Adjustment Phase Interval Case

Posted by Anonymous . updated on 3/13/2011

jpwalker1952@hotmail.com

Jonothan P. Walker Sr.
9908 E. 85th Terr.
Raytown, Mo. 64138
816-743-0014 - Home
816-682-7814 - Cell

3/14/2011

TO WHO IT MY CONCERN

I have written this theory to open political mines of the possibilities that loom right under their noses. I know that everyone likes to think that our universities operate above board but it has been known that students are held to a higher standard than professors in the research field. Professors are under a great deal of stress to be productive and bring new research to their industries. Sometimes this leads to questionable ethics practice.

I am not alone in this quest but a lot of inventors give up hope when the government seizes their property.

Amanuel Hill, who is my brother and partner, has been involved with our quest to bring these professors, university leaders, and government officials to justice for 16 years. The practice of unethically seizing patents and denying any knowledge of the act has to end.

Please give this some serious thought and have our case investigated.

If you need any supporting documentation, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Sincerely, Jonothan P. Walker Sr., Inventor. Executive Order 12250 Letter to Federal Agencies from Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez -- August 19, 2010
In 1979, the President Carter signed Executive Order 12250, which provided for the consistent and effective implementation of various laws prohibiting discriminatory practices on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or religion in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The responsibility for implementing this Executive Order was placed with the Attorney General. This responsibility, except for the authority to approve regulations, was redelegated to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The Federal Coordination and Compliance Section carries out this responsibility on a day to day basis.
Congress has enacted numerous statutes prohibiting discrimination against certain classes of people by recipients of Federal financial assistance. Several of these statutes apply to a broad spectrum of recipients, and are called cross-cutting grant-related civil rights statutes. Many other statutes apply only to recipients of specific federal agencies, and are called program-specific grant-related civil rights statutes.
Listed on this website are many of these cross-cutting and program-specific grant-related statutes imposing civil rights obligations on recipients, along with explanations of the programs covered and the responsible federal agency. Also listed here are manuals, guidance, regulations, brochures, and other information released by the U.S. Department of Justice related to these civil rights statutes.

Mobility 2000 Presents Intelligent Vehicles and Highway Systems1 The United States is now moving from the enormously successful VISION OF Interstate Highway construction program to programs that will set the INTELLIGENT course of highway ...
www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_PR/736.pdf · Cached page · PDF file

The national IVHS Workshop in Dallas, March 19-21, 1990 was
sponsored by government, university and industry members
involved in Mobility 2000, and hosted by the Texas
Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System,
The workshop was a forum for the exchange of ideas, plans and
definitions. Reports of five working groups were published by
the Texas Transportation Institute and distributed at the
Workshop. A summary of the Workshop was published by the
Texas Transportation Insititute under the title. Mobility 2000
PresentsIntelligend Vehicles and Highway Systems
1990 Summary. This report of the Workshop includes rcporta
of the break-out sessions held during the workshop and the
reports of the five working groups. Both the summary report and
this full report are available from:
Communications Program
Texas Transportation Institute
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77813-3 135

1.Could my brother been invited to join the workshop ?
2.Could my brother got funding for his idea?
3.Why did Mr. Carrol J. Messer,Ph.D.,P.E. lie ?
4.Why did Mr. Stephen W.McDaniel pead his case to us?
5.Why did they lie in the E-mail A.P.I Communication?
6.Why did Dannie R.Cummigs P.E. Hung-up on my brother?
7.My question is, how for doses corruption go in the (Federal government)?
Proceedings of a National Workshop on IVHS Sponsored by Mobility 2000
... 2000 is pleased to provide this report which is a more detailed account of the national IVHS program developed at the Mobility 2000 IVHS National Workshop held in Dallas, Texas on ...
ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/9063.pdf · Cached page · PDF file
... 2000 is pleased to provide this report which is a more detailed account of the national IVHS program developed at the Mobility 2000 IVHS National Workshop held in Dallas, Texas on ...
This is what we wanted to be. (DEB)!!!

All of the following are considered plagiarism:

·       turning in someone else’s work as your own
·       copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
·       failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
·       giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
·       changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
·       copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on “fair use” rules)
·       Submitting work from another course for the present course is also considered plagiarism.

Attention! Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism.

Jonothan P. Walker Sr.
9908 E. 85th Terr.
Raytown, Mo. 64138
816-743-0014 - Home
816-682-7814 - Cell

Introduction

The Adjustment Phase Interval case has been open for 19 years. This case has been reviewed by attorneys all over this nation. Sovereign immunity has paralyzed any chance of financial recovery for our past investors. It is hard to believe in the American Dream. The actions that have taken place clearly shows that America has change its’ attitude toward the common citizen. Greed and piracy have lead to our educational institutions research labs becoming parasites on the American inventor.

The Obama administration has lit a beacon of hope for all Americans and is flooded with the task of undoing years of neglect and erosion to our way of life. I am hopeful that whoever is monitoring our patent system will correct this injustice. I do not want anything that is not rightfully mine. For an agency of any government, shielded by a university system to seize, lye cover-up, steal and deny any wrong doing is a new low for our educational institutions. I hope that the Attorney General in the justice department or government officials will look into this case and investigate it. These individuals have allegedly used tax payer’s money to fund stolen research. A private company in Canada that partnered with this agency, now holds the patent rights to systems invented right here in America. This is un-American at its lowest form. The selling out of American ingenuity should be unlawful. I hope that the Obama administration investigates this case and makes a fair decision.

