cross the dance floor and hand the gals their drinks before I lost it! The moral of the story is if you want something bad enough figure out how to make it happen!

Get Some!

https://www.booster.com/CANVS-V-SOCOM

US Government funded Crack Monkeys

Above is a picture of a real Monkey smoking real Crack, paid for by Uncle Sam with our tax dollars.

On 19NOV15, I was on the stand testifying in CANVS V SOCOM. Today I get the redacted transcript after they had 124 days to implement their redactions. So they redacted some of my testimony but neglected to properly redacte the word index, even a lab monkey high on crack can reverse engineer at least part of what was being talked about. Just thought you might like to see how your tax dollars are being spent.

Above is a sample of my "redacted" testimony.

One of my Super Powers. .

One of my Super Powers is restraint and my ability to refrain from using profanity in the presence of Federal Judges. If you doubt me, I present you some of my testimony from CANVS V SOCOM. During this exchange I point out that bribery was going on in the SOCOM office I was dealing with (this is not opinion, folks were indited,  if you didn't "pay for testing" they would not purchase your product). Not one word from the Judge, no one besides me seems to give a crap.

See if you can read this passage without your blood boiling, then imagine I have been dealing with this particular brand of insanity from this band of criminals since 2005!

Seriously, I would like to hear what you guys think of this, enjoy!

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CHIANG (Air Force Lawyer representing SOCOM):

Q Mr. Walkenstein, are you testifying that subsequent to the delivery or the ending of the SBIR II contract, you embarked on an attempt to commercialize
your product, correct?

A I need a -- in order to answer that, I need your definition of what commercializing means, sir.

Q You were trying to sell more products, did you not?

A I need a further refinement of that because, to me, commercialization has the word commercial in it. We are talking about a commodity that is not a
commercial item. I needed SOCOM approval, I needed State Department approval. I couldn't just go start to sell this to the public.So, if by commercialization you mean trying to get the U.S. Government to buy them for the people that I built them for, I have absolute -- I'm in
absolute agreement. If you're talking about commercialization to
sell it in the commercial realm, no, sir.

Q So, is it your testimony that after the xelivery of the SBIR II goggles, they were not quite there yet?

A I did not say that, no, sir.

Q Okay. So, were they or were they not completed from your perspective?

A Nothing is ever completed. They were completed to the state of readiness that they were at at that time. So, you can always come out with another
generation or a slight increase. If you're asking me do I think that it was
something that was usable that you could sell, absolutely, yes. It was in evidence by the additional purchases by the U.S. Government, six goggles,
$180,000.00, so I think, yes, is the answer.

Q So, are you testifying that after you delivered the SBIR II goggles, they were not quite ready, is that what you were saying?

A I didn't say that at all, sir. What I said was, clearly, they were absolutely ready otherwise the Government probably wouldn't have bought the six more
pair from me during the Phase II, they didn't even wait until the Phase II was over.

Q So, you just testified that you went to the Congress, tried to get funding for 141 goggles for the Navy so they can use it and you can conduct additional
testing, correct?

A That is correct.

Q So, you were willing to provide to the Navy incomplete equipment, correct?

A No, sir. Don't mischaracterize what I've said or the record. That's absolutely contrary to what I just said.

Q After you finished delivery of the SBIR II equipment, you not only went to Coronado, California to interest Mr. **** **** to purchase 141 goggles, you
actually continue your diligent effort to see if there is other Government agencies willing to purchase, correct?

A Throughout the creation of CANVS, I continuously interacted with Government on all levels in the House, in the Senate and the individual agencies to try and sell my product. Yes, sir.

Q Do you have any documentation of either the Congress or the other prospective Government services that I am selling you a device that's not quite complete, but I need money to test it?

A The testing is a requirement of the Government. They were well aware of what was going on and they asked me to pay for testing. And, for the record, a client of SOCOM was arrested for bribery and the charges state quite clearly that if you don't pay them for testing, they won't buy your equipment. So, the testing requirement was not mine, it was SOCOM's and that behavior of having the vendor pay for the testing is quite odd and people were actually convicted for what we're describing here, sir. You're asking me if I thought that I had a product that I was going to sell to people that were
going to bet their life on it that I knew wasn't finished and that's not going to be tolerated by me here at this time, sir. No, is the answer to your question.

Q So, are you testifying that when you were marketing the SBIR II products to other Government agencies, you still needed more testing to do?

