

## The Olympic Record

### Leo LaBranche

The Pro Se Litigant

Legal Dedications

Lewis M. Brown, the Father of Preventative Law

Ruth C. Tachna, Personal Attorney

Michael H. Gottesman, Supreme Court Counselor

Peter W. Rodino, Jr., House Judiciary Chairman

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, 9th Circuit U. S. Appeals Court

Personal Dedications

Lori, Amy, Leo, Elsa, Keira, and Chloe

Published by kokopelli books™

Smashwords Edition

© Copyright 2010 Leo LaBranche

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to others. If you would like to share this book with other persons, please purchase additional copies. Thank you for respecting the copyrighted property of this author.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Prologue

Introduction

Chapter 1 11300 Vanowen

How Olympic Records came to be (1982)

Doug's Suggestion

Song Material

Go Find Olympic Records

Chapter 2 Corporations

The NEW YORK Corporation: Olympic Records, Inc. (01.05.83)

Chapter 3 Recording Sessions

For Your Inspiration Only, Kindra Koury

Chapter 4 Thomas Briccetti

RADIOLYMPIC

The Trademark design

Radio Promotion

Radio Markets

Advertised on Radio in Major Markets

Instrumental Music Sessions

Chapter 5 Trademark Office

Trademark Registration Refusal

Move to Idyllwild, California

Preparing for the Trademark Administrative court

The CBS Broadcast news program titled CROSSROADS

Federal Court

Earthquake

The First Summer from Hell

Chapter 6 Washington, D.C. Federal Court

D. C. Federal Court filing

Transfer the Case

Chapter 7 Los Angeles federal court

Ready Set - Start

The Federal Agencies

Read All About It!

The States

USOC letter to the States

Chapter 8 Gay Olympic Games \- San Francisco Arts & Athletics

Amended Complaint filing

Ex-Parte - Caution - Blunder ahead

Meeting of the Parties

Chapter 9 You Lose, Mr. LaBranche

PART II

Chapter 10 Appeals Court

National Center for Preventative Law

Private Lobbyist

What to do?

Take the Case goes to Congress

Back to Congress

Congressional Replies

Journalists

Chapter 11 Petition

Chapter 12 The Olympic Record

Newsletter Sent to 2,500 entities

Background of Olympic Records

The Suit

My Personal Petition

Excerpt From Petitions

Revised Amateur Sports Act

Participate in the Legislative Process

PART III

Chapter 13 Martian Rules of Procedure

Martian Rules of Civil Procedure

The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 - FOOTNOTE TABLE

The Amateur Sports Act (author's proposed bill)

Author's Comment

Aftermath of § 380 Amendment

Chapter 14 President Jimmy Carter Appeal

Summary

Chapter 15 Canada

Caution - Blunder Ahead

Welcome to my Olympic Blunder

Report and Transcript from Producer of the C.B.C. Journal

Chapter 16 National Association of Olympic Businesses

PART IV

Chapter 17 Dissenting Opinion

Honorable Judge Alex Kozinski

Chapter 18 NAOB and HR-1988

Chapter 19 Supreme Court takes SFAA

Summary of Argument

After the Ruling

Chapter 20 Linguistic Theft

Good-Bye Dr. Waddell – Eulogy

Chapter 21 Michael H. Gottesman

PART V

Chapter 22 Washington, One More Time

Supreme Court Opinion

Chapter 23 Peter W. Rodino, Jr.

House Judiciary Committee Response

Bio of Mr. Rodino

Chapter 24 Dear Owimpic

New York Times

Judgment And Permanent Injunction

EPILOGUE

Appendix Table

Appendix A Pro Se Litigant InformationWikipedia source

Appendix B First Amended Complaint

Appendix C Federal Court Evidence Record

Appendix D Legal Brief

Appendix E Tables of Statutes and Case Law

Appendix F Federal Rules of Evidence

Appendix G U. S. Olympic Businesses

Some people never quit. Senate Judiciary Committee correspondence.

Prologue

EQUALITY

All Persons are created Equal unless you used the word Olympic and that's where Equality ended. A music-man's solitary battle against an international conspiracy attempting to deny all Americans the Right and Privilege to use the word Olympic any time, any place, for any reason under pain of destruction and financial ruin. Congress was not responsible for this extreme position espoused and enforced but the law was subject to interpretation with prejudicial and gratuitous support from the federal courts, all the way to the top. Royalty had truly visited our federal courts. With few exceptions, most jurists bowed or curtsied as the case may be. I've heard of star-struck but this was too sad not to be true.

The 99th & 100th Congress, the Department of Justice and Federal Agencies, and 46 states were bright spots in author's Quixotic quest to use the word Olympic for his music label "Olympic Records" formed in Burbank, California 1982.

NOTE

The Olympic records of athletes are published every four (4) years by Bantam/Doubleday/Dell Books since 1964. "Guinness Book of Olympic Records" requires no permission from any Olympic committees to own and publish these statistics, now or ever. B/D/D owns the rights to the copyrighted compilation of facts in book or any other form of Media.

Follow the bouncing balls of fickle fate and bear witness to the "luck of the draw" in a fixed contest. Feel the intensity of fight or flight, a primal expression and powerful motivator. Author had an "obligation to capital" which made the conflict necessary leaving no personal choice. Some battles were won but to no avail. The war was lost in the Supreme Court (1988) and ten years later was "won" in the Congress (1998). The Epilogue reveals a closure of sorts. I submit the story is the only closure I get, if any.

My son at nine years old after observing me fight for three years asked, "Dad, are you going to be doing this the rest of your life?" Little did I know. Twenty-three years later the unhappy spirit rises from the dusty boxes.

Dedications

To the Lawyers, the Legislator, and the Judge I dedicated this compilation of facts and experiences. Without those particular Human Beings I could not have persevered, and without Mr. Brown I would not have written the story. He suggested it early on and emphasized the necessity of a chronology kept. The sub-title, The Pro Se Litigant, (as he named it) refers to the fact I was my own attorney until the U.S. court of appeals.

Self-Defense No Longer Allowed – Sorry

This may seem stupid but...

Say you were attacked and in defending your life you killed your attacker. There were witnesses and no question you were in mortal danger. It might have been a homicidal maniac or anyone bound to do you great harm. It is a basic human right to protect and defend yourself or your property and there could be no law denying it or penalty for doing so. The right to survive is basic human law, section 1, ad infinitum. It goes without saying. This law of survival is considered as true in business as it is in human relations.

One insurmountable difficulty encountered in this Odyssey was "self-defense" being taken off the table. Now if you kill someone in your own defense you're guilty of homicide and it matters not you were about to be departed. Sound a little warped? Believe it or not.

The United States Olympic Committee dictated and pursued policy and position that it had a federal law prohibiting anyone, any time, anywhere from using the word Olympic (or Olympics, see story) in the U.S.A. for any reason and "no defenses" of any kind in historical law, time, or precedent for thousands of years would be entertained or allowed. In other words if you used the word Olympic for any profit or non-profit purpose you were guilty and go directly to jail, figuratively. "Do not pass go, do not collect $200." You were NOT considered innocent until proven otherwise. You were guilty as charged arriving in court, and, after Supreme Court opinion in the Gay Olympic Games case, it was the Law of the Land (1987). Over time the law was amended (1998) and corrected or changed to conform with, of all things, the author's positions claimed and asserted in Petitions filed with the Congress noted as received and referred in the Congressional Record.

Only the mythical Gods of Olympus had such deviated clout and they were a fiction. The original Olympic law was concocted in France in 1894 with the Olympic word borrowed from Greece. In 1978 Congress did a good deed and enacted the Amateur Sports Act, gave them $30 million, and as usual, "no good deed went unpunished."

CLOSING

I am not an author except of a song or two. I'm reporting my experiences that created the Public Record that became The Olympic Record. I left the story in boxes for 23 years because I had no use for the experience and re-visiting disappointments is not an act of sanity. During the court time I amassed 100 pounds of documents and evidence stored in boxes cataloging the experience and events. The boxes followed me through the years. Some had records showing $300k in expenses from start-up in 1982 to Supreme Court opinion in 1988. I would not acknowledge the events except when I moved the boxes that for some reason I could not throw away, and I tried. I thought it must be penance, punishment or purgatory for standing up for myself. A great payback for being correct.

January 1, 2010 I woke early one cold Colorado morning and wondered how long I had to live. Three months later this story was completed. Snow outside and ten hour days. Something I had to do that had been in avoidance and denial for many, many years.

See what you think, after all, it might have been You.

Introduction We Are the Public

The reader may be entertained by this non-fiction or be disbelieving of it and possibly both. No matter your take on the story, the parties, or the author, we have one thing in common. We are members of the Public. Things I say are "mine" by being a public member are also "yours," unless you beg to differ. We have Public rights and privileges, Public laws, Public parks, Public records, Public protections. We have a Constitution enacted for the Public (people), and we have the Public Domain. Sometimes the words Public and National are interchangeable. A National Park is there for us, the Public. The entire U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is a public document, and it belongs to us. It is supposed to be Our contract with Our country. The laws therein are ours if we chose to know what they are and use them. This history is about the word Olympic which belongs to the Public and as a member of the Public it also belongs to me. We are, in fact, the "Olympic Public."

"A public domain was one of the Framers' (Constitution) most important gifts to our cultural traditions." Lawrence W. Lessig, Stanford Law Professor and author.

Code and the Laws of Cyberspace.

PART I

Chapter 1 11300 Vanowen Street, North Hollywood, California

Imagine a dark, windowless space with black and white (linoleum) squares on the floor likely not deep cleaned in 20 years. Two bath rooms, his and hers, and a small storage room at the back. The walls reflected the breathing, actions, and karma of local patrons over the years - I mean, this isn't Cheers. The space had been rented by an immigrant for the past 20 years. He moved and put his new version his bar, the Embers, less than 300 feet away in a separate building. The original Embers was the corner unit of old strip mall, front and back door only. In the 'mall' we have a Korean market, an adult bookstore, a laundry, and a suspicious never opened unit, and me in the ex-Embers bar. The owner of the mall is a nice guy from Beverly Hills, his zip is 90210, like the TV show. Across the street are heavy-duty aerospace companies and support technologies, in part, to support the Burbank Airport a few miles down the road. I marveled at the Rolls Royce right across the street. I could see it by looking through my peep hole.

This is before Olympic Records and I was driving a delivery truck at the time. In Southern California, like many large cities, businesses have difficulty disposing of large objects they don't need because it cost a fortune to get rid of them if required to pay someone to pick them up. When I would deliver to the backs of businesses there would be things worth thousands of dollars if someone were to come and get it. There were wealthy salvage barons who would make the rounds every few days. They were equipped with small cranes and lifts and could grab just about anything. The trouble with salvage is you must have a place to put it, and there is little space in southern California for anything or anybody, and this was then (1981). One day I started salvaging because I drove/had a truck, I was barely making a living, and I had some space since I had nothing in it but the Fender Rhodes piano, a salvaged recliner, and a cat. One day I saw 50 2-ply solid glass windows that had been removed from a hi-rise. Some of the sides were chipped. They were encased with rubber sealant that coated all edges. It must have been installed and removed for flaws. These were silver plated windows you see in the skyscrapers. Each piece was 38 by 56 and came in at 54 pounds. This I wanted, a treasure I guess, maybe sell some. I went back that night and picked up 40 windows, about a ton of 2-ply glass. They were absolutely beautiful (silver/steel grey glass with diffuser between the panes) and my rental unit could use a lift of any kind. I glassed in 1000 of the 1200 sq. ft.. When you walked in the room it was interesting. No outside light so when you lit the room right with a few small lights you could make the room look like heaven (subject to who was in it). It covered the ugly and was a one of a kind space. The future home of Olympic Records, not yet a tone in this musician's ear. After getting used to it you didn't see the mirrors at all. Thick glass is sound proof and it was quiet.

**How Olympic Records came to be (1982)**

We were going into business. Start-up capital has been established. In August 1982 we're sitting around the table at Vanowen discussing how to organize our new company and music release. Present are Sally, me, Doug, Joe, and ever present T.O.. I was producer and musician, Sally was finance and therapist, Doug was computers and musician, and Joe was promotions and musician. Still in the talking stage, what to call the company? In many ways it didn't matter what it's called as in the music business, to a large extent, it is just a handle for identification. A trade-name. You have A&M, RCA, ABC, Capital, Columbia, Motown, MCA, Arista, Planet, Capital, Atlantic, Pacific, Liberty, American, Virgin, Sun, Moon, Stars, BMG, BMW, your kids name or your dog's name, it doesn't really matter - but could it? The value of the name of a music company or record company is directly associated with its reputation and the value and popularity of the music and artists it owns and releases for public consumption. Like a song, no one really cares or knows, or even thinks about, who wrote the song. It makes no difference in their accepting of a recording. They only absorb who is singing the song and it doesn't matter a 'hill of beans' who wrote it. (Everyone thinks Elvis songs are Elvis songs. Elvis wrote few of them). So, something germane would be the right name. The word Records prefaced by something. And soon there won't be any more records 'cause records were vinyl and vinyl was leaving the building. PS: A good vinyl pressing (record) played on a record player with better than average needle going to a decent reproduction system (amp and speakers) is better than any music fidelity you will ever experience anywhere except for, or with, metal masters, which you would never hear. Aficionados still buy and special order vinyl records and sales are increasing exponentially.

**Doug's Suggestion**

After a few beers, Doug (our soon to be computer programmer when PC's were just arriving) suggested Olympic Records. We all laughed knowing full well it existed already. The name was so common and obvious we were sure it was in use. I would have lost everything (I little to lose) on the bet that Olympic Records was somewhere just around the corner in L.A. or New York. I would have bet my life on it, figuratively speaking. My experience in the music business made me more positive than anyone and more wrong than anyone. The meeting adjourned when we ran out of beer and I proceeded with normal start-up activities. Sally Singer, Doug Belli, Joseph Kelly, Kindra Koury, the singer, and I, were the principals. T.O. was climbing around in the rafters as always. Five people and cat became the core of the company.

**Song Material**

I began the process and searched for song material for Kindra who wanted to record a gospel music album. This was a good idea since that market is small compared to the general market and we would be able to handle it with our modest start-up resources. Religious radio stations, sometimes referred to as Christian radio stations, were nationwide so it would be possible to cover the country and see if we could make a mark in that genre with our first recording. Month to month we prepared for the first recording sessions that would begin in October with a release of the record to radio in the early Spring. The Vanowen studio space was just right for rehearsals and after locating and choosing the songs we got them ready for the recording sessions to follow.

**TI-99 Texas Instrument**

One of the first consumer PC's on the market was a Texas Instrument product called the TI-99. The only place you could buy one was Toy's R Us and they didn't seem to be selling like hot cakes. They were right next to GI Joe. It cost about $1,000 and was simply hardware that you had to assemble. If you wanted it to function you had to get the programming manual and program it yourself. If you wanted the CPU to do anything other than basic tasks you had to buy hardware plug-in modules and then program for that particular use. Thank God for Doug 'cause without him we were going to be using pencils, paper, and a typewriter. He spent many hours daily learning to program the box so we could have a rudimentary database with which we could make and keep records as well as print labels and letters. Radio station data was the main reason for needing it. Eventually for invoices and such. We had to be able to print mailing labels as well as keep track of things by state and by station. Doug worked many hours to experience what crashing was all about. I mean hours and days. Sometimes a week would go by and he would have nothing to show for it but a blank screen. A dedicated man and fine musician.

**Go Find Olympic Records**

I went about trying to locate Olympic Records. In the local Library I found recent business directory publications and I first searched in California, then New York, then Illinois and Tennessee presuming any record company using that name would be in one of the large metropolitan areas. I did not locate any company or corporation by that name. I later looked in all states and none there either. I did find one reference to a company named Olympic Records that had closed in 1978 in New York. On further investigation I found they were an American company exclusively importing Classical music from Italy. They had a logo of a guy throwing a discus. They were in no way involved in recording or producing music in America ands they were out of business.

This couldn't be true! How on earth could this fantastic and obvious trade name in the record business not be in use? Especially since we were collectively so sure.

\- We later found 90% of all radio we contacted during the promotion period were equally sure that the company was, and had been, in existence forever and they believed we were that company - These radio stations were also adamant that they be put on our list of stations and that we provided them with all future products from our company. Quickly we stopped arguing with them. We apologized for not sending them records in the past. This happened every day during promotion cycle. Hey, "How you been and where you been so long and why haven't we heard from you in lately?" This is what we heard day after day. They thought we were 'somebody' and I assure you we were not who they thought because who they thought did not exist. This was the ever present mysterious myth, mystery or curse attached to the tradename.

OK, let me try to use it. I obtained, as required, 2 businesses licenses from Los Angeles County (wholesale and retail); a d/b/a from the state of California (notice published in the Tolucan); a re-sales tax permit from the state of California; the federal Employer Identification Number (E.I.N.) from the I.R.S. of the Treasury Department. A local business license was also required from North Hollywood. That was about it. What else can I do to legitimize my company? I now have local, city, county, state, and federal permission and authorization to be Olympic Records. I'm excited.

Chapter 2 California Department of Corporations

Since we are all working for no pay, just occasional expenses, there needed to be a way to legalize or make official our relationships with, and to, each other so we would know where we stood with respect to shares of the company and profits. No one was to get any salary of any kind. Capital needed to be protected and each of us needed some written documentation or proof as partners so to speak. Well, we need to incorporate. A logical next step and the only next step available. No problem. I telephone California Secretary of State Corporations Division and request a name reservation. I know we are the only one using the name so it should be an easy task as all licensing and permitting has previously been. Here comes my first shock. I am informed over the phone that the name is not available because of the Olympic Committee's federal statute prohibiting use of the word Olympic for the purposes of trade. I apply by mail to get a written refusal and do. There is reference to the federal law known as The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 and the specific prohibitive section is §380. I called and ordered a copy of the law from the Clerk of the House of Representatives and it arrives in about a month. There is no Internet so there is no instant gratification as far as collecting data goes.

**The NEW YORK Corporation: Olympic Records, Inc. (01.05.83)**

Now I need a lawyer. Though I was familiar with U.S. Copyright law, being a composer with numerous Copyrights, this did not seem correct. I knew nothing of any laws, statutes or regulations, pertaining to anything except copyright law. But I believe the law is in all of us and I know it was in me. What I believed in my gut at that instant in time was as true then as it is now, 28 years later. Olympic is already in the Public Domain and is in legal use all over the country for every class of goods and services that exist in our Country. That's what this story is about.

Sally says we will go see Ruth. Sally's acquaintance is Ruth C. Tachna, an attorney living in Marina del Rey. She was about 80 years old then and a semi-retired criminal prosecutor from New York State. Her New York office was in White Plains and she was partner with Cherry Krassner. Ruth was also a law professor and taught at Northrop University near LAX, a course she called, Space Law, as in outer space. I presumed satellite technology and things like that. I never asked. At the first meeting she advised incorporating in New York State. It hadn't occurred to me. Since she had an office in New York it would be considered Olympic Records location for service of process as is required by state and corporate law. She applied through Prentiss-Hall Corporation Service that very meeting and we were granted a reservation for the name and accomplish incorporation status 2 days later January 5th, 1983. Though incorporated in New York how do we manifest this corporation in California? It will not grant foreign corporation status due to the Olympic restriction now being applied. So Olympic Records, Inc. could not legally do business in California under, or using, it's own name. A few days after inking Ruth says, form a California Corporation under a different name and have Olympic Records, Inc. issue it a license to do business in California as Olympic Records. A great idea and solution (smart lawyers). Now what to call the California Corporation and have it connected in some way. I believe or recall Olympic had a connection to Mount Olympus so we formed the Mount Olympus Records Corporation. We file in California, which goes without a hitch and later issue ourselves a corporate license to do business in California from the NY Corporation as Olympic Records, effectively licensing our own name to ourselves. Now I feel like we're safe and sound for a while and we are, for a while. Now we are corporate legal.

I have to admit the original reason for the effort was to start a record label using Kindra as the first recording and product. Now my reason for the entire effort and present focus and soon to be obsession is now to adhere and conform to the federal trademark laws requirements, among which, you be in interstate commerce before you apply for a registered trademark in the Patent & Trademark Office (hereinafter "trademark office"). We were undoubtedly going to be in interstate commerce (you can't sell a record in just one state unless it is a state song or something local). The law is satisfied many times by a person seeking a trade mark simply selling a product over one state border (even once) and that is enough to satisfy that requirement of being in interstate commerce. The world is full of exceptions, loopholes, and circumvents.

My focus is on the trademark and I'm to be inducted into tunnel vision. Make money fine, sell some records fine, make a name, create goodwill, fine and all manner of these things necessary, but that is not my reason. I want ownership of the trademark. Let's put the record out, promote it, sell some and after doing so apply to the Trademark Office, register the trademark and logo design and go after capital investment for a run at competing with the bigger dogs. You need more capital than we were going to have to compete with even minor independent labels with promotion. Not to compete with Michael Jackson or Elton John and other superstars but some companies then, and surely now, invest 100's of thousands of dollars in promotion to get their recordings heard (radio play) and sold (distribution). Even when they didn't "need" to spend tons of cash this was a biggest part of business. Mega companies go head to head with million dollar promotion budgets and independent labels with deserving artists and products were somewhat foreclosed from competing in the game, at least in the game for the biggest radio markets. It's all radio then, no Internet. Radio play is advertising and the larger the metro-market the more listeners and the more exposure and sales. Autonomous radio promoters made one hell of a living calling their friends, programmers, and DJ's in major markets and telling them what songs they needed them to play. Thousands of dollars a week go to Harry to tell Joe which songs to push of the newest records. Even if your record and artist 'stinks' you can still promote the hell out of it and it will get airtime and sales will result. You are in competition with all things, good, bad, or mediocre, and the factor most in play is promotion money, not the merit of the recording, or the artist, or the song. Also, "stink" is in the ear of the beholder.

Olympic Records needed the registration and notice ® to begin to think it could raise money and protect the shareholders and investors. By virtue of owning the mark, company, and corporate stock this could be addressed. With no proof of ownership of the company and trade name there was going to be no Olympic Records. We need United States proof, authorization, and permission (sanction).

Chapter 3 The Recordings

The sessions begin at Monterey Sound in Glendale, engineered by Wayne Neuendorf and continue at Producers Workshop in Hollywood with Ben Rodgers, later mastered at the Mastering Lab by Ron Hitchcock, singles mastered by Arnie Acosta. The players are William "Smitty" Smith, on Piano and Hammond Organ (2 songs). Will Boulware on Piano (his song). Joe Kelly, Guitars and Doug Belli, Bass. Doane Perry, Drums and Novi, Viola and Synthesizer. I was on Fender Rhodes piano and Flugelhorn.

FYIO Album title:For Your Inspiration Only Kindra Koury

Two things were agreed between Kindra and I. One was that you need not Praise the Lord with every breathe in order to be singing a "spiritual" song and message. And we agreed 'subtle' was the idea for the main song that we would try to promote. You can praise the Lord and not even mention His name. What matters is in your heart. She picked two songs we agreed are inspirational but not overtly religious. Kindra's first choice was a great song by David Lasley & Alice Willis "Come What May" (I think she knew Alice). One of the most beautiful songs I ever heard. This would be the 'single.' Kindra's vocal was as good as anyone ever sang anything, and Amen. (sound like her producer?) Her soulful style came from early influences: Bessie Smith, Ella Fitzgerald, and Dinah Washington were among the best female singers. Kindra is of Greek descent and this may add to the color of her voice. I asked her before she sang that first and final take on Come What May, "When you arrive at the last music note of the song, the word 'May,' add a smile to that word. You should hear it. The other song she chose was "Over the Rainbow" [Harold Arlen - E.Y. Harburg song] in a gospel style. She requested a specific musician to accompany her on this song and he was William "Smitty" Smith, a famous Hollywood pianist, singer, and writer. When he played you didn't need anybody else. Kindra also chose a song he wrote, "Saved by the Grace of Your Love." Another song was by, now famous jazz pianist and composer, Will Boulware, "Everyone Needs a Hiding Place" (go to his site). Kindra picked one of my songs I wrote with Joe Wilson called "Satisfied Mind." Kindra and Joe Kelly penned two songs together, Don't Cry No More and Sweet Ride Jesus. Kindra also picked "You Must Not Fear It" by Rob Moitoza and "Precious Lord," her Mom's favorite hymn.

Chapter 4 Thomas Briccetti - Mentor and Maestro

At this time I am in the union (A.F.M. - 20 years) and my re-use checks come to the L.A. local. There are still occasions when membership is advantageous. If you were to play on television or films you want to be Union. If you're a big shot you make our own deals, but you're still in Union. Membership includes a monthly newspaper called "The International Musician." The back ten pages are ads mostly posting vacancies in Symphony Orchestras around the country and the world. I would sometimes read these ads wistfully wishing I could be in a secure position as a player in a symphony orchestra might be. So it was like reading the 'help wanted' for entertainment. In one issue I came across an ad for an opening in the Omaha Symphony Orchestra, and the music director-conductor was Thomas Briccetti who I saw last in '64' (Youth Symphony) before leaving for Denver for my short college education. I got together some tunes, put them on a cassette and sent it to him with a letter of gratitude for all he was back then for me. He knew me only as trumpet. I sent him songs. He was a fine composer and I wanted him to hear the 'product of my time' as it is called. You can't help loving your teacher. He called a week later and I heard his voice and had a system crash. He meant so much 'then' that when transported back to 'then' by his voice it was realization of how much I loved him.

We exchange pleasantries and he says, "that guy singing on the tape you sent ain't no Frank Sinatra" but he might sound good with the orchestra or chamber group. He was saying I would fit singing with the Symphony. You and I have dreams that we admit to no one (maybe) and this was one of those dreams and I'm hearing a dream come true from my mentor and maestro. And I can't seem do a thing about it. Recording an orchestra is no small proposition and the fees for 35 or 90 musicians are not small, though they are worth it. If Olympic was going to be "me only" then all funds available might be used for this debut of my performing with an orchestra. I missed the boat on this one, and it left without me. Olympic Records is starting up and all plans have been made for its capital. Maybe later after we start up and get going, sure. Got a spare 30 thousand? Mr. Briccetti mentioned his favorite of the songs I sent, excerpt below.

A Monkey's Broken Dreams © Eleo Music ASCAP

The song came after seeing an organ grinder, in early days (70's) of Underground Atlanta, with a monkey and being hopeful that I, we, were not chained to the organ grinder. We have a choice, the monkey doesn't. I'm now not so sure.

A Verse and Chorus below

A Monkey in the street is doing tricks to win a coin

The animal is leashed, he's in a club he didn't join

His employer feeds him often and he's visibly kind

But once in a while he loses his mind

And the Monkey feels his Broken Dreams

And as the Organ Grinds the world is spinning

People dying, people winning

On their way to somewhere called Unknown

And as the Organ Grinds try not to worry

No one has the time hurry

Choice sets us apart from Monkey's Broken Dreams

Later Mr. Briccetti writes and puts his proposal in print regarding a possible project between us. I will cherish that letter. We lose contact again as you will see what's coming does not bode well for close communications with almost anyone.

Fast Forward: In 2002 in locate Mr. Briccetti (email search) in Perugia, Italy teaching master classes. We communicate warmly back and forth several times (we had the same Mac Computer, Music Software, and the Kurzweil keyboard). My last mailing to Mr. Briccetti included CD's of my new musical (Truth & Justice). I received an answer from his partner and librettist, Robert Levin. Mr. Briccetti had passed away suddenly. A story on Bob Levin in Part VIII (autobiographical version of this book) and Briccetti's Opera, "The Contract."

Back to Olympic startup

**RADIOLYMPIC**

In these ancient times radio stations were still receiving and playing single 45 R.P.M. records. A company would send out what were called "singles" from the album to test the waters and see if a certain song was going to become popular. Sometimes if the first single didn't attract attention the company would send, release as it was called, a different single and see if it had a better response. People still bought 45's back then but that was soon to change and album sales (LP's) were what kept a company in business.

**The Trademark design**

Paul Roells fine engraving work. G & W Trophies in North Hollywood. I requested he use the torch on the Roosevelt dime as example, fatten it and give it different flames. Incredibly fine artistic engraving. Starting with a [one ounce] Canadian Maple Leaf he hammered it down to make a round wafer. I never saw gold look so good, I never saw gold before, not as in coin in hand. Go for the Gold (record).

**Radio Promotion**

We released "Come What May" first, it being the more sophisticated song on the record. Some love it and aired it right out of the mailer and others thought it was not religious enough for their demographic. So we sent those stations a single song from the album that was more to their audiences taste. Promotion means getting the station to locate your mailing, review it, see if they will play it (even once) and see how their audience responds. We would follow up and hear what happened. We would log the data and use it for promotions to other radio stations. Two guys were on the telephone several hours a day for several months. Joe Kelly was a natural at telephone radio promotions. He had a gift of gab, great sounding voice, and a fine musician (guitar). He could talk the talk. Kindra did telephone (on-air) interviews and I did my share of calling. I concentrated on the northeast and there were fewer non-profit religious stations but they were important and in the largest metro areas. Doug is stuck face to face with the computer.

The records are shipped and the radio stations begin playing and we find out we were already well known, mysteriously. But there's a problem. Some of the more conservative stations balk at her record cover where they submit she looks too provocative. I didn't put the record out to offend people with the artwork and she could look like a fallen angel to some. Too much attention paid to airbrushing and all that (tried to make color from a black and white), my fault. Some thought she looked like a hooker. The Mary Magdalen syndrome, I called it. I should have ignored it but my knee jerked and I designed a plain cover and re-released it. This was really unnecessary, but was an effort not to offend and had nothing to do with profit because there was not going to be any, sadly to some. We sold records and tapes but nothing to suggest any profit was going to erupt. We got the machine working. When you sent a record to a radio station they would seldom know it arrived until you called them about it. Hundreds of records a day could arrive, at the larger station, and no one would know, or care, about it unless you called about it. First step in radio promotion, "Did you get my record? What record? It's the one with the girl with overly made up face. Oh, yeah, "that one! Are you sure you sent this to the right place, you know we're a Christian station, don't you?" And so it would go. Some had no problem with the cover picture, but others thought we were based in the bad place or maybe had no Christian sense. I sinned, I'm sorry. I got the record aired all over the country, a good effort for a start-up. Some stations, no kidding, played her whole album once a day for weeks. Very small sales. Sales are seldom a start-up businesses main concern. You gotta be there first, spread some goodwill, get to know the people, that's the first goal. And it was working.

I thank the Radio Stations listed for being there at the beginning of Olympic Records. I also thank them for revealing the mysterious phenomena of the existence of Olympic Records, in their minds and memories - one or the other) which was the exact phenomena which had affected me and the other founders of Olympic Records. This trade name has value and good will attached to it, in the recognition sense for sure, and how can that be? Was this name just sitting around in the ethers waiting for someone to use it? Is it a trap or trick? How about a curse? I earlier investigated, everywhere, and found evidence of all prior Olympic Records companies going back to 1921. I researched the (foreboding) Library of Congress for this ancient information. The last O.R. closed in '78' and imported classical recordings from Italy. OK, I'm convinced. Something good this way may come. It's summer 1983 and Kindra and Olympic aired in 34 States.

**RADIO - SOUTHERN REGION**

WJHO, Opelika - HNDA, Huntsville - WRAG, Carrollton

WAGG, Birmingham - WCLS, Phenix City Alabama

WQCC, Charlotte - WHVN, Charlotte

WDJS, Mount Olive. North Carolina

WQTI, Greenville - WPJX, Goose Creek South Carolina

WFNE, Macon - WHGI, Augusta - WYNX, Smyrna

WLOR, Thomasville - WSOK, Savannah - WXLL, Decatur Georgia

WVCG, Coral Gables - WGLY, Miami - WVCF, Orlando - WEXY, Ft. Lauderdale

WAMF, Tallahassee - WCVC, Tallahassee - WPCF, Panama City Beach

WSST, Largo - WWBC, Cocoa - WMFJ, Daytona Beach Florida

KWAM, Memphis - WCOR, Lebanon - WDEB, Jamestown

WITA, Knoxville Tennessee

WSKY, Dallas - WJAK, Lubbock Texas

KWLV, Many - KDXI, Mansfield - KCIJ, Shreveport Louisiana

NORTHEAST REGION

WEZE, Milton Mass.

WTOW, Baltimore Maryland

WWWG, Rochester New York

WPIT, Pittsburgh - WPLW, Pittsburgh - WTIV, Titusville Pennsylvania

WKBA, Roanoke - WZAP, Bristol - WTTX, Appomattox

WNLR, Churchville - WQPO, Harrisonburg Virginia

WNNN, Salem New Jersey

WOTW, Nashua New Hampshire

WOXO, Norway - WLOB, Portland Maine

WYCB, Washington D.C.

CENTRAL REGION

WQBH, Detroit - WFUR, Grand Rapids - WDFP, Battle Creek

WKJR, Muskegon Heights Michigan

KNOF, St. Paul - WNCB, Duluth Minnesota

WPEO, Peoria - WIBI, Carlinville - WEIC, Charleston Illinois

WTOF, Cedar Rapids Iowa

WXLW, Indianapolis - WSLM, Salem Indiana

WFMW, Madisonville - WHKK, Erlanger Kentucky

WSUM, No. Royalton - WGIC, Xenia Ohio

KCNW, Shawnee Mission Kansas

WJJQ, Tomahawk - WGMO, Shell Lake Wisconsin

WESTERN REGION

KEST, San Francisco - KWSO, Wasco - KDAR, Oxnard

KJAY, Sacramento - KMAY, Riverside - KEWQ, Paradise

KMJC, San Diego - KRML, Carmel - KTED, Fresno California

KQXI, Denver - KWYD, Security - KPIK, Colorado Springs Colorado

KDAZ, Albuquerque New Mexico

KXEG, Phoenix - KRDS, Phoenix - KVOI, Tucson Arizona

KSWY, Cheyenne Wyoming

KURL, Billings Montana

KBBX, Salt Lake City Utah

KGDN, Seattle - KBLE, Seattle - KCKO, Spokane Washington

KICR, Coos Bay Oregon

**Advertised on Radio in Major Markets**

Radio spots four times a day for 10 days.

WPLW, Pittsburgh - WSLM, Salem, In., WGLY, Miami - WGCC, Charlotte

WPJX, Memphis, WEZE, Boston - WTOW, Baltimore

This was my last effort to get some company to raise its head and say, "Hey buddy, I'm Olympic Records." When you're advertising in major markets using the Olympic Records tradename on the radio someone will turn up if some is out there. No one appeared.

**Instrumental Music Sessions**

Shortly after Kindra's recording I went to a studio called, Sunset Sound Factory. I had long a desire to record a few of my instrumental songs featuring the trumpet and flugelhorn. I assembled the players, Carlos Vega and Lenny Castro on drums; Doug on Bass; Joe Kelly on guitars; myself on piano and trumpet/flugelhorn. We recorded three instrumentals and with time remaining I recorded a song written back in Vietnam days, lyric from 1972 and music added in 1983 called, "The Victors, The Victims."

We mix at Producers Workshop with Ben. We master at the Lab with Ron Hitchcock. Ron was well known and unknown in Hollywood. He was Neal Diamond's recording engineer and mixer for 15 years. Most of what you heard of Neal was Ron's work. He was also responsible for the (edits) making the song between Barbara Streisand and Neal, "You Don't Bring Me Flowers Anymore" possible. He was instrumental in the "Jazz Singer." He seldom had opportunity to work for other than Neal so few knew him. I had some great sessions with him. The instrumental recordings go on the shelf.

Chapter 5 The Patent & Trademark Office

By years end I made the application to the trademark office. The first application was returned because I included the wrong fee. It had gone up. Four months later after moving to a new location (less space/costs) on Wyoming Avenue in Burbank I received the first refusal. I was refused registration because of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. The same reason California refused me the right to incorporate. It was a hellava day.

**Trademark Registration Refusal**

What to do now with this trademark office refusal. I re-read it and it says to 'appeal' this decision there is a six-month window within which you must respond. The trademark office had it's own administrative court (as most agencies) and that was where one would go to prosecute or defend any action taken in support of your application. Six months wasn't a long time. What to do now with the people of Olympic Records and the two new recordings we had which were soon to be released. It didn't take long to realize Olympic Records was dead, for now. Without the trademark registration there was no reason to continue. I could continue without the registration of the mark but that was my reason for living and also it would be circumventing the law. You don't circumvent a law that is wrong. Remaining capital was needed to prosecute our rights, if any, and who knew how long or whether we could prevail. This will have to be a singular effort. I turn over the new singer/recording artist project to Doug and shelve the instrumental music project just completed. Tell Joe all is over, for now, and thanks and sorry for the journey to nowhere. I am devastated. One federal agency says you are OK and legal to be who you are, (Treasury Department), and in fact, tacitly authorizes you to be, and another agency says you are not supposed to exist. Doug takes over the office, gets financial support and goes on with life and forms Melody Marketing with the artist, Billy Milo, and they go about preparing to market and release his recordings. What am I to do, where am I to go, and how am I going to continue. And what is it that I am missing about all of this?

**Move to Idyllwild, California**

My friend and partner, Sally, had a mountain home seldom used except in summer. 24640 Upper Rim Rock Road, I was there once. It was built for summer and not insulated. Idyllwild was in the San Jacinto Mountains above Palm Springs and was between 5 and 7 thousand foot elevation. I called her and suggested that I go there and live while I sorted this trademark thing out. She relented and I will not forget the day I drove from Burbank in my ancient Oldsmobile 98, the tank, up the hill from Hollywood to Hemet to the Idyllwild house. This car got nine miles a gallon. Law enforcement stopped me for some reason, maybe I looked suspicious. My son Leo was sleeping under a sleeping bag on the front seat. While being questioned he woke up and came out from under the bag and startled the officer. All was well though and he let me go and I continued up the hill. Leo spent every summer with me since he was five until he was 17. Otherwise he was with his Mom in Hawaii where she lived on the Big Island.

**Preparing for the Trademark Administrative court**

On moving to Idyllwild, and three months before the C.B.S. Program "Crossroads" aired, I began trips to the Riverside County Law Library (RCLL) which was 60 miles away, up and down the hill to Banning and I-10 to Riverside.