Inventor,
Jonothan P. Walker Sr.

Adjustment Phase Interval Case

The meeting with Dr. Carroll J. Messer transpired on Feb 20, 1990 and I was told by him that he did not know of a Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) member and didn’t know how to partner with them. The patented algorithm method was allegedly seized in the year of 1990 by the Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) Dr. Carroll J. Messer, while being in a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), US Department of Transportation (USDOT), Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT), and the private firm of International Roads Dynamic Inc. (IRD). The Urban Highway Operations and Implementation Program (1232 -21. 28. 32) was in effect at Texas A&M University System and TTI from September 1989 until August 1994. Dr. Messer allegedly had the first prototype developed on August 5, 1990 through this program because he was on the advisory and steering committee. The location of this system is 1-610 & US 59 highway, in Houston Texas. This was accomplished six months after our first contact with Dr. Messer at TTI. Our firm was unsuccessful in partnering with TTI and the FHWA to research and develop our patented method. Mr. Dennis Judycki of the FHWA and Dr. Messer worked together in the Mobility 2000 Workshop March 19 - 21, 1990. Dr. Messer and Mr. Dennis Judycki were in the operational test group in Mobility 2000 Workshop re Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems Program. Mr. Judycki spoke at the appropriation hearings on March, 20 - 28 1990, to have the Automatic Truck Rollover Warning System procured at these proceedings by the FHWA. These series of events allowed the FHWA to develop our concept on the east coast and has denied that Texas Transportation Institute was affiliated. We believe the purpose for this action was to deceive our firm into thinking that the idea was conceived independent of TTI, therefore not confiscated by seizure. This is a Cover Up. (FHWA-93-039) HR5229, 101 Congress minutes The technical report written for International Roads Dynamic by Dr. Arthur Bergan of the University of Saskatchewan, Civil Engineering Department supports our position stating that the system is based on road or ramp geometry and is a new application or process. The systems located in Kansas City are at Benton, Jackson curve on I70 and six intersections located on Bruce Watkins Highway. (71 HWY)

Ò We are now at an impasse with the Federal Highway Administration. They refuse to answer our inquiries regarding our case because we have factually proven it with their conflicting research reports. The federal and state agencies allowed the firm of International Roads Dynamic (IRD) of Canada to research and develop their patented product and wouldn’t let our firm develop ours in their industry. This complaint was filed on July 14, 1999 with the Civil Rights Division of the FHWA. This case remained open until I filed the plagiarism complaint on the systems level at Texas A&M University. The FHWA closed this file January 2, 2004, 10 days after this complaint was filed on the university level.
Ò Dr. Messer has had the Advance Warning at the End of Green Signal system (AWEGS) researched that is an altered replica system of US Patent 4,908,616, Adjustment Phase Interval (API) He has taken credit as the original author. These systems are located in Brenham US 290 0 FM 577& Waco TX. 0 State Highways 6@FM 185. Dr. Messer’s superiors, Dr. Herbert H Richardson and staff at TTI and Texas A&M University System, have refused to have the patent method evaluated by outside experts as called for in their Ethics in Research administrative procedures.
Ò Contained in the TTI September 6, 1999 correspondence and e-mail trail, Mr. Don Bugh, now Executive Associate Agency Director of TTI, acting for Dr. Herbert H Richardson, wrote the denial letter. In this document, he stated that TTI had not talked with Mr. Dennis Judycki of the FHWA and there was no evidence of TTI being involved with the Truck Warning system and method. Mr. Don Bugh also stated in the e-mail that TTI had a minor role on the forming of IVHS. These are all ambiguous statements. Dr. Messer and TTI could not afford to let our firm in the Mobility 2000 Workshop, re (IVHS), because our firm would have the exclusive rights to research and build all forms of these systems with our patented method. This method was base on the industry standard sight distance algorithm by American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO and TTI sponsored and hosted the Mobility 2000 Workshop.
Ò International Roads Dynamic was the private partner firm that was allowed to develop a patented pre-emption system from our seized research. (US Patent 6,204,778 and 5,617,086) The ‘086 patent was developed from the study performed at TTI. This patent was file on October 31, 1994 and issued on April 1, 1997. Our firm received a letter from their patent attorney, Bran Davidson on October 19, 1994, explaining that the burden of proof was on us. If he didn’t receive this proof within a time limit, they would consider this matter closed. They filed for ‘086 patent 12 days later. The product specifications didn’t exist yet because IRD hadn’t file for patent. Urban Highway Operations and Implementation Program (1232 -21, 28, 32.) This firm has a net worth of over 16 million dollars.

A strange omen just occurred to me. IRD applied for this patent on Halloween and it was issued on April fool’s day.

Our patent, 4,908,616 is the official background art to all systems that were developed under these studies.

PS
President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, and respect for civil liberties.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is a Cabinet department in the United States government designed to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans

Stealing Research – Big Business for Major Universities

The Alleged Seizure of the API Methodology
by Jonothan P. Walker Sr. (Inventor)

14-Mar-11

Executive Summary

Civil Case Theory of the Adjustment Phase Interval, API Concept

Introduction:

There have been numerous times that I as an individual, a company, and as a minority, have faced discrimination in the development of the API concept. This started as far back as the year 1985 until present. I was unfamiliar with the pitfalls, bureaucracy, philosophical barriers and institutional barriers that lay ahead in our quest to bring the API concept to fruition. The Transportation industry is laden with these demeaning attitudes.