A I did not say that, no. The third time I am answering the question, I did not say there was additional testing necessary to purchase the product from CANVS. I never said that, no, sir. Do you know why I have not produced test data to give to the Government on the goggles? Do you understand why I didn't do that? Because I didn't want to in any way interact with the people doing the testing other than giving them what they needed to do the
testing. Night Vision Labs is a test facility. To get the testing measurement equipment that Night Vision Labs has would require and inordinate investment of time and money for a small business. They were given the devices to test. So were numerous other Government agencies. Crane is the Navy equivalent of Night Vision and Electronics Sensors Directorate for the Navy. And the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab. And all of these different
organizations that have comprehensive test and measurement capabilities.
I thought it would be pretty ridiculous for a three man company to do testing that certainly wasn't going to meet the requirement anyway. The Government
has certain requirements for testing. Provided with the final product, would you not then test them to qualify them for purchase? And my understanding from Ms. Heet's testimony is that we fall outside of that realm. You guys are talking about, you guys meaning the Government, is claiming that for Big Army purchases of one for every soldier, you need to go through all these machinations that are here in the procurement process, not for the
SBIR, as is evident that they bought six additional pairs prior to the end of Phase II. So, I don't understand what your question is. I don't understand it.

Q Let's change topics a little bit. Let's go
to A96.

Sabotaged!

Just another example of the garbage I have had to deal with over the years. This is an exchange from CANVS V SOCOM about a CANVS Color Night Vision Goggle that was tampered with without my knowledge prior to going to be tested by operators!

Mr. Francis Vangel was in charge of all the visual augmentation systems from the head-mounted, handheld and weapon-mounted devices for USASOC. The Defendant called Mr. Vangel as a witness, he testified about a set of CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles sent to him by Kurt Badertscher of SOCOM in April 2007. He spoke of his experience with the goggles in his testimony:

"I just got a snowy GEN 1-2 type of picture which means not good, not clear, not sharp, not high-def resolution. Nothing that I would be interested in. So I started playing with the objective with the diopter settings, with the gain controls and I adjusted everything that I could but I couldn't see any color."

Prior to Mr. Vangel taking the stand, while I was on the stand he inspected the CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles produced into evidence by the Defendant. I testified that one of the goggles had filters not supplied by CANVS, and that a goggle configured with the two identical LIF filters that were on the goggle as entered into evidence by the Defendant would not function properly. I then removed the incorrect filters that were on the objective lenses, and replaced them with the proper optical elements provided by CANVS that were originally shipped with the goggle.

Under cross examination, looking through the same CANVS Color Night Vision Goggle that he originally examined in 2007 with the wrong filters, this is what Mr. Vangel testified to after looking through the same goggle but with the proper filters as delivered with the goggle by CANVS:

Q Do you see any colors in the flag behind the Judge?
A Yes, sir.
Q Excuse me, what?
A I see red, I see white and then I see black for the -- you know, I know it's blue because it's a flag but I see black. But I do see red and white. And then the -- you know, the background of the stars is black to me. Based on what I saw here I would say that the performance of the tubes that I saw (in 2007 with the wrong filters on the objective lenses) was lesser than these tubes" (note the goggle and tubes were identical, just the correct front end filters were on the goggle after I fixed it earlier while was on the stand)

I do not know if the incorrect optics were placed on the CANVS Color Night Vision Goggles sent to Mr. Vangel intentionally or by accident, what is known is that by placing two identical LIF filters not supplied by CANVS on the goggle; the device was effectively sabotaged resulting in no possibility of demonstrating a color night vision capability.

I couldn't resist, enjoy: Sabotage (Beastie Boys)

National Security

There was an exchange during my testimony in the CANVS V SOCOM case in front of the ASBCA that really pissed me off. It highlights a total lack of understanding or a willful attempt to get me in trouble by the lead defense attorney representing SOCOM. Here is the excerpt from the court transcript:

"I asked Mr. Walkenstein has he ever held a national security clearance since he left the Army. The answer is no. And so to that degree he has had conversations with Special Forces, intelligence community, et cetera. But in all those dealings it was not under national security. There may be sensitivities to the organization or to the agency, and Mr. Walkenstein refused to chat about these various people based upon his own belief he needs to protect the national security. He's under no obligation to protect the national security and this is very difficult to understand why we would not discuss Mr. ********** (Redacted) in open conversation."

First let me point out that the very same attorney that said this entered into evidence materials that clearly showed that his "the answer is no" comment is not true. I have been around lawyers too long, because I was wondering what law says that you have to obey the law? Here is the answer:

Article 14 Section 1 of The Constitution establishes that every citizen of The United States is under the jurisdiction of the law.

In edition to having to obey the law because I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America, I also took an oath of office when I entered the enlisted ranks of the US Army, and again when I earned the rank of Warrant Officer. Here is the oath:

United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office:
I, Jonathan Alexander Walkenstein, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Please notice that there is no expiration date on this oath. I am also bound by numerous laws related to the re-transmission of sensitive and or classified materials to protect National Security. Specific examples of some of the related laws include:

• Executive Order 12356 (April 2, 1982; Ronald Reagan)
• Executive Order 12958 (April 17, 1995; Bill Clinton)
• Executive Order 13292 (March 21, 2003; George W. Bush)
• The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97–200, 50 U.S.C. §§ 421–426) [This is the basis in law for Mr. Walkenstein hesitance to discuss Mr. ********** (Redacted)

The Defendant is wrong; Mr. Walkenstein is bound by Oath and Law to protect the national security of The United States.