One mistake on that road and you're not found unless you burst into flames. The road took many a life, especially in winter. Once someone disappeared and was found three years later, they thought he had skipped town. He skipped all right \- right of the cliff. I would go to RCLL and locate materials to begin my education. I had successfully avoided education my entire life by being immersed in music. At least I can read and I can use the copier. I would make photocopies of all things pertinent to trademark law and administrative court rules and regulations and how to write a complaint in a federal forum. Photocopies at the Law Library were 15¢ and I was taking home $50 worth of photo paper each trip. I made about three trips weekly. The copier and I were great friends or enemies I'm not sure which. I would go home, build a fire and read until I was catatonic. Then would walk a few miles, as I still do, and back to read until no brain left. I never read anything in my life except music and science fiction. I would have to read many things five or more times just to understand 'part of it.' When I thought I understood it I was often wrong, as understanding is subjective. Eventually the pile and boxes weighed a hundred pounds. There was a lot more to learn but that comes later. I investigated origins of trademarks since it's a basic property right. I opened books that had not been opened in years, if ever, since they were put on the shelves. I read every case in Supreme Court digest and reports that was relative trademarks back to 1880's when it was a property right and there was no trademark law. I knew in my heart and soul I was right, but many a man has believed that on his way to oblivion, or worse. If you read forty hours a week you will eventually get it, what ever it is. And what's right got to do with it; not much. Though connected I could not face the music and play piano, sing, or play trumpet. The brain knew the condition and the heart wouldn't stand for it. A solitary existence was the order of the day, night, week, and year(s). I did get away with Sally every week or so. Jump in the car, drive down to Palm Desert to I-10 and then across the desert to Parker Dam and then anywhere you wanted along the Colorado lake chain. Get a cheap fishing boat and enjoy the break. We knew all the lakes. If you can't renew you can't work. In my case I needed not to read a few days. We went away during the week so not to be anywhere anyone was. I've always felt if you go somewhere and everyone is there you might as well be home.

**The CBS Broadcast news program titled CROSSROADS**

The TV program "Crossroads" with Charles Kuralt and Bill Moyers. My son Leo is flipping the channel changer in the other room while I'm in the kitchen fixing supper. Had he (now 6) not been sampling different stations and landed on that August CBS broadcast this whole ordeal could have ended in the administrative court of the trademark office in 1984 because that's where I was to go to pursue it. I overhear the program and shout from the kitchen Don't Change that Channel. I was mesmerized by what I was seeing and hearing. This was one of my first real experiences with the fight or flight syndrome. You know, like you're standing there with a gun in your face. This was three months exactly into my preparation for the trademark office refusal. Three months remaining in the time frame for responding. Clear as day I can no longer go to the trademark court to pursue my beef, which is the rejection of my trademark application. Two years later during the third summer from hell Leo asks, "Are you going to do this the rest of your life?" Ouch, I've been doing this for three years now and that's a third of his life and the main part of his life he remembers. In retro I had no idea I'd be paying from then until now.

**Federal Court**

Back to RCLL. Oh God, please, no. Now I need to know 99 things that I don't know and don't even know what I don't know. But it's all down there at the RCLL. Three more months of sixty miles down, sixty miles back and watch the curves. I was their most frequent and best customer. They named the copier after me. It was like I worked there.

**Earthquake**

One morning at 4 AM that summer I was awakened by a loud roar that seemed far off, but not for long. A six pointer was upon us centered on the Banning Fault about 50 miles down elevation and underground, of course. The Idyllwild house was built on top of solid granite (all of it) and the house went up and down instead of side to side, as is the usual for quakes, and I never heard volume or sound like that in my life. It was as if a giant was upon us. It threw me out of bed to the floor. My only thought, once I had one, was that my son was in the finished basement and the night before we had built a fort out of containers of Olympic Records. Each pack had 25 LP's each weighing about 15 pounds and we had an entire area, including a roof made from these containers. I couldn't even get to the door from the bedroom to the living room to go down the hall and down the stairs to the basement. The shaking stopped in about 30 seconds; it was the longest 30 seconds of my life. I go to the basement and the 'fort' of Olympic Records containers has collapsed on Leo. He wasn't hurt but had no idea what on earth had happened.

The First Summer from Hell (three more to go, good not to know)

Now I find I need to locate, photocopy, and study federal rules of procedure; local federal rules (D.C. court rules); the Judicial Codes (for jurisdictional); Constitutional law (eventually bought Chester Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, 2 vols. and Federal Trial Handbook 2nd (Hunter)); case law re The Fifth, First, Fourteenth Amendments; Article IV; Copyright law; Trademark law; Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts; and Article I. I did not know I needed to know this array of laws but one law led to the next and I became familiar with all of them. I also had to read legislative intents. As familiar as possible with the three months of time I had left. Technology is catching up with us and I have a Macintosh computer for all things needed to be saved and printed, including my first complaint. This was the first Mac, 128k, with the humongous 8-inch screen and a noisy dot matrix printer. I thought I knew how to read and was proud of knowledge acquired during my first three months of intense study. It's a good thing I had practice reading because "now I'm reading with a vengeance." Leo went home to Hawaii as usual the end of August, always as an unaccompanied minor (he flew more by the time he was twelve than I did up to that time) and he had no short trips. LA to Kona over and over. One time he went Atlanta to L.A. to Kona, he and his skateboard. We would not look each other in the eye when he boarded because we knew it was gonna be a while till Christmas, he came for a month at Christmas too. A much longer separation when he went back after Christmas. He was my boy. My body lies over the ocean.

Now I have September and one week in October remaining before the statutory time clock lapses. This time period is a blur. Fight or flight equivalent to being on the edge of stroking out any minute. It's now or it's over. Ruth said in her quiet way, "fish or cut bait." The first three months had served me. I knew my way around RCLL so when I needed something it simply appeared. I could not read much while at the library, as I would have had to live there. Hundreds of Supreme Court digests and decisions were studied. In point of fact every case that existed in the books remotely pertaining to my issues, at least the synopsis or syllabus. I was an over-doer or over-duer and I have no life but this. As the judge later said, pursuing the "Impossible Dream." This isn't supposed to be impossible, and I'm wondering whether this is dream or nightmare. How about the "Impossible Curse?"

Chapter 6 Washington D.C. federal court

California was not fair to me (go figure and big surprise) and though a state and not a federal entity I felt filing my complaint in California federal court would be a mistake, maybe fatal. Call it instinct or physic vision or plain paranoia. Time would tell I could not have been more right. And though the case ended up back in L.A. (by transfer from the D.C. court) it was more than fortunate that I made that trip to D.C. to file. The Law says: You can sue anyone wherever they may be located and the USOC general counsel was in D.C. so I fly to Washington and to the federal court house to file. Some say the most important federal district court in the land and I would agree. That's where much of the big stuff starts and where the big guys, including the government, go to litigate their cases. It's just down the street.

**D. C. Federal Court filing**

I arrive in D.C. timed to avoid staying overnight. At eleven I'm at the clerk's intake desk and they're open. A day prior the President closed the federal government and sent 550,000 people home because of budget arguments with Congress. All U.S. agencies were closed until the difficulty reconciled. The young clerk smiled and told me, "We're always open." I handed him the complaint and he said, $10. There's a fee I could handle. I wait and he dates it (October 5, 1984) and informed me it is assigned to Judge Barrington Parker. I later found he was Hinkley's judge. Judges in the D.C. district court are not lightweights. That's done and I fly home to LA (had drinks on the plane and fell asleep). Now with a slight hangover it's back up the hill to Idyllwild, a three hour drive from LAX. On the way I drive by the RCLL at 3 A.M.. I guess I'll see if going there so much was going to pay off, or if I've got it all wrong. I made the deadline imposed by the trademark office to respond within six (6) months. Now I will wait until the USOC or court's response comes in 30 days.

Not exactly relaxing I feverishly reviewed all that I had done in anticipation of what could be the worst possible outcome; that being a dismissal (by the court on it's own motion) for something defective with the complaint, or, a motion for dismissal by the USOC (hereinafter "USOC or defendant") for something deficient that the Court, on it's own motion could not dismiss, unless complained about by the defendant. I don't know whether I felt worse before I filed or after. This filing was a bare bones complaint. No evidence necessary, only the charges, as is proper. I had no hard evidence yet. It wasn't too many pages but it was filled with everything that it should be. I was either right in practice and procedure and the judicial codes or the complaint was going to be rejected, likely subject to re-filing, I hoped. This could be the end my case.

Within thirty days the answer to my Complaint arrives. I served the general counsel for the defendant at the firm Beveridge, DeGrandi, and Kline. Mr. Kline, properly doing his job, objected to my filing by saying I had not served the right person, in the right place, at the right time, and on the right planet. In most courts, you must make a defense or objection to something in a timely manner or after a certain point in time you cannot raise that objection or defense again, no matter what. In other words, raise the objection or issue now or forever hold your peace. This is general procedure and a normal part of litigation since law began. I knew this but it escaped me and I was alarmed in the event I had to answer this accusation of serving the wrong person. Meaning that he was not the proper person to receive the compliant and that I had mistakenly served the wrong lawyer and firm, which meant I had not sued the USOC properly. I had read during my 'Reading Olympics' a judge's comments in a journal indicating: "if you cannot assert proper service upon an attorney for a client then just sue the attorney and add him to the complaint." Had I had court experience (now at 30 days) I would have understood that Mr. Kline's response was normal as dictated by the rules of litigation. But I took it seriously so when I replied to the answer I added a one-page document and sued Mr. Kline and added him to the complaint. A naive blunder. When the next papers came to pass between us there was a new law firm representing the USOC and it was Kline, Rommel, and Colbert. It took me a while to figure that one. But if anyone needed to be sued it was surely he. Also I didn't realize Mr. Kline remained a party to the complaint until later in the litigation where at a meeting of the parties I agreed to drop him as a defendant in the suit. So reading and reading and reading is a good thing. Things ancillary to your points can bring rewards and you can even stumble into good results, sometimes.

**Transfer the Case**

On the USOC's Answer to my Complaint there was a Motion for Transfer to the federal court in Los Angeles since there was no nexus (connection) to my case against the USOC in District of Columbia. Judge Parker said my misperceptions (which I stated in opposing the motion) that the Los Angeles federal court was not going to be "fair" was unfounded and misguided and for that reason and the 'nexus' situation he granted the Motion to Transfer and the case went to Los Angeles federal court. I didn't want to fight in D.C. anyway, just file there. The Judge also mentioned I might have sued the Trademark Office and had I done so that would have made the case stay in D.C.. If Judge Parker had followed this case, he would have observed without question that my fears and trepidation were absolutely well founded regarding the California federal court. Judge Parker said that my 'constitutional claims' were unclear and this proved to be very important. Judicial codes say you cannot transfer a case unless it has been properly filed and is not subject to dismissal by the court, on it's own motion, or motion to dismiss by the defendant that might be granted. This means by transferring the case to Los Angeles I really have a case. I took time off and went to Arizona and spent a few warm days at Lake Havasu. You know, that town with the rebuilt London Bridge. It's cold in Idyllwild and now November. On returning from Havasu it had snowed three feet in our absence. I parked in town, hitched a ride up the hill with a snowplow, walked three hundred yards (downhill) to the house (unprepared, no long pants), shoveled the drive way to extract the 4-wheel drive Land Cruiser and drove downhill [the never-to-be plowed road] in three feet of snow making the first tracks. That Land Cruiser was tough, those Japanese made a good jeep. Go to town, pick up Sally, go up the road toward the house and enter from above the house through a five-foot snow bank left by plowing. The LC climbed over it and following my footprints left prior we got home. Due to lack of minimal insulation it required one cord of Oak a month and 200 gallons of propane to keep the major rooms (3) in the house livable, and I don't mean warm. The Oak had to be split so no worries about exercise.

Chapter 7 Los Angeles federal court

It's January now and the transfer motion has been affected and I am assigned a judge named Alice Marie Stottler. I'm glad I was assigned to a woman judge, why I don't know, but my gladness turns to sadness pretty quick. Another Motion is filed by the USOC to transfer the case to a judge who has already heard cases between the USOC and other parties. This is known in the codes as 'judicial economy' and does make certain amount of sense but wait a minute - this is the first screw in the coffin. Whether I know it, my case has already been decided before it has even been seen or heard.

I am assigned to Judge R. Gadbois. He's an expert on all things Olympic because he has ruled in a case against 99 John Does on one complaint who were selling knock off t-shirts, unofficial hot dogs and chips, and the Olympic burrito and other such minutia and trivia during the L.A. Games, usually on the streets (street vendors), in favor of the USOC where all of these major offenders (none of whom appeared or were likely to) were ruled against and the USOC won the case. Now that's a surprise. This judge also had a say (insider information) in the Gay Olympics case (appeal) that I knew nothing about at the time. The USOC later touts and publicizes their litigations as in the hundreds of cases they have brought offenders of the sacred word. This was their second case in court using the Amateur Sports Act. Judge Alice Marie Stottler where are you? I don't think this would have occurred in her Court. We could have had an impact on the Circuit.

In Judge Parker's opinion filed with the Transfer Motion he said, "plaintiff's unconstitutional claims are unclear." Had he not made that statement I might have been thrown out by my Olympic judge. One, I was appearing as my own attorney since I could not retain one to take the case (I was considered a nutcase musician). And though I had some of the best corporate attorneys in town and the best personal attorney one could hope for, they were not trial lawyers. And, two, my complaint was several pages of unclear constitutional allegations supported by no evidence other than the claims. This is exactly how it was supposed to be in the initial filing. By virtue of Judge Parker's statements I was able to Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The judge granted the Motion and I was given six months leave to file my new complaint. Now six months to get the evidence and facts. A condensed version of the information is forthcoming.

**Ready Set - Start**

I first must locate and collect data relating to the proliferation of Olympic companies who existed using the word Olympic for the purposes of trade since 1950. A grandfather clause exempted businesses using Olympic prior to 1950. (Olympic Paint for example) I thought there were hundreds but there were thousands. Six-hundred Olympic businesses in New York alone. Every conceivable product or service existed in the U.S. with an Olympic prefix. But listings and list have no validity in federal court, and almost without exception every document offered in evidence must be certified by the licensing authority. Everything had to be certified. Thousands was spent on certifications. I obtained needed certifications from each state, usually a sampling. The states themselves established their enforcement policy re the Amateur Sports Act by letter to me at my request. Forty-six states contributed records to my eventual filing of my amended complaint. This process took over 5 months.

**The Federal Agencies**

I started first with the Executive Branch using the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIPA) to get information. Copyright Office; Interstate Commerce Commission; Comptroller of the Currency; Securities and Exchange Commission; F.D.I.C.; F.S.L.I.C.; Treasury Department (I.R.S.); Customs; Federal Communication Commission; and U.S. Department of Justice. I filed requests with every agency of the Executive Branch except the White House. Don't want to bother Ronny.

**Read All About It!**

The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had documents relating to the investigation of olympic committees and the application of U. S. unfair-competition laws to them. They indicated I could not have those documents because they were subject to the exemption privilege. I appealed (as you should) and sued the DOJ and added their letter and refusal to my case file. It was noted as a "related case" to my judge. I never pursued the appeal. The DOJ had gifted me with the information. The DOJ said "olympic committees." Could that be the IOC and the USOC or Donald Duck and Goofy? Not such a stretch.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Leo Oliver LaBranche March 18, 1985

Olympic Records, PO Box 3365

24640 Upper Rim Rock Road

Idyllwild, California 92349

Dear Mr. LaBranche:

This letter responds to your February 27, 1985 Freedom of Information Act request for documents concerning the United state Olympic Committee (USOC).

We have located a four page internal memorandum written in February, 1980, regarding the application of antitrust laws to olympic committees, portions of which mention the USOC. Since release of this document would reveal the deliberative process of the Antitrust Division, it is withheld from disclosure under 5 USC § 552(b)(5) .

Department regulations (28 CFR §16.8) and the Freedom of Information Act provide that denials may be appealed within 30 days. Pursuant to DOJ order 945-81, such appeals should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy (Attention: Office of Information and Privacy Appeals) department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530. Any appeal should be clearly identified as a "FOIPA Appeal." Judicial review is available thereafter in the district where the requester resides or has a principal place of business, the district where the records are located, or the District of Columbia.

If you have questions regarding this response, please contact Leo D. Neshkes at:

US Department of Justice (202) 633 2692

Antitrust Division, Room 7416

10th and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Sincerely Yours,

Roger B. Andewelt, Deputy Director of Operations

Antitrust Division

My filing in D.C. federal court against the USOC charged unfair competition under the same antitrust laws. In this moment I knew I was right, at least about unfair competition. If the DOJ has investigated what I myself have claimed then I could be correct. I had a celebration that night. Celebrations are short lived and soon forgotten. Just because I may be right doesn't win me points but did take stress out of wondering if I was on track. Being right didn't make a difference, none. That was a cruel surprise. You and I are going to Mars where Martian rules are in play, not like here on this planet, and all published rules are negated and optional except I better follow them. Included are the rules of fact, truth, observation, precedent, and common sense. When you beat up on the olympic committee you must be raping an angel when in fact your trying to trump the devil.

At this moment in Universal time (in my mind) I won my lawsuit and it's February 1985. My points are made by the United States Department of Justice, my Heroes. No, they won't give me those points and investigative documents because that would be using them, their deliberations, work product, and resources of the United States to fight my battle. The federal government can't afford to back or support any litigant or lawsuit unless there is a compelling reason for them to and no nexus existed in my case.

**The States**

Certifications from the states show olympic business in all fifty states. Exhibits 27 - 526. Twenty-five hundred collected and compiled to be used as indisputable evidence in support of all my claims.

USOC letter to the States. Exhibit 230-232

What would a Fifth Grader do?

The USOC informs all the States to not allow any olympic business to incorporate. No state went along with this except the golden state. When does the USOC have rights over a State and audacity to tell them what to do. It acknowledges that olympic companies exist and is asking the state to discriminate one as against the other. Does this retarded excuse for a law, the Amateur Act, empower them to make this request in the first place? Not one state except California, where I happened to be, went for this. I guess everybody's stupid except California who is always ahead of the curve. I couldn't sue California though they had injured me. I did end up fighting against a California law firm with over 450 lawyers.

The Fifth Grade Question.

If 'You' wanted to beat up on somebody, put somebody out of business - some olympic business for example, are you going to attack Olympic Records Corporation who has 50 employees and 1800 share holders and stores business records for clients in warehouses in Oklahoma, or, are you going to go beat up on Olympic Fried Chicken in Tupelo, Mississippi which is run by a widow who's barely making ends meet. The USOC olympic hunters will go to Mississippi. Send letters and threaten them at a minimum. This is an example of what did happen repeatedly and names/places are changed to protect the victims and the innocent.

The Fifth Grade Answer.

Let's go to Tupelo and stop that infringer of our olympic rights; after all we got a deal with Colorado Fried Chicken so she's infringing on our right to license fried chicken using the word olympic. This logic (?) was used again and again and the Supreme Court three years from now will agree with this contention. The tune ought to be "Blinded by the Olympic Torch." Oh yes, Olympic Chicken is a financial burden, costing us money for all those threatening letters, so let's charge her legal fees and maybe get her house or business if she can't pay. I've heard of sick...These are my esteemed and honorable opponents. Heart the size of a molecule, balls the size of a truck, and arrogance beyond any existing on the planet. Did this policy originate here or was it imported from across the great water?

By the States (except the golden one) not allowing olympic businesses to incorporate they would be setting them up (the Mom and Pop business) for the olympic hunters when and if it suits the USOC to go after them. This must be the "hundred year" plan. Why on Earth or Mars would a State agree to this ridiculous, obviously unconstitutional distinction, request? None of them did, except California. You can't discriminate against your own businesses and people because of an idiotic, arrogant, aristocratic, vicious, and invasive interpretation of a federal law signed by President Jimmy Carter.

Chapter 8 The Gay Olympic Games

My lawyer, Ruth calls and says get the L.A. Times, nothing more. I go the news dispenser, shove in 2 quarters, take the paper home and there is the article about the Gay Olympics. "Oh God," what now?

The International Olympic Committee (started in France in 1894) operating from Twistzerland) and our U. S. Olympic Committee have decided to put a stop to Dr. Tom Waddell's idea to have a "Gay Olympics". After all, the Amateur Sports Act was specifically written and made law to prevent this kind of blatant and flagrant amateur sports event infringing on the rights of the USOC and the I.O.C. as well. It is not laughable. Question here: what the hell is the International Olympic Committee doing on this complaint and accessing our federal courts to beat up on Dr. Waddell (a past Olympian), whether it's statutorily correct or not. Are we being visited by the honorable, saintly, and ordained bunch of usurpers? The article says the Gay Olympics people have been sued in San Francisco federal court, 500 miles north of here, and that puts us in the same judicial circuit and they're over a year into it already. I don't know it at the time but everything I do, or don't do, from now until it's over will be 100% controlled by what happens to them. And nothing I do, no matter how good, bad, or indifferent, will ever affect my case, not for a couple of years at least, and for sure not in this forum (the courts). I didn't know and had I known what to hell was I gonna do. A new and compelling reason me to quit. So it's good to be left in the dark.

Dr. Tom Waddell, like myself, has the privilege and honor of living in the golden state, his organization in San Francisco called the San Francisco Arts & Athletic Association (hereinafter "SFAA"). As I mentioned CA is the only state that is party to this repugnant conspiracy of all the fifty states. The leader of the band so other states can later follow. The proving ground for the new Amateur Sports Act has hit the legal ground in federal court. It's about to be tried and tested. So here we got France, Switzerland, and the United States going against a fine man who is a medical doctor, an ex-Olympian, and soon will be dying from complications arising from AIDS. Sounds like a fair deal and a good match up. The stuff of movies, a perfect test case for the new Amateur Act. The honorable ACLU agrees to defend SFAA. [Mary C. Dunlap & Anne E. Thorkelson, Attorneys at Law]

It's summer again and a few months left to file my amended complaint and evidence is stacking up. The court record will be eight (8) inches thick, including a forty-page complaint. I had good experiences dealing with the States and Federal agencies, some of which would not supply documents once they knew why I was requesting them. I was lucky in New Jersey when the Honorable Representative James J. Florio (later Governor Florio) made a request for me (thank you Sir) and assisted the Secretary of State decide to give up their listings of olympic businesses and corporations after they first refused. It's against most state's laws to withhold public information from anyone who wants it for any reason as long as they pay for it. I have to subpoena C.B.S. for a copy of the television program, "Crossroads," and a transcript. After doing this CBS changed policy and if you wanted a video copy of a program you simply had to order it and pay for it.

**Amended Complaint filing**

I mail it and it is returned, it's mis-numbered. Over 555 pages are now reconstituted and put in corrected order. I re-file and it stays put.

**Ex-Parte - Caution - Blunder ahead**

After a time I am notified by the court of an ex-parte hearing on calendar and I believe ex-parte means a proceeding without the parties present. Every time you assume something it'll bite you. That's not what ex-parte means. So I miss the hearing, and though it's 90 miles to the L.A. court from my home I would have been there two hours early had I understood that ex-parte does not mean "without your presence." It escaped me. Maybe they thought I was chicken, no, not Olympic Chicken. What transpired that day in front of the judge in my absence was that my complaint was "prolix." I'm sorry but I had to go look it up. Do you know what prolix means?

Prolix means too much, overdoing it, piling on, verbose, more than necessary, and such. It also could mean, subject to which side you're on, comprehensive. It was indicated the judge agreed with the defendant on that point but my record was never touched. And nothing occurred to, or with, my $35,000 filing and six months labor. I wrote the judge apologized for my lack of appearing and explained my misunderstanding. Nothing further happened in this regard and it was not going to matter. The record was going to be ignored and the merits of the case would never be heard.

**Meeting of the Parties**

O'Melveny & Myers, downtown Los Angeles, 450 attorneys in the firm. That should be enough to take care of one pro-se litigant. We go to a room with a table large enough for a Viking ship and there are three present. Good lawyer, bad lawyer, and a pro-se litigant. They tell me how bad it's going to be to continue and this and that and the other, and they're right, but I don't know that. Meanwhile my questions to them revolve around when are they going to answer my request for a) documents, b) request for admissions, and, c) two interrogatories? They know they're going to get a Summary Judgment ruling against me before any of that is going to transpire. But I don't know that. And these guys keep talking about Bill. Bill this, and Bill that, they're sure enamored with Bill. So I gotta ask, "Bill who?" Before I tell you know this. When you sue a corporation it doesn't matter whose running the company or the show. Your suing the entity, in this case, the non-profit corporation created by Congress. All Olympic committee human beings (directors) are safe from liability because you are suing the "Corporation." The head of a corporation may be liable because of what may occur during his watch but that's not going to happen here. So who runs things is irrelevant, certainly in this case. I had no clue who was in charge of the Olympic Committee. For all I knew or cared it could have been Sir Hugo Fottinthemouth's turn. In my mind I was suing ALL the committee and everyone in it. So Bill who?

This ends up being William E. Simon the recent Treasury Secretary of the United States under three presidents. Also known as a take-over specialist. He's the guy that signed the money for a long time. I'm sorry this makes no impression. The head of an organization is usually behind everything so this is his baby, his and those guys from across the great water. If Mickey Mouse is running the USOC I'm still not going to prevail.

After the new complaint was filed the first in a series of requests served on the USOC demanded that they reveal every member of the Board of Directors of their organization in the U.S. and addresses of their representatives or real addresses. This is not supposed to be a secret organization and if you're in a court proceeding your anonymity is going south. I did not need to know Mr. Simon was in charge, it would have made no difference except I would have been happy and privileged to put his name on the complaint and sued him along with the committee. They asked me about my suing Richard G. Kline earlier on and if I was going to keep that in the record. I said take it out. (I sued him by accident). It takes a really good/bad lawyer to sue by accident. The meeting goes for a while and then I leave. We did what procedure required and that is the "Meeting of the Parties."

Chapter 9 You lose, Mr. LaBranche

Go to Los Angeles the night before the first real hearing on my case, other than the one I missed. Stayed in a downtown hotel to be near the federal courthouse. It's now the morning of October 21, 1985. A Motion for Summary Judgment is made and accepted by the judge and I lose because the judge knows all about these issues. Actually he's off the hook for now because the Gay Olympics case had now moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals having had a Summary Judgment ruling against them also in their first court appearance which was some time back. Now they are in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (hereinafter "appeals court") in San Francisco. NOW my judge tells me I can go there too because "he's utterly convinced" that my case has no merit and he has not to deal with it at all and sends it up the legal ladder to the next court, where he once sat for a moment. (A federal appeal takes place before a 3-judge panel.)

I'm sorry but that hurt. Six months, 40-50 hours a week, thousands of dollars, months of fight or flight and a 5-minute hearing and "you lose bud." He called me "quixotic." I knew what it referred to but still went and looked it up. Oh yeah, the Impossible Dream, me and Don Coyote. Another statutory clock begins to tick. Thirty days within which to appeal. I didn't think I would be in the appeals court this soon. Silly me. After this hearing I got in the car and drove without stopping to Arizona. I couldn't handle being in California another minute. A second screw in the coffin. - Case never heard by the court. All had already been decided before I got there. Welcome to justice.

PART II

Chapter 10 Appeals Court in Thirty days

I couldn't face the appeals process though I started it. Through Louis M. Brown* I locate and retain Richard G. Perkins to handle what was going to be an up and down appeals process. Mr. Perkins did a fine job officiating for what ended being meaningless, no reflection on him. One appeal from the district court; two certiorari petitions to join SFAA and get our issues before the Court; supplemental arguments; as well as his appearance at the 9th Circuit hearing. He did very well, but as mentioned it didn't matter. Circumstances were going in the Hollywood tunnel and never come out. Meanwhile I can hardly breathe. This conspiratorial, prejudicial, repugnant, and illegal treatment is telling me something. Now with Mr. Perkins writing the appeal - I can do what?

* Louis M. Brown is known as the Father of Preventative Law and it is 1986. He was 'of counsel' for my corporation attorneys (S.B.G. & J.). He heard from the firm of my legal attempts and was interested because I appeared as my own attorney, a term known as "pro se" and sometimes "in pro per." We talked several times when I was at the office and he was always jovial as if something good had happened. He said, "Your situation would make a very interesting book." His legacy lingers because he suggested the story be written and titled, The Pro-Se Litigant. I honor his suggestion and credit him with the title. I couldn't write this story 23 years ago when he suggested it. Like wine it has aged as I have but the story is the same one. I knew not to whom I was speaking with back in 1986. See below,

National Center for Preventative Law (pasted in)

*LOUIS M. BROWN, distinguished emeritus professor of law at USC and a former president of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. A practicing attorney whose career spanned six decades, widely known as the inventor of, and chief spokesman for, the legal specialization of "preventive law." Recalling the genesis of preventive law, Brown said in a 1979 interview, "I first used the term in 1950, after observing that many of my clients could have avoided their legal difficulties." Preventive law is analogous to preventive medicine. "The time to see an attorney is when you're legally healthy – certainly before the advent of litigation and prior to the time legal trouble occurs." "Professor Brown made exceptional contributions toward improving legal education, enhancing the legal profession and educating the community," said Scott H. Bice, dean of the USC Law School. "His concern for the betterment of society was evidenced by his strong dedication to popularizing preventive-law concepts and making them available not only to institutions and wealthy clients but to ordinary clients as well."

Thank you, Mr. Brown, for the inspiration and suggestion as well as its title. Without the chronology you suggested this story could not exist.

**Private Lobbyist**

A private person (individual) does not have to register with the Clerk of the House to become a lobbyist. You or I have the same right and that is 'the right to approach Congress,' whether an individual representative or the whole club at once. I believe it's a good club. NOW - I have no corporation or company, no music, emotional exhaustion, no work, and no future as far as I know at the moment. The federal court has just ...... on me, and it stinks on top of the hurt. My remaining capital would have been Year 2 of Olympic Records operations. I am still fighting for Olympic Records so what's next? My 9th circuit appeal will undoubtedly go bad because a 3-judge panel has now ruled against the Gay Olympics appeal and SFAA is motioning for a rehearing en-banc (issue before the whole nine judge court). This motion is seldom granted. In some ways it is legal procedure to do the act before you can no longer claim the right. SFAA was not doing this for procedural reasons. It was one more step to take before applying for certiorari at the U. S. Supreme Court, which they did when re-hearing was denied.

**What to do?**

Everyone has an IDEA in a billionth of a second and most people have no earthly realization that manifesting that good, right, creative, and perfect idea could take your entire life, literally and figuratively. That billionth of a second could steal your life because the IDEA appealed to your sense of self-importance. The IDEA is the siren's song and the sea is what you have to work with. You pay dearly with time that might have been spent having a life instead of chasing one. I'm guilty by association and retrospect. Looking at my complaint (the house of certifications) it comes to me. I have another IDEA.

**Take the Case goes to Congress**

I'll send my lawsuit to Congress! After all my entire action is about the Constitutionality of a law passed by Congress. It's the interpretation of the law that's unconstitutional and the law was NEVER meant to be applied in that manner, NEVER. Congress was made aware of this and they eventually speak. This is not the interpretation intended, according to them. But they enacted this law that required me to seek redress and undress in one of the three branches of government (and we know how it's going). I'll send the whole thing to Congress. I don't mean my Congressman. I have none. (Later on it would have been Sonny Bono* from Palm Springs). The entire Congress made this law and the entire Congress is going to get it. That's a concept that escaped many. I called the Clerk of the House and ordered the members list, received it, did a quick read and decided. I considered a Congressman's role and seniority in the Hallowed Halls. I came up with 200 members of the House and 77 Senators that were going to receive the Petition, Complaint, and Evidence.

*In 1971 I was playing trumpet with Paul Revere and the Raiders on tour and we were playing state fairs and concerts throughout the mid-west. Sometimes thirty thousand fair goers would fill the stadium type venues. Occasionally we would be in the middle of the stock car track. Sonny (Bono) and Cher were one the groups that were doing several dates with us. Their daughter, Chastity, was about 2. Paul Revere needed trumpets (horn section) because their singer, Mark Lindsey, recently had two hit songs in succession on his own. Silver Bird and Arizona written by a fine Australian songwriter. The songs were recorded in Hollywood and arranged by Artie Butler. This was prime Hollywood arranging. Artie was one of the best. Performing these charts took skill, stamina, and sometimes, courage. Playing these arrangements with loud amplifiers everywhere made the job extra taxing. Basically, you blew your brains out. Traveling scale was about $900 a week a man, two trumpets and trombone. A few hours before the first concert appearance I exited my motel room and walked directly into a Frisbee hitting my square in the mouth, busting both top and bottom lip. Blood everywhere, but on with the show, that was a hard night. It was an omen.

**Back to Congress**

Imagine 277 copies of an 8 inch thick record of over 555 pages each. Completing these copies took 17 days, non-stop. Seventeen days after I was ruled against in the court. I had 40 copier paper boxes full of the material to assemble and hole punch. Each had front covers of matte paper and so on. I have no assistant other than T.O. and he got tired of helping. He didn't like the smell of copy paper. It smelled like boxes of dead something (was that Olympic Records?). 555 pages by 277 sets certified documents originating from all the federal agencies and states.

An aside: Certifications in many cases are quite attractive. They have the color artwork created for it by the state (flag, state outline, picture) and they have ribbons and foil seals. "TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS COME" many would announce. I had a colorful lawsuit. Ten to fifteen bucks a piece for certifications and it would have made great wallpaper for the suicide chamber. There were not going to be color copies, everything looked a drab unimportant grey. [The poor Post Office.] I would mail 35 congressmen at a time. The P.O. received these mailings at the back door and I would bypass the Idyllwild P.O. and put them in the truck going down the hill to Hemet, en route to San Bernardino, to LAX and Washington. Each mailing was the size of two phone books. The P.O. had to special order stamps for me. The mailings went to the Congressional Post Office where I'm sure they were glad to see them arrive and more glad when they stop.

My lawyer and adopted Jewish Grandmother, Ruth, was vexed at the district court ruling. She said, "hurry and get your appeal filed." Many weeks later I told Ruth about sending my case to Congress. The only time I saw her grin. She often smiled but I never saw her grin. Cheshire Cat or that grin Jack Nicholson might throw on you. Not the kind of grin you wanted to see from an opponent. She said, "You politicized your lawsuit." She was 80, I was 40 and I used say "if you need (T)Ruth C. Tachna." The first and only lawyer I ever loved.

OK, all the Petition mail is sent that's going at this time. I'm on day to day "what am I gonna do next" mode. Before hearing from Congress it comes, another olympic revelation. Our Embassies in foreign countries might tell me, if properly approached, what the restriction of the use of olympic was in their particular post. I was informed that olympic was restricted all over the world so let's find out.

I go to the UC Riverside Library where I find information on the State Department. I need the addresses of all Embassies, commercial officers names and such. Thank God for Libraries. The State Department is in charge of our Embassies and Missions abroad, and lot of other things. You can write to an Embassy or Mission and it goes in the diplomatic pouch and you get an answer from a communications officer for the price of a stamp.

**Congressional Replies**

Now I must be the one who's misinformed because I am told a) I'm worrying for nothing, b) the law will never be interpreted that way, c) the law is not being interpreted that way, d) don't bother me I'm not your Congressman, e) I don't see any problem with our olympic businesses, f) thanks for nothing, g) I must be crazy (jury's out). In other words the Amateur Sports Act is not intended, and will not be enforced in the manner you are complaining about. Besides, what do you know about the law, anyway, and, you're a pro se litigant. Couldn't you get a lawyer?

However, there were other responses where the Congressmen took me seriously else how could this petition (which went as Cover of the court record) be referred to the Committees of the Judiciary of both bodies by the Senate President, Pro Tem., and the speaker of the House, Mr. Tip O'Neil.

As a personal lobbyist I am contacting Congress for me and my problem. One man trying (to steer the Titanic with his tongue) to get the attention of a large body of spirits and egos not too concerned about the issues of one solitary music man living in Idyllwild, California, and yet, the power of my court record now had a positive and real effect. It contained more weight than just the pounds. In fact it was a comprehensive record of Olympic use in America. The complete and only record, I would add.

**Journalists**

Ruth suggested I run an ad in the New York Times announcement section soliciting the interest of businesses using Olympic as part of their name. A way to get some people on my side and find some kindred spirits, I thought. OK, so I do and the main responder to this ad is "the press." Now begins interviews, accusations, interrogatories, rebuttals, and the like. I might be the scourge of the planet that had the audacity to sue the USOC. I recorded every conversation and interview that came through my convenient 800# listed in the ad. Most journalists, with a few exceptions, were smarter, had better information, knew the USOC position better, and thought on most occasions, they were the better lawyer. A few I dared to meet with me in person, you name the time and place. One of the largest networks had their reporter quiz me while on the other line with the USOC. His main interest was how soon I was going bankrupt. I'd say USOC publicity machine was working well. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal on October 28, 1986, by Andrea Rothman. There's a center box sometimes used in an article to sum up, so to speak, what the article is all about, or the main point. I was called a businessman and not referred to as musician. The box reflected my statement and belief and is true now as then. "It's a word in the English language; it doesn't belong to Congress or the USOC..." (the remainder of my answer was omitted and declared, "it belongs to us." Andrea queried "who's us?" I said "you - and me" - and you no more than me, and certainly no less than me. Another way of saying it (and this was my meaning) is "It's in the Public Domain," and it's not going to be removed by legislation or court action no matter how hard they try to change the facts and the truth, but it won't stop them from trying.

Chapter 11 Petition to 277 members

October 21, 1985 the summary judgment against me was issued. Seventeen (17) days later I have completed my task of copying, assembling, and sending my lawsuit to Congress. Before sending I must construct a Petition (complaint) to precede it. The "cover story," There are many things to consider so the entire 'send' may be suitable for referral to a committee, or sub-committee. Below follows what was sent to two hundred (200) House members and seventy-seven (77) Senators. The Petition was identical in both Houses. I use Senator Kennedy's name on this copy out of respect for him and his family as well as because he and I had written communications re his concern for this issue, especially as it might affect the "Special Olympics" group which was a family endeavor. Mailed 11.15.85

UNITED STATES SENATE

99th Congress

PETITION

"EMERGENCY APPEAL FOR NOTICE AND ASSISTANCE"

From: Leo Oliver LaBranche Jr., A National Citizen, Idyllwild, California

Regarding: Leo Oliver LaBranche Jr. v. United States Olympic Committee

Plaintiff (a non-profit corporation) Defendant

United States District CourtCase No. CV 85 481 RG

Central District of California

REASON FOR PETITION: 36 U.S.C. §§ 371 et.seq.., specifically "section 380."