I am going to depict the most damaging series of events that I feel cost us the most harm, but in no means is this brief depicting the full effect of the industries discrimination.

Theory:

In the year 1989, I found out that I was going to receive patent on the Traffic Control System, featuring the Adjustment Phase Interval. I had been rejected several times before my attorney, Mark Brown of Litman, McMahon and Brown, submitted the concept to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1986. In a December 31, 1986 letter, Mr. R.D. Morgan, then Director of the DOT, rejected the concept. Mr. Dennis Judycki, of the Office of Traffic Operations also rejected our second attempt in a February, 1987 letter. I also submitted it to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program in 1988 where it was rejected.

I submitted the concept for patent for two reasons. First, I wanted to see if the concept was conceptually built on sound engineering principals. The concept had been rejected so much that I felt that it needed to pass a test that was totally unbiased and fair. Secondly, if the API concept was built on sound engineering principals, I wanted to protect my rights to ownership. I had several other designs conceptualized for the mathematical process.

On or about December 1989 or January 1990, I called Dr. Carroll J. Messer of Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) to see if he would evaluate the API concept. He told me that he would and to send him all the information. I found Dr. Messer by reading research studies that he performed for the Department of Transportation and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). He was geographically closer than others and seemed to be working on the same behavior concern pertaining to the dilemma zone problem.

On or about January 19, 1990, I received the January 17, letter from Dr. Messer. He stated; "I would suggest that Complex consider shelving this idea for several reasons," and several other concerns that were infuriating to me. I could not stand idly by and let him dissect this concept on pure speculation. I gave Dr. Messer a call and asked him to explain how he came to these decisions, when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had a totally different perception of the concept. How could the professor make these decisions, when only research and development could prove if the concept was valid? Dr. Messer agreed, and set up the meeting for February 20, 1990. (Note; the patent gave me recourse to challenge the opinion of the professors in the educational institutions.) This was the first time that I had heard of the Intelligent Vehicle Highway System Program (IVHS) and the on board vehicle controls system dealing with this problem.

The meeting took place on February 20, 1990, at Texas A&M campus Memorial Student Center, building 137 at 11:30 A.M. The people present at this meeting were, PH.D Carroll J. Messer, PH.D Donald Woods, of Texas Transportation Institute, Dannie Cummins PE of Johnson, Brickell and Mulcahy engineering consultant firm, the design engineer and Jonothan P. Walker Sr., President of Complex Inc. and patent owner of the API concept. Dannie was a graduate of Texas A&M University in 1969.

In this meeting, we discussed all the possible uses for the API concept and the best way to develop this project. The black box and software was mentioned as a stand alone unit because of the first stage of development. No manufacture of controllers would give access to the computer code to reprogram their software and modify the hardware. The best locations for the API were discussed in detail. The first intersection off freeway was important so the motorist could adjust to urban traffic. Possible curves and hazardous locations where visibility impaired drivers may play a part in receiving proper response to conditions due to highway hypnosis. Stand alone intersections on highways where deadly accidents are caused by the speed of the vehicles impact.

The staff of TTI showed me their facilities and how they had conducted several other research studies. We discussed possible funding but there were no suggestions made for having the government conduct this study. Dr. Messer mentioned the IVHS program in 1991 and said that there might be a way to get them to finance the project. He did not give me any more information. The meeting was concluded after three hours. Dannie Cummins wrote the preliminary strategy and gave it to Dr. Messer who would be heading the study. This occurred within a two month period in a letter dated April 27, 1990. In this study we wanted to try the computer simulation approach in order to show how the Adjustment Phase Interval concept (API) would enhance any deceleration signal over the prior art. We wanted to test all scenarios of the Reaction Time of the Driver method as explained in the plan to Dr. Messer.

I received U. S. Patent, 4,908,616 on March 13, 1990 from the Patent Trademark Office. It was delivered to me by my attorney on or about March 15, 1990.

On March 14, 1990, I wrote Dr. Messer regarding possible funding from government agencies. I asked for their assistance in overcoming this important hurdle. I also mentioned the preliminary research study being put together by Dannie Cummins of JBM and Assoc. for Texas Transportation Institute evaluation to achieve the best planning approach for the API. I also told Dr. Messer that I had contacted Frank Waltos of the FHWA to inquire about funding. Frank stated that he would help but he needed several concerns addressed.

1. A short scenario of how the API concept is a more technical approach than the previous flashing green study conducted in Israel.

2. Somehow, show the API concept system, an intelligent highway system, correlates into the intelligent vehicle highway system.

3. Show technical support team and political interest from both states.

4. Show the advantages of the API in reducing economic loss and reducing liability, while having a more efficient stopping capability.

Dr. Messer never answered this request.

Texas Transportation Institute’s staff took four months to respond to this approach. When they finally answered us, they had changed the approach of the Research and Development strategy. These changes are a similar approach the Automatic Truck Warning System and the Measure of Effectiveness (M.O.E.) study performed at the University Of Michigan For The Insurance Institute. It is these similarities I wish to bring to your attention.

