RARE BREED TRIGGERS’ HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY THEFT
 
RARE BREED TRIGGERS uses federal court to prosecute Inventor leveraging a
patent and funds stolen from the Inventor by RARE BREED TRIGGERS while
seeking to acquire the Inventor’s legitimate patents including a core technology
patent in a continued grand larceny that the Inventor is acting to terminate.
 
Summation,
 
> Inventor invents DEVICE X technology. (1974-75)
 
> Inventor discloses DEVICE X technology to COMPANY A in order to license a
version of DEVICE X technology via LAWYER A. (2013-2014)
 
> COMPANY A secretly steals a version of DEVICE X technology (Rounds’ 223 patent)
via LAWYER B from the Inventor while obtaining a license to legitimately produce
another version of DEVICE X technology (Graves’ 772 patent) from the same  Inventor
via LAWYER A. (2013-2016)
 
> The Inventor had specifically refused to license the same version of DEVICE X
technology (Rounds’ 223 patent) to COMPANY A via LAWYER A that is stolen by
COMPANY A via LAWYER B. (2013-2016)
 
>The stolen DEVICE X technology (Rounds’ 223 patent) is a dependent patent to the
legitimate DEVICE X technology (Graves’ 772 patent) and even if it were not stolen it
cannot be valid without the legitimate DEVICE X technology (Graves’ 772 patent)
intellectual property use authorization.
 
> COMPANY A conspires with COMPANY B to produce / manufacture the stolen
DEVICE X technology (Rounds’ 223 patent). (2015-2016)
 
> COMPANY B further conspires to form COMPANY C covering the tracks of
COMPANY A and COMPANY B’s paid theft of  DEVICE X technology (Rounds’ 223
patent, FRT 15 trigger, and etcetera) via LAWYER C. (2015-2020)
 
> COMPANY C including LAWYER C then markets stolen DEVICE X technology (FRT
15 trigger). (2020)
 
> The Inventor discovers that COMPANY C is marketing stolen DEVICE X technology
(FRT 15 trigger) and demands that company A, B, and C pay him. (2021 & onward)
 
> COMPANY A, B, and C do not pay the Inventor and continue marketing /
leveraging stolen DEVICE X technology (FRT 15 trigger and etcetera). (2021 & onward)
 
> Already lacking funds to maintain his lab after the frauds and thefts of COMPANY A,
COMPANY B, and COMPANY C, and their multiple LAWYERS the Inventor then
licenses an advanced version of DEVICE X technology (Graves’ STAR FIRE technology)
to COMPANY D. (2021 & onward)
 
> The better version of DEVICE X technology (ALAMO 15 trigger) marketed by
COMPANY D is superior to the stolen DEVICE X technology (FRT 15 trigger) marketed
by COMPANY C and immediately cuts into COMPANY C’s stolen DEVICE X technology
(FRT 15 trigger and etcetera) market share. (2021 & onward)
 
> COMPANY B and COMPANY C including LAWYER C then sues COMPANY D, and  
the Inventor via LAWYER D, LAWYER E, and LAWYER F as a continuing action to steal
further versions of the Inventor’s DEVICE X technology, including a core technology
patent and any remaining assets or property the Inventor may have. (2022 & onward)
 
> Company C is RARE BREED TRIGGERS INC.
 
> So, RARE BREED TRIGGERS INC. is part of a larger grand larceny scheme that
involves federal court prosecution of the Inventor using the Inventor’s own stolen
patents and funds against the Inventor in order to acquire the Inventor’s legitimate
patents including a core technology patent, and the court was made aware of this prior
to any writ of execution on said Inventor. The court after having also known or should
have known that core allegations of patent infringement brought as a default
judgement against the Inventor were physically impossible within the scope of routine
analysis has however allowed this to continue for an inordinately long duration, and
all the time without compensation to the falsely accused Inventor that is forced to fight
in federal court as pro se! (2022 & onward)
 
Notes:
 
*DEVICE X technology theft was paid for in part by COMPANY C founder (Michael
Register) with a $2.5M payment to COMPANY A founder (Jeff Cooper Rounds) as
evidenced in EDNY case 23-cv-369, dkt 140, and etcetera.  
 
*DEVICE X technology is the same technology that is known to have generated more
than $40M of initial sales revues.
 
*DEVICE X technology is also the same technology that prevailed against the ATF’s
ruling on machine guns in the NAGR v. GARLAND case.
 
Glossary:
 
DEVICE X technology = POSI TRAC technology or also known as, FLEX
FIRE, FORCED RESET, HARD RESET, SUPER SAFETY, and etcetera.
Inventor = Thomas Allen Graves
Company A = WOLF TACTICAL LLC
COMPANY B = SPIKE’S TACTICAL LLC
COMPANY C = RARE BREED TRIGGERS LLC / SPIDER HOLE LLC, ABC IP LLC,
XYZ LLC, and etcetera.
COMPANY D = BIG DADDY UNLIMITED INC. / WIDE OPEN TRIGGER, POWERED
BY GRAVES (*Thomas Allen Graves does not have, nor has he ever had any control or ownership of this company), and etcetera.
LAWYER A = Timothy D. Bennett
LAWYER B = Glenn D. Bellamy
LAWYER C = Kevin C. Maxwell
LAWYER D = Colin H. Tucker
LAWYER E = Mark R. McLean
LAWYER F = Nicholas J. Foster
 
{All information contained herein is also part of court records, depositions, and declarations of participants, and /or victims.}