[exclusive commercial rights regarding the word Olympic]

Authority for this Petition (if necessary) is pursuant to National Citizenship

And

WATKINS v. UNITED STATES

354 U.S. 178, 1 L Ed 2d 1273, 1284, 77 S. Ct. 1173 (1957)

To The Honorable Senator Ted Kennedy from the State of Massachusetts

Dear Senator Kennedy:

I Background

LaBranche v. USOC: A summary judgment ruling was handed down in the Central District of California federal court on October 21, 1985 in favor of the USOC based upon a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in regards to the issue of constitutionality of 36 U.S.C. § 380, [all had already been decided by the 9th circuit], the exclusive right of the USOC to control commercial use of the word olympic. The USOC's counterclaim was also granted. The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on October 5, 1984 [case no. 84 3099] in anticipation of the possibility of unfair treatment in California. The required JS-44C cover sheet stated as a basis for the action, "Unconstitutional Legislation, 36 U.S.C. §§ 371 et. seq." The case was subsequently transferred to the Central District of California where petitioner's [hereinafter referred to as "I" or "me"] business was located. The ruling indicated six constitutional challenges, and other federal law conflicts and violations, need not be heard because similar challenges did not survive a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. The Ninth Circuit opinion was referring to I.O.C./U.S.O.C. v. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, locally known and hereinafter referred to as the Gay Olympics case or the Gay Olympic Games. The district judge that ruled on my case sat by designation on the Ninth Circuit panel of three judges that made this ruling in the Gay Olympics case. There were three law firms from three cities and a panel of two Federal Appellate Judges (and my district judge) v. SFAA and two lady lawyers from the California Chapter of the A.C.L.U..

II Scheme - Plan - Design - Conspiracy

The USOC, through and with its agents, has had a plan in effect to build case law and court opinions in an effort to validate their defective law. This plan came into being around 1977 when new efforts were made by amending 36 U.S.C. §§ 371 et. seq. into the "Amateur Sports Act of 1978" to bring forth and advertise their exclusive rights and commercial control over the word Olympic. The addition of 1978 undoubtedly to make it seem like a recent law. I note here that agents for the U.S.O.C. are diligent in the prosecution of any business they come across that is in a weaker position, or is utterly helpless, so as to obtain published and unpublished case law opinions, comments, directives, or other authorities to build a track record for their defective law. Through recent years there have been decisions, precedents or incidents regarding the following "opponents." Many innocent persons have been hurt and the USOC hides behind Congressional delegated power and blames the resulting injuries on Congress.

1). March of Dimes \- \- In the "Reading Olympics" incident the U.S.O.C. became unjustly enriched by the sum of ten million dollars [$10,000,000] and this undoubtedly wetted their appetite for future actions. The March of Dimes organization reluctantly chose not to litigate [defend] with contributors' money. The legislative intent regarding the statute [law] stated in

Senate Report No. S. 2523 of 1950 is as follows:

"These games have only to do with amateur athletics"

2). Paralympics, paralyzed person competing in their own games;

3). Retired persons, elderly persons Golden Age Olympics;

4). Olympics of the Mind, children;

5). Gay Olympics [the four year old Federal court case];

6). In the case Stop the Olympic Prison v. USOC [1980 NY] The USOC was sued and the plaintiff Stop, prevailed. YET the USOC received, solicited, or created an out of context dictum regarding Federal trademark registrations which is now included as a decisional note printed at the bottom of § 380 in the U.S. codes as authority to prevent trademark registrations. Note: The court in this action states that non-profit uses of "olympics" was permitted. This was the principal topic of the action. The USOC did not follow this ruling in the March of Dimes "Reading Olympics" incident, though the authority in Stop, dictates it is permitted to use olympic designations for non-profit purposes.

7). Section 374 (13) [objects & purposes] of the Amateur Sports Act states that the USOC will assist handicapped individuals in competitive activities and would also mean not to threaten them, sue them, and/or take their funds.

III Agents

Whether or not the USOC is aware of what their agents are doing remains to be discovered. The lawyers for the USOC Richard G. Kline of Washington, and others, are completely responsible for this immoral, unethical conduct and reprehensible behavior under the color of Federal law and they further claim Congressional support for their actions. I would add this defective legislation would provide employment for Mr. Kline and his firm for the rest of its life at the expense of all similarly situated, and especially weaker or helpless opponents. This enactment is more defective now than it ever was, except now it is on the way to becoming lethal.

IV The "United" States

My investigation and documents prove that 46 [+/- 2] states through successive administrations over a period of thirty-five (35) years have denied applying this defective law to their citizens.

V Federal Law Conflicts

The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 conflicts with the following federal laws, excepting Constitutional charges that are attached separately.

A)United States Copyright Law, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. provides protection for over 500 claimants using the word olympic. Every copyright registration is protected outside the U.S. by virtue of the Universal Copyright Convention of 1974 in the contracting states. The U.S. Copyright Office must abide by copyright law, and copyright law simply dictates, "You cannot own a word in the Public Domain," consequently there are 585 registered copyrights using olympic in some way or other since 1946. [Exhibit 237 of clerk's record]. My company has three valid copyrights using olympic and I own or hold title to 100 U.S. Copyrights going back twenty (20) years.

B)Trademark Act of 1946 [Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.]. In attached excerpts from the clerk's record the USOC claims and admits that the controlling law in regard to the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 is Trademark Law. The most common of trademark principals is the "no exclusivity, no trademark" rule, and we know "exclusivity over olympic" cannot now, or ever be, appropriated by the USOC from the public, even though they are making the attempt. In my action I also attacked trademark registration no. 968,566 as invalid. This registration was issued in 1973 and is listed in a "plurality of classes" over which exclusive rights and control are said to exist to the exclusion of all others in each of the classes of goods covered by this registration. The attached clerk's record discloses that there are hundreds of businesses in each of the classes the USOC claims to hold exclusive rights and privileges in. A further ground for invalidating this mark is found in the abandonment provision of the Trademark Act of 1946 [15 U.S.C §§ 1064(c). A further fraud exists regarding the section 8 affidavit required to be filed between the 5th and 6th year of the registration to keep it in force for the full 20 year term. [See excerpts from clerk's record, attached]

C) A trademark is described in section 380 (a)(2) for which a Federal trademark registration exists [no. 980,724]. This mark was used upon Exhibit 231 of the clerk's record that was provided by the Secretary of State of Alabama. This letter requests the states to discriminate between natural and artificial persons and is not exactly a fair or legal use of a trademark [no. 980,724] or a federal law.

D)The sum total of the USOC's acts equal violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§2, 15, and 24 and if one included the International Olympic Committee, a §1 violation would also exist. The I.O.C. and the USOC perpetrated this fraud upon Congress and the American people during 1949-50. The I.O.C. has been trying for at least thirty-five (35) years to influence the local olympic body in various countries to request legislation from their sovereign for the protection of the interlocked rings as well as the word olympic. The trouble is, is that most olympic committees are a part of the sovereign body. I have letter correspondence from U.S. Commercial Officers at our Embassies abroad and they have provided information indicating the I.O.C. is still in the attempt. Embassies in the following countries were polled to determine the local policy regarding olympic. These exhibits are not included in the attached record because I failed to keep a copy when I appealed to my district judge for a ruling on a DOJ appeal from a refusal for records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5) [FOIPA Appeal no. 85-0521, Antitrust division] The DOJ appeal filed with the district judge was not pursued. No need to, the DOJ had already "gifted me."

*Indicate where Olympic Records has been or would export product.

[Records/Tapes, CD's /Video]

KOREA *No Restriction 01.29.85 reply

NEW ZEALAND *No Restriction 02.01.85 reply

DENMARK *No Restriction 02.04.85 reply

PORTUGAL No Restriction 02.05.85 reply

ITALY No Restriction 02.14.85 reply

CANADA *RESTRICTION 02.20.85 reply (policy is changed)

AUSTRALIA *No Restriction 02.21.85 reply

COLUMBIA No Restriction 03.05.85 reply

SPAIN No Restriction 03.12.85 reply

U.K *No Restriction 04.10.85 reply

BRAZIL *No Restriction 04.11.85 reply

JAPAN *No Restriction 08.07.85 reply

NORWAY (Olympic is for rent) 08.12.85 reply

The U.S. embassy in France and Greece did not reply. Some speculate these two countries have been at odds over "who" owns the word olympic since forever and I think the Greeks win..

VI Conclusive Presumption

A conclusive presumption exists that each and every business in every state that use olympic for the purpose of trade has a Federal tax identification number in the master & regional files of the Internal Revenue Service [Treasury Department] because they are required to by law. It is estimated there are six (6) thousand businesses and corporations (plus or minus 1000) using olympic for the 'purpose of trade' since 1950 listed in the Master Files. Six thousand exceptions to the rule that was applied to me and will later be applied to others.

VII Personal - Prayer

I hereby pray to the Congress. My faith in due process in the federal courts in this circuit is diminished to extinction. When I initiated this action there were legal advisors available but none would take on the USOC, and even fewer believed that it was possible to attack their federal law in the courts, especially in a California federal court where the law I attacked is selectively enforced by the State of California against its own citizens. This is California's federal version of due process, equal protection, and right to redress. I can see why lawyers were reluctant. I have appeared 'pro se' throughout the proceedings [18 months since PTO refusal]. I respectfully submit that 36 U.S.C. §§ 371 et. seq. [Amateur Sports Act of 1978] is a California law which is about to spread its plague to the other states in the Ninth Circuit and thereafter the other circuits. Many judges, such as the one in my case, would like to see their name in publication upholding this defective instrument with their own interpretation or construction in the name of amateur athletics and their own historical perspectives. If this legislation is upheld I will lose my (1) trade-name, (2) business, (3) 4 years of effort, (4) 3 years gratis effort by several directors, (5) $125,000. (to now) in out of pocket, (6) the costs of this action, (7) USOC's attorney fees, (8) a pending federal trademark and design which is as suggestive and as strong a mark as any mark now in existence in the entire [music] record business.

Note: Corporations titled Olympic Records have been in existence since 1921 [evidence secured from Library of Congress], the same year the U.S. Olympic Association was formed. This was a few years after sound recording was invented by Thomas Edison. Every Olympic Records company or corporation formed during the past 64 years has closed, but to close my corporation and destroy my stock will require something incredibly stronger that a federal judge who said, "I know all about these things," because he once sat on the ninth circuit panel and ruled against the "Gay Olympics." Eighteen months of sixty-hour weeks culminating in a 2.5 minutes of due process. I said nothing, and in some ways I thank him for revealing how deep the stench of political influence permeates California and I have never received such an unfair blow in my life. [No merit to my claims]. I was defeated before my case was transferred from the District of Columbia. The judge I was assigned was in charge of all cases between the USOC, IOC, LAOOC and any complainer. I believe this is known as judicial economy.

The Washington Federal Judge indicated that I should have sued the PTO. That would have stopped the transfer to California but I chose not to sue the United States and the Department of Commerce out of respect for my registration and my country. I also knew my hands would be full with the defective law but I thought the court would be fair, but I've tasted California style federal justice.

VIII Remedies

A person with so many injuries must have remedies, else the injuries may become permanent, fatal, and spread. These injuries were caused by a person(s) scheme or plan to take advantage of the American people in the name of Congress. I believe that will no longer be possible as of the date this appeal is received. The following remedies are submitted in the event that one or more remedies fit the occasion. Some are simple, lethal, and quick, followed by an investigation I am requesting pursuant to Watkins.

A) Repeal statute (law), never subject to re-enactment. Order the return of he unjust enrichment appropriated from the March of Dimes organization with interests.

B) Apply for or order, an indefinite stay of my action in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals until an investigation into the activities of the directors, officers and agents, specifically one Mr. Richard G. Kline and his immediate associates, under color of defective federal law

C) Repeal statute, subject to re-enactment after a Congressional investigation

into the activities of the directors, officers, and agents.

Investigate the following defects
section 371, present directors are not listed.

section 374 (13) has been negated on many occasions.

section 375(b) is violated. This section states that this law shall not conflict with any state or Federal constitution, or any existing federal/state laws. This § voids the entire charter.

Section 380 should be burned. The USOC does not own olympic, olympiad, and the word "theatrical" should be removed from the language in this section. An interpretive and directive note printed after section 380 at 203 is a further insult to the U.S. Codes and is an insult to the Judge who ruled on the issue who, I am sure, had no intention ruling in favor of the plaintiff Stop and also being gratuitous to the defendant USOC by comments regarding the applicability of this case to trademark prohibitions. Both parties seemed to prevail in this action according to the USOC spin.

Section 384 regards appropriations and there should be no further appropriations to this body, with or without federal law, because they will never need financial assistance for as long as the organization exists. The surplus from the 1984 games is in the hundreds of millions of dollars that, by my estimate, is sufficient to finance the games until 2020 if the Committee never raised another dime. Twenty (20) million dollars of this surplus belongs to children riddled with birth defects. Undoubtedly this is the true and proper function of a patriotic organization clothed in Federal authority implemented by predator/scavenger agents, published in the United States Codes.

A description of Federal trademark registration no. 980,734 is included in this section [380] and this mark was used on a letter sent to the states in 1978 requesting the states to discriminate between natural and artificial persons.

A network television broadcast entitled "Crossroads" aired on August 1, 1984 [opposite the games] which 11% [A. C. Neilson] of the audience share viewed a segment titled the "Olympic Essay." Threats 'to sue' were broadcasted to the nation aimed at all persons who use the word olympic, their exclusive property.

The corporation is responsible for the acts of its agents and the directors are responsible for the acts of the corporation, therefore all are guilty of Sherman Act §§2, 15, and 24.

I subject myself to any form or investigation or inquiry the Congress would desire. I was born in New Hampshire (1946), grew up in Florida (8 years), lived in Georgia (ten years), and arrived in the golden state (1978). If this law survives I am certain that I am ruined.

IX In Congress We Trust

In Congress I trust or I fall. I vow until my last dime is spent, my last security exhausted, and to the liquidation of every tangible and intangible asset I have at my disposal, I will continue to fight. I will not be made an example of to the injury of other similarly situated olympic businesses and corporations such as mine.

In Congress I trust, as I now turn my attention to my Ninth Circuit appeal. Notice of Appeal to be filed before November 20, 1985.

Leo O. LaBranche Jr., a National Citizen and President, Olympic Records, Inc.

Terminus of Petition - This was sent along with the voluminous record to 77 Senators and

200 House Members. Petition noted in the Congressional Record (99th Congress)

02.05.86 - Pet. 0274 and referred to Judiciary Committees of both Houses.

Chapter 12 The Olympic Record

I need to contact all olympic businesses in my case record. Now that I have a petition lodged and assigned to the Judiciary Committees I must get the word out about getting the word back. I devised a method by publishing what follows to all similarly situated, whether they knew it, agreed to it, liked it or not. I constructed the Olympic Record, the newsletter of Olympic Records, Incorporated. That must be illegal. Many contacted were not overjoyed to hear from me. But it did inform them of what was transpiring in the courts and now possibly in the Congress. This would ultimately affect them though there were many, many disbelievers. I wasn't here to convince them, who am I to do that. I heard back from all I needed to. At the end of the Olympic Record, I announced the future formation of a registered lobby to be called, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OLYMPIC BUSINESSES (NAOB). A non-profit registered lobby, authorized by Congress, also by the I.R.S. as a 501 c(6), to be headed by me so all future contacts with Congress would come from us, and not from a lone litigant. I had been doing this for over eighteen months and I am tired of doing it alone.

The 99th Congress has already accepted as received my Petition, Complaint and mountains of evidence so whoever may join my new lobby group is already covered under my first personal petition to Congress. They're already present and accounted for. Several paragraphs in the "Olympic Record" reprinted from the Petition, some redundancy is required.

**Sent to 2,500 entities using the word olympic in their business.**

All businesses present in the court record in, and as, evidence.

THE OLYMPIC RECORD

Published by Olympic Records, Inc.

HISTORY - Published Information

In the year 1894 the congress of Paris awarded the words olympic and olympiad to the International Olympic Committee [IOC]. History has it the French government was happy that the revised olympic games of 1896 were to originate in their country. There were 13 political parties at that congress of Paris. Since that time the IOC has endeavored to promote or 'pass on' this gift of olympic and olympiad to national olympic organizations. On occasion the IOC has been successful in obtaining legislation to this effect. In the year 1950 the U. S. Congress passed the American version of the IOC's charter, then titled "An Act to Incorporate the U. S. Olympic Association." Section 379 of this act prohibits commercial use of the word olympic (for the purpose of trade) by any person without the permission of the Olympic Committee. During 1978 the olympic law was amended, re-titled, resection and is now the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. A one time appropriations* of $30,000,000.ºº was included in the Act. § 379 now became § 380.

BACKGROUND of OLYMPIC RECORDS The Record Label

During 1982 Olympic Records company was organized in North Hollywood, California. After investigation it was found there existed no entity using the tradename in the United States at that time. Companies and corporations using this distinctive name go back to 1921. Twenty years as studio musician, music arranger, record producer, and music publisher encouraged my belief that Olympic Records could succeed.

We attempted to incorporate the business in California and were refused because of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. This was our first notice of the olympic law. New York was contacted and it was found that it was permitted to incorporate there, and we did so Jan. 5, 1983. The next step in protection of the trademark (company name) was the Patent & Trademark Office. After engaging in interstate and foreign commerce for one year an application was made for a Federal trademark registration for the company trademark and design. The application was refused pursuant to section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 which prohibits use of the word olympic for the purpose of trade. In 1978 numerous Congressmen registered their opposition to the U.S.O.C. receiving any taxpayers funds and some Congressmen did not want the U.S.O.C. [amateur athletics] to be in any way associated with the Federal government.

**THE SUIT**

A complaint was filed in the Federal court in the District of Columbia. The court transferred the case to Los Angeles where our business was located. Our action included constitutional questions, copyright & trademark conflicts, and unfair competition. The district court judge ruled for the U.S.O.C. and stated, "all that was necessary to violate the Amateur Sports Act, [§ 380] was to use the word in conjunction with any commercial enterprise [for the purpose of trade] without the U.S.O.C.'s permission since 1950." Judge admonished, " Go to the appeals court" and so we went. The exhaustive evidence which became the clerk's record in the case included:

(a) 350 pages of documents obtained from 46 states and 9 Federal agencies, these documents consisted of Certifications of good standing and computer print-outs of records in the custody of the State or Agency; [Federal records obtained through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act].

(b) Most states revealed their policy regarding the applicability of this law to their citizens, forty-six (46), plus or minus two, denied the enforcement of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, § 380;

(c) a video copy of a program subpoenaed from C.B.S. News which broadcasted Aug. 1, 1984 [opposite the games] on which the U.S.O.C. threatens to sue all persons who use the word olympic without their permission; (the broadcast, along with the PTO refusal, were deciding factors in initiating the anticipatory action challenging the law) and,

(d) Compilations from various directories that put the number of olympic businesses formed since 1950 in the thousands, one state alone had 600.

I could not convince a Federal judge in Los Angeles that the Olympic Committee's charter was defective, so, on with the process in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where a panel of three judges will decide. A stay was granted until late June when the opening arguments are due. A related case, IOC & USOC v San Francisco Arts & Athletics [Gay Olympics case] has not been finally determined. In this three-year case the IOC and USOC brought action against the SFAA organization for calling their event the Gay Olympic Games.

**MY PERSONAL PETITION**

House of Representatives, no. 0274

On November 15, 1985 a petition was sent to 77 Senators and 200 Representatives, including a copy of the before mentioned video, 350 pages of documents, and 30 pages of grievances and additional material. Each congressman selected received a five-pound package by first class mail. Several unofficial responses were received, one of which was, "if you don't like a Federal law or section thereof you might submit a 'corrected' version of what you feel is defective." Other comments suggested it was not their problem until/unless their constituents complained. However, this petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee of both Houses by the House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem, noted in the Congressional Record.

**EXCERPTS FROM PETITION**

Page 2, Head II

Scheme-Plan-Design-Conspiracy

The USOC, through and with its agents, has had a plan in effect to build case law and court opinions in an effort to validate section 380 of their defective law. I note here that agents for the U.S.O.C. are diligent in the prosecution of any business they come across that is in a weaker position or is utterly helpless, so as to obtain published and unpublished case law opinions, comments, directives, or other authorities to build a track record for their defective law.

1). March of Dimes \- \- In the "Reading Olympics" incident the U.S.O.C. became unjustly enriched by the sum of ten million dollars [$10,000,000]. The March of Dimes organization reluctantly chose not to litigate [defend] with contributors' money due to ethical, moral, and publicity considerations. The legislative intent regarding the statute stated in Senate Report S. 2523 of the 1950 Congress is as follows:

"These games have only to do with amateur athletics"

2). Paralympics, paralyzed person competing in their own games;

3). Retired persons, elderly persons competing in their own games;

4). Olympics of the Mind, children;

5). Gay Olympics [the four year old Federal court case];

6). Section 374 (13) [objects & purposes] of the Amateur Sports Act states that the U.S.O.C. will assist handicapped individuals in competitive activities and would also mean not to threaten them, sue them, and/or take their funds.

EXCERPTS FROM PETITION

Page 3, Head III

The lawyers for the U.S.O.C. (RICHARD G. KLINE & CO.), Washington, D.C. are completely responsible for this immoral, reprehensible, and unethical conduct and scheme under the color of Federal law and they claim recent congressional support for their actions. I would add that this defective law would provide employment for Mr. Kline and for the rest of his life especially against weaker or helpless opponents.

Page 4, Head V

My investigation and documents conclude that 46 [+/- 2] states, through successive administrations over a period of thirty-five years have denied applying this interpretation of law to their businesses or citizens, even after instructed to by the USOC.

Page 5, ¶ D

I have letter correspondence from U. S. State Department through commercial officers at our Embassies abroad and they were polled to determine the local policy regarding olympic. *Indicates countries where OLYMPIC RECORDS has been or would likely export product. [Phonograph records & tapes, compact discs and videos, film, other digital media of any make or description.]

*Korea, *New Zealand, *Denmark, *Italy, *United Kingdom, *Australia, *Columbia, *Spain, *Brazil, and *Japan have no restrictions upon use of the word in their respective public domains. Only Canada and Norway have restrictions upon use of olympic. No replies were received from our embassies in France or Greece. Canada later changed it's policy after the NOAB was legally formed and licensed by Congress to act as a 501(c)(6) lobbying organization and contacted Canadian olympic businesses who took it straight to Parliament where the issue was addressed.

Page 6, Head VII

A conclusive presumption exists (and cannot be defeated) that each and every business in every state who use olympic for the purpose of trade has a Federal tax identification number [EIN] in the master & regional files of the Internal Revenue Service [Treasury Department] because they are required to by law. It is estimated there are five (5) thousand businesses and corporations using olympic for the 'purpose of trade' since 1950. Five thousand exceptions to the rule applied to me and will later be applied to others. All existing "olympic" businesses pay taxes and yet are still prohibited from full legal status, in the federal sense, as long as this law or section of law exists. Also, one may not obtain a Federally registered trademark for protection should they engage in interstate or foreign commerce. A Federal registration or status may mean little to some but this record and effort demonstrates what value we place upon it.

Page 9, Head IX, Remedies

The following remedies are hereby submitted [to Congress]:

A) Repeal statute (law), never subject to re-enactment.

B) Repeal statute, subject to re-enactment after a Congressional investigation

into the activities of the directors, officers, and agents.

Investigate the following defects:

a) Section 371, present directors are not listed.

b) Section 374 (13) has been negated on many occasions.

c) Section 375(b) is violated.*

d) Section 380 should be burned. The USOC does not own olympic, olympiad...

A description of Federal trademark registration no. 980,734 is included in this section [380] and this mark was used on a letter sent to the states in 1978 requesting the states to discriminate between natural and artificial persons. This trademark is more invalid then anything ever registered with the PTO since the beginning of that office.

§375(b) states that this law shall not conflict with any state or Federal constitution, or any existing federal or state laws. This section voids the entire charter. It violates every state constitution.

Page 10

A network television broadcast entitled "Crossroads" broadcasted on August 1, 1984 [opposite the games] which 11% [A. C. Neilson] of the audience share viewed a portion titled the "Olympic Essay." Threats 'to sue' were broadcasted to the nation aimed at all persons who use the word olympic for the purpose of trade, the exclusive property of the defendant.

**Revised Amateur Sports Act - Petition 373 - Proposed Amendment ***

During January of 1986 I submitted a 'proposed' introductory amendment sent to the 100th Congress to replace section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 and was submitted and lodged with all Members of Congress. We have since heard from the Committee on the Judiciary of both Houses. Senator Strom Thurmond, [SC] the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., [NJ] chairman of the House Judiciary Committee have responded. (Petition 0373 noted in Congressional Record)

**Participate in the Legislative Process**

This is a solicitation for views or statements to be directed to the Congress. We are forming the "National Association of Olympic Businesses" to lobby the Congress as a group. To date no businesses have been contacted. You may have views that your Congressman would like to hear. Please make these views known to the Judiciary Committee of the SENATE and the Judiciary Committee of the HOUSE.

Refer to the AMATEUR SPORTS ACT OF 1978 and/or to

Petitions: House numbers 0274 and 0373.

* Sarcastically suggested by a disgruntled representative.

Help Get The Word Back,

____________________________________

LEO O. LABRANCHE, JR.

PRESIDENT, OLYMPIC RECORDS, INC.

Newsletter of the Olympic Lobby

PART III

Chapter 13 Martian Rules of Procedure

Excerpts from Petition 373 - Congressional Record June 4, 1986

The following table exhibits the author's audacity in practice, that's why they call it 'practice' in law and in medicine. A Congressman suggested, "If I did not like a law I should write a new one in its place." I did that. The critique that follows is true in every utterance. The footnote table alone destroys the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 unless we use Martian rules earlier mentioned.

**Martian Rules of Civil Procedure:**

The total disregard for facts, truth, logic, precedent and/or common sense, and an equal inability to see past the olympic torch (blinded by the light) resulting in the usurpation of American rights by the USOC and IOC conspiracy. That is called Martian Logic and as we know Martians no longer use this method because they're all dead. The text of the existing law is printed below with Footnotes (*) denoting problem areas.

SECTION 380 OF THE AMATEUR SPORTS ACT OF 1978

Author's Analysis: Section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978

Title 36 U.S.C. §§ 371 0 396, (1982) P.L. 95-606
Section 380, as written, with footnotes designating problems.

Footnotes attached to footnote table. Footnotes illustrated as *1

§ 380 USE OF OLYMPIC symbols, emblems, trademarks, & names.

(a) Unauthorized use *1; civil actions; unlawful use prior to September 21, 1950. *2.

Without the consent of the corporation *3, any person who uses for the purposes of trade *4, to induce the sale of any goods or services *5, or to promote any theatrical *6 exhibition, athletic performance, or competition *7.

(1) the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of five interlocking rings; *8

(2) the emblem of the corporation, consisting of an escutcheon having a blue chief and vertically extending red and white bars on the base with 5 interlocking rings displayed on the chief; *9

(3) and trademark *10, trade name, sign, word *11, symbol or insignia falsely representing association with, or authorization by, the International Olympic Committee or Corporation; or

(4)the words Olympic, *12, Olympiad, *13, Citius Altius Fortius, or any combination or simulation thereof tending to cause confusion, *14, to cause mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with the Corporation or any Olympic activity *15 shall be subject to suit in a civil action by the Corporation for the remedies provided in the Trademark Act of July 5, 1946 *16.

However any person who actually used the emblem in subsection (a)2, or the words, or any combination thereof, in subsection (a)4 for any lawful purpose and for the same goods or services is exempted. In addition, any person who actually used, or who's assignor actually used, any other trademark, trade name, sign, symbol or insignia described in subsection (a)3 and (a)4 for any lawful purpose prior to enactment of this Act [Sept.21, 1950 *18, shall not be prohibited by this section from continuing such lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.

Section 380 (b) Contributors and suppliers *19

The Corporation may authorize contributors and suppliers of goods or services to use the trade name of the Corporation as well as any trademark, symbol, insignia, or emblem of the International Olympic Committee or the Corporation in advertising that the contributions, goods, or services were donated, supplied, or furnished to, or for the use of, approved, selected, or used by the corporation or the United States Olympic or Pan-American team or team members.

Section 380 (c). Exclusive right of the Corporation. *20

The Corporation shall have the exclusive right to use the name United States Olympic Committee; the symbol described in subsection (A)1; the emblem described in subsection (a)2; and the words "Olympic", "Olympiad," "Citius Altius Fortius," or any combination thereof subject to the preexisting rights described in subsection (a).

**The AMATEUR SPORTS ACT of 1978 - - - FOOTNOTE TABLE**

Ft *1 The first words of [§ 380] subheading (a) declare "Unauthorized use" of the word olympic is not permitted. The language declares authorization necessary to use the word olympic and implies that authorization is available from the USOC with their consent. This section of the Act begins with a false statement.

a).Most of the United States authorize, permit, allow, or otherwise provide assistance to, and accept taxes and other fees from, over two thousand olympic businesses formed since the enactment date of section 380 [previous §379], September 21, 1950. Tens of thousands of persons are employed by these companies in these states. Many of these businesses are active in interstate commerce. Insurance companies, banks, transportation companies, chains of businesses...

b). Authorization to conduct business using olympic (whether intrastate or interstate) since enactment date of the Act is given to businesses by several Federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury, F.D.I.C., F.S.L.I.C., the Internal Revenue Service, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Copyright Office. The Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission have a similar policy.

c). Authorized use of the word olympic is not permitted by the USOC without an accompanying USOC designation. Permission is not available except in conjunction with one of the numerous other symbols or designations of the corporation.

The opening words in this subheading (a) are not true. There has been no authorization necessarily obtained from the USOC to use the word olympic, since 1950, 1978, or 1986.

Ft *2 [L] awful use prior to September 21, 1950. [Grandfather clause]

a). The grandfather clause is defective. The intention of the 82nd Congress in adding this provision to the Act was to insure the rights of persons, corporations, businesses, trade names and trademarks who or which existed prior to the enactment date of Sept. 21, 1950. This provision has been completely avoided and taken exception to by the overwhelming majority of the states through successive administrations and also avoided by the Federal agencies with one exception being the P.T.O..

b). Officials of state government are qualified to determine whether a person seeking to register a (i) corporate name, (ii) trade name, (iii) business name or, (iv) trademark using olympic is infringing upon the USOC. No reason exists to inhibit or obstruct intrastate or interstate commerce of those using olympic since the enactment date of the Act. The grandfather clause has been completely, and justifiably, ignored. Should a Grandfather clause be reenacted in a revision to this section I submit it would immediately be challenged in a Federal Court.

Ft *3 [W]ithout the consent of the corporation.

a). No one may obtain the consent of the USOC to use olympic without an accompanying olympic designation. Consent is not available nor have the States or Federal agencies needed consent from the USOC to authorize businesses and corporations to exist within their territorial boundaries.

b). If consent were available to use olympic, as in "rent a word", I submit it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to create a standard by which one could rent the word olympic for commercial use. It cannot be rented, leased, or loaned for everyone already has it and olympic is Public property.

c). Natural and artificial persons may obtain the consent from their own particular State for permission to use olympic. Two to three thousand businesses and corporations throughout the United States are doing business (since 1950) such as: Olympic Flame Inc.., Olympic Games, Inc.., Olympic Enterprises Inc., Olympic Expositions Inc., Olympic Ideas, Olympic Sports Inc., Olympic Sporting Goods, Inc., Olympic Advertising, Inc., Olympic Express, Inc., Olympic Sales, Inc., Olympic Builders, Inc., Olympic Manufacturing, Inc., Olympic, Inc., Olympic Sportswear, Inc., Olympic Explorations, Inc., Olympic Trophy Co., Olympic Marketing, Inc., Olympic Properties, Inc., Olympic Transport, Inc., Olympic Printing, Inc., Olympic Image, Inc., Olympic Development, Inc., The Olympic Corporation, Olympic Investments, Inc., Olympic Toys, Inc., Olympic Jewelry, Inc., Olympic Car, Inc., Olympic Records, Inc., Olympic General, Olympic Gold Sportswear, Inc., Olympic Fitness Center, Inc., Olympic Health Spa, Inc., Olympic Flowers, Inc., and the list is much larger. Practically every kind of product or service offered to consumers in the United States may, and does, use the word "Olympic."

Ft *4 [F] or the purposes of trade,

a). Every business and corporation formed since 1950 who uses olympic as a part of the title of the business or corporation undoubtedly uses olympic for the purposes of identifying his/her goods or services and consequently the use of olympic is for the purposes of trade.

b). All persons, natural or artificial, who use olympic as part of the name of their business since 1950 are in violation of this provision and are guilty until proven innocent. The federal courts may be busy in each circuit with challenges to § 380.

c). Most states blatantly deny the language present in this provision. It is submitted the states have the right to exercise discretion regarding businesses originating within their own boundaries.

Ft *5 [T] o induce the sale of any goods or services,

See footnote 3, subparagraphs 1-3.

Ft *6 [T] heatrical exhibition,

The USOC is not in the theatrical business and has no right to exist in any field whatsoever other than amateur athletic competitions. The USOC is not in the music industry, or any other art or artistic related exhibition. Senate Report S.2523

Ft *7 [C] ompetition,

This word should have been preceded by the words 'amateur athletic.'

Ft *8[T] he symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of 5 interlocked rings;

a).The I.O.C. should register its own symbol in the Patent & Trademark Office and not be dependent upon the U.S. Congress for protection. Is there a prohibition with regard to the I.O.C. registering its own mark(s) in the United States?

b). The United Kingdom and Japan, as well as the majority of the other free nations, do not allow this intrusion into the affairs of the sovereign. Let the I.O.C. protect itself, especially in light of the fact that much of the language of their "Olympic Charter" enacted by the French congress in Paris (1894) was used in the formulation of this section [380, previously § 379].

Ft *9 [T] he emblem of the corporation, consisting of an escutcheon having a blue chief and vertically extending red and white bars on the base with 5 interlocked rings displayed on the chief;

a). A Federal registration exists for this seldom used mark described in subsection (a)(2) and it is reg. no. 980,734. This may remain an "emblem" of the USOC but there is little doubt the STARS IN MOTION currently owned and/or held by the Los Angeles Olympics Organizing Committee is the new symbol of the USOC for the coming years. The trademark registration for the STARS IN MOTION is number 1,276,147 and

Service mark registration for the STARS IN MOTION is no. 1,199,926.

Ft *10 [A] nd trademark,

a). The USOC owns at least four Federal registrations. One being trademark registration number 968,566 [the word olympic (invalid)], another being no. 980,734, the mark described in the preceding paragraph and the STARS IN MOTION trademark and service mark registrations mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

b). These registrations must be listed in the amended Act, by picture, number, date, class of goods, limitations, etc..

c). The USOC claims an untold number of "common law" (™) trademarks. It is in the public interest to enumerate each and every one of them, by picture, if necessary.

Ft *11 [T] rade name, sign, word,

a). Every one of these names, signs, and words should be listed, else it is open season on any unsuspecting person who may be infringing on one of the dozens of common law symbols and words & phrases the USOC "claims" to control.

b). The USOC claims rights to symbols and phrases belonging to the general public. In the music industry you "Go for the Gold" record, aiming for the platinum record (representing 1,000,000 units [L.P.'s, tapes, CD's] sold).

Ft *12 [T] he words "Olympic",

a). In the year 1894 the French congress of Paris awarded the word olympic to the I.O.C.. Since that time the I.O.C. has endeavored to obtain legislation from the local sovereign for the 5 rings and the word(s) olympic and olympiad. This endeavor of 93 years has had no effect in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Italy, Columbia, and Brazil. The I.O.C.'s efforts have had an effect in Norway, Netherlands, Canada, and the United States.

b). The prohibition placed upon use of the word olympic or olympiad is a violation of the provisions of the first amendment of the federal constitution relating to a prior restraint upon the use of a spoken word.

Ft *13 Olympiad, Restatement of Ft. 12.

Ft *14 [T] ending to cause confusion,

a). Using the word olympic, according to the USOC, automatically causes a 'tendency to confuse.' [15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1125(a)] Confusion as to the source or origin of the goods or services is the proper standard by which to determine whether or not confusion, in the minds of the public, exists or not. The clerk's record in case no. 85-6484 (CA9), previously submitted as petition on or about Nov. 15, 1985, discloses beyond doubt, that goods and services bearing the word olympic originate from two thousand businesses formed since 1950. There can be no confusion as to the source or origin of goods bearing the word olympic. Goods and services come from Olympic businesses in all the 50 states.

Ft *15 [F] falsely suggest a connection with the corporation or any olympic activity;

a). More language of 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1125(a) is used here to apply the provisions of the Trademark Act. What is necessary to violate this provision of the Act, according to the USOC, is to use the word olympic, and that being so, all persons using olympic since 1950 are guilty of violating this provision.

Ft *16 [S] hall be subject to a suit in a civil action by the corporation for the remedies provided in the Trademark Act of 1946.

a). This language declares that remedies are available to the USOC under the provisions of the Trademark Act of 1946. I submit that the Act must conform with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq. if the Act is to prescribe the remedies. The Act does not conform to the existing Trademark Act, trademark case law, or common law trademark rights in the following ways:

i) 15 U.S.C. §1051 declares: [Applications for registrations must] include a statement to the effect that the person making the verification believes... the corporation in whose behalf he makes the verification to be the owner of the mark sought to be registered, that the mark is in use in commerce, and that no other person, firm or corporation, to the best of his knowledge and belief, has the right to use such mark in commerce either in identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto, as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive.

ii) 15 U.S.C. § 1058(a) provides: [T] he registration of any mark under the provisions of the [TM] Act shall be cancelled by the Commissioner at the end of six years following its date.... A section 8 affidavit showing that the mark is still in use is required to keep the registration in force for the full 20 years. This affidavit must conform to the same provisions as set forth in section 1051 with emphasis on underlined portions of preceding paragraph a). This section 8 affidavit was filed by the USOC about 1980.

iii) 15 U.S.C § 1064(c) declares: The abandonment provision is invoked by the simple fact that (i) TM registration number 968,566 [the word olympic] is in a plurality of classes and yet hundreds of exceptions exist in each of the classes of goods or services that the USOC claims exclusive rights in, before and since the date this registration was issued (1973), and before and since 1980 when the section 8 affidavit was filed.

iv) 15 U.S.C. § 1111 declares a notice provision either in the form of an "R" enclosed by a circle or the words Registered in the U.S. Patent Office may accompany any mark registered in the P.T.O.. There has been no use of either of these notice provisions in conjunction with TM registration numbers 968,566 or 980,734. I would add that the P.T.O., when refusing registrations because of use of olympic in my case, did not see fit to reveal the existence of these registrations to me at my initial trademark registration refusal in 1984.

v) 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1)(2)(7) regards incontestable rights except when one of the following defects is established: section 1115(b)(1) relates to fraud or mistake in the application or the incontestable right [section 8 affidavit] to use the mark; section (b)(2) relates to the mark being abandoned or invalid and; section (b)(7) relates to use of the mark or marks used to violate the antitrust laws of the United States.

vi) 15 U.S.C. § 1120 declares: Any person who shall procure registration in the P.T.O. by a false or fraudulent declaration or representation, oral or in writing, or by any false means, shall be liable in a civil action by any person injured thereby for any damages in consequence thereof.

vii) The most common of trademark rules is the no exclusivity, no trademark rule. I submit there can never be any exclusivity over use of the word olympic [by statute or trademark] alone as a trademark for any goods or services by any person.

viii) Though the USOC's TM registration no. 968,566 is in a plurality of classes over which exclusive rights are said to exist, it is noted that the USOC has no claim to goods in classification 9, phonograph records and tapes. This registration is invalid and has been used for unfair competition.

