IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[pic]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No.
EIB + PSL ,Petitioner
v.
PR
MLGS, etc
IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )
LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )
JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )
WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )
LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )
LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)
T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Notice of Motion and
MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, ) Motion for Leave to
CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) Proceed In Forma Pauperis
CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY )
LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and )
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )
ZAFMAN LLP II
PATENT POOLS
NDA’S
ALL LAW FIRMS
DONALD KANE
JEFFREY FRIEDSTEIN
SHELDON FRIEDSTEIN
GOLDMAN SACHS
STEVEN C. KRANE
FLORIDA BAR
MATTHEW TRIGGS
ERIC MONTEL TURNER
THOMAS J. CAHILL
)
)
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )
P. STEPHEN LAMONT )
AND AS PRO-SE REPRESENTATIVES ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND INVENTORS OF:
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
ETC…
ELLEN DEGENERES
ALANIS MORRISETTE
ALPINE/CROSSBOW VENTURES
INVESTECH HOLDINGS/H. WAYNE HUIZENGA JR.
ETC.
)
Petitioners. )
The object of the patent law is to secure inventors what they have actually invented or discovered, and it ought not to be defeated by a too strict and technical adherence to the letter of the statute or by the application of artificial rules of interpretation.
|Mr. Justice Brown |
|Topliff v. Topliff |
|United States Supreme Court |
|145 U.S. 156, 171 (1892) |
COME NOW the Petitioners, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN (“BERNSTEIN”) and P. STEPHEN LAMONT (“LAMONT”), ETC. to request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis and in support state as follows:
1. That Petitioners are possessing of minimal resources for such proceedings according to Exhibit A.
2. Explain why company and EIB are financially unable to mount defense.
a. Money was stolen
b. Involuntary BK defense
c. IV v. PR defense
d. IV v Bars
e. IV v POOLS
f. IV v NDA’s
g. Number of defendants and infringers
h. Investors afraid to invest, not sure what they own now
i. Cost to mount defense must be encumbered by legal system that caused mess
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis together with such other and further relief as tThis Court deems just and equitable.
This __ day of October 2004
Attorney for Petitioner
Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se
10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801
Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437
Tel.: (561) 364-4240
By:
Eliot I. Bernstein
By: _______________________
Eliot I. Bernstein – President, Founder & Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Four Ward Street
Brewster, N.Y. 10509
Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By:
P. Stephen Lamont
By: _____________________
P. Stephen Lamont – CEO Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
Affidavit of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this __ day of October 2004, to Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe & Goldstein LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Ryjo Inc., Ryan Huisman, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Foley & Lardner LLP, Gerald R. Lewin, Erika Lewin, Goldstein Lewin & Co., Brian G. Utley, Raymond T. Hersch, Michael A Reale, F. Ross Miller, Tiedemann Prolow LLC, Carl Tiedemann, Bruce Prolow, Craig Smith, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Honorable Jorge Labarga, and Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP.
Eliot I. Bernstein
CERTIFICATE OF AFFIRMATION
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Eliot I. Bernstein, who was duly sworn and says, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”
Eliot I. Bernstein
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared P. Stephen Lamont, who was duly sworn and says, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”
P. Stephen Lamont
Notary Public
EXHIBIT “A”
[INSERT INCOME, EXPENSE, NET WORTH FORMS]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )
LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )
JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )
WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )
LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )
LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)
T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Notice of Motion and
MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, ) Motion for Leave to
CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) File a Petition for an
CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY ) Extraordinary Writ
LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and )
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )
ZAFMAN LLP II )
)
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )
P. STEPHEN LAMONT ) )
Petitioners. )
COME NOW the Petitioners, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN (“BERNSTEIN”) and P. STEPHEN LAMONT (“LAMONT”), to request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to file a petition for an Extraordinary Writ and in support state as follows.
“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”
Justice Thomas Clark
Mapp v. Ohio
That Petitioners show that the writ is in the aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction as due process of law has been denied Petitioners at various times and in various forums as described herein.
That Petitioners show that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers as from the very inception of the inventions of Petitioners (“Technology”) (PATENT LIST) and others, powerful forces (@4K LAWYERS FROM MAJOR LAW FIRMS HAVE ADVERSE INTEREST; 3@ PATENT POOL MEMBERS; 500 NDA VIOLATORS AND ON A GLOBAL BASIS, have assembled against Petitioners using unlawful means, AS FULLY DEFINED IN EXHIBIT B (FEDERAL COMPLAINT TEMPLATE) AND ALL EVIDENCES CONTAINED THEREIN to circumvent theUSE THE Technology WITHOUT PAYING ROYALTIES DUE including, but not limited to:
POINT TO FEDERAL AND STATE CRIMINAL CODES THAT WERE VIOLATED.
EXPLAIN PATENT SUSPENSIONS CAUSED BY FILING OF FRAUD ON USPTO
a. Knowing and willful missing of the core subject matter of the patent applications of the Technology; and
b. Knowing and willful misstatement of inventors in the patent applications of the Technology; and
c. Knowing and willful wrongful assignments of the patent applications of the Technology by means of a corporation forming “shell game” as to which affiliated companies held assignment to which patent applications; and
d. As part and parcel of the corporate “shell game,” the unauthorized formation of similarly named companies in different States so as to confuse Petitioners as to which similarly named companies held assignment to which Technology; and
e. Knowing and willful duplication of patent applications of the Technology under differing titles amongst the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the European Patent Office (“EPO”), and the Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”); and
f. Knowing and willful filing of patent applications of the Technology to an individual who played no part in the invention stage of the Technology and without assignment to any entity affiliated with Petitioners whereby the USPTO has denied Petitioners’ request for information on these particular patent applications; and
g. Knowing and willful creation of false intellectual property documents by patent counsels, the dockets of which Petitioners have used to secure investment capital; and
h. The misappropriation and conversion of up to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) or more of funds of Petitioners invested in affiliated companies; and
i. Where all of the above have caused the Petitioners to face critical time deadlines for repair of subject matter, repair of inventorship, repair of assignments, resurrection, and in some cases refilling of patent applications of the Technology.
j. WHERE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN LOST ALREADY BY THESE ACTIONS IN FILING FOR GLOBAL PROTECTION AND HAVE CAUSED LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF INVENTORS. DAMAGES FOR GLOBAL LOSS OF PATENT RIGHTS ESTIMATED TO BE 30-40 BILLION IF UNRECOVERABLE BY ACTIONS OF THIS COURT THAT RECAPTURE LOST RIGHTS BOTH IN THE US AND THROUGH TREATISE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
k. THAT DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN DENIED AND CAUSED FURTHER LOSS OF RIGHTS, THAT PATENT OFFICE EXTENSIONS AND CORRECTIONS ARE NECESSARY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE REMAINING RIGHTS ARE FORFEITED. THIS IS WHY SUSPENDED IN US,
l.
That Petitioners state that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court as follows:
a. In Proskauer Rose LLP v. , Inc. et. al., Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001) (“Litigation”) wherein the court denies a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Counter Claim for Damages due to timing issues of any amended answer. Where in fact it appears that Defendants created a suit as a means of harassment and attempts at burying certain companies which may have been set up to misappropriate patents and where for several months the Company was unaware that it was even in litigation and being represented by counsel. Once represented by counsel, company was never given a chance to assert proper defense and when trial came time, judge relieved all corporate counsel for company and would not allow pro-se filing by inventor or shareholders. Default judgement was granted to PR for IV failing to retain counsel. Iviewit had deposed attorney’s and found perjured statements to court versus statements to supreme court bar responses; and
b. In the Litigation, the court’scourts granting motions of counsel of Petitioners to withdraw at the same hearing on the same day and at the same time leaving Petitioners inadequate time to retain new counsel in a complex case, denying due process through denying counsel. Exhibit C – SB Deal was supposed to provide counsel and instead set company up to lose with no counsel; and
c. In the Litigation, that the Judge Labaraga ruled on a motion submitted to have his conduct reviewed and him removed from the case for outrageous conduct. Iviewit had two counsels Selz and SB and both were let go because they stated to court that the other was going to represent company. cCourt’s unilateral denial of a Motion to Set Aside the Amended Order Striking the Defendants Pleadings and Entering a Default Against the Defendants for Failure to Retain Replacement Counsel (“Amended Order”), Reinstate the Pleadings, and Remove Hon. Jorge Labarga From the Proceedings; and
d. The dismissal without investigation, by The Florida Bar, of the Petitioners’ Complaint Against Christopher C. Wheeler The Florida Bar File No. 2003-51,109 (15C) (“Wheeler Complaint”), a member of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), on grounds inapposite to the rules of The Florida Bar; and
e. The Florida Bar issuing statements in favor of Proskauer position when no investigation into the matters had been formally done, inapposite of the rules.