The Insurance Institute’s staff, who conducted the M.O.E. study at the University of Michigan and Dr. Messer, researched the same behavioral concerns. The same on board system that Dr. Messer mentioned in his first letter dated January 17, 1990 to me, was put up against the API concept in the Automatic Truck Warning System study. FHWA-93-039

Questions;

1. How did the API concept and the on board computer system get in the same study as mentioned in Dr. Messer’s letter dated January 17, 1990?

2. Who could have given this information to the staff of the University of Michigan in the same time frame?

3. How can two universities have the same approach solution to the same problem at identical times? (Algorithm method)

4. How did the Insurance Institute study starts in May or June of 1990 and we did not receive our study until August 23, 1990. (T90-271, API Mall and Control Field Studies) Only after writing Texas Transportation Institute did they answer Dannie Cummins R&D approaches?

5. Ref. the March 14, 1990 letter to Dr. Messer; ‘why didn't he feel that it was important to get funding for the API project?'

6. How did the Automatic Truck Warning study have the same conversion of the controller hardware and software that our system required?

Division IV was headed by Dr. Carroll J. Messer. In 1990, they were scheduled to work on the weigh-in motion (WIM) system from IRD that was used in the Automatic Truck Warning System study to detect the speed of the approaching vehicles. The professors at TTI had knowledge of our novel control algorithm method for commercial vehicles for deceleration using the reaction time of the driver. Ph. D Carroll J. Messer, Ph. D Paul Zador, Ph. D Paul Olsen, Mr. G. Sadler Bridges, Ph. D William Harris and Ph. D Fancher of TTI and total staff, can be found as references on several research studies in 1985. (Traffic Characteristics During Signal Change Intervals), (Timing Traffic Signal Change Intervals Based on Driver Behavior, 1984) (Highway Safety Devices, 1985) Mobility 2000 and TTI’s staff belonged to the Intelligent Vehicle Highway System, IVHS America, now ITS network. These individuals also worked at TTI during this period of time from 1985-1990 conducting research.

On or about 6/25/99, I found the final link that has Texas Transportation Institute as the most likely candidate for seizure of the ramp and lane control methodology, (API). This information was found in the ITS web site under [Mobility 2000, the roots of IVHS]. This report it shows that, Ph. D G. Sadler Bridges and Ph. D William Harris of the Texas Transportation Institute volunteered both themselves and TTI to the purpose of making IVHS as a national organization. They were backed with FHWA, DOT and congressional resources in the same time frame. The only persons Ph, D Messer and Ph. D Woods could have reported this alleged seizure of patented technology to be those individuals, as indicated by TTI’s April, 1990 organization chart. Mobility 2000 originated at the University of Michigan in 1988 and had a strong backing from Mr. James Pitz, then Director of the Michigan Department of Transportation and also that years President of American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Since the algorithm method belonged to AASHTO, and I had found a new use for their product, I believe that this was more than this industry could stand. The U.S. was in direct competition with Europe and Japan and could not afford to be restrained by a private individual. Dr. Bill Harris and Dr. G. Sadler Bridges were active in Texas organizing a work shop in Dallas in March of 1990 for Mobility 2000 and the birth of IVHS. They wrote the final executive summary for the IVHS organization to become a national entity. As I had stated earlier in this report, I contacted Dr. Messer in December of 1989 to see if TTI could assist me in the development of the Reaction time of the driver intersection system (Lane Control or API) and the methodology on ramps (Ramp Control or API method) in February 20, 1990. These players had the means, motive and opportunity to allegedly seize this patented technology and deny our firm, Complex Inc. and I the opportunity to apply for federal research funding through their organization.

Means, Motive and Opportunity:

These professors were all working on a solution to this decision and behavioral problem that existed with signal change.

All of them had access to funding and political assistance.

They were embarrassed that a small minority owned company had come up with the solution for an infrastructure system.

Our company would have exclusive rights to a better system and method than they had in existence in their market.

They were trying to beat the patent to discredit my work.

The Appropriations Committee ordered the development of the ATWS in July 1990, six months after my first conversation with Dr. Messer. (Congress 101, Report 584)

Texas Transportation Institute and Dannie Cummins have not returned my calls or spoken to me when I inquired about this mishap.

In August of 1994, I was allowed to join the Trade Association, American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA). Phil Russell, former Chief of Traffic Control Operations for DOT and now Director of ATSSA, had prior knowledge of my invention using this reaction time of the driver method.

On 7/2/96, I found an important link to this investigation in the Appropriation Committee hearing minutes. Mr. Dennis Judycki is the person at the Federal Highway Administration that gave the order to investigate the Traffic Control Systems Methodology, U.S. Patent 4,908,616, the reaction time of the driver linked with the communicative static signs of the highway for deceleration purposes. This action took place from March 20, 28, 1990 until April 1990. Mr. Judycki had prior knowledge of the patented methodology confirmed by correspondence he had written to my patent attorney Mark Brown on 2/10/87. In the letter he stated that the FHWA, DOT was not supportive of my concept. Texas Transportation Institutes staff and Mr. Judycki had to have communicated in order to have the Appropriation Committee approve this concept in the three months span of events. I contacted Dr. Messer in January 1990, I met with TTI and staff on February 20, 1990, and Dennis Judycki spoke at the hearings in March and April 1990. Also, Mobility 2000, Mr. G. Sadler Bridges and Ph. D Bill Harris and TTI staff were working on the workshop for Dallas in March 1990 to make IVHS a national organization. In May of 1990, the DOT came on board officially and the IVHS was born in July, 1990. These series of events coincide with each other. I believe that only these individuals could have delivered and explained the system and method so fluently to the Appropriation Committee in this identical time frame.