Ft *17 A restatement of the grandfather clause.See footnote 2.

Ft *18 A restatement of the grandfather clause. See footnote 2.

Ft *19 § 380 (b) Contributors and suppliers.

a). I submit that the entire section 380 [(a)(b)(c)] could be encompassed in this section (b). If the symbols, trademarks (both Federal & common law), names, initials, words & phrases, and combinations thereof were clarified and enumerated most of the problems caused, or to be caused, by section 380 can be remedied. The USOC at one time even sought to foreclose "derivatives" of the word olympic.

Ft *20 § 380 (c) Exclusive right of the corporation.

a). A restatement of previously described exclusive rights and privileges of the USOC and should be removed. End of Footnote section

This concludes the author's analysis of problem areas in section 380 of the Amateur Act of 1978. The analysis may be helpful in determining that the attached introductory amendment is useful as a skeleton draft of what section 380 should declare rather than what it does declare. The attached amendment conforms to the Trademark Act of 1946 and the United States Constitution. Author: Leo O. LaBranche

Following:

First draft edition of sections 380 (a)(b)(c) of title 36 United States Code

Section 380 of the revised Amateur Sports Act 1978

Received by House and Senate

A device or method to keep the issue in the forefront of Judiciary committees

Listed as received in Congressional Record: Pet. 373, June 4, 1986

First draft edition of sections 380 (a)(b)(c) of title 36 United States Code

THE AMATEUR SPORTS ACT (author's proposed bill)

[Proposed amended title, no year mentioned]

INTRODUCTORY AMENDMENT TO SECTION 380 OF

THE AMATEUR SPORTS ACT OF 1978

[36 U.S.C. §§ 371-396] P.L 95-606

OLD SECTION 380 (a) [Repealed or Replaced]

[New] Head: § 380. Exclusive Rights of the Corporation

[New] Subhead: (a) Olympic Symbols, trademarks, names, emblems, words & phases, and combinations thereof.

The U.S.O.C. (hereinafter the "Corporation") shall have exclusive right to use the following symbols, trademarks, names, initials, emblems, words and phrases, and combinations thereof subject to the limitations stated herein.

1). The five (5) interlocked rings, belonging to and representing exclusively the International Olympic Committee;

2). The Federal trademark registered in the Patent & Trademark Office known as the Stars in Motion, registration number 1,276,147 in classes [designate classes] and service mark known as the Starts In Motion, registration number 1,199,926 in classes [designate classes]. The notice provision of the Trademark Act of 1946, [15 U.S.C. § 1111] should or must be used to notify all persons of the existence of these federally registered trademarks; and

3). The name of the corporation, the United States Olympic Committee, or the designation or term, Olympic Committee, and the initials U.S.O.C.;

4). The emblem of the Corporation, Federal trademark registration number 980,734, in classes [designate classes], consisting of an escutcheon having a blue chief and vertically extending red and white bars on the base with five (5) interlocking rings displayed on the chief;

5).The word Olympic ONLY WHEN accompanied by the word(s) i) Committee, ii) United States, iii) Official, and as they may connect to, iv) sponsor, v) contributor, vi) donor, vii) supporter, and other such words designating a connection to the olympic movement, the olympic games, the Corporation and the support thereof;

6). The letters U.S.A. when accompanied by the marks or symbols in preceding subparagraphs 1-2. [Common law trademark rights to use U.S.A. with five (5) interlocked rings and/or Starts in Motion].

7). The term "Olympic Games & Olympiad ONLY WHEN they are used to identify, and to connect to, the international amateur athletic competition, controlled or sanctioned by the I.O.C. held every four years. [This paragraph and section does not include the word "Olympics."] See /1 footnote

8). Souvenirs, such as Sam the eagle, and any other mascot, object, or device that the Corporation has used in the past, or plans to use in future, to license for the purpose of raising funds or other considerations. All devices and souvenirs must have attached one or more of the combined designations in the preceding subparagraph (a), including at least one or more of the Federal trademarks, not to exclude use of U.S. Copyright law.

9). Non-profit persons, groups, corporations, and associations are exempted from the provisions of this amended Act following the directive stated in Stop the Olympic Prison v. U.S.O.C 489 F Supp 1112 (SDNY), by the Honorable J.M. Cannella, U.S. District Judge, Southern District, New York.

10). Reserved

OLD SUBHEADING (b) related to contributors and suppliers and (b) is now incorporated in subparagraph (a). New subhead (b) follows.

Subhead: [§ 380] (b) Civil actions by the Corporation for infringement of its exclusive rights pursuant to the TM Act of 1946 [title 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et. seq.]

The Corporation shall have exclusive right to own, control, use, and license, the symbols, trademarks, names, emblems, words & phrases, and combinations thereof, subject to the stated limitations in subparagraph (a) in conjunction with, and for the express purpose of, raising funds or other considerations, for the United States olympic effort, and, any person, natural or artificial who, in the judgment of the Corporation, infringes upon any symbols, trademarks, emblems, names, initials, or combinations thereof in subparagraph (a) shall be subject to suit in a civil action by the Corporation for the remedies provided for and prescribed in the Trademark Act of July 5, 1946 (60 Stat. 427; known as the Trademark Act of 1946) title 15 U.SC. §§1051 et. seq..

Subhead (c) Repealed to conform. New Heading (a) derived from this heading (c).

Interpretive note and decisions, directive following 380 [Repealed]

**Author's Comment**

Title 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et. seq. can now be the controlling law for protection of the Corporations trademarks (Federal & common law), and symbols. The five (5) rings are protected by the doctrine of secondary meaning was well as by subparagraph (a), and TM Registration no. 980,734. Common law unfair competition and trademark infringement seem to be the avenue with regard to the other words, combinations, and terminologies. I submit that the language of the trademark act should not be restated in this Act.

Remarks regarding term(s) Olympics and Olympic Games, footnote /1.

/1 The word Olympics, in some minds, can only designate one thing, that being the Olympic Games. I submit in this democracy there have been, and continue to be, olympics in many forms. Chili Olympics, Frog Jumping Olympics, Reading Olympics, Olympics of the Mind, Paralympics, Cooking Olympics, Song Olympics, and other olympics of many descriptions, PROVIDED no person may use the term Olympics or the term Olympic Games, for any amateur sports competition which is destined to compete in international competition. Any accompanying Corporation designation, enumerated in subparagraph (a) [exclusive rights] may not be used without express written consent of the Corporation. No use of the five (5) interlocked rings, the Stars in Motion, the Federal TM registration no. 980,734, the initials U.S.A or U.S.O.C. may be used to designate or title any olympic competition, and no international amateur athletic olympics of any kind.

**AFTERMATH of § 380 AMENDMENT**

This introductory amendment does not diminish or dilute any of the USOC's rights. The present language of the un-amended §380 is overbroad, extremely confusing, and [in author's opinion] repugnant to the U. S. Constitution. As it is written §380 will cause nothing but problems for the Congress, the United States, untold thousands of owners of olympic companies, directors, officers, agents, employees, their dependents, and the consuming general public. Since the author of this amendment seems to be the closest to, and most diligent dissenter of the present §380 it is fitting for one so injured to offer the present solution. It undoubtedly needs the learned hand of several legislators and/or committees in order to be in a form that can be enacted.

This is submitted as the first edition [rough draft] of the 1986 introductory amendment to section 380 (a)(b)(c) of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. It follows a Petition sent to and received by the Congress on or about November 15, 1985, noted as Pet. no. 0274.

With the Highest Respect ______________

Chapter 14 Appeal to the Carter Center

Dear President Carter:

My name is Leo LaBranche and I, and others similarly situated, have a problem. We have not met though I performed with musical groups at the mansion during your tenure as Governor. I registered to vote in 1980 to cast a ballot for you from Burbank, my first interest in politics since 1963. I'll take a chance and use Mr. Peter Rodino Jr. as a reference to this topic and to my activities.

**SUMMARY**

When you were President a law was enacted titled the AMATEUR SPORTS ACT of 1978. What follows pertains to this law that was recently interpreted by the U. S. Supreme Court. The Court decided (5/4) sub nom. S.F.A.A. v USOC/IOC (Gay Olympics case) that no person since 1950 could use the word olympic(s) for any commercial purpose and those doing so were in violation of federal law and Supreme Court authority. The court ruled litigants could not use trademark defenses in a court action and went on to say there were no constitutional restraints on the Olympic Committee with respect to Olympic Committee enforcement of the Act. The Court has again shown an interesting view of the gays and the A.C.L.U.. I have the sad distinction of following this case since my filing in 1984 (D.D.C. 84-3099) through the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, LABRANCHE v USOC \- 85-6484.

Yesterday the 9th Circuit Court affirmed a district court ruling of 1985 which said LABRANCHE could not use the word olympic for a phonograph record company (Olympic Records, Inc.) nor use the word for Olympic Records (retail stores), or for any reason. I am embarrassed at being one who studied, believed, paid dearly, fought, lost, and set another bad example with which others may be diminished, tainted, and humiliated.

The following questions illustrate the problem, they are by no means an interrogatory but I believe serve to identify the problem, constitutionally speaking.

a). Were you informed section 380 of the Act was to be construed as prohibiting every person from using the word olympic since 1950 regardless of trademark law provisions which allow for defenses such as confusion as to source or abandonment?

b). When the Act was made law were you informed of the thousands of current users of Olympic by business enterprises (small & large) around the country from 1950 - 1978?

c). Did you understand that there were to be no constitutional restraints on the Olympic Committee's enforcement of the Act?

d). Are you aware that a "Kennedy Foundation" can use Olympics for their charitable cause [Special Olympics] but the "March Of Dimes Foundation" was prevented from using Olympics for their charitable cause [Reading Olympics]? - Not to mention old people, young people and anyone the USOC could intimidate and obtain history.

e). The Olympic Committee is brave and threatening (especially since my action produced 1000's of infringers) as against tiny and helpless micro-opponents but has yet to take on one Olympic company or corporation its own size. There are several Olympic Businesses formed since 1950 that gross in excess of 100 million in revenue per year. Are these big companies exempt because this law can only spear the weak?

In closing, Mr. President, I ask that you take notice of this. While it is unlikely you can respond at least you will know what has been going on relative to this law. I shall continue to bear this and I realize my future is but an empty vessel. Perhaps the Congress will revise the act after my destruction. Should there be required any additional material or facts please indicate so and I will comply. Thank you Mr. President.

With Highest Respect, President, "National Association of Olympic Businesses"

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Staff Attorney - Steve Best

Before the end of the 99th Congress I was contacted by Steve Best, a staff attorney, from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was not at home when he phoned but retrieved my messages and returned his call from Santa Monica where I had been seeing my doctor. This is the only phone call of the long cycle that was not recorded. I was not calling from home and the automated recording system was not available. Undoubtedly, meant to be. He was calling to give me assurances from the Committee and informed me that five (5) (remaining anonymous) Senators on that body wanted me to know that Section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 was going to be addressed and corrected and not to expect it this (99th) Congress. [30 days left in the legislative session.] He also indicated I could publicize this information. It's June and seemingly my efforts over the nine months and the "squeaky wheel syndrome" is on track. I hardly felt the pavement on my way back home to Idyllwild. Relief is a funny thing; it doesn't last long. I am proud, gratified, and humbled by this recent event. A day or so later I conclude the next Congress may indeed do as I have been informed, but what if something happens.

With this new positive information and anonymous Senatorial support it's now time to get others to join this effort to keep the issue in focus and in front of the Congress. Supposedly, or, arguably, I have accomplished my initial purpose and have succeeded in getting the issue to be addressed by the proper committee in both Houses. Hurray, now what. After all, it's me here doing this and what if the tide should turn? Meanwhile, this event has absolutely no bearing on my court case, none, except in my heart of hearts.

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SD-224

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

Attention: Steve Best July 17, 1986

Dear Mr. Best:

I enjoyed talking with you. Please find the enclosed material that may be relevant to the issues. The Honorable Senators from Washington, California, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Texas may be interested in light of the material included which relates to the "Olympic Businesses, Corporations, and Organizations" in their respective states.

I would like to provide my views which may be relevant to an issue, should one arise, of the use of a torch, flame, rings (other than five), or generic terms or symbols other than a) the 5 interlocked rings; b) the initials USA with the 5 rings; c) the initials U.S.O.C.; d) the Stars in Motion; e) the Stars and Motion with the 5 rings; f) the Stars in Motion with the initials USA and the 5 rings.

A concern I have regarding a torch is not that I use one. It is the fact that hundreds of "Olympic Businesses, Corporations, and Organizations" use generic terms and combinations of generic terms and symbols as a part of the identification of their business or product. I am in the process of contacting them for the purpose of compiling a comprehensive collection of their respective combinations and logos. [Any one could use the symbol of the Statute of Liberty for the purpose of trade during the recent events but were prohibited, by law, from using the specific logo that designated the event.] The Olympic Committee, as abstract as it may sound, has no protected torch. It has no copyright for a torch and the torch hidden by the shield upon trademark registration no. 980,734 is hardly considered the olympic torch, and, the torch the runners use to open the games is probably not a copyrightable object, though a picture of it may be. And it changes from Olympiad to Olympiad.

The concern with regard to use of my particular torch is that (a) I own a copyright for my trademark design which includes a torch; (b) I have a pending trademark application which includes a torch and the Patent & Trademark Office made no mention whatsoever of the torch in my several communications with the office; (c) the Olympic Committee stopped arguing the torch in the court papers; and (d) this torch was "engraved for hire" and is my family's personal industrial and intellectual property.

The Olympic Committee states the controlling law with respect to the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 to be Trademark law. I believe strongly that "confusion as to the source and/or origin of the goods or services" is the substantial and controlling provision of trademark law as it applies to the Amateur Act. I can attest to the fact that 2500 hundred radio stations across the country were not confused by a 3/4 inch logo on a phonograph record or audio tape or the use of the logo as the record label where the torch is practically hidden by the data required to be on the label. The Olympic Committee has seldom, if ever, distributed phonograph records and tapes to record stores, and if it did, it would be by licensing agreement and not under the name Olympic Records. I really enjoyed our conversation we had recently, it was a long overdue feeling of relief and I thank you and the Judiciary Committee.

Sincerely _________________

Chapter 15 Oh CANADA

My ancestors walked on over to New Hampshire from Quebec in the late 1600's.

**Caution - Blunder Ahead**

NAOB sends letter to Canadian Olympic (Olympique) Businesses

August 20, 1987 - Letter to Canada Businesses

Dear Olympic - Olympique:

The enclosed article by the Prime Minister was published in the Washington Post. I believe your commercial business will be interested in what follows. With all respect to your privacy our association provides information that is important to your future use of the word "olympic." This letter is not soliciting funds and the controversy has nothing to do with the upcoming Olympic Games in Calgary or Canada's honorable olympic team.

Background: In 1896 the congress of Paris, France, "awarded" the words "olympic, olympiad," and a symbol of five interlocked rings to the International Olympic Committee (I.O.C.). Since that time the I.O.C. has attempted to pass on this "award" to other national olympic committees. (Our investigation found the United Kingdom does not prevent use of the word olympic.) In 1950 the United States Congress gave the U. S. olympic committee exclusive right to the word "olympic." In 1978 this law was amended providing additional protection for the word "olympic" and re-titled the law the "Amateur Sports Act of 1978." This amended law was enacted even though there were and are thousands of commercial businesses in the United States using the word "olympic" since 1950, including 500 in the state of Washington, 400 in California, and 400 in New York. Our association was formed to cause a revision or repeal of the law that threatens our commercial survival. Similar restrictions exist upon your use of the word "olympic."

Enclosed are copies of letters in support of our claims. We believe the I.O.C. would like you and everyone to believe that - it - holds exclusive title and trademark to the word "olympic" all over the world. This is not true. The I.O.C. (an international group) has questionable authority to dictate the rights and privileges of Americans or Canadians.

The controversy in the United States will reach larger proportions in the coming months. Included is a list of Canadian businesses in your area to which this correspondence is being sent. Perhaps you might contact each other. A list of our members is printed on the back of this page and a Wall Street Journal article is included reporting on the situation.

With respect, Leo O. LaBranche, Jr., President, N.A.O.B.

**Welcome to my Olympic Blunder**

I had been associated with two olympic banking institutions. One had joined the NAOB lobby, Olympic Savings and Loan of Seattle, and I had a commercial account with Olympic National Bank in Los Angeles and used a check drawn on that bank to pay the Patent & Trademark Office application fee for registration. [They cashed the check.] So when I saw a Canadian business called the Olympic Trust I assumed (wrongly) that they were a financial institution, not knowing until later it was the Olympic Committee of Canada. They received the same letter as the others listed below and set the stage for what occurred. I actually gave them an exhaustive list of all the Olympic businesses in Canada. Mortification is what I felt for weeks. I had inadvertently provided the Olympic Committee of Canada with the names, addresses, and whereabouts of every potential violator of the Olympic rights, whatever those rights were in Canada. Had this event not occurred it would not have been so immediately and decisively acted upon. Evidently the Olympic Trust sent letters to all the below listed threatening them and this put the ball in motion and things went pretty fast.

Canada news media (C.B.C.) calls me relative to letters I sent to Canadians. Three major Canadian newspapers call my 800 # and two national sources on the same day and I am not at home. When I call back the following day the stories have run and I have not participated in any way in the stories because of my absence when the media called.

**Report and Transcript from Producer of the C.B.C. Journal**

Transcript of conversation with Christine Nielsen of the C.B.C. Journal (Canada equivalent of ABC Nightline) She is the Producer of the weekly program.

She phoned, I returned the call. What follows is her speaking.

She answered: "Christine Nielsen, (C.B.C.) Journal."

Ms. Neilson: (speaking)

Actually we were going to do a story on the Canadian Olympic Asso. picking on all the little guys but yesterday the Canadian government announced "that's going to change," so our story sort of died. Edited, next she said: The government has no real control over the Olympic association but what they did [was] "They met with the Canadian Olympic Asso. heads this weekend (Nov. 21-22) and basically...I can read you what the article says," (from news report) "The Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport yesterday spoke in the House (Parliament) and what he said is, " The Olympic Trust has agreed to stop harassing small businesses using the olympic name who are not in conflict with trademark laws or competing against sponsors of the games." As well, "nobody who was using the name olympic before 1980 will be getting any threatening letters or be subject to (what Mr. Jelnick called) a "crackdown" by olympic organizations unless there is a direct conflict with the Olympics."

She went on to explain: "What happened (up here) was there were a couple of high powered Greeks, in the Greek community, who got really upset and got in touch with the Ambassador (this is inside info. it doesn't appear in the paper, she said) and all their head honchos and then the Ambassador got on the Canadian Olympic Committee. So, steps have been taken and I don't think the little guys are going to be seeing any more letters. If the Olympic Association doesn't heed what the government has said I'll call and let you know. [THANKS, BYE]. End of transcript. Canadian businesses below.

OLYMPIC AUTO BODY LTD. - OLYMPIC DESIGN

EDMONTON, ALBERTA - EDMONTON, ALBERTA

OLYMPIC GRILL RESTAURANT - OLYMPIC GYM EQUIPMENT

EDMONTON, ALBERTA - EDMONTON, ALBERTA

OLYMPIC MUSICAL CO., LTD. - OLYMPIC POOL SERVICE

EDMONTON, ALBERTA - EDMONTON, ALBERTA

OLYMPIC REALTY LIMITED - OLYMPIC BILLIARDS

EDMONTON, ALBERTA \- CALGARY, ALBERTA

OLYMPIC CARPET CLEANERS - OLYMPIC ELECTRIC, LTD

OLYMPIC FLAME FAMILY REST - OLYMPIC GLASS, LTD

OLYMPIC HEATING - OLYMPIC IMPORT COMPANY

OLYMPIC IRONWORKS - OLYMPIC MECHANICAL, LTD

OLYMPIC PIZZA - OLYMPIC RESOURCES, LTD

CALGARY, ALBERTA

OLYMPIC BLDG. MAINTENANCE - OLYMPIC CONCRETE, LTD

OLYMPIC DISTRIBUTORS - OLYMPIC FOREST PRODUCTS

OLYMPIC GYM - OLYMPIC HEATING

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COL. - RICHMOND, BRITISH COL

OLYMPIC HOTEL - OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES, IN CAN

OLYMPIC INTRNTL. AGENCIES, LTD.OLYMPIC LEASING, LTD

OLYMPIC LIGHTING FIXTURES, LTD. - OLYMPIC PEST CONTROL, LTD

OLYMPIC PROPERTIES, LTD. - OLYMPIC SIGNS, LTD

OLYMPIC STEAM BATHS - OLYMPIC TRAILOR & CAMPER

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COL. - BURNABY, BRITISH COL

OLYMPIC COIN CENTRE - OLYMPIC COIN & STAMP EXC

OTTAWA, ONTARIO - OTTAWA, ONTARIO

OLYMPIC CONFECTIONARY - OLYMPIC DRILLING CO., LTD.

VANIER, ONTARIO - OTTAWA, ONTARIO

OLYMPIC DRYWALL & ACOUSTICS - OLYMPIC JANITOR SERVICE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO - EDMONTON, ALBERTA

OLYMPIC PAINTER - OLYMPIC RESTAURANT

NEPEAN, ONTARIO - OTTAWA, ONTARIO

OLYMPIC SKI SHOP - OLYMPIC TRAVEL

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

OLYMPIAD MOTOR, IN CANADA - OLYMPIADES RESTAURANT

OLYMPIC ALUMINUM MFG., LTD. - OLYMPIC BAKERIES

OLYMPIC BOOTS - OLYMPIC BOWLING ENRG

OLYMPIC BOX & PAPER MFG - OLYMPIC BOXING CLUB

OLYMPIC BUSINESS CENTERS, LTD. - OLYMPIC CASH REGISTER

OLYMPIC CLOTHING CO. - OLYMPIC COFFEE SERVICE

OLYMPIC DELICATESSEN & PASTRY - OLYMPIC DRY CLEANING.

OLYMPIC DRY GOOD - OLYMPIC ELECTRONICS CO.

OLYMPIC ELEVATORS, IN CANADA - OLYMPIC GEN AUTO REPS

OLYMPIC HELICOPTERS - OLYMPIC LINEN SERVICE,

OLYMPIC TUCK SHOP - OLYMPIC MONTREAL SPORTS

OLYMPIC PANT & SPORTSWEAR - OLYMPIC PANTS CO

OLYMPIC PRECISION WORKS - OLYMPIC RADIONICS

OLYMPIC REPAIR CO. - OLYMPIC SOAP, IN CANADA

OLYMPIC SPORTS CO., LTD. - OLYMPIC TRAILLEUR VALET

OLYMPIC TILE CO., LTD. - OLYMPIC TRANSPORT REGD

OLYMPIC VALET SERVICE - OLYMPIC WELDING & META

OLYMPIQUE CAFE SERVICE - OLYMPIQUES PARKING

MONTREAL, QUEBEC

OLYMPIC BILLIARDS - OLYMPIC HOMES LTD.

OLYMPIC JANITORIAL SERVICES - OLYMPIC NAT'L TAE KWON

OLYMPIC PANT & SPORTSWEAR CO. - OLYMPIC PRINTING CO.

OLYMPIC RESTAURANT - OLYMPIC UPHOLSTERERS

WINNEPEG, MANITOBA

OLY TOOL & DIE CO., LTD. - OLYMPIC ACRYLIC TEETH

OLYMPIC ATHLETE CAREER CNTR - OLYMPIC AUTO BODY

OLYMPIC BAR & BILLIARDS - OLYMPIC BOWL

OLYMPIC BUILDING MAINTENANCE - OLYMPIC DENTAL LAB

OLYMPIC DRY CLEANERS - OLYMPIC FLAME ALUMINUM

OLYMPIC FLOOR SANDING - OLYMPIC FOOD & CHEESE

OLYMPIC FORWARDERS, LTD. - OLYMPIC GIFT SHOP

OLYMPIC GLASS - OLYMPIC GROCERY & VAR

OLYMPIC HOLIDAYS CANADA, LTD. - OLYMPIC KITCHEN CORP

OLYMPIC LEATHER FASHIONS, LTD. - OLYMPIC MAINTENANCE SVC

OLYMPIC MAT SERVICES (1983) - OLYMPIC MATERIAL HAND

OLYMPIC METAL PRODUCTS - OLYMPIC MILK & VARIETY

OLYMPIC MOVERS - OLYMPIC SPORT (1984) LTD

OLYMPIC OIL, INC. - OLYMPIC PANT & SPORTS

OLYMPIC PICTURE FRAMES - OLYMPIC PLASTIC BAGS LTD

OLYMPIC PLASTICS LTD. - OLYMPIC REAL ESTATE

OLYMPIC ROASTED COFFEE CO. - OLYMPIC SCANNING, INC

OLYMPIC SERVICE CENTER LTD. - OLYMPIC 76 PIZZA

OLYMPIC SPORTS - OLYMPIC STEAK & LOBSTER

OLYMPIC TV & APPLIANCES - OLYMPIC TOOL & DIE LTD

OLYMPIC TORCH - OLYMPIC TROPHIES & NOV

OLYMPIC TRUST of CANADA - OLYMPIC VARIETY

TORONTO, ONTAIRO

Chapter 16 NAOB Solicitation

After the Olympic Record was mailed I constructed a solicitation to send to Olympic Businesses in an effort to have them join the National Association of Olympic Businesses. Same mail list from the "court record." The solicitation may have been beneficial to all who did not join but took it on themselves to lobby on their own. Ruth edited and wouldn't let me say what I wanted to. She's old school and I was no school.

TO

All BUSINESSES THAT USE THE WORD OLYMPIC IN THEIR TITLE

There is a possibility that you may have to change your business name and all your business permits may canceled because of your use of the word "Olympic." We invite you to join, in fact or in effect, the "NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OLYMPIC BUSINESSES" to protect your good names. You pay federal, state, local, and other taxes, and yet you may still be an illegal business. Current law "prohibits use of the word Olympic for the purpose of trade without permission of the U. S. Olympic Committee." Did you get that permission? Did you know your business licenses are at risk? Did you know that your contracts may become unenforceable and your goodwill worthless? The U.S. Olympic Committee seeks to stamp out free use of the word Olympic. [Section 380, title 36, enclosed]

My name is Leo O. LaBranche Jr. and I am a Californian and president of Olympic Records, Inc., a New York Corporation formed for the production of phonograph records and tapes. It is forbidden to incorporate in California using the word Olympic though every conceivable license and permit was obtained by my company including state and federal tax identification numbers. Some 46 states have never enforced this law against their citizens. We sued the U.S. Olympic Committee in the federal court and the case is now on appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We have also been lobbying the Congress for relief from section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 [title 36 U.S.C. §§ 371-396] We have received response from various members of Congress. Our filed Petition [0274] has been noted in the Congressional Record. It says in part, "All existing 'Olympic businesses and Corporations' pay taxes and are still denied equal protection of the law and one may not obtain a federally registered trademark." A federally registered mark may mean little to some but to others it means freedom from the Amateur Sports Act and freedom from intrusion into our business affairs by the International Olympic Committee, an international entity whose Olympic Charter originates in France. Surely we will no longer tolerate this. Congressional Record, Pet. No. 373, June 4, 1986.

In addition, we have been in contact with 1400 Members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, members of the Better Business Bureau, the A.F.L. C.I.O., and Mayors and City Managers where Olympic Businesses and Corporations were found. A list of as many Olympic Businesses and Corporations as possible was compiled in support of our claims. Most states were helpful in providing documents from various departments and agencies. Nine federal agencies were able to provide similar lists and computer printouts through our use of the "Freedom of Information and Privacy Act." This was a good faith effort to provide the court with a comprehensive record of the facts. If you want to protect your good name there is a legislative means. You may feel you are not in jeopardy because your business is too small, too large, or for some other reason. If I may say, "quite the contrary." You may eventually be required to change your company name. We must unite to stop this possibility. Now is not the time to be quiet.

We suggest you do one or more of the following:

a).Call us at 800 826 3324 and we will provide you with further information. Data is available in the form of petitions, arguments, material, and evidence of all types for a small fee for copying, handling, and mailing.

b).Call and write your Senators and Representatives who represent the states in which you do business. Should you be engaged in business in the 50 states, so much the better. We have contacted all 535 members of Congress in the past year.

c).Should your company be engaged solely in intrastate commerce, make your concerns known to your Congressman as well as your State Officials, particularly the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Tax Officials.

d).Support this "Olympic Lobby" by joining the "National Association of Olympic Businesses." A registration fee/membership fee is $20.ºº. We are not a money making organization and believe you can do the job if we supply the facts.

e).Call and write your municipal, state, and federal agencies and register your opposition to section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.

f).Inform your consumers of your products or services of this law. I suspect the number of consumers of Olympic Businesses and Corporations products and services to be in the tens of millions. They may also participate in this movement if you and they are so inclined. There are only 30 legislative days left in this 99th Congress which begins September 9 and ends Oct. 4 and there is hope that section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act will be revised. The revision will have little effect on our case in the appeals court but the outcome of the appeal affects all Olympic Businesses and Corporations. I will provide the names and numbers of the general counsel for the Association [NAOB] and the appellate attorney if your counsel wishes to speak with them.

Very Truly Yours Leo LaBranche

Founder & President of the National Association of Olympic Businesses

Lobby reg. no 11271000

Businesses and enterprises that joined after this letter solicitation and became the NAOB.

GROUP CREATIVITY, INC. NY - OLYMPIC CASCADE CORP OR

OLYMPIC PACKAGING, INC. IL - OLYMPIC CAMERA CA

OLYMPIC HOMES, INC. OR - OLYMPIC LAUNDRY WA

OLYMPIC RESTAURANT CA - OLYMPIC LIMOUSINE SVC NJ

OLYMPIC MOUNTAIN WA - OLYMPIC CAMERA COSTA MESA CA

OLYMPIC PIPE & TUBE CORP. MO - OLYMPIC PACKAGING CO. CA

OLYMPIC HOT TUB COMPANY WA - OLYMPIC MEDICAL CORP. WA

OLYMPIC RECORDS INC. CA - OLYMPIC FLOORING DISTRIB OH

OLYMPIC HOUSEWARES, INC MO - OLYMPIC DELIVERY SERVICE MA

OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES, INC IL - OLYMPIC COMPUTER SOLUTIONS OH

OLYMPIC SEED COMPANY, INC. IA - BRIAN P. COUGHENOUR, ESQ. WA

OLYMPIC GENERAL CONTRACTORS NJ - OLYMPIC MANUFACTURING NC

OLYMPIC CHEMICAL CORP. NY - OLYMPIC MACHINERY CO. CA

OLYMPIC REFRIGERATION & HEATING MI - OLYMPIC BEVERAGE CO. OK

OLYMPIC RECREATION, INC. IN - OLYMPIC MAPPING SYSTEM CA

OLYMPIC AVIATION CA - OLYMPIC OF SANTA ROSA CA

OLYMPIC AMBULANCE WA - OLYMPIC DISTRIBUTORS, INC. PR

OLYMPIC IMPORTS CA - OLYMPIC JEWELRY, LTD. WA

OLYMPIC AUTO SALES, INC. NE - OLYMPIC BUILDERS WI

OLYMPIC COFFEE SHOP NY - OLYMPIC INTER. FREIGHT FORWARD FL

OLYMPIC BOAT CENTERS WA - OLYMPIC SALES CLUB, INC. CT

OLYMPIC GRAPHIC SYSTEMS CA - OLYMPIC ENTERPRISE PA

OLYMPIC TROPHY COMPANY MD - OLYMPIC FACTORS NY

OLYMPIC SAVINGS BANK WA - OLYMPIC DEN, INC. NY

PART IV

Chapter 17 Judge Alex Kozinski

A Dissent from a Denial to Rehear the SFFA case by the full court (en banc).

Below relates to the First Amendment and Trademark Act of 1946

The three judges' dissent argued that the motion to rehear the case by the full, nine judge, court should be granted. Judge Alex Kozinski came to the Ninth Circuit by way of the Federal Claims Court, Washington D.C. where he was Chief Judge. His opinion was joined by two esteemed jurists. His words are precise and he utters the famous words that warm my heart, "[I]t's unlike anything we have seen in our law before." A similar statement made by my Supreme Court counselor, Michael H. Gottesman.

"A law superior to anything that has ever existed in our country."

For the purposes of clarity, flow, and understanding many legal citations are omitted in the opinion. It need be understandable to the reader or it has no value. Any person or scholar can order a complete copy from the proper repository. I would also prejudicially add, "His opinion as articulated should have been the U.S. Supreme Court 'opinion' in the SFAA case." It involves the first amendment as well as trademark law. There were other conflicts besides these in my suit.

**U.S. Court of Appeals Circuit Judge ALEX KOZINSKI Opinion May 28th 1986**

with Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson and Joseph Sneed, joining dissent.

Bio: [Judge Alex Kozinski (born July 23, 1950) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan on November 7, 1985, Kozinski has won supporters from the left and the right with his common-sense decisions and libertarian instinct. His writing is clear and often humorous, and has been featured in mainstream publications such as Forbes and Slate. He was born in Bucharest, Romania but his parents, both Holocaust survivors, brought him to America in 1962 (he was only 12). They settled in Los Feliz, California and his father, Moses, ran a small grocery store there. Kozinski attended John Marshall High School and UCLA. He received his J.D. from UCLA Law School in 1975 (he was one of the top students) and went on to clerk for then-Ninth Circuit Judge Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice Warren Burger. Then he spent a few years in private practice before going to work in the White House counsel's office for then-President Ronald Reagan. Kozinski received a job as chief judge at the newly-formed Federal Claims Court. Then, at the age of 35, Reagan appointed him to the Ninth Circuit, making him the youngest federal appeals court judge in the country.] Thank you President Reagan.

He is now Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

His Dissent

This case was brought by the United States Olympic Committee, and others, under the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (the Amateur Act), 36 U.S.C. §§ 371-396 (1982), to enjoin the use of the word "Olympic" by appellants, San Francisco Arts & Athletics (SFAA) in connection with an event to be known as the Gay Olympic Games. USOC is a private non-profit corporation chartered by Congress, 36 U.S.C. §§ 371, 377 (1982); SFAA is a non-profit corporation. The Gay Olympic Games SFAA intended to sponsor in 1982 (and again in 1986) were designed to combat homophobia and to work for the health and tolerance of gay and lesbian persons. Pet. Reh. 2.

A panel of this court upheld a permanent injunction issued after summary judgement had been granted USOC. International Olympic Committee v. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, 781 F.2d 733 (9th Circuit 1986). For the reasons stated below, I find the panel's reasoning squarely at odds with controlling Supreme Court authority. Moreover, the result reached threatens a potentially serious and widespread infringement of personal liberties. I therefore would vacate the panel's opinion and set the case for re-hearing en banc.

A.

As the panel interprets the Amateur Act, the USOC is given the exclusive right to use the word Olympic "for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition," 36 U.S.C § 380, whether undertaken for a profit or non-profit purpose. The USOC may obtain in injunction against use of this term without showing a likelihood of confusion and without overcoming the defenses normally available in trademark infringement actions under the Lanham Act. 781 F.2d at 736. Interpreted in this fashion the Amateur Act represents a sweeping exercise of sovereign power, implicating principles of individual liberty protected by our Constitution. By passing the act, Congress extracted a word from the English language and gave it to a private party to use in connection with any commercial endeavor or event. This raises serious first amendment concerns that the panel failed to address or acknowledge.

The word olympic has a meaning unique within our language. It connotes open and intense competition among non-professionals athletes, usually involving the best and most accomplished contestants. Thus, we have Special Olympics, Junior Olympics, Police Olympics, even Canine Olympics, normally involving competition among best friends within the denoted category. I have great difficulty with the idea that Congress can deny all of us that word, and the ideas, it embodies, in connection with all public endeavors. As noted by Justice Harlan in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971), "we cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process." The ideas embodied in the word Olympic can, or course, be expressed by other means, but only in a much clumsier fashion, with out the same nuance of meaning. Justice Harlan wrote in Cohen,

much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative

function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise,

detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as

well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as

their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution,

while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or

no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking,

may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to

be communicated.

Id. at 26

In organizing the Gay Olympic Games, the SFAA sought to "create a more realistic image of homosexual men and women to move into the mainstreams in all societies and to provide more alternatives for homosexual men and women to move into the mainstreams of their respective societies." International Olympic Committee v. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, 291 U.S.P.Q. 982, 985 (N.D. Cal. 1982) aff'd mem., 707 F.2d 517 (9th Circuit 1983). The word Olympic was no doubt chosen to foster a wholesome, normal, image of homosexuals. Denying SFAA the use of the word thwarts that purpose. To say that the SFAA could have named it's event "The Best and Most Accomplished Amateur Gay Athletes Competition" no more answers the first amendment concerns here than to suggest that Paul Robert Cohen could have worn a jacket saying "I strongly Resent the Draft."

The Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to approve restrictions against the use of particular words. See, Cohn v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). In the rare case when the court has done so, it was after the closest scrutiny and subject to the most careful restrictions. By contrast, the panel here dismisses SFAA's constitutional argument, simply by noting that the word "Olympic" and it's associated symbols and slogans are essentially property. Such property rights can be protected without violating the first amendment. 781 F.2d at 7373 (citing Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 573-577 (1977). To say that the word Olympic is property begs the question. What appellants challenge is the power of Congress to privatize the word Olympic, rendering it unutterable by anyone else in connection with any product or public event, whether for profit or, as in this case, to promote a cause. The rights conferred on the USOC by the Amateur Act are materially different than traditional intellectual property rights where a careful balance is struck between the interests of the property owner and those of the public.

Trademarks/1, copyrights/2, and patents/3, are subject to a variety of statutory and common law defenses, and they reserve only those rights necessary to protect the owner's economic interest.

/1 (case attributions limited)

Trademarks are recognized only upon a showing that the mark has been adopted and used in commerce, 15 U.S.C. §1051 (1982). Subsequent users may raise a series of defenses under section 33(b) of the Lanham Act, such as fraud on the PTO, abandonment, fair use, misrepresentation of source, or violation of the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. §1115 (1982). There are also equitable defenses such as estoppel by laches; acquiescence; and unclean hands. Most importantly, trademark rights can only exist in distinctive terms and devices. Similarly, there cannot be a trademark in a purely functional device. Distinctiveness is central to the status of the mark. A legitimate trademark will lose it's status if it becomes generic. Thus, trademark owners have an exclusive right to use the mark only to the extent necessary to safeguard the integrity of the product source.