f. In conflict with Supreme Court of Florida and it’s aegis The Florida Bar due to insurance issues whereby a conflict of interest was discovered in the Wheeler complaint by Wheeler’s Proskauer attorney, Matthew Triggs, who violated his public office position as Grievance Committee member, representing Wheeler when he was in a blackout period excluding him from representing anyone without The Florida Bar Board express waiver and approval. Whereby Triggs was also simultaneously in conflict as he represented Wheeler in a Bar complaint and was in a private litigation against similar parties, in similarly related matters. This access to private government files for use in private litigation also represents an abuse of public office.
g. That once notified of the conflict of interest, The Florida Bar attempted to destroy the file records twice and the Supreme Court of Florida interceded on Iviewit’s behalf and stopped the destruction of the very files necessary to review the conflict discovered and acknowledged by The Florida Bar. That the matter is further being reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court in case SC104-1078
h. That further denial of due process has occurred by the Florida Bar in failing to file complaints that were formally filed with their offices, involving the conflicts of interest and those involved.
i. That The Florida Bar has further denied Plaintiff, access to records on its public officials to further define the conflict and has in fact resisted all requests by the Company for information.
j. The deferment, with no investigation, by the First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (New York) of the Petitioners’ Complaint Against Raymond A. Joao Docket 2003.0532 (“Joao Complaint”) formerly of counsel to Meltzer Lippe Goldstein and Schlissel LLP and Complaint Against Kenneth Rubenstein Docket 2003.0531 (“Rubenstein Complaint”) a member of Proskauer, both since ordered to an investigation by New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, after an eighteen (18) month delay that jeopardizes the timely patent prosecution of the Technology; and
k. Conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety in another public officer and Proskauer partner, Steven C. Krane, in the response of Rubenstein.
l. That Steven C. Krane has been reworking his former website advertisement and biography in a further attempt to conceal and deny a verified conflict by Clerk of the Supreme Court Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe and in fact fails to list his current role as a Referee at the First Department. Mr. Krane in responding pro-se in a complaint lodged against him, concealed such Referee role and attempted to deny any conflict with the First Department. Thomas Cahill supported this position and Wolfe uncovered this. Wolfe directed Petitioner to file a Petition with the First Dept and Cahill filed first after it was requested that he be admonished further involvement in the matters due to conflict. That this was completely overlooked by the NY SC in review makes further a case of denial due process or procedure.
m. Conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety in the handling of the Cahill petition after notice of conflict and complaint.
n. Steven C. Krane is embedded so deeply within the ethics and attorney discipline system that a fair and impartial hearing must elevate beyond New York to an unbiased third party oversight. Conflicts with Krane exist in the following forums;
i. ABA
ii. NY Bar
iii. NY SC First Dept
iv. Judith Kaye
o. The dismissal with no investigation, by the Virginia State Bar, of the Petitioners’ Complaint Against William J. Dick VSB Docket #04-052-1366, formerly a special counsel to Foley Lardner LLP, on grounds inapposite to the rules of the Virginia State Bar and based on false and misleading statements by Dick to the VA Bar of the factual outcome of the NY SC First Dept cases, The Florida Bar outcome and the Proskauer v. Iviewit case, in fact claiming that the case and the counter complaint had been tried when it factually was not. Calls and letters to notify the VA Bar of information which was falsified by Dick, including patent portfolio’s with materially false and misleading information regarding patents which have been confirmed false by the USPTO and complete avoidance to have the case elevated to next highest level of review; and
p. The dismissal with no investigation, by the Pennsylvania State Bar, of the Petitioners’ Complaint Against Andrew L. Barroway and Krishna B. Narine, docket numbers never assigned, both formerly investors, general counsel, and patent counsel to Petitioners, on grounds inexplicable to Petitioners and further lack of returned phone calls by the PA Bar in an effort to deny a further elevation of the complaints further supports the appearance of impropriety that may have permeated the PA Bar; and
q. The delay of the USPTO to file charges against attorneys involved in these matters, causing actions to attempt to suspend the patents pending the outcome of investigations by the USPTO Commissioner and Harry I. Moatz of the OED.
r. The delay of the USPTO to send Petitioners files, commonly referred to as “file wrappers” since the first request of on or about February 2004, with subsequent requests still unanswered, causing further delay in assessing damages to shareholders and attempting to secure US & foreign patent rights; and
s. The uncloaking of a conflict of interest and impropriety in the Rubenstein Complaint, the Krane Complaint and the Joao Complaint that moved Appellate Division caused by Steven C. Krane’s responses on behalf of himself and Rubenstein while holding a multiplicity of conflicting roles at the First Department, causing Chief Counsel Thomas Cahill of the NY SC First Department to finallyFirst Department to petition the Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Dept to move the complaints to a new jurisdiction and investigation after an eighteen (18) month delay that jeopardizes and that the Supreme Court of New York has ruled to have the complaints moved due to conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety further hampering the timely patent prosecution of the Technology. Cahill’s failure to acknowledge the conflicts and file Plaintiff’s complaints against Krane and further denial of Krane’s positions with the Department further support the denial of due process. Finally, the NY SC ruling to deny Plaintiff disclosure of necessary information regarding department positions held by Krane and others; and
t. The conflict of interest and impropriety in the Rubenstein Complaint and the Joao Complaint demonstrates to Petitioners that adequate relief, with respect to the complaints, cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court in the State of New York; and
u. The uncloaking of a conflict of interest and impropriety in the Wheeler Complaint that moved the Supreme Court of Florida to stay the destruction of the file to the Wheeler Complaint with other motions pending after an eighteen (18) month delay that jeopardizes the timely patent prosecution of the Technology. The destruction of a file after notification of a confirmed conflict of interest and the denial of filing complaints filed with The Florida Bar further supports the denial of due-process; and
v. The conflict of interest and impropriety in the Wheeler Complaint demonstrates to Petitioners that adequate relief, with respect to the complaint, cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court in the State of Florida, as this conflict now causes insurance issues as stated in the Bylaws of The Florida Bar which covers Grievance Committee members and Plaintiff has asked The Florida Bar to report such catastrophic liability such as the loss of patents rights due to the delays and denial of due process that could have prevented loss had due process been applied free of conflict and the appearance of impropriety now before the Florida Supreme Court; and
w. The steadfast refusal, as of even date herein, of The Florida Bar to docket a complaint by Petitioners against Eric Montel Turner, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel of The Florida Bar, demonstrates to Petitioners that adequate relief, with respect to the complaint, cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court in the State of Florida; and
x. The lack of communication from The Florida Bar concerning the complaints of Petitioners against Matthew H. Triggs, a member of Proskauer, who was in multiple conflicts of interest and abuses of public office in his representation of Wheeler and a second complaint against Christopher C. Wheeler, demonstrates to Petitioners that adequate relief, with respect to the complaints, cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court in the State of Florida; and
y. The conflicted relationship of The Florida Bar president Kelly Overstreet Johnson who is oversighted by James Wheeler at the law firm of Broad & Cassell, and James Wheeler is the brother of Christopher Wheeler, whom the Florida Bar complaint was initially filed against as the main protagonist in the conspiracy to steal Technology of Petitioner. That Kelly Overstreet Johnson received several months of correspondences marked private and confidential regarding Mr. Wheeler’s case and never disclosed her conflict until after the conflict of interest was found in Mr. Wheeler’s complaint with Matthew Triggs and then Plaintiff was called by Anthony Bogg’s stating the Johnson could not participate in the matters.
z. The delay inherent in responding to the written statement of Petitioners to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, West Palm Beach, Fla. after an eighteen (18) month period jeopardizes the timely patent prosecution of the Technology; and
aa. The delay inherent in responding to the written statement of Petitioners to the Boca Raton, Fla. Police Department after an eighteen (18) month period jeopardizes the timely patent prosecution of the Technology; and
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to file a petition for an extraordinary writ together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
This __ day of October 2004
Attorney for Petitioner
Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se
10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801
Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437
Tel.: (561) 364-4240
By:
Eliot I. Bernstein
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Four Ward Street
Brewster, N.Y. 10509
Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By:
P. Stephen Lamont
Affidavit of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this __ day of October 2004, to Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer, Lippe & Goldstein, LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Ryjo, Inc., Ryan Huisman, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Foley & Lardner LLP, Gerald R. Lewin, Erika Lewin, Goldstein Lewin & Co., Brian G. Utley, Raymond T. Hersch, Michael A Reale, F. Ross Miller, Tiedemann Prolow LLC, Carl Tiedemann, Bruce Prolow, Craig Smith, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Honorable Jorge Labarga, and Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP.