In 1996, I found out that TTI knew of FHWA members from a letter that was written to my brother, and co-owner of the patent, Amanuel Hill. I wrote Ph. D McDaniels a letter asking his team to reevaluate the API concept and compare it to the ATWS of the FHWA. Ph. D Messer and Ph. D Woods were the members that I carbon copied. Ph. D Woods did not have any recall or information of the API method.

Ph. D Messer would not write me or return my calls. Ph. D McDaniels was very apologetic and said that he would never disclose any information about the API to anyone. Neither of the officials told me in 1990 or 1991, that they were members or knew of the FHWA members and could recommend the API concept, (Reaction time of the Driver), for a research study. Instead, I believe they used their network of universities to design around the patented claims and build both the highway unit and the intersection unit.

Texas Transportation Institute’s Answer

On or about September 13, 1999, I received letters from Associate Executive Director Don Bugh of Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) and Dennis Judycki, Director of Research and Development Technology at The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding this 7/14/99 complaint. The article by FHWA Lyle Saxton was the only evidence that I had when I wrote this theory. First, TTI stated that there is no evidence of them communicating or participating in the development of the Automatic Truck Warning System or Measure of effectiveness Study performed by the University of Michigan. Secondly, Neither Ph. D Messer, Ph. D Woods had any discussions with Mr. G. Sadler Bridges or Ph. D William Harris concerning the Adjustment Phase Interval Concept technology. Third, TTI has not had any discussions with Mr. Dennis Judycki concerning federal appropriations related to the Automatic Truck Warning System. Fourth, Mr. Don Bugh stated that TTI has not now or ever been a member of the Federal Highway Administration or a National Laboratory.

I e-mailed Don Bugh on 9/13/99 regarding several questions I had concerning the Mobility 2000 group. First, I asked him, "What were the criteria for applying through the Mobility 2000 group in 1990?" Secondly, I asked him, "Why did TTI fail to advise me of that program?" Third, I asked him, "Who thought of creating the dynamic warning system?"

He e-mailed me on 9/14/99 and stated that Mobility 2000 group grew into IVHS America and was then renamed ITS America. He stated that I should direct my questions to their organization.

I e-mailed Don Bugh on 9/14/99 and stated to him that G. Sadler Bridges was active in this group. The questions that I asked were for TTI and their involvement. I also stated to him that if he did not intend to cooperate with our investigation, please notify me in writing.

On 9/16/99, Don Bugh e-mailed me and stated these facts. First, TTI’s role in the formation and subsequent organization of IVHS America was relatively minor. Secondly, Don Bugh stated; “I also don’t believe Ph. D Messer had any knowledge of a Mobility 2000 program (If such a program existed) to share with you”. He also stated that he considered this matter closed.

On 9/20/99 I wrote Don Bugh a final e-mail. I stated that I will not try to communicate with him again. “Notwithstanding your ambiguous nature, -----”. I stated that if you can read the attachment or go to TTI’s own web site under “Why Research Center of Excellence” he would see that TTI played a major role in the development of IVHS through the Mobility 2000 group and continues its leadership role today.

Evidence:

Executive Summary update April 1990. (Outlined program milestones, research and development, Operational tests, Program investment requirements and organizing for IVHS.) (20 pages)

Mobility 2000 Workshop Study showed that the workshop was hosted by TTI on March 19 through the 21st, 1990. (242 pages) TTI wrote the executive summary for the Workshop and Dennis Judycki lead the operational test group. Ph. D Carroll Messer was a member of the operational test group. This group was over all the testing procedures of the IVHS program involving research and development in order for the novel concepts and systems to have real accident reduction potential. They both were in attendance at the workshop just prior to Dennis Judycki speaking at the Appropriations Hearings on or about March 20, or 28, 1990, regarding the reaction time of the driver method or API.

We have a copy of the appropriation minutes in the March 1990 session with Dennis Judycki speaking on the reaction time of the driver.

WE have a copy of the Commercial Vehicle Operation Study showing that the dynamic ramp and sight distance warning signals were part of the IVHS programs plan. (Mobility 2000, page 10)

Ph. D William Harris and G. Sadler Bridges were subcommittee chairman of the IVHS America in 1990 - 92. William Harris was over the information clearinghouse and editorial review committee. G. Sadler Bridges was over the Institutional issues committee. (Strategic Plans for the IVHS 1992)

The solicitation for minority businesses or educational participation in IVHS was not until January 1996.

TTI had about 8 representatives from their university staff at this workshop and University of Michigan had about 4. Paul Fancher, the researcher for the University of Michigan was a member of the IVHS research and development group. He was in attendance also.

Why a Research Center of Excellence web site page from TTI.

