good morning everyone we have five cases on the docket this morning three of them being argued in two of them being submitted on the br will just note for the record the cases that are being submitted on the on the briefs the first one is number zero seven dash three zero zero seven white versus the marriage systems protection board in the second case is number zero seven dash one zero two nine course in ski versus do this again those two cases are being submitted on the on the briefs the first case on the calendar for worrell argument this morning is number zero five dash one two seven two kersey versus the undersecretary of commerce you're going to be arguing the case you can step up whenever you're ready and you're familiar with the understand how the lighting system works and all ok and you just want to confirm you've reserved five minutes for well nothing further happened until ninety six ninety ninety six the massachusetts system reacted to the complaint that had been fired by the vermont attorney for my ex wife pointing out th was more serious than mine but in that case the men and they imposed a private room but in that case they said that the reason for the private reprimand was because this man had attempted to comply with a contempt work and they said i had not made any attempt and this is completely contrary to fact as evidenced in the record but because they said i haven't made any attempt to comply they imposed a three month suspension in there to fit in massachusetts right it was at this point in the year two thousand the the office of the roman discipline decided to institute discipline nervous easy it's me in four counts the first count was that i had violated conflict of interest rules while i was employed by the air force the second count was a lie failed to disclose that i'd been disbarred in massachusetts which was not true the third count because i failed to disclose i've been to support of united states court of appeals for the district  record now i didn't want to interrupt the only thing is i mean i just do now the only because i realize that these points are important even security but the but we have to kind of accept what happens in these various situations and understanding that you you feel you were properly treated but the fact of the matter is you're a certain contentions here and i don't want you to run out of time to get the points you raised complied with with these regulations instead of appealing to the commission or the appeal to the director of united states patent office the decision in a case of such an appeal is supposed to be made by the commissioner  decision my case was not there on this appeal on this can proper appeal the decision is not made by the commissioner the commissioner delegated it to the general counsel the man who supervised the attorneys who are bringing the case against me that surely is a conflict of  what i'm saying is the regulations that apply to the seat refer only to the commission and to the nice states back in the office gets around to putting the appropriate destinations that he wants in these regulations the from the government now mr johnson mister whatever whatever you points you want to cover you might just address in particular the two two substantive arguments that that mr mr  the congress has given the director the authority to delegate certain responsibilities and here that's just what the p t o director did you deleted the responsibility disciplinary proceedings to the general counsel and that's in the record this record fact there is no evidence on the record of any actual conflicts of interest the standard to the standard for a decision maker being disqualified is to show that decision makers conduct the here that is the initial here there is nothing in section thirty five thirty five you'll see section thirty two the law was the director to designate the general counsel to make the decision that he supposed to m suspension he wanted a two year suspension and i think it's perfectly clear that the general counsel was the general counsel had to be influenced by the man who worked for him who are arguing for this two year do not understand why section ten point one five five is subject to amendment or subject to extension there is nothing in title from seven allows an extension of that time