Eliot I. Bernstein
II
CERTIFICATE OF AFFIRMATION
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Eliot I. Bernstein, who was duly sworn and says that “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”
Eliot I. Bernstein
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared P. Stephen Lamont, who was duly sworn and says that “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”
P. Stephen Lamont
Notary Public
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )
LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )
JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )
WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )
LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )
LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)
T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Briefs in Support of the
MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, ) Motions for Leave to
CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) Proceed In Forma Pauperis
CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY ) and to File a Petition for an
LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and ) Extraordinary Writ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )
ZAFMAN LLP II )
)
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )
P. STEPHEN LAMONT ) )
Petitioners. )
BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO FILE A PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT
COME NOW the Petitioners, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN (“BERNSTEIN”) and P. STEPHEN LAMONT (“LAMONT”), to brief this Court in motions for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis and to file a petition for an extraordinary writ and in support state as follows:
QUESTION FOR REVIEW
Whether the circumstances surrounding the Petitioners, consisting of the alleged violation of their constitutional rights as inventors and the denial of due process of law when combined with the need for the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and the factual setting that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court, are sufficient in of themselves to request review by this Court so as to minimize the damages Petitioners have incurred and forestall the continued jeopardy of the timely patent prosecution of the Technology.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
The parties to the proceed are:
1. Proskauer Rose LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership and its members, former general and patent counsel to Petitioners; and
2. Meltzer Lippe Goldstein LLP (“MLG”), a New York Limited Liability Partnership and its members, former patent counsel to Petitioners; and
3. Raymond A. Joao, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York and a former of counsel to MLG, one of the former patent counsels for Petitioners; and
4. Ryjo, Inc., upon information and belief, a Florida corporation, and one of the initial potential licensees of the Technology; and
5. Ryan Huisman, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, and a principal of Ryjo, Inc.; and
6. Foley & Lardner LLP, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Partnership and its members, former patent counsel to Petitioners; and
7. William J. Dick, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, formerly a special counsel to Foley Lardner LLP and one of the former patent counsels for Petitioners; and
8. Douglas A. Boehm, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Illinois, formerly a member of Foley Lardner LLP and one of the former patent counsels for Petitioners; and
9. Goldstein Lewin & Co., a Florida corporation, and outside CPA firm for Petitioners; and
10. Gerald R. Lewin, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a former outside CPA for Petitioners; and
11. Erika Lewin, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a former outside CPA for Petitioners; and
12. Brian G. Utley, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Minnesota, a former President and Chief Operating Officer of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
13. Raymond T. Hersch, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a former Chief Financial Officer of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
14. Michael A Reale, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a former Vice President of Operations of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
15. F. Ross Miller, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Georgia, a former Consultant of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
16. Tiedemann Prolow LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and one of the institutional investors of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
17. Carl Tiedemann, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and
18. Bruce Prolow, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and
19. Craig Smith, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and
20. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership, and former investors, patent counsel, and general counsel to affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
21. Honorable Jorge Labarga, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, the presiding judge in the Litigation; and
22. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, and former patent counsel to Petitioners; and
23. Eliot I. Bernstein, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, the principal inventor of the Technology; and
24. P. Stephen Lamont, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, and Chief Executive Officer of affiliated entities related to Petitioners.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has the final word on all Constitutional questions arising in the Federal Courts and all Federal questions arising in the State Courts.
Petitioners rely on Rule 20.1, Procedure for the Granting of an Extraordinary Writ, of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein such rule states: “[T]he petition must show that the writ will be in the aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or any other court.”[1]
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 afforded by the Constitution of the United States that states: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”[2]
Second, Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on V Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation[3].
Third, Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on XIV Amendment, Section 1 to the Constitution of the United States that states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[4].
Fourth, Petitioners request review of the conflicting Supreme Court decisions in New York & Florida and request This Court allow Iviewit to be represented by pro-se counsel until This Court can appoint counsel that is not in conflict with Petitioner and protected from the backlash of the Defendants, including the State Bar Associations of four states.
Fifth, Petitioner states that the time of appeals, all which would inevitably end up at This Court make lower courts futile as patent rights will be lost in the interim on a US and global basis. Time to suspensions is now.
Sixth, that all state court’s end up at the state supreme courts, where conflict already exists with the Supreme Courts, leading to Federal intervention of This Court in negating further conflicts.
Seventh, that the issues of trust in the patent system instituted to protect inventors by the constitution is at stake and that if the denial of patent rights occurs due to the system to protect them, than this jeopardizes the entire notion of free commerce.
Eight, that the issue of trust in the State Bar Associations to adequately administer justice to it’s own members is so in question, that this matter makes the State Bar’s more a defacto attorney protection agency than a system of due process under the law, acting as a shield and accomplice to attorney malfeasances, including aiding in these instances of fraud upon the USPTO by unwillingness of the legal system to prosecute or investigate consumer complaints against attorneys.
Ninth, being that Plaintiff is now in direct conflict with two State Supreme Courts through the Supreme Court of Florida – The Florida Bar in a case regarding the same nexus of events, Bersntein, et. al. v. The Florida Bar, whereby The Florida Bar and thus the Supreme Court is conflicted entirely and should be precluded from reviewing a matter in which conflict exists. Conflict further exists since the insurance policy covering Grievance Committee Members, which on information and belief, The Florida Bar may have vested interest inapposite of the Petitioner including interests adverse to a liability claim that could effect the Supreme Court of Florida. That because of conflict, it appears that Florida Supreme Court cannot investigate and rule on matters whereby it is conflicted.
Tenth, that in regard to the petition from Thomas Cahill, an officer of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and the further involvement of Steven C. Krane whom has a broad array of roles in the rule creation and enforcement at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and other positions including past President of the New York Bar Association, yes, that very same Steven C. Krane whom teaches ethics stands accussed of conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety, that involve covering up Bar complaints for his partners at Proskauer Rose LLP at the First Department with undisclosed conflicts and then later concealed conflicts whereby with malice he hid positions that have now caused conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety to be cited by Chief Counsel Cahill and ruled on by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department causing a transfer of the cases to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: Second Department for investigation. Petitioner states that this is a lateral move by the First Department and further stymies swift and immediate justice. The NYSC also ruled that the remainder of the Petitioner’s petition submitted was denied, and whereby relief would have forced disclosure of information necessary for the speedy investigation of the conflict of Krane. Further, prior to petitioning the court to move the complaints, Cahill vehemently resisted filing complaints against Krane, promulgating false and misleading information to Petitioner and after receiving a copy of a formal complaint against himself, asking for his removal from the matter due to his conflict, the complaint sent in proper procedure to the Chair of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Paul J. Curran, Esq. Moreover, although the complaints of Rubenstein, Krane and Joao have all been moved to the Second Dept, Cahill has not been. Here we find the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Deptarment attempting to investigate a matter whereby conflict is inherent.
Question: If state supreme court’s are conflicted with Petitioner, is there any other court than US SC that can. For example, say the SC were involved and played a part through the state bar association to cover up, who would investigate them? What if NY wants to assert that Florida Bar is guilty of aiding and abetting because payola and Florida Supreme Court in conflict with Petitioner does not want to press charges on itself because of laibility? Can any other court other than USSC investigate and if so found, charge the SC with crimes or charge those involved? Here we have two Supreme Courts in total conflict with Petitioner, perhaps with extraordinary liability (perhaps conflicts run as deep as Hon. Judith Kaye in NY and to Pres of Bar in Florida Johnson where the appearance of impropriety is known to exist with both with key alleged conspirators Krane and Wheeler)
So deep are these issues and the mere fact that This Court is the only court in the land capable of disciplining the legal system and the internal affairs of the State Bars and perhaps the patent system whereby this punishment so severe so as this series of events never be replicated. Swift justice afforded due process under the wing of This Court, and the prompt and immediate return to the rightful inventors their inventions from for lack of better description criminal attorneys. That these attorney criminals and their accomplices have so jeopardized the legal system through systematic abuse of the legal system to attempt a crime as heinous as this attempt to deprive inventors their constitutional rights to their inventions, that This Court being the highest and most revered court in the land, must administer such punishment for the highest crimes committed against the United States as to parallel high crimes against the United States of fraud and theft, and in fact, since the Federal Small Business Administration is the single largest investor in the petitioners companies, in fact they have attempted to abscond with the patents owned by the United States Government, whereby royalties owed to the government via it’s investment have been stolen, along with the patents invested in.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Contained in this Petition, and as summarized by the following graph, Petitioners depict a conspiratorial pattern of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so wide and so deep, that it tears at the very fabric of free commerce, and in that the circumstances involve inventors’ rights, the pattern tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States.