USDOT Answer

Mr. Dennis Judycki, of the FHWA wrote in his response that he had not spoken with TTI about the Adjustment Phase Interval or Reaction Time of the Driver method. He also stated in his September 8th, 1999 letter that the FHWA has not used the concept in their research program. I called the FHWA to see if I could set up an interview with Mr. Judycki. His associate, Toni Wilbur called me to ask if she could be of assistance. I told her that the questions I had to ask could only be answered by Mr. Judycki because he was the person of record that spoke to the appropriations committee on the reaction time of the driver concept. Ms. Wilbur stated that they could not find the record of where he addressed the appropriations committee. I gave her the #, HR5229 and stated that we had his record. I read precisely what was stated in the record. Ms. Wilbur seemed to want to talk about the Request for Proposal sent out by the FHWA. I stated to her that I wanted to know the research person or organization that designed this proposal for Mr. Judycki. I stated that I would fax her questionnaire for Mr. Judycki to fill out in his time frame. I have yet to here back from him to this day.

101 Congress’s Demeanor

The Patent Competitive and Technological Act of 1990 was passed later that year that allowed federal sponsored laboratories to research patented concepts without contacting the inventor. They were also instructed to design around claims in order for the government to catch up on current technology. The U.S. was behind Japan and Western Europe and wanted to raid the U.S. patents without contacting the inventors.

Under Title 35 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the US government requires that federal laboratories contact the inventor. The Patent Competitive and Technological Act of 1990 let the laboratories get around this protection. The sponsors of the 1990 Patent Competitive and Technological Act wanted to amend Title 35 but they knew it would bring negative attention and they left the act ambiguous to title 35.

In the Appropriation minutes for the ATWS, (API Concept Methodology), and the Patent Competitive and Technological Act of 1990 used the same reason for their development. They stated that Western Europe and Japan were ahead of the U.S. and they needed new technology in a hurry.

Department Of Transportations Cost Benefit Study

The Center for Transportation Analysis states that there are 6500 potential sites for deployment of these ATWS (API systems). The systems can save tax payers .5 billion dollars per year per system.

There are also an estimated 6500 or more high speed and hazardous 4 way intersections and curves for potential market penetration with the Traffic Control System (TCS). These systems are expected to parallel in savings since they both use the Reaction time of the Driver method patented in the Traffic Control System patent.

I believe that our prototype patented system and method were allegedly seized by Texas Transportation Institutes Network of universities. I further believe that Texas deceived us about their affiliation with the FHWA and used their exclusive research and development network to design around our model in order to impede our claims. Since the Federal, States and local governments are the only entities that can research these systems; they have the ultimate leverage position. This also leads me to the question; Are these entities subject to Anti-trust laws? I believe that TTI impeded us from the development of our system and method that would have yielded at least an estimated 2 million dollars per year in use royalties per system from the states, an estimated 1 million dollars per system built by the contractors for the make and at least 500 thousand dollars per system in the sells of equipment to make the system.

With the potential estimated market penetration of 85% of 13,000 intersections and 13,000 curves through out the Continental United States and over the life of the patent, (20 years), we believe that there is merit to our concept.

The Federal Highway Administrations, Automatic Truck Warning System (ATWS) is a form of my Traffic Behavioral Control System (TBCS) or Adjustment Phase Interval Concept (APIC). The difference in these systems are the government built their system exclusively for trucks and I designed our system to control the total environment the trucks were driving in. Their system is a warning system and my system is a command system as developed in my patented prototype method. To change their system to ours, all you would have to do is convert the message on the signs. (Example; Theirs - Driving to fast when flashing, ours - Reduce Speed when flashing, 45 mph speed limit. This is a command system not a warning.)

These systems have shut out 100% truck roll-over accidents in the three years of Research and Development stage in the states of Virginia, Colorado, Maryland, and in the District of Columbia, Washington D.C. Beltway. In the state of Missouri, accidents were down at the Benton and Jackson curves by 87% reported by the state in 1994 and 75% by local officials. Local intersection systems are located at 210 Highway and Walker Rd. and at Todd Rd. and 350 highway in Missouri. These intersection systems are at the first intersection off the highway when the motorist enters the urban area. This method is exactly the use that TTI and I discussed at their campus in February 20, 1990. (Tape of TV5 interview enclosed October, 1994)

Summation

I have now connected most of the major players in this alleged seizure of intellectual property by a government recipient. I believe that I was deceived and misused by TTI’s staff. Regardless if this idea was successful or not, the question is whether or not there was discrimination by race committed against me. First, I was not allowed to fail or succeed and was denied access to a federal program and told a consistent line of ambiguous statements that lead me in the wrong direction by a state recipient of federal funds. Secondly, There was no way of telling if the Reaction Time of the Driver method could out perform the on board system in the feasibility study that guaranteed the success of the project. Third, I was not allowed to be part of the program because the DBE status would require me to lead the Research and Development team. The educational institutions could ill afford to have someone that used a common sense approach to out perform them in there own industry. There main contributors would question their need on all transportation industry projects and would give minorities a chance to develop a private incubation firm in the research industry. I believe that they would have been embarrassed to let me as a minority individual become one of the first successful firms in this revolutionary industry of the Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems Program. Therefore, the preponderance of evidence weighs more toward the act of discrimination and not the failure or success of the idea itself.