/2 (case attributions omitted)

Copyrights are of limited duration, U.S. Const., Art I, §8; 17 U.S.C. §302 (1982), and are subject to a number of defenses, most notably the defense of fair use. Copyright protection will not extend to the idea itself or to purely utilitarian objects.

/3 (case attributions omitted)

Patents are granted only for subject matter that is novel, useful, or non-obvious. 35 U.S.C. §§101-103 (1982). They are limited in time, U.S. Const., Art I, §8. They also are subject to a variety of legal and equitable defenses, including patent misuse, expiration of the statute of limitations, and inequitable conduct before the PTO. Zacchini, upon which the panel relied, is instructive. The Court there was careful to limit the relief afforded petitioner (the human cannonball) to assuring that he "reap(s) the reward of his endeavors." The Court twice noted that "petitioner does not seek to enjoin the broadcast of his performance; he simply wants to be paid for it. By and large rights in intellectual property are limited to uses that have been invented, created or developed by the owner. They are not a wholesale prohibition against all public uses but provide limited protection for that which "is the product (the owner's) own talent's and energy, the end result of much time, effort, and expense." So, limited rights in intellectual property are easily harmonized with the first amendment. However, when cut loose from their conceptual moorings, intellectual property rights can raise serious constitutional concerns. Here the Amateur Act's ironclad prohibition against every commercial or theatrical use of the word Olympic (unrestrained by need to show likelihood of confusion or to overcome Lanham Act defenses) stakes out an intellectual property right fiefdom quite unlike anything we have seen in our law before. By giving the USOC exclusive possession of the word, Congress has diminished the rights of everyone else, withdrawing from the public domain a term used by many and useful to more. If Congress has the power to grant a crown monopoly in the word Olympic, one wonders how many other words or concepts can be similarly enclosed, and the extent to which our public discourse can thereby be impoverished.

B.

My first amendment concerns are heightened by the way the USOC allegedly exercises it's stewardship over the word Olympic. According to the petition for rehearing "the facts submitted below establish that the USOC has openly permitted use of "Olympic" both by groups it directly supports, e.g. the Special Olympics, the Explorer Olympics, and the Junior Olympics, and by groups it has known to be using 'Olympic' that it has elected not to sue, such as the 'Int'l Police Olympics.' " Pet. Reh. 10.

Accepting SFAA's allegation, as we must, it seems that the USOC is using it's control over the term Olympic to promote the very image of homosexuals that SFAA seeks to combat: handicapped, juniors, police, Explorers, even dogs are allowed to carry the Olympic torch, but homosexuals are not. Troublesome as would be a total withdrawal of the term from public discourse, an exclusion that is invoked pursuant to a subjective assessment of the wholesomeness of the proposed speaker or the propriety of the proposed message is more troublesome still. Where the entity making the decision is private, unconstrained by principals of equal protection and due process, and entirely free of the discipline imposed by our political system, there are no safeguards whatsoever against the arbitrary exclusion of certain groups because they wish to communicate ideas some may find offensive. Under the panel's rationale, the result would have been the same if appellants were blacks rather than homosexuals, and their claim were based on racism rather than homophobia.

II

A. Once it is concluded that the first amendment is implicated by giving the USOC the word Olympic, the next inquiry must be whether doing so directly advances a governmental interest. If the Amateur Act prohibited only those uses likely to cause confusion or otherwise mislead the public, it would in all likelyhood survive first amendment challenge. Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1, 13-15 (1979). However, the panel reads the act as proscribing all unauthorized uses of the word Olympic, regardless of whether they would mislead the public, undermine USOC sponsored events or cause anyone harm whatsoever. The first amendment requires, at minimum, close scrutiny of the governmental interest served by such a broad prohibition. Because the case was dismissed short of trial, we can only speculate as to what governmental interest is advanced by giving USOC such sweeping rights in the word Olympic. As the panel, noted, "other courts have remarked on the need to insure the market value of licenses for the use Olympic symbols." Stop The Olympic Prison v. USOC; IOC v. SFAA; USOC v. International Body Builders. Apparently the Amateur Act serves as a type of subsidy to the USOC in lieu of direct financial support: The fundamental purpose of the [Amateur] Act was to safeguard the USOC's ability to raise the financial resources that are a critical component of America's capacity to send world-class amateur athletes into international competition without the massive government subsidies enjoyed by competitors from other nations. If this is the only interest supporting the USOC's monopoly, I seriously doubt whether it would justify even a minor restriction on free speech. In words that seem to address this very issue, Justice Marshall noted earlier this term: While the interference with appellant's speech is, concededly very slight, the State's justification -- the subsidization of another speaker chosen by the State -- is insufficient to sustain even that minimum or burden. We have held that the State may use its own resources for subsidization but that interest standing alone cannot justify interference with the speech of others.

B. Even if the government's interest in subsidizing the USOC were deemed sufficient to abridge some of appellants' first amendment rights, we would still have to determine whether the broad monopoly granted by the Amateur Act "is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest." Again the scant record here makes that determination difficult, but the question is amenable to no simple answer. At the very least, it is necessary to consider whether USOC's commercial licenses could not be adequately protected by giving the USOC rights coextensive with those in the Lanham Act or by restricting it's control over use of the word Olympic in some other fashion. Or so, at least, do I read Supreme Court's uniform pronouncements in this area.

III

While I hesitate to second-guess the panel's interpretation of the Amateur Act, I respectfully suggest that its conclusion that the USOC need not prove confusion or overcome Lanham Act defenses is not inevitable. If, as I suggest, the interpretation the panel adopts raises serious constitutional concerns, it may be appropriate to resort to a narrowing construction of the statute. Because the panel failed to address what I see as the clear first amendment implications of its decision, it did not consider the possibility of giving the Amateur Act a less sweeping interpretation.

IV

By raising these concerns I do not necessarily conclude that the Amateur Act is irreconcilably at odds with the first amendment. Indeed, on this barren record I find it difficult to reach any, but the most tentative conclusions about this highly unusual statute and its effect on personal liberties. What I find most troubling, however, is the haste with which appellants are being ushered out of court. The panel appears to have overlooked that where first amendment defenses are raised "judgment as to whether the facts justify the use of the drastic power of injunction necessarily turns on subtle and controversial considerations and upon a delicate assessment of the particular situation in light of legal standards which are inescapably imprecise," Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 183.

What appellants propose to do, after all, lies at the very heart of the first amendment: They wish to hold a public event to promote sociopolitical views some may find offensive. They claim that calling their event Gay Olympics is essential to the message the wish to convey. A long and unbroken line of Supreme Court cases stands for the proposition that "any prior restraint on expression comes to [court] with a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Under this standard, prior restraints have been struck down even where adopted to protect important public or private interests. By contrast, the panel here approves a permanent injunction that significantly blunts rights to public expression without the slightest showing that the enjoined use would harm anyone.

Moreover, "[a]n order issued in the area of First Amendment rights must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-point objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order." Carroll, 393 U.S. at 183. I have much difficulty reconciling the blunderbuss injunction entered against SFAA with this admonition. With all due respect, the panel's offhand approval of this injunction, obtained as it was by summary judgment, simply does not measure up to the close appellate scrutiny due first amendment claims and defenses. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union; Standard Oil v. California.

In sum, I believe that the petition for rehearing raised very serious arguments that deserve consideration and resolution by the court en banc. The panel fails to acknowledge the difficult first amendment issues presented, regrettably bypassing what I consider to be clear and applicable guidance from the Supreme Court. The opinion will therefore prove a troublesome precedent, undermining not only the right to free speech but also the laws protecting intellectual property, to the ultimate detriment of both. While not every error by a panel can be addressed by the full court, the important and novel constitutional issues raised by this case, the panel's failure to adequately address them, and the likely adverse effect the opinion will have on personal liberties, all strongly mitigate in favor of rehearing the case en banc. I therefore respectfully dissent from the court's refusal to do so.

Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judge, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals joined by

Judges Harry Pregerson and Joseph T. Sneed III

Chapter 18 NOAB and HR 1988

100th Congress, First Session

The United States Olympic Check-Off Act - Introduced April 8, 1987

It is a daily ritual to receive and read the Congressional Record, at minimum the contents table to see what may be forthcoming re the Amateur Sports Act and its revision, if any, and for any reason that may be pertinent to the lobby and/or my personal situation. This was like religion. It was a must do, or go to hell, kind of thing. Why it was so important I was to soon know. After months of finding nothing unusual, interesting or relevant I see mention of proposed measure re the USOC and it has to do with a "check off" box on the I.R.S. 1040 tax form that we all know and love so much. This new law is designated HR-1988, "The United States Olympic Check-Off Act." At the time of its introduction there are 37 co-sponsors; I believe there were eventually 170 co-sponsors in the House.

I called the Clerk of the House inquiring about the new proposed law. The Clerk's Office told me about it and said it was considered "non-controversial" (legislation), which means "no notice", "no hearings", no nothing about it and it will become law automatically when the larger bill it is included in - passes. He said "it is non-controversial" and I said, "not anymore," and thanked him. Someone later suggested this idea was the brain child of William E. Simon, the new president of the USOC who's last job was Treasury Secretary of the United States. The Congress has long asserted that the USOC is not supposed to be a part of the federal government but that was yesterday when the turnip truck passed by, and today no one's looking, turnips are on sale, and who remembers. Blinded by the olympic light again. If no one knows, except a select few, then I must find a way to make it Public. A "registered lobbyist" sounds like a job important or at least someone to be suspicious about or ignored. So let's see if they hear a lobbyist rather than a lone litigant. I could obviously inform the lobby members as well as the thousands in my record as I have done before. That's just spreading bad news (the next edition of the "Olympic Record)," all the bad news that's fit to print. I'll wait on them. I need to figure who to tell. This is great; now you can give money to the USOC on your tax form so they can use the money to put you out of business using the word Olympic. And now raise money from your customers to help put you out of business. I am angry at these co-sponsors and fit to be tied down, again. It took two days for the "olympic vision" to appear. I have another IDEA. It's funny what happens when you "sleep" on something. An unconscious debriefing and solution.

A lobbyist (seemingly) has rights that an individual person cannot assume. He has a license to lobby, he is required to report cash contributions, and to report who she/he contacted in Congress the prior, quarterly, reporting period. It's almost a "license to speak." The word, "lobbyist" is maligned way more than it should be. Yes, special interest have lobbyist for their points, positions, and financial concerns but without my being registered and heading a group I would have NOT been taken seriously and simply dismissed as a crank. And ever then...

The USOC is a non-profit federally chartered corporation. It seems to me that other non-profit associations and groups would benefit by knowing about this "uncontroversial bill" soon to become law with no one knowing about it until it's passed. You all "Remember the Alamo" well we "Remember the March of Dimes." What was the end result of the March of Dimes incident I know not but I was reporting what had been published and now to remind all non-profit associations, businesses, and organizations of it whether they heard the story or not.

I went to UC Riverside Library and located source books on the major non-profit groups. I sent a cover letter saying they should lobby for their own check-off box for many of their causes were far superior to a bunch of folks running around a track. I told them it was law unless they did something about it. All below have millions of times the resources my lobby could muster so it was up to them and they had lobbyist of their own. We contacted:

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSO 20036 - COMMON CAUSE 20036

AMERICAN KIDNEY FUND 20814 - AMERICAN RED CROSS 20006

US COMMITTEE FOR UNICEF 10016 - AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES U. 10036

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY 20090 - UNITED WAY OF AMERICA 22314

AMERICAN HEART ASSO 75231 - AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY 20009

AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY 10019 - M.D. FOUND. \- NAT'L HEAD. 22304

M.D. FOUNDATION -NYC 10019 - MARCH of DIMES FOUNDATION 10501

NAT'L BUSINESS LEAGUE 20011 - BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 20003

AMERICAN BUSINESS CONF 20006 - COMMERCIAL LAW LEAGUE 20005

NATL RETAIL MERCHANTS 20036 - AMERICAN ADVERTISING FED 20005

AMERICAN HELLENIC INST 20006 - AMERICAN HOTEL & MOTEL 10019

AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSO 10038 - AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSO 20036

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSO 60611 - AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSO 60610

AMERICAN NEWS PUBL. ASSO. 20041 - NAT'L ASSO. OF MANUFAC 20005

NATIONAL ASSO. OF REALTORS 20005 - ASSO OF AMERICAN PUBLS 20036

NATIONAL NEWSPAPER ASSO 20006 - U.S. LG OF SAVINGS INSTI 20006

NAT'L CNCL OF SAVINGS INSTS 20005 - NAT'L RESTAURANT ASSO 20006

NATIONAL SMALL BZ ASSO 20005 - AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC 20024

WASHINGTON ST PUBLIC LANDS 98116 - AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSO 20002

NAT'L. FED. OF IND. BZS. 20024 - AMERICAN RETAIL FED. 20006

NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO 20036 - AMERICAN FED OF TEACHERS 20001

CONSUMERS UNION OF US 20009 - NAT'L ORG. FOR WOMEN 20005

NAT'L. TOUR ASSOCIATION 40508 - AMERICAN BZ FOR INT'L. TRADE 20006

ASSN. FOR REG REFORM 22066 - NAT'L. ASSN. OF INS BROKERS 20005

NAT'L. TAX LIMITATION COMM 22314 - NATL. ASSN. OF PUBLIC TV 20036

NATL. CABLE TV ASSOCIATION 20036 - AMERICAN BANKERS ASSO 20036

NATL. FED OF FED. EMPS. 20036 - NATL. MARINE MANUFAC 20037

JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 20005 - AMERICAN FAIR TRADE COUNCIL 94107

ASSO. GENERAL CONTRAC 2006 - CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA 20001

NATL. BZ AIRCRAFT ASSN 20036 - MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 20814

NATL. BICYCLE DEALERS 92627 - ASSN. OF RETAIL DRUGGISTS 22314

NATL. SO. OF PUBLIC ACCNTS 22314 - RUBBER MANU ASSN. 20005

NATL. TOUR ASSOCIATION 20007 - AMERICANS FOR TX REFORM 20037

Some estimated $25-30 million a year from this check-off box device. $500,000,000 in lost revenue since the bill died and counting. I never saw the check-off box on my 1040 return and have no idea who did what. I later contacted each co-sponsor that signed on to that legislation. It's not a letter I can locate and I'm sure it was censored.

Chapter 19 Supreme Court takes Gay Olympic Games case

San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. IOC/ USOC

Certiorari accepted by Supreme Court

Martian Rules of Law & Procedure

Why did the Supreme Court take the case? Were they bored with everyday life and death issues; were they enamored by Olympism; did they not like Circuit Judge Kozinski's (w/2 other Judges) dissenting opinions in the same circuit; were they here to strike a blow for foreign entities usurping the U.S. Constitution and American rights (no that wasn't it); but that's exactly what they did. Now the high court will hear oral arguments about why there should not be allowed a "Gay Olympic Games." Dr. Waddell is now dying of complications from Aids. Truly a case for champions. Here's where the Martians take over. We can't speak or understand Martian but the Supreme Court can. And it can make new law, never before seen or heard of, in the history of our country, if they feel like it or when they are steered into it. Enamored by the Olympic light and there was no possible homophobia present.

I tried to "join" SFAA and Mr. Waddell and spent no small sum. Mr. Perkins, my appellate attorney, petitioned the high court for certiorari to join SFAA before judgment (in my case) in the Ninth Circuit. I tried to go up there and stand beside Dr. Waddell to expose my evidence and record SHOWING THE THOUSANDS of Olympic uses; proving the word Olympic already belongs to everyone (the Public) in this country and not to the USOC and especially not to the IOC who borrowed it from Greek history. But the Court denied two petitions for cert. as premature, which they were, and the Court went about disposing of Dr. Waddell, kind of makes you proud. Martian law says you need no facts, no evidence, no argument, no precedent, no nothing because we, the High Martian court, are already are smart enough, like Solomon I suspect, to figure this one out. Well my dear old gang of 9 - you were duped. Being duped has far reaching implications. By virtue of this sad decision, my action will not survive the lower appeals court, making certain that all evidence and facts which might make your opinion seem a little biased, uninformed, and ridiculous be forever buried in a federal repository somewhere, or dumpster. A perfect example of the Martian justice system. See no facts, hear no truth, and honor no precedent.

We were in a small way able join the SFAA case by submitting a 'Friend of the Court' brief with the A.A.U., a/k/a Amicus Curiae, in support of the SFAA case.

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Briefed and Submitted by Randall G. Wick, Counsel of Record

The National Association of Olympic Businesses [NAOB] agrees to join the Amateur Athletic Association [AAU], the Center for Constitutional Rights, and others on a Friend of the Court brief known as an AMICUS submission to the Supreme Court in support of the SFAA case and their first amendment and trademark positions. A separate group will submit and argue the Fifth Amendment concerns.

In spite of my case being denied access to the Supreme Court (one to expedite consideration and the other to "Join" SFAA) there is a way to get limited arguments and issues before the Court. The ACLU pulled this one together and it was a fine accomplishment, notwithstanding it being ignored.

Here are the Headings for the Points argued by Mr. Randall G. Wick, counsel of record.

Each Heading tells it like it is.

1.IN ENACTING THE AMATEUR SPORTS ACT OF 1978 CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE MARK "OLYMPIC" COMMENSURATE WITH THE PROTECTION PROVIDED TO OTHER FEDERALLY CHARTERED ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE LANHAM ACT.

A.IN PASSING THE INITIAL UNITED STATES OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION INCORPORATION ACT OF 1950, CONGRESS INTENDED TO PREVENT ONLY FALSE DESIGNATIONS AND FRAUD IN THE USE OF USOC DESIGNATIONS.

B.THE SUI GENERIS PROTECTION WITH RELATED REMEDIES IN EARLY VERSIONS OF THE AMATEUR SPORTS ACT OF 1978 WERE DELETED FROM THE FINAL VERSION OF THE ACT.

C.THE COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND LETTERS DEMONSTRATE THE SPECIFIC INTENT OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE USOC DESIGNATIONS ONLY WHERE THEY WERE "TENDING TO CAUSE CONFUSION" AS PROSCRIBED BY THE LANHAM ACT.

D.COMMENTS MADE BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS MADE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE AMATEUR SPORTS ACT OF 1978 EVIDENCE A CONGRESSIONAL UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ACT'S AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE BE CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF OTHER FEDERALLY CHARTED ORGANIZATIONS AND THE LANHAM ACT.

Mr. Wick gets an A+ for this filing. These headings are absolutely correct in every detail. My Congressional contacts made these same statements, over, and over, and over again. "Don't worry, Mr. LaBranche." Below is an additional group in support of SFAA contentions of a State Action violation under the Equal Protection clause Fifth Amendment. A separate claim and position than the above headings. Only the Summary is re-printed.

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Written and Submitted by Robert H. Rotstein, Counsel of record

Bonnie I. Bogin, James Y. Leong, Kelly W. Kay

**Summary of Argument**

The USOC, an entity created by Federal Charter, takes the position that, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. § 380 Congress has granted the USOC an absolute monopoly over the word "olympic," including the right to discriminate among groups at will in connection with the use of the word -- even if the discrimination is based solely on a group's exercise of its First Amendment rights. In prohibiting SFAA from using the word "olympic" in connection with the SFAA's amateur athletic competition (which was to be entitled, "The Gay Olympic Games") while at the same time allowing other groups to use the word, the USOC has discriminated against SFAA in connection with petitioner's exercise of their fundamental First Amendment right to freedom of expression. This brief will show that; assuming arguendo that Congress did intend to grant the USOC the exclusive and blanket right to use the "word" "olympic" (and that the Constitution permitted Congress to do so), the USOC's discriminatory conduct in allowing some groups, but not petitioner's, to use the word "olympic" constitutes "state action" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment.

This brief submitted is sixty-four (64) pages in length. No matter what anyone will submit, argue, prove or disprove, the SFAA case is lost. Another perfectly argued point pushed aside in support of the light of Olympism. The high court should have worn their sunglasses so the light from the gods of Olympus would not have blinded them so.

**After the Ruling**

If you can believe this, I can appeal my case after the appeals court applies Supreme Court case law precedent against me. My last chance for the justice train is to file a Petition for Certiorari (again) with the Supreme Court to rule on one issue only and that is they were wrong in their prior decision in SFAA. My evidence record down in the district court is not relevant because the case is now so skewed that it pitches me against the Supreme Court's decision in SFAA. What to hell has that got to do with my case? Not a thing. See how well the Martians do it.

One last IDEA: September 1988, my last act in this perfect play I produced. I buy 200 paperback editions of Bantam Books copyrighted paperback product, Guinness Book of "OLYMPIC RECORDS" and I send it to Congressional members with a letter.

Honorable House Member:

This week the Seoul Summer Games are scheduled. If you're a sports fan you want to consult the "Guinness Book of Olympic Records" should you be interested in a copyrighted compilation of the data on past performance records of Olympic athletes.

As you can see from the attached the Olympic records of athletes are the copyrighted property of Bantam/Dell/Doubleday publishing group. This commercial enterprise has published the data every four years since at least 1964, coinciding with the Olympics.

As a Legislator do you find it fair that I cannot own or operate my corporation, Olympic Records, Inc. engaged in record (music) business, while all others use the word olympic and the name Olympic Records? I have expended in excess of $250,000 and six years to secure my rights when all others pay nothing for the exercise of the identical rights and privileges I am denied.

I always believed Congress was bigger than the Olympics or the International Olympic Committee and I will always believe the U.S. Constitution is superior to the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. With Respect for the Constitution.

Chapter 20 A Case of Linguistic Theft

Published in the New Yorker, August 24th, 1987, reprinted in the Congressional Record

Hon. Gerry E. Studds of Massachusetts on the House floor. September 29, 1987.

Mr. Studds: Mr. Speaker, sometimes legislation which seems routine turns out to have consequences that are anything but routine. I doubt very much, for example, that when we passed the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 we contemplated either a frontal assault on the first amendment or a highly personal assault against one of our citizens. Yet we seem to have been a party to both. The following essay from the New Yorker tells a story that ought to give us all pause. It is very hard for me to believe this is what we intended.

(New Yorker, Aug. 24, 1987) Notes and Comment

Peter Weiss is a trademark lawyer here in New York. He has defended, among many others, the appellations of Superman, Chanel, and Ultrasuede against those who would make free with them. We called him up last week to talk about the Supreme Court's decision in June that the United States Olympic Committee had the right, under the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, exclusive domain, for the purposes of public identification and promotion over the word "Olympics." The decision came in a case called San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc., and Thomas Waddell v. United States Olympic Committee in which the USOC sought to enjoin the defendants from using the name Gay Olympics in promoting an event ultimately called the Gay Games. (The games were held in San Francisco in 1982 and again last year.) Mr. Weiss became involved in the matter as an informal consultant on the side of the San Francisco group. We wanted to talk to him because of a lingering feeling we had that there was something extremely peculiar about removing a general, ancient, and, indeed, religious word from our language and "awarding" it, even if only for certain purposes, to some committee. The people on the side of the Gay Olympics claimed that their right to use the word was protected by the First Amendment. They also argued that the USOC had acted discriminatorily, having allowed the International Police Olympics, the Special Olympics, the K-9 Olympics, and the Senior Olympics (to say nothing of the Rat Olympics, the Armenian Olympics, and the Eskimo Olympics) to go unscathed while relentlessly pursuing the homosexuals who had gathered in San Francisco for a week of athletic and cultural activities. Mr. Weiss vastly strengthened our impression that the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 and the Supreme Court decision upholding its Constitutionality amounted to a linguistic theft, and that the decision was kind of crazy in its details.

"It's preposterous - a genuine howler of an error," he told us. "The USOC got its power over the word directly from Congress, so obviously the action the USOC takes with regard to this so-called trademark is the equivalent of state action. It's also pretty obvious that the USOC has acted in a discriminatory way in this case. Furthermore, the court upheld a statute that didn't even allow SFAA the traditional defense in such cases - that there was no likelihood of confusion, that no one would have associated the Gay Olympics with anything the USOC might sponsor. And it's not straining at all to think of the name Gay Olympics as political speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment: the group involved was trying to make a political point against stereotyping homosexuals as being un-athletic. And, by the way, there was a dissenting opinion that made the point very strongly when the case was denied by the full Ninth Circuit Court, and the Judge that wrote the dissent is generally regarded as an "ultraconservative."

We asked Mr. Weiss what sort of precedent this decision might set. "Terrible," he said. Say the association of International Marathons went to Congress and pointed out that many marathons were bringing in people from all over the world and a lot of money, and that the whole thing needed to be regulated, and so forth, and they asked for trademark rights to the word "marathon." It would be a very similar set of circumstances and a perfectly logical development. If Congress passed such a law, and the President signed it, that would mean that the association could dole out the word to whatever events it deemed worthy and withhold it from those it felt were undeserving.

In essence, Congress actually sold the word to the Olympic Committee, because back in 1978 the committee said that the government would end up losing money if they - the committee - couldn't regulate the term. And it's the only instance I know of where the government has given a private party exclusive rights over a single, "descriptive word."

After we hung up we realized what it was specifically, that had prompted us to call Mr. Weiss in the first place and what was adding immeasurably to our distress about the turning of a word into a commodity: an account we'd just come across in the San Francisco Examiner of a memorial service for Dr. Thomas Waddell, one of the defendants in the USOC suit who had died of AIDS. (Dr. Waddell was the head of San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc.) The service was held in the rotunda of San Francisco's City Hall, and in the course of it Dr. Waddell's wife, Sara Lewinstein, announced that the USOC had officially removed a lien it had placed on Dr. Waddell's house to defray its legal cost in pursuing its case. Evidently the house, which Dr. Waddell has renovated himself, was his major asset, and he'd wanted to pass it on to his 4-year old daughter, Jessica. He died not knowing for certain whether he would be able to do so. The sad irony in all this is that Dr. Waddell was an Olympian. As a member of the decathlon team, he finished much more than respectable sixth, within shouting distance of the gold medalists, Bill Toomey. At the Mexico City Games Dr. Waddell supported the American sprinters John Carlos and Tommie Smith after they gave their clenched fists, Black Power salutes during the medal ceremony, and his conduct made the USOC angry. And as a physician in the Army, in the sixties, Dr. Waddell openly criticized this country's involvement in the Vietnam War; he came close to being court-martialed for his anti-war statements. Ultimately, Dr. Waddell became a tireless fighter for gay rights and gay pride. He was, it seems clear, a man with the courage of his convictions, and by all accounts he was a gentle, intelligent, and charming person. The one bright light among these gloomy events was Dr. Waddell's bravery in facing his illness. Everyone around him was awed and inspired by his will and humor and strength of character. His last words were "Well, this should be interesting." [end of article]

**Goodbye Dr. Waddell Leo to Tom**

Your courage of conviction was similar to mine. I believe we were brothers without so much as a 'how do you do.' I was re-enforcements but too far back to help. You will go down in First Amendment history as an example that "Freedom for One is Freedom for All" and "Freedom for You is Freedom for Me."

Eulogy: July 12, 1987. Los Angeles Times, by Robert S. Weiss

Dr. Thomas Waddell, organizer of the Gay Olympics and a member of the U. S. decathlon team in 1968, died of complications related to AIDS on Saturday. He was 49. Waddell dies at his home in the company of his wife, Sara Lewinstein. Waddell and Lewinstein met at the first Gay Olympics in 1981. As president and founder of San Francisco Arts and Athletics, Waddell organized the sports competition for gays to help combat society's anxiety toward homosexuals. Waddell, a physician, once said he hoped the sporting event would be a visual antidote to the stereotypical images of "men with lisps who cross their legs like women, mince down the street and have wrist drop." Waddell, who came in sixth in the decathlon in the 1968 games in Mexico City, blamed bathhouses, pornography outlets, and sex boutiques for defining gay culture even though, in his view, they involved a minority of the gay community. A second Gay Olympics was held last year in San Francisco and was called the Gay Games II. Almost 3,500 athletes from around the world attended. The next Gay Games are scheduled to take place in 1990. Waddell's organization was forced to drop the word "Olympic" from the event's title after the U. S. Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee sued. "I've had an incredibly rich life. I don't feel like I've been cheated. I competed in the Olympics, I got my MD, traveled all over the world, pursued a couple of dreams, saw them come to fruition, not the least of which is my daughter," Waddell said last year in an interview with the Times. Eric Rofes, a friend, said Waddell was a driven, gentle man. "Thomas was committed to showing that gay people are a very diverse people. This is a tremendous loss, said Rofes, executive director of Hollywood's Gay and Lesbian Service Community Center. Dr. Waddell is survived by Sara Lewinstein, their 4-year-old daughter Jessica, and his parents. [End of article] He passed away a few weeks after the Supreme Court decision in SFAA.

Chapter 21 Supreme Court Advocate and Counsel

Sometimes it is imperative that you buy and read the newspaper. The L.A. Times, Sunday, February 28, 1988, Part 1. I found this article - Lawyers at the Supreme Court (many columns). I found out about Michael H. Gottesman and soon retained him to be my Supreme Court counsel and/or advocate. His reported record at Supreme Court was thirteen (13) wins and one (1) loss. I contacted the firm of Bredoff & Kaiser and he responded. He agreed to be retained and after numerous letters between us he advises.

Mike H. Gottesman of BREDHOFF & KAISER

Transcript of telephone Conference [Brackets are statements or questions by author]

Few brackets, you've heard enough from me. Mike is responsible for explaining things with sufficiency so I could ultimately decide to fold the legal tents and give it up. Thanks Mike, you made drowning feel like it was the thing to do.

[Ring]

Is this Leo LaBranche? [Yes (here it comes)]

Mr. Gottesman: I've spent a fair amount of time on this and feel deeply enough into it that I think can give you my views fairly clearly on it. Is this a good time to chat? [Yes]

Let me preface all this by saying I'm totally sympathetic to the situation you're in because it seems to me the decision in the Gay Olympics case was ridiculous, holding that protection extends to uses that are neither competing or conflicting, and in holding that the first amendment allows that, but, given that decision I think the chances of you getting cert. on the proposition that you're entitled to a trial on your equitable defenses here are very remote. I would put them in the one in fifty category. That is not surprising because the odds in any case of getting the S. Ct. to grant review are very small. They only hear roughly 150 cases a year and of that about thirty are appeals that they have no choice on, so their deciding to take about 120 cases a year and their criterion for selection is what are the 120 most important issues that America needs to have decided.

The one thing you have going for you in terms of their interest in this case is that statistically when you look at what they've done when they've decided a case in a particular area they've sort of got an interest in it. And so when another case comes along and you're able to say this case presents the issue that you didn't address in that prior case - it's a plus to be in an area that they've already exhibited an interest in. That you have. But what you have on the other side is what I think is very difficult. There are two or three things. Number 1: The surest road to get the S. Ct. to grant review is if you have a conflict among the circuits and most of the cases they grant each year out of those hundred and twenty or so, are cases where the issues come up a lot, and different courts of appeals have come up differently about it and your able to say, "Look you've got these courts of appeal in disagreement with each other you've got to step in here and resolve it." You don't have that here because yours is really the first case to come to a court of appeals involving the application of equitable defenses in the context of the Olympic committee.

The second problem you've got is that when you look at the equitable defenses laches is clearly a defense that any defendant can invoke in one of these cases. But laches requires that they know about you and that's the one [defense] the S. Ct. mentioned expressly in the footnote in the gay olympics case. Laches is, "they knew you were out there and they watched you do it and they didn't tell you about it and you relied heavily to your detriment on it." The court of appeals said they didn't know and the S. Ct. is not going to inquire behind that fact question. That's another thing about the S. Ct.. They're not at all interested in resolving factual questions. If the court of appeals said something they're just going to assume it's true. So laches is not available to you.

And the other two equitable defenses you're arguing, acquiescence and abandonment are in essence arguments, that if you won them, would totally undue what they held in the gay olympics case. Because what you're basically saying is that except as to the competing and conflicting uses they [USOC] have either or abandoned all other uses, by the fact that they haven't gone out and sued them. And so it is going to look to the Supreme Court like this issue is an effort to use equitable defenses is to totally undo what they worked so hard to do in the gay olympics case. Mind you that I think it was silly what they worked so hard to do - having done it they're not going to be, I think, sympathetic to entertaining an argument that there are equitable defenses that turn the thing completely around and will entitle every person who is using the name Olympic which is not conflicting or competing to get out.

And finally, wholly apart from the fact that it would undo what they decided in the gay olympics case, once you accept the logic of their decision in that case and you have to, how ever wrong it was, it is now the law of the land. The logic was one that would make these particular defenses not fit. Because the logic was the Olympic committee unlike everybody else who's got a trademark to protect, we're going to give them total possession of this trademark so that they can go out and sell it in the future in order to raise money to finance amateur athletics. So if they want to go and give somebody the right to put Olympic on underwear ten years from now, that's what Congress has chosen to give them. Their right to market this thing in the future. Once you understand that, it makes sense that in this context, but in no other trademark case that has ever come along before then, you wouldn't expect them to be running around suing people who are using the word Olympic on underwear now because it wouldn't be worth it to them to spend the money to do it. But if sometime down the road Fruit of the Loom said "we'll give you 30 million dollars if we can say this is the Official olympic underwear" at that point they would look up and say oh well now for the first time we have a real interest in this particular use. Now, nobody else in any other trademark context can make that kind of argument because nobody's given them the right to use the name to raise money, wholly apart from the product line. So the acq. & abandonment arguments, aside from the fact that there's no conflict in the circuit, and that it would undo what they ruled is the logic of their decision. And the logic of their decision suggests that these defenses unlike laches would be applicable here. All that's to say that it is always possible to write a cert. petition that sounds interesting and this is an interesting case. There is a petition to be written here that may peak their interest. But, I think, in the long run, my recommendation would be that you not undertake it. And I'll give you an idea what the costs would be entailed in doing that because ultimately this is not going to fly. Number 1 I think the chances of cert. being granted are small, no. 2, even if they were to grant it, because they're sort of interested in it, I think there's a heavy likelihood that you would lose in the Supreme Court. Because having granted it, and having thought about it -we already know where their biases lie on this issue, they made those clear in the gay olympics case. And if they sit there and think about these equitable defenses in the context of what their inevitable consequences would be, which is everybody using the word Olympic going to be able to invoke this defense...

If they were to grant cert. they'll sit, they'll think, and they'll find a way to say yes you are entitled to the defenses of laches, of course that's personal to you, if they knew what you were doing (with their blessing) but when you proffer an equitable defense that applies to everybody in the world then your undoing what Congress tried to do with the statute. I think its a long shot for cert., and if cert. were granted you have to pour in a whole lot of more money, and, the odds, are heavier than they would normally be that your not going to win on the merits. So, I really think that ... Every choice like this is a cost-benefit analysis. Even if you win in the Supreme Court all you get is a trial in the district court. And you know that judge is proud to say he was on the panel that originally heard the gay olympics case. He regards himself as the great expert.

It's a 3-step process, first you go for cert.; then you've got to win it; then back to the trial court. Costs are 6-7k for printing. Then attorney's fees of 25k for a Supreme Court counselor. You are a skilled writer so you could file a cert. petition pro-se but the chances of cert. being granted are substantially reduced. The quality of the lawyer you could pay to do this would vary and their fees would vary. Your chances are small at best but they get smaller if you're not paying somebody who's a Supreme Court expert. Our normal experience in what we charge, at the rates I quoted you before, about 25k range for writing a cert. petition. So you're looking 30-35k, roughly, and that's not an absolute, it could be less or more depending on how much time it would take to write it. That's your ballpark.

If cert. is granted the price goes up substantially, then you have to print the whole record; or at least all of it that's at all relevant, which is a much bigger printing cost. You're going to be paying a lawyer to brief on the merits. Lawyers tend to take a lot more time, cause now you've got to cover everything, (in a cert. petition you have to know enough of the law, tell them enough of the law to get them interested in, but you don't have to persuade them that you're going to win). When you're on the merits, obviously, you have to cover the waterfront. Bigger lawyers fees, bigger printing fees and at that stage you're talking about paying the other sides printing expenses. They don't do this at the cert. petition but if cert. is granted the losing party in the Supreme Court has to pay the other sides printing costs. That means if you win they would pay your printing costs. So it's expensive stuff.

As I said, the fundamental problem that ultimately persuades me that this is not a venture worth pursuing is the bottom line that at two different levels the equitable defenses that are available here would totally undo the Gay Olympics case.

Number one, by definition if everybody can raise this defense then the decision in SFAA is overruled. The second problem I have with it which is it runs into the logic of the SFAA case because the logic, right or wrong, Congress made this very unusual choice, to give the Olympic committee the ownership of these words so that they could go out and sell it to whoever the wanted to raise money.

Ordinarily we don't give anybody a trademark that says the word is yours, you can go out into totally unrelated fields and sell it just to raise money. But that Congress deliberately gave the Olympic Committee the trademark for that purpose. So they could raise money to finance amateur athletics. And that was indeed the principle rationale for why they (S.Ct.) said it was all right under the first amendment. That this was such a noble cause...

[Oh, really! I didn't understand it that way. I thought that because the man was trying to have a competing amateur athletic competition called Olympics therefore it didn't violate his first amendment rights.]

No! They went further, - they could have decided that case without addressing your case at all. Except for the slight wrinkle that your name (Olympic Records) could be thought by some folks to not be totally disconnected to the Olympic games. I assume that was a certain whimsical irony in the original use of it. That incidentally is at a much smaller level (a little problem). If it were the Olympic Chinese Restaurant that would present the case more neatly.

[It is no problem. Olympic Records (Guinness) of athletes are copyrighted, published and owned by Bantam/Dell/Doubleday Books. Olympic Records and Tapes (retail) is in three states; Olympic Records Corp. is a business which stores business records for companies; the Olympic Record is the newsletter of the "Olympic Lobby," a/k/a National Association of Olympic Businesses." There's an Olympic record newspaper. I have the only Olympic Records, in the class of recorded music.]

But in that case they didn't have to address the status of unconnected businesses at all because obviously the Gay Olympics was right in the mainstream of what was confusing and conflicting. So the Court went out of their way to do it. And not only did they go out of their way to do it when they construed the statute - because they said the statute is not limited to what the Lanham Act would do, when they got to the first amendment they then proceeded to give two rationales for why there was a governmental interest that justifies this: The first of those rationales is "who are you the gay olympics to be raising this." You're trying to profiteer off these people. "There is obviously the potential for confusion here in the (SFAA) case. But the second reason they gave was that there is a clear congressional interest in enabling them to market Olympic to raise money to support amateur athletics. And that interest is a special one. They're saying that in fact this was the intention of Congress. It's not clear from the opinion whether Congress said this or the court is inferring this. First they decided it reaches unrelated uses. Then they say 'well why would Congress want to reach unrelated uses.' It's obviously because Congress did say one of the purposes was to enable them to raise money. Given that rationale it isn't as though you overlooked something. Here we have a new argument that will cause you to re-think this. They've gone out of their way to assert this rationale which is, " it is a choice Congress logically could have made" - whether it did make it or not we don't know. They said Congress made it.