[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
FLOW CHART OF CRIMES
US & FOREIGN PATENT THEFT
COPYRIGHT THEFT
TRADEMARKS THEFT
ABUSE OF SC BAR AGENCIES
STOLEN SBA MONIES
FRAUD ON IVIEWIT
ETC.
ETC.
That Wheeler, was a partner of Proskauer Rose, LLP (“Proskauer”) and who provided legal services to Petitioner.
That Rubenstein who at various times relevant hereto was initially misrepresented by Wheeler as a partner of Proskauer and later became a partner of Proskauer, and who provided legal services to the Petitioners both while at MLGS and Proskauer.
That Joao who initially was represented to be Rubenstein's associate at Proskauer, when in fact Joao has never been an employee of Proskauer but in fact was an employee of MLGS.
That beginning in 1998, Petitioners held DISCLOSURE discussions with Wheeler and Rubenstein with regard to Proskauer providing legal services to Petitioners involving specific technologies developed by Eliot I. Bernstein (one of the Petitioners in this matter) and two SEVERAL others, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO; Zakirul Shirajee, JEFFREY FRIEDSTEIN, JAMES F. ARMSTRONG, MATTHEW MINK, PATRICIA DANIELS, and Jude Rosario, Anthony Frenden, collectively termed hereinafter (“Inventors”), which technologies allowed forinvented, including but not limited to, the following inventions (“Technology”):
Mathematical Scaling Formula For Encoding & Playback of Video
I-View-It's revolutionary process for video compresses video at an incredible 75% less data than previous technologies by utilizing a scaled encode for large screen playback.
This process yields:
o File size for full screen representation reduced by 75% making high impact full screen video available for download at any bandwidth
o Less processing power required for full screen data by 75%
o Full-screen, full-frame rate video (including high quality stereo) at previously before unthinkable levels 150-300 Kbps
o At lesser 28-56Kbps bandwidths this process provides a markedly improved video quality over prior Internet industry standards
o The process has applications on the higher ends of the encoding and bandwidth spectrums such as HDDVD and beyond
o As a result of the efficiencies created by the I-View-It scaled video processes on the encoding and decoding systems, these applications may yield efficiencies in High Definition markets.
Applications include; creates low bandwidth video communication market such as video cell phones (previously impossible
Mathematical Scaling Formula For Encoding & Viewing Images with Enhanced Zoom & Pan Capabilities
The I-View-It proprietary imaging system is designed to provide clear, sharp images, which can be zoomed into at great depth, and panned around at the discretion of the viewer, or under program control. The resulting experience is one of full immersion into the image and an ability to view detail at a level previously thought impossible at low resolution, making it ideal in any viewing medium and applicable to all hardware and software.
This process yields:
o User controlled zoom & pan for screen applications
o Resilient to pixel distortion when magnified over 200x, solving the age old problem of pixelation upon zoom on standard low resolution image file formats
o The image scaling process is applicable to every known screen for imaging
o Allows new user controlled zoom & pan for imaging and video appliances
o Applications include; digital cameras, televisions, video cameras, DVD players, scanners, printers & copiers
o Easily integrates into Hardware and Software Applications
Combined I-View-It video and imaging processes to create a user interface allowing camera control and zoomable video streams.
o Allows user to take video feeds and pan & zoom on individual frames or streams.
o Ideal for the security market and sports events
o May apply to all video playback devices
i. Zooming of digital images and video without degradation to the quality of the digital image due to what is commonly refereed to as "pixelation"; and,
ii. The delivery of digital video using proprietary scaling techniques whereby a seventy-five percent (75%) bandwidth savings was discovered and a corresponding seventy-five percent (75%) processing power decrease and storage efficiency were realized; and,
iii. A combination of the image zoom techniques and video scaling techniques described above; and,
iv. The remote control of video cameras through communications networks.
That Inventors and later Petitioners, initially engaged the services of Proskauer to provide legal services to a company to be formed, including corporate formation and governance for a single entity and to obtain multiple patents and overseefile US and foreign filings for such technologies including the provisional filings for the technologies as described above, ("Technology"), and such other activities as were necessary to protect the intellectual property represented by the Technology.
That the Technology, when bundled with third-party technologies, provides for VHS quality video at transmission speeds of 56Kbps (“modem dial-up connection”), previously thought to be impossible, to improved DVD quality at up to 6MB per second at 75% lower bandwidth than previously obtainable (traditional terrestrial or broadcast station to home antennae), and has an incredible seventy five percent (75%) savings in throughput (“bandwidth”) on any digital delivery system such as cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery system, or the Internet, and a similar seventy five percent (75%) savings in storage and processing on mediums such as digital video discs (“DVD’s”), opening the door for low bandwidth video cell phones and other revolutionary video markets.
LIST OF PATENTS
That at the time of the engagement of Proskauer and thereafter, Petitioners’ companies and inventors, and shareholders at such time, were advised and otherwise led to believe thatby Rubenstein and Wheeler that Rubenstein was the Proskauer partner in charge of the account for patents and Wheeler for corporate matters, further this information was used to raise all of the capital and included in a Wachovia Securities Private Placement Memorandum (“PPM”), pursuant to Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, that Proskauer co-authored, billed for and disseminated, whereby Wheeler and Rubenstein also served as active members of an Advisory Board for Petitioners’ companies in which Wheeler and Rubenstein were essential to raising capital and directing the patent applications, copyrights and corporate matters. Of interest in this case, and recently uncovered, is that upon learning of the fraud’s alleged that Crossbow Ventures acknowledged and informed the Petitioner Companies that 2/3rd of the investment capital of $4lamont, was money invested by the Federal Small Business Administration making the SBA the largest investor in the Technology. In filing compliance papers for securing such funds with the SBA, a copy of the PPM management section lists Kenneth Rubenstein as “Iviewit patent counsel” and Proskauer Rose, LLP is named as “retained” patent counsel. Both Kenneth Rubenstein and Christopher Wheeler are listed as Advisory Board members responsible for the intellectual properties and management of the Company. This is quite inapposite of the current statements made by Proskauer partner’s Rubenstein and the law firm of Proskauer Rose, LLP to the NY and FL Bars, The Florida Civil Circuit Court and under deposition and inapposite of direct evidence given to such agencies investigating the matters. The matter is currently being submitted after recent conversations with the Chief Inspector whom requested all information and accounting. Where Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose LLP now try to claim virtually no knowledge of the Technology and at the same time have suddenly come into possession and control of the patent pools, all which have proliferated Petitioners technology globally and generated profit for Proskauer Rose LLP and not Petitioners or Inventors.
That upon information and belief, Proskauer, MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein, and Joao upon viewing the Technology developed by Inventors, realized the significance of the Technology, its various applications to communication networks for distributing video and images and for existing digital processes, including but not limited to, all forms of video delivery, digital cameras, digital imaging technologies for medical purposes and digital video, and that Proskauer, MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao then conspired to undertake and in fact undertook a deliberate course of conduct to deprive Inventors and Petitioners of the beneficial use of such Technology for their own and others gains, all to the detriment of Petitioner. Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Wheeler and Joao, further allowed the unauthorized use of the Technology by third-parties, such as Rubenstein’s patent pools and, pursuant to Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDA’s”) secured by Proskauer on multitudes of their client introductions, for multitudes of their clients that are now not enforced, whereby Proskauer is fully cognizant of their client’s uses of Petitioners’ Technology under such NDA’s. Additionally, it is factually alleged that members of Proskauer, members of MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao all have had personal financial gains through the misappropriation of Petitioners’ Technology and Proskauer has earned profit and other gains to its entire partnership and all members, through the acquisition and formation of multiple the patent pools all benefiting from Petitioner Technology as a client (after learning of Petitioners’ Technology), and the further exclusion of Petitioners from such patent pools which generate enormous fees to Proskauer and perhaps other untold revenues, all to the detriment and damage of the Petitioners. This behavior may very well represent antitrust claims against Proskauer, Rubenstein and the patent pools they oversight and whereby Rubenstein directly solely and in this case soullessly chooses patents for inclusion or exclusion therein into the global video standard. Patent pools have had a historical anti-trust problem for these very reasons.