Since the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on 6/23/99, that state entities are immune from suit in patent litigation, we have only one alternative. I believe that we were discriminated against and kept from applying for federal research funding through Texas Transportation Institute and the Mobility 2000 organization. TTI is a federally funded institution and subject to federal and state laws. I was not informed by TTI’s staff that they knew of a Federal Highway Administration member and was mislead by Dr. Messer. He stated that he did not know of any organizations that were members of FHWA.

Summation of factual occurrences

TTI organization was involved in the formation of IVHS with Mobility 2000.
TTI had knowledge of the novel Reaction Time of the Driver, (RTOD) or (API) controls method from our organization, Complex Inc.
The University of Michigan is the origin of Mobility 2000.
Ph. D Paul Fancher of UMTRI, Ph. D Paul Zador of UMTRI, Ph. D Donald Woods of TTI, Ph. D Carroll J. Messer of TTI, Mr. G. Sadler Bridges of TTI, Ph. D Bill Harris of TTI were all in the same network of engineers that worked at TTI in 1985. This engineering network had performed studies in relevant areas of research in this field.
Ph. D Messer, of Division IV in 1990, was scheduled to work on the weigh-in motion (WIM) system for International Roads Dynamic (IRD), commercial vehicle geometries and control algorithms. TTI also had prior knowledge of the tape detection system use in the Insurance Institute study performed at UMTRI in June, 1990.
TTI and staff knew that the RTOD algorithm was under patent protection for a new use and was used by AASHTO.
The President of AASHTO, James Pitz, and then Director of Michigan Transportation Department was a strong advocate for the formation of IVHS while working in conjunction with Mobility 2000.
TTI and staff were ambiguous about their affiliation with FHWA members. Ph. D Woods, Ph. D McDaniels and Ph. D Messer mislead me at both meetings in 1990 and 1991, by sending me in the wrong direction. They had me meet with an independent consultant in Atlanta, Georgia. Archie Burnham, the former vice chairman of the Manual of Traffic Control Committee. (MUTCD)
The on board system concept was first mentioned to me in Ph. D Messer’s January 17, 1990 letter was put up against the RTOD or API in the same research study. FHWA93-039

The appropriations committee met on March 20, 28, through April of 1990 to recommend approval of the reaction time of the driver method. The appropriations committee met and allocated funds for the algorithm study of the ATWS in the physical year 1991, ending September 30th. This report # is (HR.5229)-CIS,516, and congress is 101 Dennis Judycki and Ph. D Messer were involved in the Mobility 2000 program, Operation Test group. The Mobility 2000 group interfaced into the IVHS America program. They were in attendance at the March 19 to 21, 1990 workshop.
By the IVHS America program incorporating all the members of the Mobility 2000 group into its organization, I believe that they were one in the same program with just a name change.
In the consent settlement with the black farmers, Case#, 97-178, and the government dismantled the USDA’s civil rights office during the Reagan, Bush administration.
All events happened in the identical time frame, at the identical location and with TTI network of professors. All events have an origin at Texas Transportation Institute from December 1989 until July 1990.
How could I have known that IVHS was being formed in my correspondence data, if I was not present during this formation period? All written correspondence that I possess was written before the formation of IVHS in July, 1990.

Facts support that TTI had started work on the first prototype of the system in August 5, 1990, only six months after my attempt to partner with TTI and the FHWA. This prototype was constructed under the Urban Highway Operations and Implementation Program, Evaluations of Truck Sensors for Monitoring Truck Speeds.(1232-21,23&28) The location of this model is at I-610 and US 59 Highway in Houston Texas. Located in the overview and summary of the program guide, (1232-32F-page 3), the program was made with some “flexibility to change directions and priorities as the results of either changing needs or as the result of the research findings.” Ph. D Messer was already partnered up with FHWA because this study started in September 1989 and went through August 1994. I was talking to a FHWA representative all the time because Ph. D Messer was on the advisory and steering committee in this program as the leader of division IV at TTI. This also explains the public/private partnership between International Roads Dynamic Inc., Texas Transportation Institute, and the Federal Highway Administration. Question: If IRD was a private corporation in conjunction with these public entities, why was Complex Inc. excluded and idea seized? Remember that the program had the flexibility to change directions and priorities as the results of changing needs or as the result of the research findings. Question: How can the FHWA state that the investigation of this discrimination complaint is complete, when the facts clearly show the deception, discrimination and seizure of one of our patented prototype methodologies, in the Urban Highway Operations and Implementation Program, by a FHWA representative, Ph. D Carroll J. Messer of TTI?

1. Dr. Messer has had the Advance Warning at the End of Green Signal system (AWEGS) researched that is an altered replica system of US Patent 4,908,616, Adjustment Phase Interval, (API). He has taken credit as the original author. These systems are located in Brenham US 290 FM 577& Waco TX. State Highway 6 @ FM 185. Dr. Messer’s superiors, Dr. Herbert H Richardson and staff at III and Texas A&M University System, have refused to have the patent method evaluated by outside experts as called for in their Ethics in Research administrative procedures.

2. The September 6. 1999 correspondence and e-mail trail, Mr. Don Bugh, now Executive Associate Agency Director of TTI, acting for Dr. Herbert H Richardson, wrote the denial letter. In this document, he stated that TTI had not talked with Mr. Dennis Judycki of the FHWA and their is no evidence of TTI being involved with the Truck Warning system and method. Mr. Don Bugh also stated in the e-mail that TTI had a minor rote on the forming of IVHS. These are all ambiguous statements. Dr. Messer and TTI could not afford to let our firm in the Mobility 2000 Workshop, re (IVHS), because our firm would have the exclusive rights to research and build all forms of these systems with our patented method.