[Congress did not have this in mind, I have over 100 statements from legislators that this is not so and I was embarrassed and often scolded for suggesting the above reasoning.]

Given that rationale any equitable defenses that are everybody's and not just an individual company that got misled or snookered by them. "They knew about us and didn't tell us to stop." Any rationale which says everybody is free because they've allowed everybody to do it doesn't fly in the teeth of that rationale. The Supreme Court looks back and says: Well of course they're (USOC) not going to go after you NOW... They're only going to go after you when they want to use Columbia Records for the Olympic thing. You're on notice; you know what the statute says and you take your chances because if they ever want to get in the record business and they want to sell Columbia Records the rights for 30 million to use of the Olympic theme at that point they're entitled to look you up and say. Get out of the way!

[SO THEY HAVE A LAW SUPERIOR TO ANYTHING THAT

HAS EVER EXISTED BEFORE IN THIS COUNTRY.]

YES, THERE'S NO QUESTION, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.

That (SFAA) was an unfortunate test case. If you look for a case to take to the Supreme Court SFAA would not be the one. THE COURT CLEARLY WENT OUT OF ITS WAY TO CLOSE OFF THE WORLD and it is, unfortunately I think, if you watch the winter olympics this year, everybody left and right, up & down is talking about how can we raise more money to make America more competitive.

I think the Gay Olympics decision was wrong in construing what congress intended and even more wrong in the first amendment ruling. But I generally side with Brennan and Marshall of first amendment cases.

[They were the dissenters on the SFAA first amendment claim]

So the decision, it seems to me, is a debatable one in terms of its correctness. It was wrong. But they're not going to overturn it a year or two later. They clearly were committed, they went out of their way to clear the landscape for the Olympic committee, far beyond the case they had before them, where they could have decided on the basis of conflicting use. And they've staked out this ground and you're just sort of climbing a mountain with a bear standing on the top, waiting for you to get there.

My advice would be to fold the legal tents, at least. Obviously you may be able to convince Congress to change their minds. That's where I think the attention should be, and again I think you're running against the passion of the moment which is we got to find some way to raise more money. This has now become a respectable way to raise money for worthy causes. Easier to make the corporations give it to then than to tax the public.

[Yes, but corporations use million dollars in donations as deductions from their corporate tax, the people still pay for it, it's just not obvious.

Thanks for everything Mike, let me call you...]

Transcript of telephone conference with the Honorable Michael H. Gottesman.

PART V

Chapter 22 Supreme Court - Cafeteria highly recommended

I have to go to Washington D.C. again. The Supreme Court will hand down its opinion on SFAA before the end of the session and there's a week left. It's odd that I started here and it's about to end here. This is the stuff of Martians, and Mother Goose. A motel with railroad tracks behind, no wonder I got a good rate. Every ten minutes it was a five point earthquake occurring and this was 24/7 except for a break between 2 and 4 am.

The best thing about the Supreme Court was the cafeteria and those blueberry muffins. I got to sit with my back to Chief Justice Rhenquist (I certainly didn't want to face him). I had a reservation and got there early so it was allowed to eat muffins with the greats. One magic moment did however occur on this Supreme Court day and I was to meet and shake hands with a one of the American greats.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

(The Wallaby court)

SFAA v. USOC and IOC*

*[Why were they left off this caption?

They were on the original complaint IOC/USOC v. SFAA]

Argued March 24, 1987 - Decided June 25th, 1987

SYLLABUS-

Preface: The syllabus constitutes no part of the Opinion but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. He or she needs a new job.

Author dissents and declares what is 'prepared' herein is not even close with what was actually decided.

**Supreme Court Opinion**

HERE THEY GO: One-way ticket to Mars.

Supreme Court: Section 110 of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (Act) grants respondent USOC the right to prohibit certain commercial and promotional uses of the word Olympic and various other symbols. Petitioner, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. (SFAA), a non-profit California corporation, promoted the "Gay Olympic Games" to be held in 1982 by using those words on its letterheads and mailings, in local newspapers, and on various merchandise sold to cover the costs of the Games. The USOC informed the SFAA of the existence of the Act and requested that it terminate use of the word "Olympic" in description of the planned Games. When the SFAA failed to do so, the USOC brought suit in Federal District Court for injunctive relief. The Court granted the USOC a summary judgment and a permanent injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Act granted the USOC exclusive use of the word "Olympic" without requiring the USOC to prove that the unauthorized use was confusing and without regard to defenses available to an entity sued for a trademark violation under the Lanham Act. The court also found that the USOC'S property right in the word and its associated symbols and slogans can be protected without violating the first amendment. The court did not reach the SFAA's claim that the USOC's enforcement of its rights was discriminatory in violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it held that the USOC is not a governmental actor to which the Constitution applies.

THE COURT Held: Italics are author's comments, appraisals, and disgust.

S. Ct:1. There is no merit to the SFAA's contention that §110 grants the USOC nothing more than a trademark in the word "Olympic" and precludes its use by others only when it tends to cause confusion. Nor is there any merit to the argument that §110's reference to Lanham Act remedies should be read as incorporating traditional defenses as well.

SFAA'S contention and argument has great merit. So far, five sentences, mistake #1. I know this from direct experience through Congressional communications over a time frame of two years. I was ridiculed on many occasions and sometimes admonished for stating what the Court just articulated in the first five sentences of this opinion. Congress never intended this and had no idea it was going to occur.

S. Ct.Section 110's language and legislative history indicate that Congress intended to grant the USOC exclusive use of the word "Olympic" without regard to whether use of the word tends to cause confusion, and that §110 does not incorporate defenses available under the Lanham Act. mistake #2 Same contention as above*

S. Ct.2. Also without merit is the SFAA's argument that the word "Olympic" is a generic word that constitutionally cannot gain trademark protection under the Lanham Act, Not true but not a mistake since the Court is blissfully ignorant of facts not before it. There were five (5) thousand businesses, corporations, and organizations in legal effect at that moment in time and SFAA is correct in their contention that Olympic is generic and property of the Public domain but has no proof in the record, so it's their word and it has no weight.)

S. Ct. and that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from granting a trademark in a word. When a word acquires values the result of organization and the expenditure of labor, skill, and money by an entity, that entity constitutionally may obtain a limited property right in the word. Congress reasonably could conclude that the commercial and promotional value of the word Olympic was the product of the USOC's talents and energy, the end result of much time, effort, and expense.

This does not apply as the doctrine of "secondary meaning" and USOC has no more right to a secondary meaning appellation than do the five (5) thousand existing business using olympic in their name at this moment which have been doing so for over 35 years, since the inception of the Amateur Act. These businesses are present and accounted for every day of the year using their talent, energies, and capital to develop their businesses, services, and products with their good will attached.

S. Ct. In view of the history of the origins and associations of the word "Olympic" Congress' decision to grant the USOC a limited property right in the word falls within the scope of the trademark law protections, and thus within Constitutional bounds.

Who wrote this (syllabus) opinion? There is a 'galaxy' of space between a limited property right and a blanket prohibition. This syllabus contradicts the decision within the same paragraph. This Court is granting exclusive right; a blanket prohibition that my dear 'gang of nine' is not limited but unlimited, which is forbidden at any and all junctures and junctions when it comes even slightly near the Constitution. And what's this trash about trademark law protections when you are not allowed trademark law defenses. Now we are deep in Martian Law. Congress cannot 'cut and paste' the Lanham Act and it did not; you get it all or you get none. Congress didn't do it - I know for a fact. It was as much a surprise to Congress as it was to me and I'm sure to SFAA. Now we're at mistake #3. Limited property right, my caboose.

S. Ct.3. The first amendment does not prohibit Congress from granting exclusive use of a word without requiring that the authorized user prove that an unauthorized use is likely to cause confusion. The SFAA claims that its use of the word Olympic was intended to convey a political statement about the status of homosexuals in society, and that §110 may not suppress such speech. However by prohibiting the use of one word for particular purposes, neither Congress or the USOC has prohibited the SFAA from conveying it's message. Section 110's restrictions on expressive speech are properly characterized as incidental to the primary Congressional purpose of encouraging and rewarding the USOC's activities. Congress has a broad public interest in promoting, through the USOC's activities, the participation of amateur athletics from the United States in the Olympic games. Even though §110's protection may exceed traditional rights of a trademark in certain circumstances,

This makes me mad as hell. It is not in 'certain circumstances,' it is in 'all circumstances.' Here again the syllabus and Court trips over its own 'minced' words, hiding behind modest assertions that do not reflect what their opinion actually decided. So it's the syllabuses fault, right. I've given up calling anything forthcoming a mistake, three are sufficient.

S. Ct. the Act's application to commercial speech is not broader than necessary to protect legitimate Congressional interests and therefore does not violate the First Amendment. Take a pole of the 2500 companies and corporations present in my federal case record and see if this "ridiculous" statement is true as to their pre-existing first amendment rights. And then pole the 2,500 or so that are not in my case record. Talk about a revolution. There could be 5,000 entities exercising their collective first amendment rights and exorcise the USOC out of our existence, federal charter and all.

S. Ct. Congress reasonably could find that the use of the word by other entities to promote an athletic event would directly impinge on the USOC's legitimate right of exclusive use.

Again the Court couches its reasonable statements in relation to an athletic event such as SFAA but will determine an exclusive prohibition for all users of Olympic for the purpose of trade. If you're going to come out and prohibit everyone then why not have the guts to say it.

S. Ct. The mere fact that the SFAA claims an expressive, as opposed to purely commercial use, does not give it First Amendment right to appropriate the value which the USOC's efforts have given the word.

No more than the 'value' the 2500 businesses in my court record puts upon their efforts to maintain their business or company name, and likely a lot less.

S. Ct.4. The SFAA's claim that the USOC has enforced its §110 rights in a discriminatory manner in violation of the Fifth Amendment fails, because the USOC is not governmental actor to whom the Fifth Amendment applies. The fact that Congress granted it a corporate charter does not render the USOC a government agent. Moreover, Congress' intent to help the USOC obtain government funding does not change the analysis. Nor does the USOC's perform functions that are traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the Federal Government. The USOC's choice of how to enforce its exclusive rights to use the word "Olympic" simply is not a governmental decision.

LUNACY: Stupid, stupid, stupid, as Andy Taylor would say. How can the U. S. Government, any separated federal branch, not be concerned with how a federal law is implemented and enforced, especially as it affects their policies, their agency, and their liabilities. The Amateur Act is now the reformed and majestic super-sized law as created and re-invented by the Supreme Court. One eye blind and the other on historical perspective, "being up there with other saviors of olympism, Olympique, and the Amateur Sports Act." There is a place reserved for them in the "Mount Olympus Hall of Shame and Absurdity." This shameful and biased ruling had a direct effect upon me, my case, my present, my future, my family, and my belief in the federal judicial process. This 'decision' has affected me for over 24 years. And there is no way to appeal a Martian decision, since there's no one left to appeal to. That seems to 'work' rather well.

End of Martian Law and Supreme Court Syllabus of Opinion.

I will not waste time, energy, heart, and soul even speaking to the 25 pages of Supreme Court gobbleygook which follows this syllabus. This opinion is not only wrong, it is ALL wrong. A couple of dissenters were correct on first amendment issues but matter not in the hodgepodge of rhetoric.

Weak, gutless, uninformed, dastardly biased, and patently unconstitutional. The court was duped and could only see the by the light of the olympic torch; and the deniable homophobia which resulted in a ruling that should be torn out of the reports. It's not even fit for tinder, and is more wrong now, 24 years later, than it ever was.

In closing: The opinion stinks of bias and special privilege with just a dash of historical perspective. Well, that about does it for me. What year is this? (1987)

Chapter 23 Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chair., House Judiciary Committee

On the fateful day of the ruling by the Court I was there waiting pronouncement. I had reservation and a seat. In the front row were two Congressmen, Senator John Danforth and Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr.. I did not know, until later when it was announced at session's end, that Peter Rodino, III [along with other attorneys] were to be inducted into the bar of the Supreme Court, a process necessary if you intend to practice before the Court. I would think it would be a great honor. Mr. Danforth and Mr. Rodino were his sponsors. It was a happy day for the senior Rodino. As the session ended he retired alone to aisle right and I went to congratulate him on this auspicious occasion. I did NOT identify myself to enable him to enjoy this moment without some litigant and lobbyist bothering him about an issue that he could not discuss anyway. I later contacted him about meeting him and he was gracious, as always, and sent me a File Copy of the Legislative Intent regarding the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. He was the only Congressman I had any face contact with though I had mail contact with all of them, ad infinitum. I had several communications with him as Judiciary Chairman. I got something from my "day in court" after all. Like meeting George Washington or one of those guys.

Thank you Mr. Rodino, the honor was truly all mine.

I had this Legislative Intent document several years prior but to get a File Copy from him was special. And, of course, there is no reference whatsoever to the Amateur Sports Act being enforced in any way, shape or form as the USOC and the Martian court is now trying to pass off on us, and directly on to me.

**House Judiciary Committee Response**

Bio of Mr. Rodino (imported text)

Mr. Rodino was born Pelligrino Rodino, Jr. in Newark, New Jersey. His parents were immigrants from Italy. He attended Barringer High School. He went to college at the University of Newark and earned a law degree at the Newark Law School, both now part of Rutgers University. During World War II, he earned a Bronze Star for service in Italy and North Africa. After the war, he ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 1946, losing to incumbent Fred Hartley Jr. Trying again in 1948, when Hartley had decided not to run, he won the seat. Outside of his Newark district, he was not prominent as a congressman until the Nixon impeachment hearings. As a congressman, he was generally known as a liberal, and a proponent of civil rights legislation and immigration reform. Representing a district that was heavily Italian-American when he was first elected, he was best known for his sponsorship of legislation that made Columbus Day a national holiday. He became chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January 1973. During the Nixon impeachment hearings from May to July 1974, he was generally considered to be a fair moderator of what at times were very partisan hearings. Key difficulties included ensuring that enough Republican committee members would vote for impeachment to defend against Nixon administration charges of Democratic partisanship. In the end, as further evidence emerged and Nixon admitted wrongdoing, several initially reluctant Republican members switched, making the committee vote for impeachment unanimous. During his political career, he also was one of the managers of the impeachment hearings of a pair of federal judges. In 1986, he was member of the committee that removed Nevada judge Harry Claiborne for tax evasion, and in 1988, he helped to remove future Congressman Alcee Hastings from a Florida court due to perjury charges. He continued as chair of the Judiciary Committee until his retirement from Congress in 1989, when he was replaced by Donald M. Payne, New Jersey's first African-American representative. After leaving Congress, he became professor emeritus at the Seton Hall University School of Law, where he taught and lectured until February 2005. He died May 7, 2005, of congestive heart failure at the age of 95 at his home in West Orange, New Jersey.

Chapter 24 Last Gasp

Dear O-w-impic Letter, National Association of Olympic Businesses

A Non-Profit Business Association

Lobby Registration #11271000 - IRS § 501(c)(6) - Tax Exempt - 33-0200292

This last utterance went out to the 2,500 +/- olympic businesses present in my court record. From these addresses I obtained my members who joined the lobby. These recipients received letters from me several times before and were on the Olympic list. I should not have been angry with these people, specifically, but the last screw was going in my coffin lid and I had to reach one more time to convince them the urgency of the issue, and, that the martyr will soon die for his beliefs, figuratively. Olympic Records is dead and its products are going to the shredder. National Association of Olympic Businesses is to be dissolved and Martian law has prevailed. The culmination of four years of sixty (60) hour weeks dedicated 101% to the cause (like the first judge said, quixotic quest) of obtaining the trademark with which I was going to make a stand for music "I" thought the Public should have access to. Four years in court, six years in all. My extremely valuable and costly court record now goes to storage to become a cold case file, or more likely, the dumpster. There are copies but it would require a legal anthropologist to locate the original. And for God's sake don't show it to the Supreme Court if you find it.

Don Coyote cries "carnivorous predator & scavenger" one last time

Dear OWIMPIC:

Guess what? I went to the U.S. appeals court Monday (7th) and the Gay Olympics case disposes of LABRANCHE v. USOC and you are hereby notified that you will never be free unless you do something about it. Some of you may have made an effort and, if so, those efforts need to be redoubled. For those of you who ignored my letters or feel your company is not in jeopardy and don't feel threatened I wish you well. If any of you made a secret arrangement with the USOC you are dangerously close to a Sherman Act, §1 violation. Any of you who changed your name should move to France where this .... came from. I shall continue to the Supreme Court where I can further and finally be destroyed and insulted, and there is no chance they will change their mind with respect to overturning one of their most notorious mistakes. The mistake was that they (7 justices) said. "section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act does not violate the First Amendment." This was stated in the broadest of terms and the statement is meant to, and does, apply to everyone. The Supreme Court of "Olympism" showed the Gays and the ACLU who's boss.

The National Association of Olympic Businesses [NAOB] will be disbanded and dissolved at the end of the quarter (by order of the court) and thereafter the actions of Leo O. LaBranche Jr. will not reflect upon or include any of the members. I am taking out of court actions against the I.O.C. (which is responsible for this crap) and the games have begun. In fact, the Canadians (who have ten times the spine of most of you) took the matter into their own hands and made the government change the policy regarding 'no use' of olympic, but only because the Canadian olympic businesses stood up and fought (with special help from the Greek Canadians and the Greek Ambassador). I played a small part in that event. The Canadian media howled when the Canadian Olympic Association a/k/a the Olympic Trust tried to prevent publication of the country's major magazine (McLeans). The magazine was taken to Federal court and lost at every turn until the issue smelled so bad that the Olympic Trust dropped the injunction. It is interesting that I can be of assistance to help others free themselves from oppression but I can't do a damn thing about it in my own country. It would take at least five (5) hundred or more American olympic businesses joined together in a federal class action to be "EQUAL UNDER LAW TO THE USOC." Everybody bows to the USOC, including you and yours who tacitly bow by accepting the situation.

Good-bye and Good Luck. I am ashamed that my countrymen are such spineless wimps.

Truly O-WIM-PICS.Past President, Olympic Records, Inc.

P.S. Courtesy, protocol, and procedure mean absolutely nothing in this situation. If you want something done by this government you must DEMAND IT! Do you pay taxes? What do you get for it? You are a tainted American business and through absolutely no fault of mine, and I thank God.

**NEW YORK TIMES**

Ten days after the Court's decision in SFAA the following statements were made by the

Executive Director of the Olympic Committee, Mr. George Miller.

New York Times - July 5, 1987, section 3, pg. 1:5

Publicly stated position SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT

With the Olympic games approaching the Committee will be more aggressive about protecting its exclusive right to the word "Olympic." "Any use of the name is illegal," said George Miller, executive director. [But] we can't go after them all. The main targets will be athletic contests and businesses that link themselves to the Olympic games...

The statement in italics accurately reflects the intention of Congress in 1978 with respect to interpretation of §380 of the Amateur Sports Act. Further statements made by the USOC regarding legislative intent appear in the records of the 99th Congress. 100 video copies (and transcripts) of a network television broadcast were sent to members of Congress, accompanying petition 0274, in 1986. On this broadcast appeared Mr. Richard G. Kline, Esq., general counsel for USOC, holding a souvenir T-shirt up to view which included the five interlocked rings and the term 1984 Olympics and stated: This is the kind of marketing activity the statute was designed to prevent. This statement is also true and in harmony with Congressional Intent. Yet threats were made during the broadcast to sue all those who use the word "olympic" for the purposes of trade since 1950. The Amateur Sports Act states "olympic" is a word, not a name.

So the USOC has a federal law that cannot be used against all others, and used when it suits their purpose and design and they have a Supreme Court opinion (case law) to enable them to do what, where, and when they choose with no control or oversight according to the Martian court. The people in this organization need to get out of MY country. Nowhere in the history of our laws (show me otherwise) has any entity ever had this kind of power, implemented by self-serving men and women with no oversight necessary. The gods have finally arrived from Mount Olympus and they're as superlative as always and do what they want with no oversight.

This, in effect, ends the Olympic story. I obeyed the federal court order and shredded my products, canceled my licenses, abandoned my trademark, closed the Corporation, and closed the Lobby. Below the written Order, of course written by the Olympic lawyers and signed by the judge.

JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

U. S. District Court, case no. CV 481 RGLABRANCHE v USOC

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

1.This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and over the parties to this action.

2.Plaintiff (counterdefendant/LABRANCHE) shall take nothing by his claims.

3.The use by LABRANCHE of the term "Olympic Records" as a trademark and/or as a trade name on or in connection with his products infringes upon the rights in and to use the term "OLYMPIC" granted to the USOC by 36 U.S. Code §380.

4.LABRANCHE, his successors, legal representatives, and assigns, and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with LABRANCHE are perpetually enjoined and restrained:

A)from using the term "OLYMPIC" or "OLYMPIC RECORDS" or any other word or words, term or terms which is or are confusingly similar thereto, as a trademark, trade name, brand name, or indication of source or origin on or in connection with any product or any service and/or the advertising, offering for sale or the sale of any product or service;

B)from using the term "OLYMPIC" alone, and or as a part of any trademark containing other words or devices, and/or trade name, trade style, or designation which includes the word "OLYMPIC;" and

C)from committing any acts calculated or likely to cause others to believe that the products or services of LABRANCHE are the USOC's products or services, or are sponsored or approved by, or connected with or produced under the supervision of USOC.

5.LABRANCHE is further enjoined and ordered to:

A)destroy any and all of his labels, packaging, and other documents and material which include the Term "OLYMPIC" or "OLYMPIC RECORDS;"

B)destroy any and all of his advertising materials which include, refer, or relate to use of the term "OLYMPIC" or "OLYMPIC RECORDS" on or in connection with its product or services;

C)take such action as is necessary to cause removal from any and all directories or publications of any and all references to LABRANCHE or his product or services which include the term "OLYMPIC" or "OLYMPIC RECORDS;"

D)abandon his U. S. Trademark Application Serial No. S452,602 and abandon or otherwise cancel or revoke any other Federal, state or foreign trademark application or registrations which he may have for any mark which includes the term "OLYMPIC" or "OLYMPIC RECORDS;"

E)cancel or cause to be cancelled any and all trade name certificates, registrations, or fictitious name statements which include the term "OLYMPIC or "OLYMPIC RECORDS" and which have been issued or granted to LABRANCHE; and

F)cancel or cause to be cancelled any and all certificates of brand or label approval from any brand or label which include the term "OLYMPIC" or "OLYMPIC RECORDS," and which have been granted or issued to him.

6.LABRANCHE is further ordered to account to USOC, and to pay to USOC all gains, profits and advantages derived from his sale of goods or services in connection with which he has used the term "OLYMPIC" or "OLYMPIC RECORDS" as an identifying designation or otherwise.

7.This Court retains jurisdiction of the parties hereto with respect to compliance with this Permanent Judgment against LABRANCHE.

8. That the USOC recover of LABRANCHE its costs, including attorneys' fees.

Dated: 12/31/85 - mandated 4-4-88s/s Richard A. Gadbois Jr.

United States District Judge

I located a company in Arizona that will shred my company products and other items as covered in the above ORDER. I get my friend Billy Milo, the country artist, to go with me to Arizona and get him to film it as required to verify the destruction. It was about a 5 x 8 U-haul full of records and tapes and whatever else required to be shredded. I go to Arizona because I will not spend any money in California ever again.

I left California shortly thereafter and moved to Arizona where I considered a future as Don Coyote chasing "The Impossible Nightmare." I could not consider a book as was suggested by Mr. Lewis M. Brown because I couldn't go through it again. I kept the 100 pounds of history for some reason but thought I was just dragging my past.

The foregoing began August 1982 and ended April 1988. It is not recommended that anyone do this unless you are steeped in, and expect to be ruled by, Martian law.

EPILOGUE

For all intents and purposes this Olympic record had ended, though incomplete.

Telling the story might have been different (if at all) had I Googled the Amateur Sports Act in January 2010. I now know why it was an unconscious decision and on forced reflection, I admit I didn't want to know, one way or the other. It did not alter any facts I knew of. I knew everyone was free because Olympic businesses and Olympics of every description are widespread throughout the Country, more prevalent now than back during my court time and there were many thousands then.

So, if the law was changed - then great, I was right and I'm just as screwed as ever. [Vindication and a dollar will get you a bottled water.] However if the law was not changed then my beliefs about my efforts (4 years) and effectiveness (which had somewhat sustained me) would have been shattered. Impotence by retrospect. Believing you made a difference and then finding out your matyrdom had no effect.

When I was confronted by the question, "When did this event (if any) occur which freed the Olympic slaves, so to speak?" Then I had to click the Google search button. That was March 15, 2010 (after completion of many drafts). Congress finally saw fit to change the law in 1998 and when it was amended and reenacted it had the much needed, and litigated for, and lobbied for, "change." Utilizing the word "permitted" as opposed to the word "prohibited." Pertinent part below in Bold.

Excerpt from "Ted Stevens, Amateur Sports Act." (1998) See, ** connecting to ***.

(c) CIVIL ACTION FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE. Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation may file a civil action against a person for the remedies provided in the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (popularly known as the Trademark Act of 1946) if the person, without the consent of the corporation, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition—

(1) The symbol described in subsection (a)(2) of this section;

(2) The emblem described in subsection (a)(3) of this section;

**(3) The words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or any combination or simulation of those words tending to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with the corporation or any Olympic, Paralympic, or Pan-American Games activity; or

(d) PRE-EXISTING AND GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE RIGHTS.

(1) A person who actually used the emblem described in subsection (a)(3) of this section, or the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.

(2) A person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, the words or any combination of the words described in subsection (a)(4) of this section, or a trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia described in subsection (c)(4) of this section, for any lawful purpose before September 21, 1950, is not prohibited by this section from continuing the lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.

*** (3) Use of the word "Olympic" to identify a business or goods or services is permitted by this section where—

(A) Such use is not combined with any of the intellectual properties referenced in subsections (a) or (c) of this section;

This story has added dimension now with the "Ted Stevens - Amateur Sports Act" as ultimate conclusion and proof. Ten years after ordered by a federal court to destroy my business and stop lobbying using the word Olympic it finally comes to pass, actually in legislative print. Freedom for all except me though I knew that. There's a saying I've heard, "you can do good things as long as you don't care for credit." I just want my money back, with twenty-eight years interest. ($4.5m) You can have the credit.

The law was amended in 1998 with NO MENTION of the minor changes as above highlighted. Thirteen years later Congress changed the Amateur Sports Act in harmony with my Complaint, Petitions, and requests. (Chapter 21)

My Congressional Petitions are Public records and show when it was lodged with the Congress and referred by the Speaker (O'Neil) to the Judiciary Committees of both Houses (Thurmond & Rodino). These Public records, noted in the Congressional Record, given a number, involving Committee Chairmen \- my actions truly becoming the "country's business," for a moment. In late 1985 I was contacted and assured by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Amateur Sports Act was to be corrected or clarified sometime in the near future. In the preceding chapters I commented on feeling relief for a few days when hearing that news. Thirteen years later Ted's Amateur Act appears and twelve years after that I come upon it.

At minimum the story reflects what can and did occur when you are right, truthful, follow the rules, do due diligence, invest capital, and stand up for your rights. A typical American story where the whistleblower, martyr, and pariah rides, or is carried off, into the sunset never to be heard from again. Chalk up one for Don Coyote in the mountains of Colorado in search of his possible dream. Thanks for getting to this end of The Olympic Record.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A Pro Se Litigant Information

APPENDIX B FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

APPENDIX C TOC - EVIDENCE

APPENDIX D LEGAL BRIEF

APPENDIX E CASE LAWS AND STATUTES

APPENDIX F FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

APPENDIX G PARTIAL LIST OF OLYMPIC BUSINESSES

APPENDIX A Pro Se Litigant Explanations & Comments

Had there been an internet what follows would have been compiled and available, and, had I known these statistics there would have come a time of sober, or, not so sober, reflection re being a pre se litigant. As it turned I had no choice so forward went the wagons. With the following information you can determine whether you would want to represent yourself in any court, unless of course, you had no choice (and even then).

Wikipedia Generalizations

Pro se legal representation refers to the instance of a person representing himself or herself, without a lawyer, in a court proceeding, whether as a defendant or a plaintiff and whether the matter is civil or criminal. Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself." This status is sometimes known as propria persona (abbreviated to "pro per"). Many state and the federal courts systems are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro se litigants. In the United States federal court system for the year 2007 approximately 27% of actions filed, 92% of prisoner petitions, and 10% of non-prisoner petitions, were filed by pro se litigants. The right of a party to a legal action to represent his or her own cause has long been recognized in the United States, and even predates the ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that "[i]n the federal courts the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 signed by President Washington, one day before the Sixth Amendment was proposed which provided that "in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel."

Section 1654 of title 28 of the United States Code provides: "In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." Most states have a constitutional provision that either expressly, or by interpretation, allows individuals to represent their own causes in the courts of that state.

Limits

In some situations, self-represented appearances are not allowed. Generally, an owner can represent a solely owned business or partnership, but only a licensed attorney can represent a corporation. The ability of a party to proceed without an attorney in prosecuting or defending a civil action is largely a matter of state law, and may vary depending on the court and the positions of the parties. A longstanding and widely practiced rule prohibits corporations from being represented by non-attorneys, consistent with the existence of a corporation as a "person" separate and distinct from its officers and employees. Few federal court of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue, and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases.

Notable pro se litigants

The pro se defendant in Kolender v. Lawson (461 U.S. 352, 1983), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a police officer could not arrest a citizen merely for refusing to present identification.

Robert Kerns was the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper. He acted as his own lawyer in parts of his long legal battles for patent infringement against Ford and Chrysler. His legal battles are the subject of the 2008 film, Flash of Genius.

Clarence Earl Gideon was too poor to afford an attorney and thus proceeded pro se in his criminal trial in Florida in 1961. He was found guilty and subsequently appealed. He was appointed counsel when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court; the Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that the right to counsel means that states are required to provide counsel free of charge to indigent criminal defendants and that Florida's failure to appoint such counsel in Gideon's case constituted a violation of that right. On remand Gideon was represented in the new trial, and was acquitted.

Brandon Moon spent 17 years in jail for a rape that he did not commit. He was convicted after being picked from a lineup 18 months after the rape in which he was the only blue eyed white man. He was a sophomore in college and a veteran of four years in the air force when he was accused. He was released due to DNA evidence after help from the Innocence Project. He spent his prison years learning about blood tests, eye witness identification and law. Before the Innocence Project became involved, Moon represented himself and repeatedly applied for relief but, according to his lawyer he was "bounced around the courts like a Ping-Pong ball" because "The courts are so hostile to pro se litigants. The instinct is to deny, deny, deny."

Thomas Van Orden, a lawyer with a suspended license to practice law who was living homeless in Austin, Texas managed to challenge a religious display on the state capitol grounds, and successfully navigated his case all the way to the Supreme Court. While he was ultimately unsuccessful at getting the display removed, he was extremely successful at litigating the case.

Anthony Pellicano, a Los Angeles-based private investigator known for working with high-profile entertainment industry attorneys, represented himself in federal district court after being indicted on numerous counts of criminal conspiracy and wiretapping charges. He fired his attorneys prior to trial. He was convicted on all but one count. He also faced a second trial along with co-defendant Terry Christiansen. He again represented himself and again was convicted on numerous counts.

Barbara Schwarz, of Salt Lake City, Utah has filed a large number of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIPA) requests. When the responses failed to verify her claims, she responded with litigation, which she has done pro se. At least one of her lawsuits have been considered by a U.S. District or U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals somewhere in the nation every year since 1993."

James Traficant, a former U.S. Representative from Ohio, represented himself in a RICO case in 1983, and was acquitted of all charges, becoming the only person to ever win a RICO case while representing himself. Traficant would represent himself again in 2002, this time unsuccessfully, and was sentenced to prison for 8 years for taking bribes, filing false tax returns, and racketeering.

Lenny Bruce represented himself in a number of obscenity trials, including Chicago Gate of Horn case, People v. Bruce.

Resources

Self-represented litigants may turn to "self-help" assistance. These tend to come from three sources: local courts, which may offer limited self-help assistance; and public interest groups, such as the American Bar Association, which sponsors reform and promotes resources for self-help, and services which sell pre-made forms allowing self-represented parties to have correct documents.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has also been involved with issues related to self-representation. The ABA has awarded a grant in 2008 to the Chicago Kent College of Law Center for Access to Justice & Technology for making justice more accessible to the public through the use of the Internet in teaching, legal practice and public access to the law. Their A2J Author Project is a software tool that empowers those from the courts, legal services programs and educational institutions to create guided interviews resulting in document assembly, electronic filing and data collection. Viewers using A2J to go through a guided interview are led down a virtual pathway to the courthouse. As they answer simple questions about their legal issue, the technology then "translates" the answers to create, or assemble, the documents that are needed for filing with the court.

In representing oneself as Pro Se litigant, access to the WESTLAW database of legal practices and appellate court decisions, will provided valuable information on cause of action and elements of proof outlines for basic Complaint and Summary Judgment filings. Valuable case citations giving guidance in forming interrogative (discovery) questions, by state, are also easily extracted and copied to portable (thumb) drives for inclusion in personal records, or other court work. Free Access to this very costly subscription Internet database resource is commonly available in the local law library, and in some locations goes basically unused in the towns main library. Internet access to State and Federal statutes provides useful insight into what is currently considered right or wrong conduct by law enforcement or individuals. Internet access to County, State and Federal public domain databases concerning property tax appraisal records, corporations, trusts and other legal entities can often provide (after diligent searching) much useful information on the policies and practices of the opposing individual and their counsel. Also, numerous examples of common complaint problems or pleadings are found on the Internet, along with sometimes helpful videos produced by concerned lawyers.

APPENDIX B Amended Complaint

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 plaintiff's business and which was 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/service-mark/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.

APPENDIX C Court Record

FEDERAL COURT RECORD

TABLE OF EVIDENCE Case No. CV 85 481 RG, Central District CA

Clerk's recordLeo Oliver LaBranche Jr. v. USOC (A corporation)

Declaration of authenticity of television broadcast

Exhibit 1, P.T.O. refusal

Exhibits 3-6, C.B.S. broadcast transcript

Exhibits 7-10, Legal Trade Publication

Exhibits 11, 16-26 assorted corporations, permits & licenses

Exhibits 27-31, New York Certificates [Good Standing]

Exhibits 32-36, Minnesota Certificates

Exhibits 37, 38, Indiana Certificates

Exhibits 39-48, Wisconsin Certificates

Exhibits 49-60, North Carolina Certificates

Exhibits 61-65, Ohio Certificates

Exhibits 66-69, Illinois Certificates

Exhibits 70-72, Florida Certificates

Exhibits 73-75, Georgia Certificates

Exhibits 76-80, Maryland Certificates

Exhibits 81-89, Texas Certificates

Exhibits 90-94, Virginia Certificates

Exhibits 95-97, Rhode Island

Exhibits 98-101, Arizona Certificates

Exhibits 102-105, Nebraska Certificates

Exhibits 106-110, Oklahoma Certificates

Exhibits 111-116, COLORADO Certificates-USOC home state. Exhibits 141-153, Policy of states of N.Y, M.N., MA., OH., IL., IA., TX., AZ., NE., S.C., OK., WA.

Exhibits 154-158, New York list from tax board

Exhibits 159-172, California computer print-out

Exhibits 197-199, Ohio computer print-out

Exhibits 200-203, Florida computer print-out

Exhibits 204, 205, Maryland reply w/list

Exhibits 206, South Carolina letter reply

Exhibits 224-227, Pennsylvania computer print-out

Exhibits 228, 229, New Mexico computer print-out

Exhibits 230-232, Certified letter sent by USOC to all states in 1978, after

the amending 36 U.S.C. §§ 371 et seq.

Exhibits 233, Interstate Commerce Commission computer p/o.

Exhibits 237, Important letter reply from U.S. Copyright Office

Exhibits 249, 250, F.S.L.I.C. computer print-out

Exhibits 251-252, various refusals from Florida, Georgia,

Alabama, Michigan, and California

Exhibits 256-258, Copyrights, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.

Exhibits 297-300, Massachusetts corporations, list of contents

Exhibits 521, 522, Microfiche No. 26 & 27 received from State of WA

Exhibits 523, 526, Compilation from microfiche

These exhibits are a small percentage of the number of businesses and corporations throughout the United States.

End of Table of contents of exhibits.

APPENDIX D Legal Brief

LEGAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

Jurisdiction:

This action arises under the Constitution of the United States: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; Article IV, Section 1 and 2; the First Amendment; the Fifth Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment; 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq.; 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.; and upon jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. 1138(b), and 15 U.S.C. Section 2 and 15.

Cause of Action:

They threatened to sue any users of Olympic which included me and also stopped me from getting a federal registered trademark for my company name and corporation. I took an affirmative position and sued them.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 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 Int. Commerce.

XVII.15 U.S.C. §15, Clayton Act - Interference with right to trade or exist

Cases Argued and Cited

Fourteenth Amendment: Selective enforcement

Yick Wo v Hopkins, (1886) 118 US 356, 359; 30 L Ed 220, 227; 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1070 the court stated, "If a law is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as to practically make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal protection is within the prohibitions of the Constitution. Louisville Gas & Electric v Coleman, (1928) 277 US 32, 37; 48 S. CT. 423, the Court said, "The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means that rights of all persons must rest on the same rule under similar circumstances, and applies to the exercise of all the powers of the state which can affect the individual or his property." Distinguished in Frost v Corp. Comm. of OK, (1929) 278 US 515, 522; 49 S. Ct. 235. In Frost, the Court stated that it has "several times decided that a corporation is as much entitled to the equal protection of laws as an individual. The converse is equally true. A classification which is bad because it arbitrarily favors the individual as against the corporation certainly cannot be good when it favors the corporation as against the individual. In either case, the classification, in order to be valid, must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all person similarly situated shall be treated alike."

The state of California acted upon the USOC's instructions to selectively enforce section 380 against their citizens, including this citizen, even when defendant cannot gain this enforcement assistance and support for section 380 in any other leading commercial state in the country nor in Colorado, the state of incorporation of the defendant.

In Shelly v Kraemer, (1948) 334 US 1; 22 S. Ct. 836, the Court stated, "The Constitution confers upon no individual person the right to demand action by the State which results in the denial of equal protection of he laws to other individuals.

The defendant USOC has no right or authority to request the state of California, or any other state or agency to deny equal protection of the law to the plaintiff or any other similarly situated person.