That Wheeler, who was a close friend of Utley, recommended to Petitioners that Petitioners engage the services of Utley to act as President of Petitioners’ companies based on his knowledge and ability as to technology issues.
That at the time that Wheeler made the recommendation of Utley to the Board of Directors, Wheeler knew that Utley had been engaged in a dispute with his former employer, Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. (“DTE”) and the fact that Utley had misappropriated certain patents on hydro-mechanical systems to the detriment of DTE, as Utley was terminated for cause according to Monte Friedkin (“Friedkin”), owner of DTE and that DTE was closed due to Utley, forcing the owner to take a several million dollar loss.
That on information and belief, Proskauer and Wheeler may have had a part in the misappropriation of the patents from DTE with Utley, in that Wheeler had formed a company for Utley where the misappropriated patents are believed to have been transferred. Despite Wheeler’s involvement, Wheeler was fully cognizant of this patent dispute with Utley and DTE, as confirmed by the former owner of DTE, Friedkin, and further confirmed in depositions with Utley and Wheeler. That Proskauer and Wheeler’s recommendation of Utley to the Board of Directors knowingly failed to disclose these past patent problems to Petitioners and in fact Proskauer and Wheeler circulated a resume on behalf of Utley claiming that as a result of Utley’s inventions that DTE went on to become a leader in the industry, when Proskauer and Wheeler knew that the company had been closed by the patent problems of Utley and perhaps actions of Proskauer and Wheeler. That Proskauer and Wheeler further conspired with Utley to circulate a knowingly false and misleading resume to Petitioners’ shareholders, including the SBA for compliance purposes in loans generated and induced investment without ever disclosing this information.
That despite such knowledge, Proskauer and Wheeler never mentioned such facts concerning Utley to any representative of Petitioners and in fact undertook to "sell" Utley as a highly qualified candidate who would be the ideal person to undertake day to day operations of Petitioners acting as a qualified engineer which he was not.
That additionally, Proskauer and Wheeler continued to assist Utley in perpetrating such fraud on both the Board of Directors of Petitioners and to third parties, including for the Wachovia Securities PPM, by approving a false resume for Utley which was included in the raising funds, pursuant to and in violation of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 and was used for compliance purposes for loans generated by the SBA.
That based on the recommendations of Proskauer and Wheeler, and Wheeler relationship as a ten year friend of Utley, the Board of Directors agreed to engage the services of Utley as President and Chief Operating Officer based on false and misleading information knowingly proffered by Proskauer and Wheeler.
That almost immediately after Utley's employment, Proskauer and Wheeler provided a purported retainer agreement (“Retainer”) for the providing of services by Proskauer to Petitioners, addressed to Utley. That the Retainer agreement comes after one year of Proskauer providing services whereby patent disclosures were given directly from Inventors to Proskauer partners in that time, including but not limited to, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao. Finally, on information and belief, Petitioners states that Proskauer through Wheeler and Utley conspired to replace the original retainer agreement with the Petitioners companies, with the Retainer void of patent services that were originally agreed upon and performed on. That the services provided were in fact to be partially paid out of the royalties recovered from the use of the Technology, which was to be included in patent pools overseen by Proskauer and Rubenstein and later acquired by Proskauer as clients, Rubenstein and Proskauer who had already deemed them “novel” and “essential” to the patent pools.
That the Retainer by its terms contemplated the providing of corporate and general legal services to Petitioners by Proskauer and was endorsed by Utley on behalf of Petitioners, the Board of Directors of Petitioners would not have Utley authorized to endorse same as it did not include the intellectual property work which Proskauer and Rubenstein had already undertaken.
That prior to the Retainer, Proskauer, Rubenstein, and Wheeler had provided legal services to Petitioners, including services regarding patents, copyrights, trade-secrets, Trademarks with Rubenstein being given full disclosure of the patent processes through each of these departments he controlled when Proskauer Rose LLP hired Rubenstein after learning of the importance of the Technology and as the key to heisting the Technology.
That Proskauer billed Petitioners for legal services related to corporate, patent, trademark, copyright and other work in a sum of approximately Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) and now claims to have not done patent work, a materially false statement with insurmountable evidence to the contrary, as evidenced by the management section, including Advisory Board, for the Wachovia Securities PPM used to induce investment and loans including from the Small Business Administration, a federal agency, and whereby it states that Proskauer was “retained patent counsel” for Petitioners companies and contrary to the current claims by Proskauer and Rubenstein that they preformed no patent work told to state and federal investigatory bodies.
That Proskauer billed Petitioners for copyright, trade-secret, patent services including legal services never performed causing loss of intellectual property rights, double-billed by the use of multiple counsel on the same issue, and when caught began to falsifiedy and altered billing information and other documentation in an attempt to hide the patent work and distance themselves from the Technology so as to cover up and systematically overcharged for services provided.for the crimes committed.
That based on the over-billing by Proskauer, Petitioners paid a sum in of approximately Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) together with a two and one-half percent (2.5%) equity interest in Petitioners’ companies, which sums and interest in Petitioners’ companies was received and accepted by Proskauer.
That Wheeler, Utley, Rubenstein, Joao, Proskauer, and MLGS conspired to deprive Petitioners of its rights to the Technology developed by Inventors by:
First Count: VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS 124
TITLE 18 PART I CH 13 Sec 241 Conspiracy against rights 124
TITLE 18 PART I CH 13 Sec 245 Federally protected activities 127
Second Count: ANTITRUST CIVIL PROCESS 128
TITLE 15 CH 34 Sec 1312 Civil investigative demands 136
TITLE 15 CH 34 Sec 1313 CUSTODIAN of documents, answers and transcripts 143
product violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2; RECORDS AND REPORTS 146
Third Count: VIOLATIONS OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO) 148
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1965 RICO VENUE AND PROCESS 149
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1961 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONs (“RICO”) 150
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1962 (a) – RICO Prohibited activities 151
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 sEC 1962 (a) RICO 152
title 18 part i ch 19 sec 1962 (d) RICO 154
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1964 RICO Civil remedies 169
TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1968 RICO CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND 170
Fourth Count: CONSPIRACY 172
TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 CONSPIRACY Sec 371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENSE OR TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES 172
Fifth Count: supreme court agency public office abuse, supreme court of new york, appellate division: First dept and the supreme court of florida 173
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 21 Sec 401 - Power of court 173
Sixth Count: VIOLATIONS OF RACKETEERING 174
TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING Sec 1951 - INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE 174
TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1952 Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises 174
TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1956 Laundering of monetary instruments 175
TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity 184
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 103 SEC. 2112 - Personal property of United States 185
Seventh Count: VIOLATIONS OF COMMERCE AND TRADE 187
TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 RELATING TO MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE Sec. 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty 187
TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty 188
TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 6 - Forfeiture of property in transit 188
TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec 6a - Conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations 188
TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 14 - Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor 189
TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 18 - Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another 191
TITLE 15 CH 1 Sec 19 Interlocking directorates and officers 193
TITLE 15 CH 1 Sec 26 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR PRIVATE PARTIES; EXCEPTION; COSTS 195
TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH I Sec 45 Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission 196
TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH I Sec 57b Civil actions for violations of rules and cease and desist orders respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices 206
TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH II SEC 62 - Export trade and antitrust legislation 209
TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH II Sec 64 - Unfair methods of competition in export trade 209
Eighth Count: VIOLATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 211
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 501 Infringement of copyright 211
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 502 Remedies for infringement: Injunctions 212
