Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
12Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
XP Technology lawsuit

XP Technology lawsuit

Ratings: (0)|Views: 140,108 |Likes:
Published by Lachlan Markay
A complaint filed by XP Technology alleging "corruption and negligence" at the U.S. Department of Energy.
A complaint filed by XP Technology alleging "corruption and negligence" at the U.S. Department of Energy.

More info:

Published by: Lachlan Markay on Nov 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 [
Summary of pleading
] - 11234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132Pro Se: XP Technology1001 Bridgeway, #166Sausalito, CA 949651-877-947-8958 (.tel)1-877-947-8958 (fax) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMSNegligence ProtestXP Technology1001 Bridgeway, #166Sausalito, CA 94965Plaintiff,vs.THE UNITED STATES,Defendant))))))))))Case No.:Collusion, Negligence, TortiousInterference
Dated this November 16, 2012___________________________Pro Se: XP Technology
1001 Bridgeway, #166Sausalito, CA 94965
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs XP Technology (XP) Pro Se, upon personal knowledge as to themselves,their own acts, and the contents of the documents referred to herein, and uponinformation and belief as to all matters, hereby bring this corruption andnegligence protest action against Defendant, The United States of America, andfor the Complaint allege as follows:
 NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
 
This action protests the actions of the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”)
inthe evaluation and awarding of funding for its loan programs in light of
 
 [
Summary of pleading
] - 21234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132criminal investigations underway against the agency by multiple investigationorganizations including the FBI, The GAO, The Senate Ethics Committee, The U.S.Treasury, The I.R.S. major media organizations and multiple communityorganizations wherein the initial results of those investigations have foundthat criminal activities did take place by DOE staff and affiliates. Plaintiffseeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against DOE proceeding with allloan programs, or any related programs, without first complying with applicablestatutory and regulatory requirements wherein said compliance is confirmed, inwriting, by, the FBI, The GAO, The Senate Ethics Committee, The U.S. Treasury,and The I.R.S. and said compliance is conducted in accordance with allapplicable laws and regulations. Further, as DOE officials and affiliates havebeen shown, by these investigations, to have engaged in intentional andmalicious attempts to damage our business, and the business of others, inretaliation for reporting these crimes, and in intentional interference onbehalf of competing ventures, damages in an amount commensurate with theactions by these parties is sought.
JURISDICTION
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaintpursuant to the Tucker Act, as amended by the Administrative Dispute ResolutionAct of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-340,
§

a), (b), 110 Stat. 3870 (Jan. 3, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C.
§
149 (b)(1).
THE PARTY OR PARTIES
1.
 
Plaintiff is a small American business located in San Francisco, Californiadoing business under the laws of the State of California. Plaintiffsbackgrounds include extensive issued patents on seminal technologies in useworld-wide, White House and Congressional commendations and an engineering teamof highly experienced auto-makers. Plaintiff brought a vehicle design which wasproposed as the longest range, safest, lowest cost electric vehicle, to be
 
 [
Summary of pleading
] - 31234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132built in America in order to deliver extensive American jobs nationwide. Noother applicant,
or award “winner”
, has succeeded in meeting, or intending tomeet, that milestone.XP Technology developed a patented lightweight, low-cost,long-range, electric vehicle using air-expanded foam-skinned material for aportion of the polymer body and received numerous patents, acclaim and superiorcomputer modeling metrics over any competing solution. XP presented a vast setof letters of support to DOE from pending customers. Major auto-industryfacilities and engineers had joined forces to bring the vehicle to the defense,commercial and consumer market.3.
 
Plaintiff reserves the right to join this case with the cases of otherapplicants should those parties elect to further participate.4.
 
Defendant, the United States of America, for all purposes relevant hereto,
acted by and through the Department of Energy (“DOE”), an agency of the federal
government.
FACTUAL BACKGROUNDOverview
The DOE ATVM and Loan Guarantee were offered to XP by elected officials. Asoriginally worded, the program was applicable only to four-wheeled passengervehicles. In October 2009, a bill sponsored by California Representatives BrianBilbray and Adam Schiff, on behalf of Aptera, was passed extending the
program’s coverage to include high mileage (75 mpg equivalent) two
- and three-wheeled vehiclesThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced in December 2008 the selection ofsix cost-shared research projects for the development and demonstration ofalternative vehicle technology projects totaling a DOE investment of up to$14.55 million over three years, subject to annual appropriations. Privatesector contributions will further increase the financial investment for a total

Activity (12)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Cause of Action liked this
Max Greenberg liked this
Max Greenberg liked this
Eurasians liked this
Tony Rogers liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->