Fifth Amendment: Selective enforcement and Due Proces

In Johnson v Robison, (1974) 415 US 316, 365; 94 S. Ct. 1160, the Court said, "If a classification would be valid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is also inconsistent with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment." In USDA v Moreno, (1973) 413 US 528; 93 S Ct. 2821, the Court stated, "Under the equal protection analysis a legislative classification must be sustained if the classification itself is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest."

There can be no rational basis for the distinction drawn between natural and artificial persons in California. Nor any rational basis for the distinction drawn between California businesses and businesses using olympic in 46 other states.

First Amendment: Prior Restrain

In Freedman v Maryland, (1965) 380 US 51, 57; 85 S. CT. 734 It was stated by the Court, "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."

36 U.SC. §380 provides that the defendant has licensing control over use of the word olympic. There will have to be reasonable and definite standard by which the defendant could "rent" the word olympic without the accompanying olympic designations. There can be no reasonable and definite standard made out as to "rent" the word olympic, nor can the word be diluted as the defendant suggests because there must be exclusivity in order for there to be dilution and there is no exclusivity. Vagueness in the system of licensing is established by his "lack of reasonable and definite standard" to use olympic as a guide for renting the word olympic.

In Interstate Circuit v Dallas, (1968) 390 US 676; 88 S. Ct. 12 the Court concluded that "the absence narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards for officials to follow [in licensing] is fatal. In Huntley v Public Utilities Commission, (1968) 442 P 2d 685, 688, the California Supreme Court sitting en banc stated, " Improper restraints on communication may vary in form and degree, but all have effect of restricting the dissemination of ideas. The clearest abuse is an "outright prohibition" of a constitutionally protected form of speech. Regulation short of "absolute prohibition" is also invalid when expression is made dependent on state approval by the obtaining of a permit, or is conditioned upon obtaining approval of a board of censors."

\The USOC states that permission must be granted to use olympic but it remains to be discovered whether the defendant has ever rented the word to anyone without an accompanying olympic designation. It also remains to be discovered what reasonable and definite standard the defendant uses to determine who can and who cannot use olympic, how much it would cost, restrictions and limitations upon its use, duration of use, as well as other considerations, separate from an olympic trademarked designation.

"No one has the constitutional right to interfere with, restrain or coerce another in the exercise of the same right..." NRLB v Continental Oil, distinguishing NRLB v Link Belt Co., (1940) 311 US 584, 598; 61 S. Ct. 358.

The plaintiff claims the right to use olympic under the First Amendment provision which provides that persons are to be free from a prior restraint on the use of a spoken word.

Delegation of Licensing Power to a Private Corporation

"In our view the delegation by the Legislature (NY) of its licensing power to the Jockey Club, a private corporation, is such an abdication as to be patently an unconstitutional relinquishment of legislative power in violation of section 1 of Article III of the constitution of this state (NY) which provides: The legislative power of this State shall be vested in the Senate and the Assembly." Fink v Cole, (1951) 97 NE 2d 873, 876; 302 NY 216.

This is analogous to the provisions of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in that Congress may not delegate powers to any person which in effect, or in fact, create the illusion of Federally granted power to license [olympic] over the entire field of commercial enterprise or endeavor. The legislative history of 36 U.S.C. § 371 et seq. bears a recital. These games have 'only' to do with amateur athletics. The defendant assumes the position as proprietor of the word olympic over the entire filed of commercial endeavor. This is grossly incompatible with the legislative history as defined by Senate Report No. 2523 regarding the Amateur Act.

COMMERCE CLAUSE - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

"Activities that are beyond the reach of Congress under the commerce power are those which are completely within the particular state, and with which it is not necessary to interfere for the purpose of executing some general powers of government." Katzenback v McClung, 379 US 294; 85 S. Ct. 377.

"Authority of Federal government over interstate commerce may not be pushed to such extremes as to destroy the distinction between commerce among the several states and internal concerns of [the] state." NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel, (1937) 301 US 1; 57 S. Ct. 615.

The statue under attack makes no distinction between intrastate and interstate commerce, and it may well be true that most olympic businesses throughout the U.S. may be small, locally owned, intrastate businesses. Congress has no grant of power over the states in regard to purely intrastate business unless it substantially effects interstate commerce.

Right of Olympic Records, Inc. to Interstate Commerce

"The state cannot exclude from its limits a corporation engaged in interstate or foreign commerce..." Horn Silver Mining v New York, (1892) 143 US 305; 12 S. Ct. 403. "A corporation from one state may go into another without leave of license of the latter for all legitimate purposes of interstate commerce, and any statute of the latter state which obstructs or lays burden on the exercise of this privilege is void under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution." Western Union v Kansas, (1910) 216 US 1; 30 S. Ct. 190. Pullman Co. v Kansas, (1910) 216 US 56; 30 S. Ct. 232. "Right to engage in interstate commerce is not a gift of the state and it cannot be restrained or regulated by the state, nor cab the state exclude from its limits a corporation engaged in such commerce." "It follows that under the commerce clause [a] corporation authorized by the state of its creation to engage in interstate commerce may not be prevented by another state from coming into its limits for all legitimate purposes of such commerce..." Sioux Remedy v Cope, (1914) 235 US 197; 35 S. Ct. 57.

"State has authority to control doing business within the state by foreign corporations but it is without power to use its lawful authority to exclude foreign corporations by directly burdening interstate commerce, as a condition of permitting them to do business within the state, in violation of he Federal Constitution." Looney v Crane Co, (1917) 245 US 178; 38 S. Ct. 85.

The state of California burdens interstate commerce by refusing Olympic Records, Inc. the right and ability to do business in the state.

Invalid Trademark Registration No. 968,566

In the case of G. & C. Merriam v Saalfield, (1912) 198 F 369 a Public Right doctrine was stated by the court, "Primarily, it would seem that one might appropriate to himself for his goods any words or phrase that he chose; but this is not so, because the broader Public Right prevails, and one may not appropriate to his own exclusive use a word which already belongs to the Public and so may be used by any one of the Public."

In Delaware Canal v Clark, (1871) 13 Wall. 311, 323; 20 L Ed 581, 583, the court held, "No one can claim protection for the exclusive use of a trade name or trademark which would give him a monopoly in the sale of any goods other than those produced by himself. If he could the Public would be injured, for competition would be destroyed." Distinguished in Standard Paint v Trinidad Asphalt, (1911) 220 US 446, 453; 36 S. Ct. 456. Also stated in Delaware, "There is no moral or legal wrong in the adoption or imitation of what is claimed by another as a trademark if it is just as true in it's application to the goods of the second adopter as to those of the first."

In United Drug v Theodore Rectanus, (1918) 248 US 90, 98; 39 S. Ct. 90, the Court held, "The owner of a trademark may not, like the proprietor of a patented invention, make a negative and merely prohibitive use of it as a monopoly." Distinguished in American Steel v Robertson, (1925) 269 US 372, 380; 70 L Ed 317, 320, in American the Court further stated, "The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on articles of different description."

"No damages shall be recovered by a party failing to give notice of registration exception proof that the plaintiff or defendant was duly notified of the infringement and continued the same after notice." Stark Bros. v Stark (1920) 255 US 50; 41 S. Ct. 221. 15 USC §1111 provides the same authority as Stark. The defendant was precluded from using the notice provision provided for by 15 USC §1111.

DISCRIMINATORY USE OF TRADEMARK - Registration no. 980, 734

This trademark was used by the defendant on a letter sent to all the 50 States during 1978 requesting the selective enforcement of section 380 of the Amateur Sports Act. [Exh. 231] Regarding the plaintiff's torch: In Corning v Pasmantier, 30 Supp 477,480 (1939), the court made a visual comparison of the torch trademarks and found the question of infringement rested on a visual comparison of the marks.

The plaintiff has no registration for a torch though one is pending. The defendant has a torch in registration no. 980,734 but this torch is not mentioned or described in any way, thus neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have a registration for a torch and a visual comparison of the torches is a good test for infringement. Plaintiff used a pre-existing torch as a model from which his torch was derived. The model was not the olympic torch.

ATTEMPTED MONOPOLY - Sherman Act §2

"A monopoly in the United States created by contract or agreement with foreign corporations is unlawful." U.S. v American Tobacco, (1911) 221 US 106; 31 S. Ct. 632. distinguished in Bausch Machine v Aluminum Co., (2nd Circuit, 1934).

In Peto v Howell 101 F 2d 353, 358 (7th Cir. 1938), a classic explanation of a monopoly was states by the court, Monopoly is the acquisition of something for one's own self, not necessarily the whole of a given commodity or the whole commerce therein but control, at least, of a part thereof sufficient to constitute withholding from the public the right to deal therein in an open market." The source for this authority lies in U.S. v Keystone Watch, (D.C. PA 1915; 218 F 502. This court distinguishing Standard Oil v U.S., 221 U.S. 1; 31 S. Ct. 502, 516, stated, "Congress, in speaking of monopolies of any part of interstate commerce, must have had in mind such restraints of such part of that commerce as bring about an extraordinary control of any part of the commodities in the stream of commerce... the court added, The words 'to monopolize,' and 'monopolize' as used in this section [§2] reach every act bringing about the prohibited results."

"It is not of importance whether the means used to accomplish the unlawful objective are in themselves lawful or unlawful... American Tobacco v U.S. (1945) 328 U.S. 781, 809; 66 S. Ct. 1125.

In U.S. v Griffith (1948) 334 US 100, 105; 68 S. Ct. 941, the Court stated, "It is, however, not always necessary to find specific intent to restrain trade or to build a monopoly in order to find that the antitrust laws have been violated. It is sufficient that the restraint of trade or monopoly results as the consequences of a defendant's conduct or business arrangements." Id. L Ed at 1243, "So it is that monopoly power whether lawfully or unlawfully acquired, may itself constitute an evil and stand condemned under section 2... for section 2 of the Act is aimed at the acquisition or retention of effective market control." The court continued, "Hence the existence of power 'to exclude competition when it is desired to do so' is in itself a violation of section 2, provided it is coupled with the purpose or intent to exercise that power." See, American Tobacco v U.S., SUPRA. The antitrust laws are as much violated by the prevention of competition as by its destruction."

In U.S. v Grinnel Corp., (1966) 384 US 563, 570, 571; 86 S. Ct 1698, the Court said, "The offense of monopoly under section 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power... Id. at L Ed 2d 787, "we [the Court] see no barrier to combining in a single market a number of different products or services where that combination reflects commercial realities."

In regard to (1) defendant's control over commerce in the United states, pursuant to section 380, indicates that the relevant market [of the defendant] as being the entire field commercial products and services and (2) here is no question as to the willful maintenance of the power of section 380.

In Hiland Dairy v Kroger (8th Cir. 1968) 402 F 2d 968, 971, the court stated, "Under the section 2 [Sherman Act] the attempt to monopolize must be 'likely to accomplish' monopolization, Kansas City Star v U.S., 240 F 2D 643, 663 (8th Cir. 1957), or afford a 'dangerous probability of monopolization." Also stated, "The specific intent necessary to support an attempted monopolization under section 2 must be shown by the conduct or acts from which a wrongful intent can be inferred."

DAMAGES UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 15

In Clark Oil v Phillips Petro, 148 F2d 580, 582 (8th Cir. 1945), the court stated its explanation of damages under the antitrust statutes. "The Sherman Act and the Clayton Act afford a cause of action for those suffering damages. In their provisions for damages hey embody both punitive and compensatory damages but no recovery can be had unless a case for compensatory damages is made. In the event of compensatory damages, the automatically punitive damages follow." In Clark, supra F 2d at 583, "[A]n action to recover treble damages under the Clayton Act is based upon tort and is not fixed by statutory provisions, but the damages are unliquidated.

15 U.S.C. § 24

The purpose and intent of 15 U.S.C. § 24 was analyzed in the case of U.S v Wise, (1962) 370 US 405, 413, 414; 82 S. Ct. 1354, in which the Court discussed its analysis regarding eh definition f he word "persons" as used in the antitrust laws not meant to exclude corporate officers and directors by stating, "The reasons for section 14 [Clayton Act] are sufficiently revealed by the legislative history... The reports provide no assistance but the debates do..."[§14] is merely a reenactment of the Sherman law, sections 1, 2, and 3. It has always been held that the officers of corporations violating the law will be punishable under these sections."

The plaintiff holds that the 'artificial person' of the defendant [Federally Chartered Corporation] is only capable of injuring another person through a natural person, e.g., an officer, director, or authorized agent.

THE LANHAM ACT APPLIES TO 36 U.S.C. §371 et. seq.

In the amending of 36 U.S.C. § 371 et. seq. (1950) into the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, a provision was added to apply the rights and remedies available under the Trademark Act of 1946 [Lanham Act] to all existing rights and privileges encompassed in the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.

In the defendant's "Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, p.8 line 11, "As regards is constitutionality, section 380 presents no different issue that traditional trademarks and the right to exclusive use of the words comprising the mark that trademark law grants to the holder."

In the treatise on trademarks by Dubroff & Seidel, Trademark Law and Practice, §1:06 declaring the general principals regarding trademarks, "It must be of such a nature as to permit exclusive appropriation by one person... [U]nless the trademark performs its proper function, neither can the first adopter be injured by appropriation or imitation of it [TM] by others, nor can the public be deceived."

Olympic has not been exclusively appropriated by the defendant, whether rights exist to that effect, or not. It is important to note that olympic cannot be appropriated by any person, not even the defendant, and at this time the only way to exclusively appropriate olympic would be to take it away from all other persons who have various rights and titles thereto, an impossible accomplishment.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that judgment be had against the defendant as demanded in his First Amended Complaint.

APPENDIX E Tables

TABLE OF STATUTES and CASE LAW referenced since 06/84.

ARTICLE I, Section 8, clause 3 - - COMMERCE CLAUSE

NATL. LEAGUE OF CITIES v USERY 426 US 833, 49 L Ed 2d 245 (1976)

ARTICLE I, Section 8, clause 8 - - Intellectual Property

ARTICLE IV, Section 1 - - Full Faith & Credit

ARTICLE IV, Section 2 - - Privileges & Immunities

First Amendment:Speech, Assembly, Redress

i) INTERSTATE CIRCUITS v DALLAS 390 US 676, 20 L Ed 2d 225 (1968)

ii) NRLB v CONTINENTAL OIL 159 F 2d 326 (1947)

iii) HESS v INDIANA 414 US 105, 38 L Ed 2d 303 (1973)

iv) CANTWELL v CONNECTICUT N/A religion

v) HUNTLEY v PUBLIC UTL. COMM. 69 CAL Rptr. 37 (1968)

vi) GOODING v WILSON 405 US 518, 31 L Ed 2d 408 (1972) N/A

vii) F.C.C. & U.S. v RED LION BROAD. ?

viii) LARGENT v TEXAS 318 US 418, 87 L Ed 873 (1943) N/A

ix) GRAUSAM v MURPHEY (1971) N/A

x) FINK v COLE 97 NE 2d 55

xi) KEYISIAN v BOARD OF REGENTS 385 US 589, 17 L Ed 2d 629 (1967)

a) ZACCHINI v SCRIPPS-HOWARD B. 433 US 562, 53 L. Ed 2d 965 (1977)

b) CENT. HUDSON GAS v PSC of NY 447 US 557, 65 L. Ed 2d 341(1980)

c) BUSH v LUCAS 103 S. Ct. 2404 (1983)

d) BUCKLEY v VALEO 424 US 1, 46 L Ed 2d 659 (1976)

Fifth Amendment:Due Process & Equal Protection

i) NEBBIA v NY 291 US 502, (1933)

ii) PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. v CHEEK 259 US , 66 L Ed 1044 (1921) corps.

iii) JOHNSON v ROBISON 415 US 361, 39 L Ed 2d 389 (1974)

iv) RASULIS v WEINBERGER 502 F 2d 500

v) USD of A v MORENO 413 US 528, 37 L Ed 782 (1973)

vi) U.S. v ANTELOPE 96 S Ct. 1100 (1976)

vii) ANNOTATION: Due Process - he 5th & 14th Amendments. 47 L Ed 2d 975

a) HECKLER v MATHEWS 104 S. Ct. 1387 (1984)

b) USRRB v FRITZ 449 US 166, 66 L. Ed 2d 368 (1980)

c) SCHWEIKER v WILSON 450 us 221, 67 L.Ed 2d 186 (1981)

d) APTHEKER v SEC. OF STATE 378 US 500, 12 L Ed 2d 992 (1964)

e) GREENE v McELROY 360 US 474, 3 L Ed 2d 1377 (1959)

f) ADAIR v U.S. 208 US 161, 67 L Ed 437 (1908)

Ninth Amendment:Privacy

RIGHT OF PRIVACY - - Annotation: 43 L Ed 2d 871 S. Ct. views.

Tenth Amendment:States Rights

a) NATL LEAGUE OF CITIES v USERY 426 US 833, 49 L Ed 2d 245 (1976)

Fourteenth Amendment:Equal Protection

i) YICK WO v HOPKINS 118 US 220, 225 (1886)

ii) LOUISVILLE GAS & ELECTRIC 227 US 32, 72 L Ed 770 (1928)

iii) FROST v CORP. COMMISSION OF OK 278 US 515, 522 (1929)

iv) TRUAX v CORRIGAN 257 US 312 (1921)

v) SHAPIRO v THOMPSON 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600 (1969)

vi) COMMONWEALTH v INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER N/A

vii) FREEDMAN v MARYLAND N/A

viii) BARROWS v JACKSON 346 US 429 (1953) regarding Cal. enforce.

ix) GRAYNED v ROCKFORD 408 US 104, 33 L Ed 2d 222 (1972)

x) BLUMENTHAL v BOARD MED. EXAM 18 Cal Rptr. 501 const.

xi) PEOPLE (CA) v DUFFY 79 CA 2d Supp. 875; 179 p 2d 876 (1947)

xii) BYERS v BOARD OF SUPER. 262 CA 2d 148 (1968) constitutionality

Const. Amend. 14:

b) CLEMENTS v FASHING 102 S. Ct. 2836 (1982)

c) WASH. v SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. 458 US 457, 73 L. Ed 2d 896 (1982)

d) CHALMERS v CITY OF LA 762 F 2d 753 (1985)

e) MINN. v CLOVER LEAF CREAMERY 449 US 456, 66 L. Ed 2d 659 (1981)

Ninth Circuit:14th Amendment cases

f) HOFFMAN v U.S. 767 F 2d 1431 (1985)

g) RICHARDS v SEC. OF STATE 752 F 2d 1413 (1985)

h) PARKS v WATSON 716 F 2d 646 (1983)

i) LEGAL AID SOC. OF ALA. CTY v BRENNAN 608 F 2d 1319 (1979)

j) ADAMS v HOWERTON 673 F 2d 1036 (1982)

k) HIRST v GERTZEN 676 F 2d 1252 (1982)

Trademark Act of 1946:Title 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq..

i) UNITED DRUG v THEO RECTANUS 248 US 90, 63 L Ed 141 (1918)

ii) AMER. STEEL FOUNDRIES v ROBERTSON 70 L Ed 317, (1925)

iii) STANDARD PAINT. v TRINIDAD ASPH. 220 US 453, 55 L Ed 536 (1910)

iv) G. & C. MERRIAM CO. v SAALFIELD 198 F. 369 (1912)

v) FURNITURE HOSP. v DORFMAN 166 SW 862 (1914)

vi) CORNING GLASS WORKS v PASMANTIER DC NY (1939)

vii) WALKER PROCESS v FOOD CORP. 382 US 172, 15 L Ed 2d 247 (1965)

viii) U.S. v US GYPSUM CO. 333 US 364, 92 L Ed 762 (1947)

ix) QUAKER STATE v STEINBERG N/A

a) VUITTON ET FILS S.A. v J. YOUNG ENT. 644 F 2d 769 (1981)

b) ROYER v STOODY CO. False publications ("Crossroads")

c) REDKEN v CLAIROL INC. (IMPOVERISH LANGUAGE OF COMMERCE)

d) ELLAY STORES v SAVITZ 30 F Supp 462 (1939)

e) Application of DEISTER 289 F 2d 496 (1961) Patent law.

f) CONFUSION OF SOURCE [treatise 1st restatements torts - chap. 35

Copyright Act of 1976:Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.

COPYRIGHTABLE MATERIALS ¶ 505 - ¶ 2175

Entire code 17 U.S.C. 101-118

UNIVERSAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTION [Revised] entire text.

Sherman/Clayton Act - - Title 15 U.S.C. Section 1

Actions involving extraterritorial conduct: 24 Fed. Proc. L Ed §§ 54:115-122

a) U.S. v SOCONY-VACUUM OIL 310 US 150, (1939)

b) TREASURE VALLEY POTATO v ORE-IDA FOODS (1974)

c) FINCK v SCHNEIDER GRANITE 86 SW ___(1905)

d) U. S. v PARAMOUNT PICTURES 334 US 131, 92 L Ed 1260 (1947)

e) TODHUNTER-MITCHELL v ANHEUSER BUSCH 375 F Supp 610 (1974)

f) FLINTKOTE v LYSFJORD 246 F 2d 368 (1957)

Sherman/Clayton Act:Title 15 U.S.C. Section 2

a) JERROLD ELEC. v WESCOAST BROAD. CO. 341 F 2d 653 (1965) N/A

b) U. S. v GRINNELL CORP. 384 US 563, 16 L Ed 2d 778 (1966)

c) BAUSH MACHINE v ALUM. CO. of AMER. 72 F 2d 236,240 (1934)

d) U.S. v AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. 221 US 106, 55 L Ed 2d 663 (1945)

e) U. S. v GRIFFITH 334 US 100, 92 L Ed 1236 (1947)

f) AMERICAN TOBACCO v U.S. 328 US 780, 90 L Ed 2d 1575 (1945)

g) PETO v HOWELL 101 F 2d 23 (1939)

h) UNITED SHOE MACH. CORP. v U.S. 374 US 521, 98 L Ed 910 (1953)

i) HILAND DAIRY v KROGER 402 F 2d 968 (1968)

Sherman/Clayton Act:Title 15 U.S.C. Section 15

STARK BROS. v STARK 255 us 31, J. Holmes op. on damages under §15

CLARK OIL CO. v PHILLIPS PETRO. 148 F 2d 580 (1945)

ANTITRUST - TREBLE DAMAGES - 16 ALR Fed. Pg. 14-69, [Lost investment]

PUNITIVE or EXEMPLARY DAMAGES RECOVERABLE, 47 ALR 2d 1118

CIVIL RIGHTS REMEDIES - - [42 USC 1983] Regarding standards for determ. injuries. Case - PATON v LA PRADE n. 15, 524 F 2d 862 (1975)

CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from n 102-114, n 185-206, 522

Sherman/Clayton Act:Title 15 U.S.C. Section 24

U. S. v WISE 370 US 405, 8 L Ed 2d 590 (1962)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

a) BUSHIE v STENOCORD No. 25536 (1972)

b) Asso. Press v U.S. 327 US 1-60 (1944)

c) MOORE v MATTHEWS No. 71-2186 (1972)

CASES INVOLVING THE OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

a) CHRIS BURTON v USOC No. 83-3088

b) MARTIN v I.O.C. 740 F 2d 670 (1985)

c) Stop The Olympic Prison v USOC

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Protection of Industrial Property - - Convention of 1925

TRADEMARK AND COMMERCIAL PROTECTION - - Convention of 1929

Selected International Conventions - - Important regarding litigation.

PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Federal Rules Decisions

a) FINANCIAL SECURITIES LIT. v PENN MART REAL. 74 FRD 497 (1975)

b) SHERMAN PARK COMM. ASSO. v WAUWATOSA 486 F Supp 838 (1980)

c) HOCKLEY v ZENT 89 FRD 26 (1980)

d) ROESBERG v JOHNS MANVILLE CORP 85 FRD 292 (1980)

e) WEINER v STUART 76 FRD 624 (1977)

TREATISES with regard to CONGRESS

LOBBYING: A Constitutionally Protected Right

Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946PL 79-601

CONGRESS AND LAW MAKING, Researching the Legislative Process

By: Robert Goehlert. Clio Books

CAPITOL HILL MANUAL - - Frank Cummings

THE SUPREME COURT - - 1965 TERM - - Archibald Cox

TREATISES/TEXT BOOKS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW \- - AM JUR 2d, Volume 16-17, §§ 150-826

CONTROLLING TRIAL PUBLICITY - - 1 AM JUR TRIALS, 305-355

MOTION PICTURES AS EVIDENCE [Videos] - - AM JUR 8, 153-173

MONOPOLIES 54 AM JUR 2d, § 463-479, § 696-715, § 812-850

EVIDENCE - - 19 AM JUR 2d §§ 159-174, Presumptions & Inferences

OPENING STATEMENTS [Plaintiff & defendant] 5 AM JUR TRIALS, 285-329.

COMPARATOR FRCP & comparison to state rules.

DISCOVERY

HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Discovery] - - Vol. 74, 940-1046 (1960)

YALE LAW REVIEW [Discovery] - - Vol. 71, (1962) 371-436

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS [Plaintiff] - - 4 AM JUR TRIALS, 186-209

GENERAL PROVISIONS OF RULE 26 [Discovery] pg. 1.211-3.108

TRADEMARK/UNFAIR COMPETITION - - treatises

TM Infringement/Unfair Competition Laws - - 8 AM JUR TRIALS, 363-482

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY REVIEWS - - 2 AM JUR 2d, § 653-711

GOVERNMENTAL *IMMUNITY OF EXEMP FROM ANTI-TRUST LAWS

12 ALR FED., 329-359.

WHITTEN v PADDOCK, [*Immunity] Columbia Law Review. Vol 71, 140-156

CALLMAN UNFAIR COMPETITION - - p. 94-105

ANTI-TRUST - TREBLE DAMAGES - 16 ALR Fed. 14-69, [Lost investment]

APPENDIX F F.R.E.

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

F. R. E. Rule 902(1) & 28 U.S.C. § 1739

1) "[E]vidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required as to a document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States or of any state,...." Hunter, Federal Trial handbook 2d, § 58.6 at 679. Plaintiff relies on F. R. E. 902(1), as well as upon 28 U.S.C. § 1739, Hunter, Federal Trial Handbook 2d, § 58.7 at 681 and F. R. E. 902(4), Id. at 683 for admissibility of plaintiff's exhibits 27-140.

2) Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1739 and F. R. E. 901(b)(7) for admission of exhibits 141-153 of First Amended Complaint.

3) Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1733, 1739 for admission of exhibits 233, 237, 238, 239-246 (F. R. E. 1003) and 247.

4) Plaintiff relies on F. R. E. 803(6), 1001(3), for admission of exhibits 155-158, 160-172, 174-181, 184-196, 197-199, 201-203, 205, 207-220, 222, 224-227, 229, 234-236,248, and 250.

5) Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1732 {Federal Business Records Act} for admission of exhibit 504.

6) Plaintiff relies on F. R. E. 1006 for admission of exhibits 523-526.

7) Plaintiff relies on presumption "Omnia praesumuntur rite essa acta" as will be indicated by an (*) in the forthcoming chart.

EXHIBIT NO.EVIDENCE RULE

1-228 U.S.C. § 1744.

3-6F. R. E. 404(b), 405(b).

7-10F. R. E. 902(6).

11*F. R. E. 1733(b), 1739.

12-1428 U.S.C. § 1732.

16-22*28 U.S.C. §§ 1732. 1733(b), 1739.

23-2628 U.S.C. § 1732.

27-140*F. R. E. 902(4), 28 U.S.C. § 1739.

141-153F. R. E. 901(b)(7).

154*F. R. E 901(b)(7)

155-158F. R. E. 803(6)(8), 1001(3)

159*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

160-172F. R. E. 803(6)(8), 1001(3)

173*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

174-181F. R. E. 803(6)(8), 1001(3)

183*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

184-196F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

197-199F. R. E. 803(6)(8), 1001(3)

200*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

201-203F. R. E. 803(6)(8), 1001(3)

204*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

205F. R. E. 803(6)(8)

206F. R. E. 901(b)(7), 28 U.S.C. § 1733(b).

207-220F. R. E. 1001(3)

221*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

222F. R. E. 803(6)(8)

223F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

224-227F. R. E. 1001(3)

228*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

229F. R. E. 1001(3)

230*28 U.S.C. §§ 1733(b), 1739

23128 U.S.C. § 1733(b), 1739

232*F. R. E. 902(4)

233*28 U.S.C. 1733(b).

234-236F. R. E. 1001(3)

237*28 U.S.C. § 1733(b)

238*28 U.S.C. § 1733(b)

239-246F. R. E. 1003

247*28 U.S.C. §§ 1733(b), 1739

248F. R. E. 1001(3)

249-250F. R. E. 1001(3)

251-255*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

256-258*28 U.S.C. §§ 1739, 1733(b)

259-265*28 U.S.C. §§ 1739, 1733(b)

267-269F. R. E. 1006

270-28928 U.S.C. § 1744

290-29528 U.S.C. § 1744

297-298*F. R. E. 901(b)(7)

299-300F. R. E. 1006

301-503*F. R. E. 1003

50428 U.S.C. § 1732

505-520F. R. E. 1003

521-522*F. R. E. 1003

523-526F. R. E. 1006

In regard to DOJ appeal No. 85-0521.

Exhibits A - K attached to appeal* 28 U.S.C. § 1733(b), 1739.

8) This list of exhibits and the rules under which the plaintiff will rely on at trial are not to be construed as limiting the plaintiff from using other authorities or rules that may be omitted from the instant request.

II PRESUMPTIONS

9) Internal Revenue Service tax I. D. numbers for any company or corporation included in and as exhibits 27-140, 155-158, 160-172, 174-181, 184-196, 197-199, 201-203, 205, 206, 207-220, 222, 223, 224-227, 229, 234-236, 239-246 (Fed. I.R.S. I.D. No. included on these documents), 248, 250, 505-520, 523-526.

10) "Omnia praesumuntur rite essa acta" applies to each exhibit followed by (*).

11) Presumption that rightful owners of property are not likely to permit their property to remain in the continued possession of others that assert title thereto, and that the possession is authorized by some grant or license. Hunter, Federal Trial Handbook 2d, § 54.12 at 648. This presumption applies to trademark registration 968,566 and is equally applicable to section 380.

APPENDIX G Olympic Businesses

PARTIAL LIST OF OLYMPIC BUSINESSES

OLYMPIC 90015 - OLYMPIC ACCESSORIES 90015

OLYMPIC AUTO SALES 90015 - OLYMPIC BICYCLE SHOP 90029

OLYMPIC BED 90039 - OLYMPIC BOAT SALES CO. 90004

OLYMPIC CAFÉ 90019 - OLYMPIC INN 90023

OLYMPIC CARPET 90004 - OLYMPIC ELECTRIC 90023

OLYMPIC CARTOON STORE 90019 - OLYMPIC DONUTS NO.3 90033

OLYMPIC DRIVE-IN DAIRY 90023 - OLYMPIC ELECTRONICS 90028

OLYMPIC FURNITURE 90006 - OLYMPIC FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 90019

OLYMPIC GRAPHIC SYSTEMS 90015 - OLYMPIC GAS STATION 90006

OLYMPIC GIFT SHOP 90006 - OLYMPIC GIFT 90014

OLYMPIC KOREAN HERB 90006 - OLYMPIC LIQUORS 90006

OLYMPIC LOCK & SAFE 90019 - OLYMPIC OPTICAL 90019

OLYMPIC MART 90019 - OLYMPIC MARKET 90006

OLYMPIC 1 HOUR PHOTO 90006 - OLYMPIC SHOP 90012

OLYMPIC VIDEO 90006 - OLYMPIC PAINT & JANTRL SUP. 90019

OLYMPIC SHOES 90006 - OLYMPIC SNACK BAR 90014

THE OLYMPIC INN 90501 - OLYMPIC'S MARKET 90061

OLYMPIC BRAKE SERVICE 90022 - OLYMPIC BICYCLES 91765

OLYMPIC COMPANIES 91711 - OLYMPIC COLLECTIBLES 91790

OLYMPIC CONCESSIONS 91350 - OLYMPIC CONCESSIONS 91355

OLYMPIC CONCESSIONS 93105 - OLYMPIC DONUT 90201

OLYMPIC TROPHY & GIFT 90019 - OLYMPIC COLOR PRINTING 90005

OLYMPIC PHOTO 90805 - OLYMPIC QUILTING 90606

OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 90254 - OLYMPIC STEREO 93004

OLYMPIC AUTO PARTS CO. 90022 - OLYMPIC AUTO REPAIR 90022

OLYMPIC ENGINEERING INC. 90023 - OLYMPIC & FRASER MARKET 90022

OLYMPIC FLAME 91767 - OLYMPIC TOP SHOP 90022

OLYMPIC SCREEN & GLASS 90022 - OLYMPIC IRON WORKS 90022

OLYMPIC LIQUOR STORE 90015 - OLYMPIC MEAT MARKET 90022

OLYMPIC PAPER & OFFICE 90040 - OLYMPIC PLATING & POLISHING 90040

OLYMPIC POOL SERVICE 92404 - OLYMPIC AUTO LEASING CO. 90210

OLYMPIC LAWNMOWER SHOP 90025 - OLYMPIC NURSERY 90025

THE OLYMPIC CLUB 94102 - OLYMPIC BRANDS 92121

OLYMPIC SPORTS ENTERPRISES 90230 - OLYMPIC TRANSMISSIONS 90015

OLYMPIC SWIMMING POOL 90036 - OLYMPIC T-SHIRT & SWEATSHIRT 90048

OLYMPIC WEST PHARMACY 90064 - OLYMPIC BODY SHOP 94103

OLYMPIC FLAME COFFEE 94102 - OLYMPIC FOREIGN AUTO PARTS 94401

OLYMPIC GARAGE 94012 - OLYMPIC GREEK-AMERICAN PASTRIES 94110

OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES 95370 - OLYMPIC MOVING & STORAGE 94124

OLYMPIC SCREEN CRAFTS 94538 - OLYMPIC SERVICE STATION 94134

OLYMPIC SPORTING GOODS 94103 - OLYMPIC SPORTS 94062

OLYMPIC GLASS CO. 94601 - OLYMPIC MOBIL 94595

OLYMPIC OPTICAL 94602 - OLYMPIC PHARMACY 94603

OLYMPIC MACHINE WORKS 90061 - OLYMPIC SALES 9461

OLYMPIC PRODUCTIONS 92668 - OLYMPIC GARAGE 94612

OLYMPIC CREATIONS 92621 - OLYMPIC DONUTS 92621

OLYMPIC AUTO SALES 92050 - OLYMPIC AUTO BODY & PAINT 92069

OLYMPIC MARKET 92507 - OLYMPIC MUFFLERS 94590

OLYMPIC TV SERVICE 92225 - OLYMPIC AUTO SERVICE 95240

OLYMPIC INDUSTRIAL SALES 95678 - OLYMPIC PLAZA FOOD & BEV 95730

OLYMPIC SERVICE 95351 - OLYMPIC WOODWORKS 95825

OLYMPIC YOUTH ARCHERY 90064 - OLYMPIC CAFÉ 90404

OLYMPIC PARKING 90277 - OLYMPIC TERMITE CONTROL 90260

OLYMPIC FLAME HAMBURGERS 92307 - OLYMPIC LAND CO. 92625

OLYMPIC CHIROPRACTIC 90064 - OLYMPIC CARMEL RETIREMENT 90035

OLYMPIC CLEANERS & DYERS 90211 - OLYMPIC INVESTMENTS CO. 90035

OLYMPIC PLAZA DEVELOPMENT 90035 - OLYMPIC POOL SERVICE 92404

OLYMPIC UNIVERSAL TRVL 90064 - OLYMPIC ORNAMENTAL IRON 90720

OLYMPIC KIS PHOTO 90805 - OLYMPIC MOTOR PARTS 90810

OLYMPIC PHOTOGRAPHY 90650 - OLYMPIC COATINGS 92626

OLYMPIC MAINTENANCE CO. 90621 - OLYMPIC RESTAURANT 90660

OLYMPIC FLORIST 94501 - OLYMPIC CHEMICALS 92667

OLYMPIC PERSONEL SERVICE 91723 - OLYMPIC STUDIOS 92711

OLYMPIC ASPHALT 92705 - OLYMPIC AUTO REPAIR 92707

OLYMPIC CONCESSIONS 90041 - OLYMPIC COUNSELING & CONSULT 92669

OLYMPIC HEALTH SERVICES 90064 - OLYMPIC GRAPHICS 92663

OLYMPIC SPA COVERS, INC. 92648 - OLYMPIC FINANCE 92120

OLYMPIC PUBLIC STORAGE 92065 - OLYMPIC CLEANERS 90266

OLYMPIC FRUIT STAND 92507 - OLYMPIC PODIATRISTS 92506

OLYMPIC HOTEL 95901 - OLYMPIC AUTO SALES 95050

OLYMPIC BOOKEEPING & TAX 94549 - OLYMPIC FORKLIFT SALES 90630

OLYMPIC CONTINUA. HIGH 94519 - OLYMPIC FLAME RESTAURANT 94509

OLYMPIC PLAZA MANAGEMENT 94596 - OLYMPIC REALTORS, ERA 94553

OLYMPIC LIQUOR MART 90022 - OLYMPIC THEATRE 90015

OLYMPIC HOTEL 93706 - OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 94590