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 503 Remedies for infringement: Impounding and disposition of infringing articles 213
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 504 Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits 214
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 505 Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees 216
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 506 Criminal offenses 216
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 507 Limitations on actions 217
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 508 Notification of filing and determination of actions 217
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 509 Seizure and forfeiture 218
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 510 REMEDIES FOR ALTERATION OF PROGRAMMING BY CABLE SYSTEMS 219
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 511 Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of copyright 220
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 512 Limitations on liability relating to material online 220
TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 513 Determination of reasonable license fees for individual proprietors 234
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 13 Sec 1312 - Oaths and acknowledgments 236
TITLE 17 CH 13 Sec 1326 Penalty for false marking 237
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 13 Sec 1327 - Penalty for false Representation 237
TITLE 17 cH 13 Sec 1329 Relation to design patent law 237
TITLE 17 CH 13 Sec 1330 Common law and other rights unaffected 238
Ninth Count: FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 239
TITLE 35 PART I CH 2 Sec 25 Declaration in lieu of oath 240
TITLE 35 PART II CH 11 Sec 115 Oath of applicant 241
TITLE 35 PART II CH 11 Sec 116 Inventors 241
TITLE 35 PART III CH 261 Ownership; assignment 242
TITLE 35 PART IV PATENT COOPERATION TREATY CH 35 Sec 351 242
TITLE 35 PART IV CH 37 Sec 373 Improper applicant 243
§ 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability 244
§ 1.63 regarding Oaths and declarations 245
CONSOLIDATED PATENT RULES § 1.63 245
§ 1.64 regarding person making false oaths and Declarations 248
§ 1.71 regarding detailed description and specification of the invention 248
§ 1.137 for Revival of abandoned application, terminated reexamination proceeding, or lapsed patent 249
LAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 2071: 250
Title 37 - Code of Federal Regulations Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights - MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE 251
PATENT RULES Part 10 - PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PART 10 - REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK 251
§10.18 Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Patent and Trademark Office 251
§ 10.20 Canons and Disciplinary Rules 253
§ 10.21 Canon 1 254
§ 10.23 Misconduct 254
§ 10.25 - 10.29 [Reserved] § 10.30 Canon 2 258
§ 10.31 Communications concerning a practitioner’s services 258
§ 10.33 Direct contact with prospective clients 258
§ 10.40 Withdrawal from employment 258
§ 10.50 - 10.55 [Reserved] § 10.56 Canon 4 259
§ 10.57 Preservation of confidences and secrets of a client 259
§ 10.58 - 10.60 [Reserved] § 10.61 Canon 5 260
§ 10.64 Avoiding acquisition of interest in litigation or proceeding before the Office 260
§ 10.65 Limiting business relations with a client 262
§10.66 Refusing to accept or continue employment if the interests of another client may impair the independent professional judgment of the practitioner 263
§ 10.68 Avoiding influence by others than the client 264
§ 10.69 - 10.75 [Reserved] § 10.76 Canon 6 264
§ 10.77 Failing to act competently 264
§ 10.78 Limiting liability to client 265
§ 10.79 - 10.82 [Reserved] § 10.83 Canon 7 265
§ 10.84 Representing a client zealously 265
§ 10.85 Representing a client within the bounds of the law 265
§ 10.94 - 10.99 [Reserved] § 10.100 Canon 8 267
§ 10.104 - 10.109 [Reserved] § 10.110 Canon 9 267
§ 10.112 Preserving identity of funds and property of client 267
§ 10.131 Investigations 268
§ 10.132 Initiating a disciplinary proceeding; reference to an administrative law judge 269
PATENT RULES PART 10 INDEX - PART 15 269
Tenth Count: False claims 270
TITLE 31 SUBTITLE III CHAPTER 37 SUBCHAPTER III Sec 3729 - False claims 270
Eleventh Count: VIOLATIONS OF PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS 273
TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1831 Economic espionage 273
TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1832 Theft of trade secrets 274
TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1834 Criminal forfeiture 275
TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1835 ORDERS TO PRESERVE CONFIDENTIALITY 275
TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1837 Applicability to conduct outside the United States 276
TITLE 15 CH 22 TRADEMARKS Sec 1116 Injunctive relief 276
TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1117 - Recovery for violation of rights 282
TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1120 CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE OR FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION 284
TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1125 FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN 284
TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1126 False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden 290
Twelfth Count: FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICES 294
TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS 294
Thirteenth Count: VIOLATION OF FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAW 296
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 BANKRUPTCY Sec. 152 CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS; FALSE OATHS AND CLAIMS; BRIBERY 296
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 Sec 156 - Knowing disregard of bankruptcy law or rule and TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 Sec 157 - Bankruptcy fraud 297
TITLE 11 CHAPTER 1 Sec 110 - Penalty for persons who negligently or fraudulently prepare bankruptcy petitions 298
Fourteenth Count: COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY 300
TITLE 18 PART I CH 25 SEC 470 COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY counterfeit acts committed outside the United States 300
TITLE 18 PART I CH 25 Sec 494 - Contractors' bonds, bids, and public records 301
TITLE 18 PART I CH 25 Sec 495 - COntracts, deeds, and powers of attorney 301
Fifteenth Count: FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS 303
TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS Sec 1001 303
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 47 Sec 1031 - Major fraud against the United States 304
Sixteenth Count: MALICIOUS MISCHIEF VIOLATION 307
TITLE 18 PART I CH 65 Sec 1361 – Government property or contracts 307
Seventeenth Count: ROBBERY AND BURGLARY 308
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 103 Sec. 2112 - Personal property of United States 308
TITLE 18 PART I CH 103 Sec 2114 - Mail, money, or other property of United States 308
Eighteenth Count: STOLEN PROPERTY 309
TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 STOLEN PROPERTY Sec 2311 309
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113 Sec. 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting 310
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113 Sec. 2315 - Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, moneys, or fraudulent State tax stamps 311
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113 Sec. 2318 - Trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, and copies of motion pictures or other audio visual works, and trafficking in counterfeit computer program documentation or packaging 312
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113 Sec. 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright 314
506(a) 314
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113 Sec 2320 - Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services 316
Nineteenth Count: SECURITIES VIOLATIONS 319
Twentieth Count: BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 320
TITLE 18 PART I CH 11 320
BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 320
Twenty-first Count: PERJURY 321
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 79 Sec 1621 - Perjury generally 321
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 79 Sec 1622 321
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 79 Sec 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court 322
Twenty-second Count: MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD 324
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63 Sec 1341 - Frauds and swindles 324
TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1342 Fictitious name or address 325
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63 Sec 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television 325
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63 Sec. 1344 - Bank fraud 326
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63 Sec 1346 - Definition of ''scheme or artifice to defraud'' 326
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63 Sec 1345 - Injunctions against fraud 326
Twenty-third Count: VIOLATIONS OF POSTAL SERVICE 328
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 83 Sec. 1701 - Obstruction of mails generally 328
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 83 Sec 1702 - Obstruction of correspondence 328
Twenty-fourth Count: INTERNAL REVENUE CODE VIOLATIONS 330
TITLE 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 330
Twenty-fifth Count: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT 331
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 31 Sec 641 - Public money, property or records 331
Sec 654 - Officer or employee of United States converting property of another 331
Twenty-sixth Count: TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH IV SUBCHAPTER IV - THE MADRID PROTOCOL 333
Twenty-seventh Count: CONTEMPTS 334
Twenty-eighth Count: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 335
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 336
state counts 337
Twenty-ninth Count: NEw York Conspiracy 337
New York State Consolidated Laws Penal ARTICLE 105 CONSPIRACY 337
Thirtieth Count: delaware § 521 Conspiracy 341
CH 5 SPECIFIC OFFENSES Subch I Inchoate Crimes § 521 Conspiracy 341
§ 531. Attempt to commit a crime. 341
§ 871. Falsifying business records; class A misdemeanor. 342