3. When I researched the Strategic Plan of IVHS in the United States for the key player’s roles;

• Dr. Herbert Richardson, Chancellor of Texas A&M in 1991 was on the Board of Directors.

• Mr. Dennis Judycki of the Federal Highway Administration, Associate Administrator for Safety and Systems Applications was on the Coordinating Council.

• Dr. William J Harris, Associate Director of TTI, and Mr. (3. Sadler Bridges, Associate Agency Director of TTI ware also on the Coordinating Council and over committees.

• Mr. Bridges was over the Institutional Issues Committee and Dr. Harris was over the Informational Clearinghouse and Editorial Review Committee.

The FHWA procured the Automatic Truck Rollover Warning System and Method from the Urban Highway Operations and Implementation Program 11232 -21. 28. 32F) at Texas A&M University System. Research and development was started on August 5, 1990 - 1994 at Texas A&M University System, Texas Transportation Institute. This Is how TTI kept our firm from researching and developing US Patent 4,908,616, issued on March 13, 1990.

• The driver warning system was put in the middle term CVO in a ten year time frame for development from 1992-1996. The two year time limit to expand the claims of the patent expired and this made the patent unenforceable. The proof of this action is located on pages l24, l26 and 159 of the Strategic Plan at IVHS in the United States study. Located on pages 292 - 295 are the names of the participants.

• TTI was awarded the contract to adapt their Advance Law Enforcement Response Technology (ALERT) software to the commercial vehicle problem domain. - We expect to build on their success with
Real time equipment and the driver interface for our rollover warning system.” Contract No. BE-A CO5-960R22464. (Ref. Truck Rollover Cost Benefit Study by Mr. Scott Stevens, Center for Transportation Analysis)

• All of these individuals were Dr. Messer’s superiors.

Executive Summary 0913012004

In a technical study performed by Arthur T. Bergan of University Saskatchewan, Department of Civil Engineering, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N5A9, for International Roads Dynamic (IRD), it stated that the rollover system was based ramp geometry the same method that is used in US Patent 4,908,616. The US DOT, FHWA procured this system and ordered it tested on the east coast surrounding the beltway in Washington DC. Dennis Judycki and Ph. D Messer were in the Mobility 2000 workshop, in the operational test group designed to bring new products that had an immediate impact to the market in March 19 to 21, 1990. Dennis Judycki went before the Appropriations Committee March 20, - 28th, to procure this system from the Urban Highway Operations and Implementation Program where Ph. D Messer was in the advisory and steering capacity in the first prototype being made in August 5, 1990, at I-610 & US 59 in Houston Texas. This would give the TTI, TxDOT and IRD a disclaimer from being associated with the confiscated patented method in US Patent 4,908,616. The FHWA and US DOT could operate as a separate entity with no ties to TTI or the seized patented method. (Note: Terry Bergan of International Roads Dynamic Inc., applied for his first US Patent 12 days after his law firm wrote our attorney, Jere Sellers of then Buck, Bohm and Stein PC on October 19, 1994. In this letter the Nixon and Vanderhye attorney, Bryan Davidson stated that the proof of infringement was our responsibility. Amanuel Hill and I, Jonothan P. Walker Sr., fourteen years to gather all pertinent data to unequivocally prove this case. I emailed Mr. Davidson on July 31, 2008 all pertinent facts. Our patent 4,908,616 is referenced as the prior art in ‘086’ and ‘778’. The other patents were developed during R&D for the curve system.) US Patent 6,204,778 – 5,607,086 – 5,477,217 – 5,621,195 (Cover-up; these entities were cooperatives in first original program that developed the first prototype.)

Conclusion

I am now seeking mediation or arbitration proceedings from the Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation. I believe that we have a case of white collar discrimination. Until now it has been hard to prove to the courts that denial and ambiguous statements are considered discrimination. The courts believe that it has to be a smoking gun in order to prove unequivocally that the rules of discrimination apply. The last best evidence that was found on TTI’s database is that smoking gun located in the Urban Highway Operations and Implementation Program. It will take a special legal team that has its focus on the act of discrimination in an invisible state.

The leaders of the most racist groups in America think that they are under an invisible attack from minorities and the government. It’s only logical that the leaders and sympathizers of these groups will not disclose their tactics today except through their actions and ambiguous demeanor. Only a paper trail can expose these actions that question the basic morality of our courts and government. As long as there are people in the power of position to carry out these covert acts, discrimination in one form or another will always exist.

I believe that I have a preponderance of evidence that can bring the Department of Transportation to the conference table. The government has an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) or settlement if it fills that someone has a case against them. I think that this is a good precedence setting case in the future discrimination laws. Question; Can the Government afford the risk of this kind of ruling?

Please contact Jonothan P. Walker Sr., at P.O. Box 411102, Kansas City Missouri 64141. E- Mail at JWalker105@aol.com... (816) 743-0395 Cell 816-682-7814

Answer this Question

RSS this Question

Answers (0)

adjustment phase interval case

Be the first to answer this question.