OLYMPIC HEADWEAR CO. 90015 - OLYMPIC CENTER 95231

OLYMPIC FOREIGN PARTS 94401 - OLYMPIC RENT-A-CAR 94010

OLYMPIC BOYS & GIRLS CLUB 90025 - OLYMPIC INSURANCE AGCY 91506

OLYMPIC LAUREL LIMONSINE 91506 - OLYMPIC POOL MAINT & ENG 91364

OLYMPIC PRINTING 91342 - OLYMPIC ROOFING 91325

OLYMPIC SEWING 91335 - OLYMPIC STAINED PRODUCTS 91505

OLYMPIC TENNIS COURTS 91436 - OLYMPIC CARPET CLEANERS 95926

OLYMPIC DRIVE-IN DAIRY 90023 - OLYMPIC DRIVING SCHOOL 90039

OLYMPIC DYE HOUSE 90011 - OLYMPIC ELECTRONICS 90028

OLYMPIC ENGINEERING, INC. 90023 - OLYMPIC FACTORY TV SER. 90003

OLYMPIC FAMILY DENTISTRY 90015 - OLYMPIC FASHIONS 90015

OLYMPIC FISH & MEAT MKT 90006 - OLYMPIC FURNITURE 90006

OLYMPIC HOTEL 90057 - OLYMPIC LA BREA HOTEL 90036

OLYMPIC MAILING 90038 - OLYMPIC MANOR I 90036

OLYMPIC LAKE BLDG. 90015 - OLYMPIC NUT CO. 90015

OLYMPIC ONE HOUR PHOTO 90006 - OLYMPIC PAINTING CO. 90040

OLYMPIC POULTRY MKT 90021 - OLYMPIC PRODUCE CO. 90015

OLYMPIC RESUME EXPERTS 900015 - OLYMPIC SHELL 90006

OLYMPIC TOURS 90017 - OLYMPIC TRADING CO. 90020

OLYMPIC SYSTEMS 95405 - OLYMPIC SOCCER LEAGUE 90022

OLYMPIC MACHINERY CO. INC. 95405 - OLYMPIC SHOP 90012

OLYMPIC ARENAS, INC. 12801 - OLYMPIC AUTO REPAIR, INC. 10552

OLYMPIC MOTORS 11731 - OLYMPIC AUTO ELECTRIC 11572

OLYMPIC BARBER SHOP 10032 - OLYMPIC BEVERAGE CENTER 11372

OLYMPIC GROUP 06443 - OLYMPIC BOWL, INC. 14624

OLYMPIC BOWLING & RESURF 12180 - OLYMPIC CAR WASH 11510

OLYMPIC CLEANING SER. 12603 - OLYMPIC COFFEE SHOP 11803

OLYMPIC CONSTRUCTION 14605 - OLYMPIC CORRUGATED CONTA 10001

OLYMPIC GLASS CORP. 11219 - OLYMPIC COURT CLUB, INC. 11050

OLYMPIC DELI GROCERY 11103 - OLYMPIC DELICATESSEN, INC. 10028

OLYMPIC DISPOSAL CORP. 14624 - OLYMPIC DINER 12307

OLYMPIC ENVIRON. SER. 11215 - OLYMPIC DINER 11729

OLYMPIC FAMILY REST. 14217 - OLYMPIC FOREIGN USED PARTS 11233

OLYMPIC FENCE & RAILING 11421 - OLYMPIC GROCERY 11104

OLYMPIC FLAME REST. CORP. 10459 - OLYMPIC FLOORING 11779

OLYMPIC HEIGHTS 12946 - OLYMPIC HAIR PALACE, INC. 11217

OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 11787 - OLYMPIC HEADWEAR & NOVELTY 10012

OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 11730 - OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 11801

OLYMPIC DONUT SHOP 11105 - OLYMPIC HOME IMPROVEMENTS 10310

OLYMPIC II 10019 - OLYMPIC LODGE RESTAURANT 11787

OLYMPIC KITCHEN 1125 - OLYMPIC MACHINE & TOOL CO. 12411

OLYMPIC LIGHTING CO. 11423 - OLYMPIC LIQUORS, INC. 11226

OLYMPIC LITHO CORP. 11201 - OLYMPIC LOCKSMITHS OF NY 11236

OLYMPIC MAID SALES CORP. 11590 - OLYMPIC ROOFING 11229

OLYMPIC OFFICE FURNISHINGS 11206 - OLYMPIC RENTAL SERVICE 14120

OLYMPIC PIZZA CO. 11222 - OLYMPIC PIZZA, INC. 11432

OLYMPIC PLUMB & THING 11411 - OLYMPIC PLYWOOD CORP. 11104

OLYMPIC POOLS 13760 - OLYMPICS PRESS, INC. 10013

OLYMPIC PRODUCE CO. 10028 - OLYMPIC REFRIGERATION CO. 11214

OLYMPIC RESTAURANT 14607 - OLYMPIC SERVICE STATION, INC. 11572

OLYMPIC SHEET METAL CO. 10001 - OLYMPIC SKI SHOPS, INC. 11576

OLYMPIC GROCERY 11104 - OLYMPIC SWEATER & SPORTSWEAR 07652

OLYMPIC TILE, INC. 12901 - OLYMPIC TOWER SPA 10022

OLYMPIC TOWERS FLORIST 10022 - OLYMPIC TRANSMISSION 11706

OLYMPIC ADVERTISING 10022 - OLYMPIC TAILOR SHOP 10002

OLYMPIC WHOLE LIGHTING 11423 - OLYMPIC PLUMBING 11411

OLYMPIC PAPER CO. 10010 - OLYMPIC BAR & RESTAURANT 12207

OLYMPIC BILLIARD LOUNGE 14624 - OLYMPIC CAR WASH 14624

OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES 11105 - OLYMPIC PARK ROLLER SKNG 14624

OLYMPIC CAMERA & JEWELS 11103 - OLYMPIC MID TYPEWRITER 10011

OLYMPIC DEMOLITION CO. 11106 - OLYMPIC FENCE & RAILING 11421

OLYMPIC MOTORS, INC. 11377 - OLYMPIC ICE CREAM CO., INC. 11418

OLYMPIC IRON WORKS 11102 - OLYMPIC LIMOUSINE SERVICE 11102

OLYMPIC BROKERAGE, INC. 10028 - OLYMPIC WHOLESALE LIGHT 11418

OLYMPIC ENG. PRODUCTS 11803 - OLYMPIC DELI 10016

OLYMPIC COURIER SYSTEMS 10018 - OLYMPIC DESIGN FURNIT 10022

OLYMPIC DRY CLEANING 10028 - OLYMPIC FINANCE CO. 10033

OLYMPIC FOOD 10028 - OLYMPIC FUR PROCESSORS 10001

OLYMPIC LEATHER 10016 - OLYMPIC OFFICE SUPPLY 07094

OLYMPIC PHARMACY 10456 - OLYMPIC RESTAURANT 10468

OLYMPIC SPORTS CO. 10472 - OLYMPIC TORCH 10467

OLYMPIC MILLS CORP. 10010 - OLYMPIC FLAME DINER 12307

OLYMPIC PERSONNEL 10004 - OLYMPIC PERSONNEL, INC. 10017

OLYMPIC PIZZA 10025 - OLYMPIC PARTNERS 10022

OLYMPIC SHEET METAL 10001 - OLYMPIC RESTAURANT 10019

OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. 10550 - OLYMPIC TOWER ASSO 10022

OLYMPIC REALTY INVESTORS 10022 - OLYMPIC TOWER HEALTH 10022

OLYMPIC AUTO REPAIRS 10552 - OLYMPIC WALL ST. SERVICES 10004

OLYMPIC CLEANING & REST. 11752 - OLYMPIC FABRICATORS 11717

OLYMPIC HAIR DESIGN CNTR 11763 - OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 11787

OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 11730 - OLYMPIC MOTOR LODGE 11788

OLYMPIC SKI SHOPS, INC. 11576 - OLYMPIC BLDG. MAINTENANCE 11738

OLYMPIC DINER & REST 10541 - OLYMPIC FITNESS 10701

OLYMPIC AWARDS 11570 - OLYMPIC CLEANING & MAINTENANCE 11050

OLYMPIC MENS HEALTH CLUB11801 - OLYMPIC MOVING SERVICES 11030

OLYMPIC SHELL STATION 11572 - OLYMPIC CHIMNEY, INC. 11421

OLYMPIC WINDSURFING 11050 - OLYMPIC FAMILY RESTAURANT 14221

OLYMPIC RENTAL SERVICE 14226 - OLYMPIC SEAFOODS 14211

OLYMPIC CAR SERVICE 11208 - OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES 11234

OLYMPIC FLOOR COVERING CO. 11218 - OLYMPIC GLASS CO. 11219

OLYMPIC HAIR PALACE, INC. 11217 - OLYMPIC LITHO CORP. 11201

OLYMPIC LOCKSMITHS 11236 - OLYMPIC MARINE SERVICE 11232

OLYMPIC OFFICE FURNISHINGS 11206 - OLYMPIC PIZZA 11222

OLYMPIC PLAZA, INC. 11234 - OLYMPIC PLYWOOD 11237

OLYMPIC REALTY 11223 - OLYMPIC TRANSMISSIONS, INC. 11706

OLYMPIC SKI SHOP 11218 - OLYMPIC BROKERAGE 10470

OLYMPIC FLAME REST. 10459 - OLYMPIC HOME IMPROVEMENT 10469

OLYMPIC WELDING & MFG. 61357 - OLYMPIC BARBER SHOP 60650

OLYMPIC CLEANERS W. 60153 - OLYMPIC CONSTRUCTION 60630

OLYMPIC CONTRACTORS 60625 - OLYMPIC FOODS 60609

OLYMPIC COATINGS, INC. 60009 - OLYMPIC DISTRIBUTORS DIV 60148

OLYMPIC CONTROLS CORP. 60120 - OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES, INC. 60115

OLYMPIC FENCE & SUPPLY 60409 - OLYMPIC FEED MILL 62994

OLYMPIC FLAME, INC. 61282 - OLYMPIC FOOD & LIQUORS, INC. 60609

OLYMPIC FOODS, INC. 60608 - OLYMPIC FREIGHTWAYS, INC. 60608

OLYMPIC GLASS & MIRROR 60634 - OLYMPIC INDOOR SWIM CNTR 60004

OLYMPIC RESTAURANT 60201 - OLYMPIC INN, INC. 60632

OLYMPIC INTERNATIONAL 60106 - OLYMPIC HEALTH FITNESS 60516

OLYMPIC MAINTENANCE CO. 60160 - OLYMPIC KARATE & HLTH 60648

OLYMPIC MEAT PACKING 60607 - OLYMPIC LIVERY, LTD. 60015

OLYMPIC OLDSMOBILE 60641 - OLYMPIC TUXEDO RENTAL 60067

OLYMPIC REAL ESTATE 60505 - OLYMPIC REFRIGERATION 60525

OLYMPIC REST. & LOUNGE 60018 - OLYMPIC STAR, INC. 60477

OLYMPIC SHEET METAL 60640 - OLYMPIC SIGN CO. 60101

OLYMPIC P & G, INC. 60014 - OLYMPIC SERVICE CNTR., INC. 60411

OLYMPIC TORCH & AWARDS 60630 - OLYMPIC TV HARDWARE 60942

OLYMPIC CRAFT DIST 33334 - OLYMPIC AWARDS, INC. 33166

OLYMPIC POOLS CORP. 33334 - OLYMPIC ORNAMENTAL IRON 33150

OLYMPIC PAINTING 33010 - OLYMPIC TRADING UNLIMITIED 33155

OLYMPIC TRANSFER CORP. 33125 - OLYMPIC DRY CLEANERS 32216

OLYMPIC CLEANERS 32805 - OLYMPIC BUSINESS FORMS 32216

OLYMPIC GIFT SHOP 33706 - OLYMPIC POOL SUPPLIES & SERV. 33555

OLYMPIC OIL CO. 30501 - OLYMPIC PLUMBING, INC. 33515

OLYMPIC FLAME PAINTING 33598 - OLYMPIC FLAME REST 33515

OLYMPIC POOLS FT. MYERS 33901 - OLYMPIC PROF BLDG. 33162

OLYMPIC SPORTS, INC. 32504 - OLYMPIC TRADING UNLIMITED 33155

OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER 33540 - OLYMPIC VILLAS 32809

OLYMPIC CONSTRUCTION 30335 - OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES, INC. 28539

OLYMPIC PRODUCTS, INC. 27406 - OLYMPIC SCHOOL PLAN, INC. 28214

OLYMPIC FLAME, INC. 28209 - OLYMPIC SPORTSWEAR, LTD. 28217

OLYMPIC DELI 29407 - OLYMPIC DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT 29501

OLYMPIC AUTOMOTIVE CNTR 30084 - OLYMPIC CARPETS, INC. 30720

OLYMPIC FIBERGLASS IND. 30533 - OLYMPIC FLAME REST 30318

OLYMPIC HEALTH SPA 31906 - OLYMPIC KILNS 30340

OLYMPIC TRUCK LEASING 30720 - OLYMPIC MANUFACTURING 30080

OLYMPIC SPORTS SHOP 31401 - OLYMPIC STEEL SOUTHERN 31522

OLYMPIC COFFEE HOUSE 46409 - OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 46307

OLYMPIC HEALTH & KARATE 46408 - OLYMPIC HEATING & COOL 46322

OLYMPIC AUTO SUPPLY 46319 - OLYMPIC PIZZA 46222

OLYMPIC KARATE STUDIOS 46205 - OLYMPIC CHEMICAL & SUP 46218

OLYMPIC APARTMENTS, INC. 47711 - OLYMPIC AUTO BODY SHOP 46410

OLYMPIC CARRIAGES, INC. 46815 - OLYMPIC INVESTMENT CO. 46219

OLYMPIC SPORTS SUPPLY 46600 - OLYMPIC FIBERGLASS IND 46975

OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB II 46373 - OLYMPIC PAINTING CO 46342

OLYMPIC SAILBOARDS, INC. 46052 - OLYMPIC OIL & GAS, INC. 46204

OLYMPIC TRANSPORTATION 46312 - OLYMPIC WOOD PRODUCTS 47130

OLYMPIC WALL SYSTEMS 55343 - OLYMPIC TRANSPORT INC 55075

OLYMPIC RESOURCES, INC. 55746 - OLYMPIC DECORATORS 55045

OLYMPIC FIRE PROTECTION 55060 - OLYMPIC IMPORTED FOOD 46201

OLYMPIC 55369 - OLYMPIC INVESTMENTS, INC. 55427

OLYMPIC HILLS LAND CORP. 55435 - OLYMPIC ELECTRIC, INC. 55435

OLYMPIC PROMOTIONS, INC. 02903 - OLYMPIC KARATE INSTITUTE 01906

OLYMPIC MARKET, INC. 02401 - OLYMPIC CREDITOR SERVICE, INC 01760

OLYMPIC SERVICES CORP. 01420 - OLYMPIC ALUMINUM CO., INC. 02172

OLYMPIC CATERING, INC. 01902 - OLYMPIC MANUFACTURING 01001

OLYMPIC TOY CORP. 01609 - OLYMPIC DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 02368

OLYMPIC TRIBUNE, INC. 02111 - OLYMPIC CIRCUITS, INC. 01760

OLYMPIC HEALTH SPA, INC. 02021 - OLYMPIC OF SOUTH HADLEY 01075

OLYMPIC RENTAL SERVICE 01760 - OLYMPIC MANFACTURING, INC. 01532

OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES, INC. 02192 - OLYMPIC CORPORATION 02025

OLYMPIC AUTO SUPPLY 02168 - OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES, INC. 02722

OLYMPIC TRADING CORP 01760 - OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. 02026

OLYMPIC PETROLEUM, INC. 02173 - OLYMPIC SPORTING CORP. 01104

OLYMPIC WEIGHT TRAIN ACA 02360 - OLYMPIC AUTO REPAIRS 02026

OLYMPIC CLOTHING 02401 - OLYMPIC PAINTING, INC. 01902

OLYMPIC BARBECUE, INC. 02174 - OLYMPIC INSTANT PRINTING 01108

OLYMPIC ROOFING & CONST. 02132 - OLYMPIC ELECTRIC, INC. 01118

OLYMPIC TREE SERVICE, INC. 01742 - OLYMPIC SAILBOARDS, INC. 01945

OLYMPIC TRUCK LEASE, INC. 02021 - OLYMPIC CURTAIN CORP. 02720

OLYMPIC SPORT CENTER 28671 - OLYMPIC TRANSMISSIONS, INC. 36606

OLYMPIC GIFT SHOP 70130 - OLYMPIC GRILL 70633

OLYMPIC BUSINESS MACH 03864 - OLYMPIC CARPET & RUG, INC. 20910

OLYMPIC CLEANERS/SHOE REPAIR 21220 - OLYMPIC FLAME, INC. 21236

OLYMPIC GIFTS & WEDDINGS 21093 - OLYMPIC IMPORTED PARTS 20740

OLYMPIC MILLWORK, INC. 21222 - OLYMPIC RESORT, INC 21851

OLYMPIC SPORT. GOODS MER 20601 - OLYMPIC SPORTWEAR 37172

OLYMPIC LOUNGE, INC. 21218 - OLYMPIC FENCE, INC. 21220

OLYMPIC HAIR STYLIST 03060 - OLYMPIC UPHOLSTERING CO. 21206

OLYMPIC BADGE CO. 02920 - OLYMPIC REALTY, INC. 02916

OLYMPIC PIZZA 02901 - OLYMPIC ATHLETIC FOOTWEAR 02911

THE OLYMPIC DELI 26101 - OLYMPIC CAR, GLASS & MIRROR 43952

OLYMPIC COAL BROKERS 25801 - OLYMPIC MANUFACTURING DIV. 24740

OLYMPIC SALES, INC. 26059 - OLYMPIAD GYMNASTICS CLUB 19803

OLYMPIC POOL SERVICE, INC. 19803 - OLYMPIC SUBS & STEAKS 19801

OLYMPIC PAINTING CONT 19010 - OLYMPIC SPORTING GOODS DIV. 19973

OLYMPIC MILLWORK, INC. 08104 - OLYMPIC CLEANERS 07083

OLYMPIC CARPET 07522 - OLYMPIC CLEANERS 07202

OLYMPIC MENS SHOP 07043 - OLYMPIC CONSTRUCTION 08859

OLYMPIC CURTAIN CORP 08619 - OLYMPIC CUSTOM, INC. 07405

OLYMPIC DELI 07010 - OLYMPIC DINER, INC. 08232

OLYMPIC DINER & REST 07093 - OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES 08260

OLYMPIC GARDEN ASSO 08701 - OLYMPIC SERVICE STATION 06902

OLYMPIC GRAPHIC ARTS 07828 - OLYMPIC GRILL 07501

OLYMPIC HEALTH CENTER 07728 - OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 07067

OLYMPIC JUNIOR, INC. 07103 - OLYMPIC KNITWEAR, INC. 07452

OLYMPIC LOUNGE, INC. 07002 - OLYMPIC MAINTENANCE SER. CO. 07874

OLYMPIC MOTOR INN 08260 - OLYMPIC PAINTING CO., INC. 07088

OLYMPIC PARK EXXON 07111 - OLYMPIC POOLS, INC. 07662

OLYMPIC SANDBLASTING 08401 - OLYMPIC RACQUETBALL 07869

OLYMPIC REF. AIR -7040 - OLYMPIC REMODELING CO. 08401

OLYMPIC RESTAURANT 07305 - OLYMPIC COMPUTER SERVICES 08820

OLYMPIC SHOE IMPORTS 07201 - OLYMPIC SIGNS, INC. 08753

OLYMPIC PIZZA 06776 - OLYMPIC FREIGHT SVCS INC. 07701

OLYMPIC STUDIOS 08225 - OLYMPIC SUPERMARKETS 07305

OLYMPIC TOOL & MACHINE 07720 - OLYMPIC TOOL CO., INC. 08805

OLYMPIC PIZZA HOUSE 06379 - OLYMPIC DONUT 06460

OLYMPIC TOOL MACHINE 06110 - OLYMPIC PIZZA HOUSE 06033

OLYMPIC FENCE CO. 06511 - OLYMPIC ALUMINUM SIDING 06430

OLYMPIC BEDDING MFG., INC. 06525 - OLYMPIC DELICATESSEN 06040

OLYMPIC PIZZA CO., INC. 06360 - OLYMPIC SALES & SERVICE 06360

OLYMPIC ACADEMY OF GYM 43055 - OLYMPIC KARATE CLUB 43055

OLYMPIC BUILDERS, INC. 44303 - OLYMPIC CAMPER SALES 44129

OLYMPIC FOREST PRODUCTS 44106 - OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 44102

OLYMPIC STEEL CO. 44146 - OLYMPIC AMUSEMENT CORP. 43214

OLYMPIC DOUGHNUTS 43222 - OLYMPIC INCENTIVE IDEAS, INC. 43215

OLYMPIC INDOOR TENNIS 43214 - OLYMPIC KITCHENS 43068

OLYMPIC MACHS, INC. 43220 - OLYMPIC SWIM & RACQUET CLUB 43214

OLYMPIC DENTAL LAB 45239 - OLYMPIC FLAME 45231

OLYMPIC FOOTWEAR 44906 - OLYMPIC ROOFING CO. 43607

OLYMPIC REALTY CO. 44512 - OLYMPIC TROPHY 44646

OLYMPIC STEEL SOUTHERN 44114 - OLYMPIC SWEATER & SPORT 44114

OLYMPIC CONTRACTING CO. 43952 - OLYMPIC AUTO PARK, INC. 45215

OLYMPIC AGENCIES 97222 - OLYMPIC LANDSCAPE CO. 97401

OLYMPIC TRAILOR EQUIPMENT 97477 - OLYMPIC TRAILOR SALES 97478

OLYMPIC BODY & PAINT 97213 - OLYMPIC APARTMENTS 97209

OLYMPIC GAMES 97215 - OLYMPIC GRAPHICS, INC. 97202

OLYMPIC PIPELINE CO. 97231 - OLYMPIC SKIP ROPES 97217

OLYMPIC STAMP SALES 97232 - OLYMPIC STEAMBATH 97204

OLYMPIC COURTS OF ARIZONA 85202 - OLYMPIC DECORATE & PAINT 85020

OLYMPIC FITNESS EQUIPMENT 85012 - OLYMPIC FLAME REST 85710

OLYMPIC HAIRCUTTER 85281 - OLYMPIC PAVING CO. 85706

OLYMPIC FOOD DISTRIBUTORS 59101 - OLYMPIC INVESTMENT 80918

OLYMPIC PREFABRICATORS, INC. 83705 - OLYMPIC PRINTING CO. 83704

OLYMPIC TRACK DEVICES 83703 - OLYMPIC BAR 83702

OLYMPIC REC. SURFACES 80112 - OLYMPIC BOWL, INC. 80301

OLYMPIC INT. & DOMESTIC TRAVEL 80112 - OLYMPIC LIQUORS 80204

OLYMPIC METALS, INC. 80110 - OLYMPIC FIRE PROTECTION 80915

OLYMPIC APARTMENTS 89119 - OLYMPIC ELECTRIC 89102

OLYMPIC POOL & SPA 89109 - OLYMPIC CONSTRUCTION CO. 89431

OLYMPIC CIRCLE 89109 - OLYMPIC APARTMENT HOTEL 89501

OLYMPIC HEALTH CLUB 87301 - OLYMPIC RESOURCES, INC. 87102

OLYMPIC SKI SHOPS 87571 - OLYMPIC TRAILOR SALES 97478

OLYMPIC PHYSICAL FITNESS 87301 - OLYMPIC ALASKA, INC. 98260

OLYMPIC CAFÉ 96746 - OLYMPIC CYCLE SPORTS CNTR. 00633

OLYMPIC INC. 99503 - OLYMPIC MILLS CORP. 00657

OLYMPIC MOTORS CORP. 00919 - OLYMPIC HAIR STYLING 99503

OLYMPIC FITNESS CENTER 18103 - OLYMPIC GARDENS, INC. 19320

OLYMPIC SYSTEM, INC. 18017 - OLYMPIC CAR WASH 19320

OLYMPIC SAND & PAINT CO. 19083 - OLYMPIC FITNESS CNTR 18104

OLYMPIC TOOL & MACHINE 19014 - OLYMPIC PLUMBING & HEAT 19604

OLYMPIC RESTAURANT PIZZA 19135 - OLYMPIC SKATING CENTER 17025

OLYMPIC LOUNGE & RESTAURANT 15132 - OLYMPIC AUTO BODY 15210

OLYMPIC CABINET CRAFT 19103 - OLYMPICS CLEANERS 19124

OLYMPIC SWIM & HEALTH 15235 - OLYMPIC PIZZA PARLOR 15234

OLYMPIC PAINTING CO. 15235 - OLYMPIC ENTERPRISE 15317

OLYMPIC CONSTRUCTION CO. 19380 - OLYMPIC POOL CO. 18643

OLYMPIC RESTAURANT 17104 - OLYMPIC CANDLE CRAFTS 18343

OLYMPIC CARPET 18201 - OLYMPIC CONSULTANTS, INC. 15235

OLYMPIC FITNESS EQUIP. CO. 19002 - OLYMPIC FITNESS, LTD. 15419

OLYMPIC GYM OF ERIE 16504 - OLYMPIC LANES 15857

OLYMPIC NAUTILUS 19428 - OLYMPIC PAINT & VARNISH CO. 18447

OLYMPIC TAILOR SHOP 18704 - OLYMPIC RAILWAY SERVICE 16635

OLYMPIC RECONDITIONING 18301 - OLYMPIC SPORTING GOODS 15206

OLYMPIC TOOL & DIE 19446 - OLYMPIC HOCKEY STORE 15626

OLYMPIC AIR CORP. 19406 - OLYMPIC FOOD SERVICES, INC. 18360

OLYMPIC COAL CO., INC. 15930 - OLYMPIC DRILLING CO., INC. 16535

OLYMPIC INT. THEATRICAL ENT 37201 - OLYMPIC CAFETERIA 73112

OLYMPIC OPTICAL 38115 - OLYMPIC CASE CORP. 73069

OLYMPIC GYMNASTICS STUDIO 37406 – OLYMPIC 37203

OLYMPIC DRILLING 73023 - OLYMPIC PRODUCTION, INC. 73108

OLYMPIC VILLAGE NORMAN 74801 - OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES, INC. 73038

THE OLYMPIC COMPANY 74601 - OLYMPIC TANGIBLE LEASING CO 74820

OLYMPIC GOLD SPORTSWEAR 73170 - OLYMPIC PETROLEUM CO 74114

OLYMPIC ENERGY CORP. 73034 - OLYMPIC RACQUETBALL CTS 74354

OLYMPIC EXPLOR. CO. 73069 -OLYMPIC LUCITE-MASTER DIST. 73106

OLYMPIC TROPHIES, INC. 74112 - OLYMPIC MUFFLER SYSTEMS 42754

OLYMPIC CORPORATION 40216 – OLYMPIC SPORTING GOODS 42754

OLYMPIC MOTORS, INC. 40160 - OLYMPIC MUFFLER SYSTEMS 40218

OLYMPIC SAVINGS ASSO 78377 - OLYMPIC PROPERTIES, INC. 75248

OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES, INC. 79105 - OLYMPIC REC. CENTER, INC. 79007

OLYMPIC NATIONAL PROPERTIES 75230 - FIRST OLYMPIC CORP 76011

OLYMPIC MECHANICAL of TX 75218 - OLYMPIC CLEANERS & LAUND 77042

OLYMPIC INDUSTRIES, INC. 79701 - OLYMPIC TRANSPORT, INC. 77077

TRIANGLE OLYMPIC COATING 77708 - OLYMPIC INSURANCE AGENCY 77243

OLYMPIC PRINTING, INC. 78240 - OLYMPIC STAR DEVELOPERS 75080

OLYMPIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC 77801 - OLYMPIC ROOFING, INC. 75220

OLYMPIC CAR WASH, INC. 75240 - OLYMPIC OFFSHORE, INC. 77077

OLYMPIC SWIMMING POOL 75218 - UNITED OLYMPIC OIL CORP. 75042

OLYMPIC VALVE, INC. 75206 - OLYMPIC INVESTMENTS, INC. 76112

OLYMPIC MARKETING, INC 78597 - OLYMPIC CENTER COMPANY 78229

OLYMPIC AUTO PARTS IMP 22304 - OLYMPIC AUTO BODY & PAINT 22304

OLYMPIC CLEANING SVC 22070 - OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. 22101

OLYMPIC SPORTING GOODS 22030 - OLYMPIC SWIMMING POOL CO 22310

OLYMPIC VILLAGE 22202 - OLYMPIC CORP. REAL ESTATE 23224

OLYMPIC TILE & CARPET 23464 - OLYMPIC SKATE CLUB 24179

OLYMPIC ENTERPRISES, INC. 23518 - OLYMPIC OIL, INC. 23607

OLYMPIC FILM SERVICE 98366 - OLYMPIC FIRE SPRINKLERS 98306

OLYMPIC GOLDEN, INC. 98584 - OLYMPIC GRAPHIC ARTS 98331

OLYMPIC HEALTH CARE 98382 - OLYMPIC HARWARE & FURNITURE 98368

OLYMPIC INSULATION, INC 98201 - OLYMPIC NAT'L LIFE INS 98009

OLYMPIC INTERNATIONAL, LTD. 98101 - OLYMPIC INFRA-RED, INC. 98584

OLYMPIC INVESTMENTS 98365 - OLYMPIC INTER. TRADING, LTD. 98166

OLYMPIC LUTHERHAVEN 98383 - OLYMPIC LANSCAPE & IRRIGATION 98371

OLYMPIC INSURANCE INC 98020 - OLYMPIC LUMBER, INC. 98382

OLYMPIC MECHANICAL 98036 - OLYMPIC MACHINE & WELDING 98421

OLYMPIC Mnr. Comm. Club, 98117 - OLYMPIC PSYCHIATRIC ASSOS 98362

OLYMPIC MGT SERVICE 98104 - OLYMPIC KENNEL CLUB 98188

OLYMPIC WALLBOARD SUPPLY 98499 - OLYMPIC MOUNTAIN MYCOL 98331

OLYMPIC Model RR Society 98502 - OLYMPIC MINERAL RESOURCES 99201

OLYMPIC MALL WATER CO. 98104 - OLYMPIC PROPERTIES LTD. 98115

OLYMPIC NURSING SERVICE 98115 - OLYMPIC MEDICAL LABS 98301

OLYMPIC ORTHOPEDIC 98301 - OLYMPIC OUTDOOR ENTERPRISES 98033

OLYMPIC OUTFITTERS, INC. 98501 - OLYMPIC PRECAST COMPANY 98502

OLYMPIC OFFICE SUPPLY, INC. 98005 - OLYMPIC PARK ASSOCIATES 98125

OLYMPIC PLASTICS CO., INC. 98260 - OLYMPIC POSTER CO., INC. 98166

OLYMPIC PRINTERS, INC. 98362 - OLYMPIC Peninsula Hardwood 98501

OLYMPIC PAPER, INC. 98362 - OLYMPIC PREFABRICATORS, INC. 98072

OLYMPIC PROPERTIES, INC. 98020 - OLYMPIC PROPANE, INC. 98382

OLYMPIC RECREATION, INC. 98301 - OLYMPIC RENTALS, INC 98382

OLYMPIC RESOURCES MGT 98121 - OLYMPIC RALLY COMP ASSO 98036

OLYMPIC VALLEY FARMS 98382 - OLYMPIC TRAILS PROPERTIES 98155

OLYMPIC SECURITIES, INC. 98101 - OLYMPIC STEEL DOOR, INC. 98101

OLYMPIC SALES, INC. 98005 - OLYMPIC SLING & ENG., INC. 98382

OLYMPIC SCIENTIFIC, INC. 98104 - OLYMPIC SAILBOATS, INC. 98107

OLYMPIC STATIONERS, INC. 98361 - OLYMPIC SPORTS, INC. 98360

OLYMPIC STRUCTURES, INC. 98502 - OLYMPIC SEAFOODS, INC. 98101

OLYMPIC STAMP SALES, INC. 98125 - OLYMPIC SYNTHETIC PROD 98382

OLYMPIC TV CABLE, INC. 98366 - OLYMPIC WOOD, INC. 98382

OLYMPIC TIRE, INC. 98362 - OLYMPIC THEATER, INC. 98103

OLYMPIC TOOL SUPPLY 98032 - OLYMPIC TRAFFIC SERVICE 98134

OLYMPIC, INC. 98201 - OLYMPIC VENTURES CONST. CO., INC. 98204

OLYMPIC VILLAGE PHARMCY 98406 - OLYMPIC VIDEO RECORD 98402

OLYMPIC WIRING, INC. 98301 - OLYMPIC PENINSULA TITLE CO. 98362

OLYMPIC WEST SPORTS 98301 - OLYMPIC MORTGAGE CO. 98101

OLYMPIC FOODS, INC. 99220 - OLYMPIC AVENUE INVESTORS 98223

OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES CO 98109 - OLYMPIC AIR CONDITIONING 98383

OLYMPIC ALTERNATIVES CENTER 98368 - OLYMPIC AIR, INC. 98584

OLYMPIC ANESTHESIA SVCS 98301 - OLYMPIC AMBULANCE SERVICE 98382

OLYMPIC AMBULATORY SURG 98301 - OLYMPIC BROILER INC.98101

OLYMPIC BLOCK JOINT VENTURE 98104 - OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE 98020

OLYMPIC CLUSTER APTS 98133 - OLYMPIC ASSO FOR HIGHER ED 98301

OLYMPIC CENTER-BELLINGHAM 98225 - OLYMPIC COLL BSTR CLUB 98225

OLYMPIC CAMERA CENTER, INC. 98101 - OLYMPIC ARMS, INC. 98503

OLYMPIC PAINTING, INC. 53216 - OLYMPIC SPORTS MED. CENTER 53204

OLYMPIC FIRE CORP. 64050 - OLYMPIC VAN LINES 58701

OLYMPIC FORESTRY SERVICE 54701 - OLYMPIC FLAME OF MWAUKEE 53122

OLYMPIC HOMES CONST. 53209 - OLYMPIC RESTAURANT & LOUNGE 68102

OLYMPIC ADVERTISING 66103 - OLYMPIC VILLAGE, INC. 68801

OLYMPIC SPEEDWAY AUTO PTS 64126 - OLYMPIC VILLAGE 64114

OLYMPIC SEALANTS, INC. 63104 - OLYMPIC SPORTING GOODS 63109

OLYMPIC MOTORS 65806 - OLYMPIC FITNESS CENTER, INC. 64801

OLYMPIC BAR B Q 48229 - OLYMPIC CONEY ISLAND 48506

OLYMPIC FLAME RESTAURANT 48907 - OLYMPIC CYCLE SHOP 48237

OLYMPIC, INC. 49078 - OLYMPIC SERVICE LABS 48185

OLYMPIC ACCEPTANCE CO. 48075 - OLYMPIC BUTTER & EGG CO. 48227

OLYMPIC RESTAURANT 48018 - OLYMPIC TOOL & GUAGE CO. 48239

OLYMPIC PHOTOGRAPHERS 48054 - OLYMPIC AVIATION 48054

OLYMPIC BAR-B-QUE 48195 - OLYMPIC MOTORS 48529

OLYMPIC SERVICE CENTER 52755 - OLYMPIC FLAME RESTAURANT 50583

OLYMPIC VILLAGE 51106 - OLYMPIC MOBIL SERVICE 48126

Just to name a few and these as of 1983.

**Some people never give up.**

10.05.10

SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

ANNIVERSARY October 5, 1984; 10:10 A.M., D.C. Federal Court.

DEAR SENATOR LEAHY:

Today (actually at this moment) marks my 26th anniversary of entering the judicial system via the D.C. Federal court. It was the day that Pres. Reagan had shut down the government over budget disagreements. I had flown to Washington from Los Angeles to file my case against the USOC and the Amateur Sport Act. As I walked to the court to file I was anxious the court was closed but soon found the doors open. The young clerk chuckled, "we never close." Happily I had not made my journey for nothing. While the filing could have been made by mail I wanted to file it in person. The case was assigned to Honorable Barrington D. Parker. I left town that afternoon arriving back in Los Angeles early in the A.M. the following day.

I believe in 1985, November, you were among the 77 senators and 200 representatives who received my petition and case record then entangled in the California federal court, southern district. [This mailing was six inches thick and contained a complete history of use of the word Olympic since the early 1920's.] This court battle continued for three more miserable years. I respected you then maybe because of my New England roots and an organic affinity and I respect you now having watched you over the years. The Judiciary Committee (99th Congress) and Chairman Thurmond were responsive and 5 minority Senators (remaining anonymous) contacted me by phone through staff attorney (Steve Best) in August, a scant seven months since first contact. The Senators, through Mr. Best, were adamant that the current interpretation of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 espoused by the USOC, and it's compatriot, was completely off the map of reality and law, exactly as my suit claimed and it would be addressed in the coming Congress. In the House, Speaker O'Neil, referred the Petition and documents (court record) to the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman Peter Rodino, Jr.. The Congressional Record noted as received the Petition and referred to it as Pet. 0274. A later filing was made and it was noted as Pet. 0373. Chairman Rodino was only Congressman I ever met in person, and that by accident at the Supreme Court, a great honor for me.

In April 1988 the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enforced supreme court precedent acquired in the Gay Olympics case (IOC/USOC v. S.F.A.A and Dr. Thomas Waddell) to my case and it was over. An option existed to go to the Supreme Court again (earlier visit on Amicus in above case) but my Supreme Court counsel (one of the best) Mike H. Gottesman talked me down and convinced me of the futility of the course. I burned the legal tents and moved into obscurity. Large emotional and financial losses were incurred.

Later the Senate Commerce Committee passed the "corrected" version of the Act in 1998 now named "Ted Stevens – Amateur Sports Act." Isn't it fitting that the law was changed precisely as my Petitions 0274 and 0373 suggested. Isn't it more fitting that Congress (having contacted 100's of Members) never intended the interpretation in the first place and were being "blamed" for the interpretation then being espoused by the USOC and it's partner in crime, IOC. Not to mention federal courts along the wayside bowing to the conspirators at every opportunity staring blindly at the Olympic flame. There were a few dissents in the gay case at the appeals court and the chief dissenter is now Chief Judge [Alex Kozinski].

As is understood and believed the supreme court opinion (1988) in the gay case is now moot. And one more rhetorical point, "Who told the USOC to stop attempting to enforce their interpretation of their unconstitutional law from 1988 on? It had to be a Senator or two or more behind closed doors. NO court case was filed after my case was concluded. Even with supreme court opinion giving them exclusive commercial rights over use of the word with no regard for trademark defenses, among other gratuitous favors.

I was considered by many to be a pariah, whistle-blower, and obviously, martyr. Only a fool could consider a course of action such as I chose. I was forced to appear pro se for the first two years (no one would sue the USOC with their pristine reputation and their formidable law and the Olympic light.) Remember what they did to the March of Dimes and the Reading Olympics with the law?

Senator, Sir, I need a Champion. If you know of one please put us in touch. I stood for the Constitution and now it is time someone stood up for me. I've had 22 years of hardship because of my stance and position defending myself and ultimately defending the Constitution as it applied to me and everyone. I'm getting up in years and wrote the story early this year about the case so my kids, if no one else, could know what it was that I accomplished and why I worked so long and hard to do so.

The short version of the story of the four-year ordeal is included. There were high points on occasion, such as DOJ investigation, Canada, the State Department, HR-1988, and the NAOB (National Association of Olympic Businesses).

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Highest Constitutional Regard,

Leo O. LaBranche Jr., 180 SW 7th Street, Cedaredge, CO 81413 (prior address)

Sent October 5, 2010 - still waiting

branches01@earthlink.net Leo LaBranche on Facebook

kokopelli books™

kokopelli is a mythical ancient Native American figure

found on cave paintings and rock carvings in the Southwest U.S.

His music and flute playing was legendary and he likely lived

between 1000 and 1200 years ago in the time of the Anasazi.

One of the first representations of a Musician in America.

Fine