§ 891. Defrauding secured creditors; class A misdemeanor. 343
§ 909. Securing execution of documents by deception; class A misdemeanor 343
Thirty-first Count: FLORIDA conspiracy 344
TITLE XLIV - CIVIL RIGHTS Ch. 760-765 -760.01 the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 345
760.51 Violations of constitutional rights, civil action by the Attorney General; civil penalty 345
Title XLV – TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.103 Prohibited activities 346
Title XLV TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.104 Civil cause of action 347
Title XLV TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 347
772.11 Civil remedy for theft or exploitation 347
Title XLV TORTS – Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 349
772.185 Attorney's fees taxed as costs 349
Thirty-second Count: 895.01 FLORIDA RICO (RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION) ACT 350
FLORIDA STATE LAW 350
CH 895 - OFFENSES CONCERNING RACKETEERING AND ILLEGAL DEBTS 895.01 "Florida RICO (Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act 350
895.03 Prohibited activities and defense 353
895.04 Criminal penalties and alternative fine 353
895.05 Civil remedies 354
895.06 Civil investigative subpoenas 361
895.07 RICO lien notice 363
895.08 Term of RICO lien notice 368
CH 896 - OFFENSES RELATED TO FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS 896.101 Florida Money Laundering Act 374
896.102 Currency more than $10,000 received in trade or business; report required; noncompliance penalties 383
896.103 Transaction which constitutes separate offense 384
896.104 Structuring transactions to evade reporting or registration requirements prohibited 384
896.105 Penalty provisions not applicable to law enforcement 387
896.106 Fugitive disentitlement 388
Thirty-third Count: VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICES NEW YORK SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT 389
New York State Consolidated Laws Penal ARTICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES 389
ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS 395
NY Constitution ARTICLE XIII Public Officers 399
Public Officers - Public Officers ARTICLE 1 399
ARTICLE 2 Appointment and Qualification of Public Officers 400
ARTICLE 15 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 400
S 468-b. Clients` security fund of the state of New York 400
S 476-a. Action for unlawful practice of the law. 402
S 476-c. Investigation by the attorney-general. 403
S 487. Misconduct by attorneys. 404
S 499. Lawyer assistance committees. 406
Public Officers Law § 73 Restrictions on the Activities Of Current and Former State Officers and Employees 407
Thirty-fourth Count: VIOLATION OF PUBLIC OFFICES FLORIDA SUPREME COURT – case sc04-1078 419
FLORIDA LAW 419
PART III – CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES 419
112.311 Legislative intent and declaration of policy 419
112.312 Definitions 420
112.313 Standards of conduct for public officers, employees of agencies, and local government attorneys 423
112.320 Commission on Ethics; purpose 425
112.324 Procedures on complaints of violations; public records and meeting exemptions 426
112.3241 Judicial review. 428
112.3173 Felonies involving breach of public trust and other specified offenses by public officers and employees; forfeiture of retirement benefits 428
112.3187 Adverse action against employee for disclosing information of specified nature prohibited; employee remedy and relief. 430
112.52 Removal of a public official when a method is not otherwise provided 430
Title X PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS Ch 112 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS sec 112.317 Penalties 431
CH 838 - BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE sec 838.022 Official misconduct 434
CH 839 - OFFENSES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES sec 839.13 Falsifying records 435
839.26 Misuse of confidential information 436
title XLVI Ch 777 PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY sec 777.011 Principal in first degree 436
Title XLVI Ch 777 sec 777.03 Accessory after the fact 437
Thirty-fifth Count: Florida trade secrets act 460
Title XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 460
Title XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 688.004 Damages 462
Thirty-sixth Count: TITLE XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS - CH 495 REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS 463
FLORIDA STATE LAW 463
Title XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS – Ch 495 REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS sec 495.121 Fraudulent registration 463
Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.131 Infringement 463
Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.141 Remedies 464
Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.151 Injury to business reputation; dilution 465
Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.161 Common-law rights 465
Thirty-seventh Count: State of New York Trademark Laws 467
Thirty-eighth Count: florida PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS 481
sec 812.081 Trade secrets; theft, embezzlement; unlawful Copying; definitions; penalty 481
812.13 Robbery 482
CH 815 - COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES sec 815.01 "Florida Computer Crimes Act" 484
sec 815.04 Offenses against intellectual property; public records exemption 485
sec 815.045 Trade secret information 486
sec 815.06 Offenses against computer users 487
sec 815.07 This chapter not exclusive 489
sec 831.03 Forging or counterfeiting private labels; possession of reproduction materials 489
sec 831.04 Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing 491
sec 831.04 Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing 493
sec 831.05 Vending goods or services with counterfeit trademarks or service marks 493
Thirty-ninth Count: FLORIDA - FORGERY 496
FLORIDA STATE LAW 496
sec 831.01 Forgery 496
sec 831.02 Uttering forged instruments 496
sec 831.03 Forging or counterfeiting private labels; possession of reproduction materials 497
sec 831.06 Fictitious signature of officer of corporation 500
Fortieth Count: FLORIDA CH 817 - FRAUDULENT PRACTICES - PART I - FALSE PRETENSES AND FRAUDS, GENERALLY 502
FLORIDA LAW 502
CHAPTER 817 - FRAUDULENT PRACTICES - PART I - FALSE PRETENSES AND FRAUDS, GENERALLY SEC 817.02 Obtaining property by false personation 502
817.025 Home or private business invasion by false personation; penalties. 502
sec 817.03 Making false statement to obtain property or credit 502
sec 817.031 Making false statements; venue of prosecution 503
sec 817.034 Florida Communications Fraud Act 503
sec 817.05 False statements to merchants as to financial condition 506
sec 817.06 Misleading advertisements prohibited; penalty 507
sec 817.061 Misleading solicitation of payments prohibited 508
sec 817.12 Penalty for violation of s. 817.11 508
sec 817.15 Making false entries, etc., on books of corporation 508
sec 817.155 Matters within jurisdiction of Department of State; false, fictitious, or fraudulent acts, statements, and representations prohibited; penalty; statute of limitations 509
sec 817.19 Fraudulent issue of certificate of stock of corporation 509
sec 817.20 Issuing stock or obligation of corporation beyond authorized amount 510
sec 817.21 Books to be evidence in such cases 510
sec 817.234 False and fraudulent insurance claims 510
sec 817.235 Personal property; removing or altering identification marks 516
sec 817.34 False entries and statements by investment companies offering stock or security for sale 517
sec 817.44 Intentional false advertising prohibited 517
sec 817.45 Penalty 518
sec 817.562 Fraud involving a security interest 518
sec 817.566 Misrepresentation of association with, or academic standing at, post secondary educational institution 519
sec 817.567 Making false claims of academic degree or title 520
Forty-first Count: FLORIDA PERJURY 522
FLORIDA LAW 522
CHAPTER 837 - PERJURY 522
sec 837.011 Definitions 522
sec 837.02 Perjury in official proceedings 523
sec 837.021 Perjury by contradictory statements 523
sec 837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities 524
sec 837.06 False official statements 525
sec 837.07 Recantation as a defense 525
Forty-second Count: New York State Consolidated Laws – ARTICLE 210 PERJURY AND RELATED OFFENSES 526
Forty-third Count: FLORIDA STATE TAX LAW - CHAPTER 220 - INCOME TAX CODE 531
FLORIDA LAW 531
CH 220 - iNCOME TAX CODE 531
PART X TAX CRIMES 220.901 Willful and fraudulent acts. 531
sec 220.905 Aiding and abetting 531
Forty-fourth Count: THEFT, ROBBERY, AND misappropriation and conversion of funds 532
FLORIDA LAW 536
sec 812.035 Civil remedies; limitation on civil and criminal actions 536
Forty-fifth Count: FRAUD UPON IVIEWIT 542
FLORIDA LAW 542
Title XXXVI BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS Ch 607 CORPORATIONS sec 607.0129 Penalty for signing false document 542
607.830 GEneral standards for directors 542
607.830 Director conflicts of interest 542
607.0834 Liability for unlawful distributions 542
607.0841 Duties of officers 542
607.0850 Indemnification of officers, directors, employees, and agents 542
607.0901 Affiliated transactions 542
607.1402 Dissolution by board of directors and shareholders; dissolution by written consent of shareholders 542
sec 607.0129 Penalty for signing false document 543
sec 607.830 General standards for directors 543
sec 607.830 Director conflicts of interest 545
sec 607.0834 Liability for unlawful distributions. 546
sec 607.0841 Duties of officers 547
sec 607.0901 Affiliated transactions 547
Forty-sixth Count: VIOLATIONS OF DELAWARE CORPORATE LAWS 558
§ 102. Contents of certificate of incorporation ›Amendment effective Aug. 1, 2004, included; see 74 Del. Laws, c. 326 558
§ 224. Form of records 564
251. Merger or consolidation of domestic corporations and limited liability company 565
253. Merger of parent corporation and subsidiary or subsidiaries 575
§ 257 Merger or consolidation of domestic stock and nonstock corporations 578
§ 372 Additional requirements in case of change of name, change of business purpose or merger or consolidation. 581
Forty-seventh Count: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AS DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS 584
delaware law 584
florida law 584
california law 584
Forty-eighth Count: LEGAL MALPRACTICE 586
Forty-ninth Count: BREACH OF CONTRACT 591
Fiftieth Count: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 595
Fifty-first Count: MISAPPROPRIATION AND CONVERSION OF FUNDS 599
INTERNATIONAL CRIMES 600
Fifty-second Count: FRAUD UPON THE JAPANESE PATENT OFFICES (jpo) 600
Fifty-third Count: FRAUD UPON THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICES (epo) 601
Fifty-third Count: ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT 601
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > § 1831 601
i. Aiding and abetting Joao in improperly filing patents for Petitioners Technology by intentionally withholding pertinent information from such patent applications and not filing same timely, to amongst other things allow Joao to apply for similar patents in his own name and other malfeasances, both while acting as counsel for Petitioners and subsequently, from concepts stolen from the Company. That Joao now claims that since working with Petitioners companies he has filed approximately ninety patents in his own name rivaling Edison, and;
ii. Upon discovery of the problems in Joao’s work and that Joao was writing patents benefiting from Petitioners’ Technology in his name, that Proskauer, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Utley referred the patent matters for correction to Dick of Foley, who was also a close personal friend of Utley and who had been involved, unbeknownst and undisclosed to Petitioners at the time, in the diversion of patents to Utley at his former employer DTE, perhaps with Wheeler, to the detriment of DTE, thereby establishing a pattern of conspiratorial criminal intent in the stealing of patent malfeasancesinventions from their lawful owners; and,
iii. Proskauer, Rubenstein, Wheeler, Dick and Utley further conspiring to transfer patent assignments to the wrong companies, the formations of which were unauthorized by Petitioners, whereby Proskauer may now have full ownership of such patents and companies, quite to the detriment of Petitioners and Petitioners’ companies shareholders; and,
iv. Proskauer, Rubenstein, Wheeler, Dick and Utley further conspiring in the transferring of prior patent applications or the filing of new patent applications, unbeknownst to Petitioners, conspiring with Foley so as to name Utley as the sole holder or joint inventor of multiple patents fraudulently and with improper assignment to improper entities, when in fact such inventions were and arose from the Technology developed by Inventors and held by Petitioners companies, prior to Utley's employment with Petitioners; and,
v. Further failing to list proper inventors and fraudulently adding inventors to the patents, constituting charges now pending before the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) of fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) against these attorneys as filed by Petitioners and its largest investor Crossbow Ventures, resulting in the failure of the patents to include their rightful and lawful inventors as confirmed in conversations and correspondence with the USPTO. The wrong inventors has lead to investors not having proper and full ownership in the patents and in some cases NO ownership; and,
vi. Failing to properly assign the inventions and fraudulently conveying to investors and potential investors knowingly false and misleading intellectual property dockets and other false and misleading information, prepared and disseminated by these attorneys. The intellectual property dockets illustrate false and misleading information on the inventors, assignees and owners of the Technology. The wrong assignments may lead to investors not having proper and full ownership in the patents; and,
vii. Knowingly and wilfully, failing to ensure that the patent applications for the Technology contained all necessary and pertinent information relevant to the Technology and as required by patent law; and,
viii. Billing for, and then failing to secure copyrights. Failing to complete copyright work for the source code for the Technology of Petitioners as intellectual property. Further, falsifying billing statements to replace copyright work with trademark work, although the billings are full of copyright work that has never been performed; and,
ix. Allowing the infringement of patent rights of Petitioners and the intellectual property of Petitioners by patent pools overseen by Proskauer and Rubenstein, and, other clients of Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler, whereby Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler profit from such infringement to the detriment of Petitioners. Finally, that Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler clients all profit from violations of NDA’s secured by Proskauer and their partners, infringements all to the detriment of Petitioners; and,
x. Allowing Rubenstein, whomwho acted as patent counsel and an Advisory Board member to Petitioners, full access to the patent processes to proliferate throughout the patent pools he controls with Proskauer, causing exposure to Petitioners. Thereafter, Rubenstein now attempts to state that he does not know the Company, the Inventors, or the Technology and never was involved in any way, thereby constituting perjured deposition testimony and further false statements to a tribunal by Proskauer and Rubenstein. Witnesses and direct evidence refute Rubenstein’s denials, and, further, Proskauer failed to secure conflict of interest waivers from Petitioners, has no “Chinese Wall” between Rubenstein and Petitioners, that under ordinary circumstances such conflict waivers and separations would have been common place for Proskauer, as a result of the patent pools and Proskauer and Rubenstein’s involvement with such pools, which directly compete with Petitioners’ Technology. Furthermore, Rubenstein heads the following departments for Proskauer all of which did work and billed for such work for Petitioners and likewise would have caused conflict waivers to be secured: patents, trademarks and copyrights, and whereby Proskauer and Rubenstein are now the single largest benefactor of Petitioners’ Technology because of such conflicts and failure to obtain such waivers.
That Petitioners, in discussions with the USPTO on or about February 1, 2004, finds patent information different from every intellectual property docket delivered to Petitioners by every retained patent counsel, as to inventors, assignments, and, in particular, one or more patent applications in the name of Utley with no assignment to Petitioners, and to which, according to the USPTO, Petitioners presently holds no rights, titles, or interest in that particular patent application. That such patent issues have caused Petitioners, in conjunction with its largest investor, Crossbow Ventures (the largest South Florida venture fund) and Stephen J. Warner, the Co-Founder and former Chairman of the Board, to file a complaint with the USTPO alleging charges of Fraud Upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office, now causing the Commissioner, after review, to put multiple six-month suspension on all Petitioners’ US patent applications while investigations should proceed into the attorney malfeasances and mitigate further damages.
That Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer, rather than pursuing the corporate formation and governance for entities directed by the Board of Directors, proceeded to engage in fraud and deceit by the corporate formation of multiple entities in a multi-tiered structure thus engaging, effectively, in a “shell game” as to which entity and under what structure would hold assignment of the Technology.
That upon information and belief, Wheeler, Rubenstein, Joao, MLGS and Proskauer through a disingenuous scheme comprised of the unauthorized formation of similarly named entities, unauthorized asset acquisitions and transfers, unauthorized name changes, falsification of inventors and falsification of assignments, all that effectively result in the assignment of Petitioners’sPetitioner’s core inventions to: wrong inventors, wrong assignees, and, finally, on information and belief, an entity, Iviewit Technologies, Inc., of which Proskauer is one of four, or less, presumed shareholders and whereby the company was set up solely by Proskauer to hold Proskauer stock in Petitioners’ companies, and whereby the Petitioners’ companies shareholders now have no verifiable ownership interest in Iviewit Technologies, Inc. which now holds several core patents, not authorized by the Board of Directors. With no evidence of an ownership position of Petitioners in Iviewit Technologies, Inc., and whereby a terminated Arthur Andersen audit, terminated by Arthur Andersen, failed to prove any incident of ownership, it remains unclear if the Petitioners’ shareholders have any interest in these patents in such unauthorized entity. This potential “shell game” resulted from a name change from the unauthorized Proskauer entity named originally Iviewit Holdings, Inc. to Iviewit Technologies, Inc., which was formed by Proskauer, unbeknownst to the Board of Directors, with an identical name to a Petitioners’ company Iviewit Holdings, Inc. that was changing its name from , Inc. and in the two weeks the unauthorized entity maintained an exactly identical name to Petitioners’ to-be-renamed company, patents were assigned into the now named Iviewit Technologies, Inc., which on the day Petitioners company changed it’s name to Iviewit Holdings, Inc. Proskauer changed the name of their entity from Iviewit Holdings, Inc. to Iviewit Technologies, Inc., with the assigned patents ending up in the unauthorized company, whereby Proskauer may be a majority shareholder with Petitioners’ investors not having any ownership in the patents in the unauthorized entity. It is alleged that Proskauer maintained two sets of corporate books, two sets of patent books and was attempting to direct the core patents out of the Petitioners’ companies naming Utley as the inventor and leaving Petitioners’ companies bankrupt and with inferior patents while the core technologies were absconded with.
That Utley, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer engaged in the transfer of a loan from a group of Proskauer referred investors and that such loan transacted without approval from the Board of Directors or the Petitioners’ lead investor and without full and complete documentation of the transaction ever being properly completed and no bank records produced to correspond to such transaction. That upon learning of such loan transaction and requesting auditing of such transaction, Petitioners found missing records and that, further, employees’ eyewitness testimonies in written statements, show a large briefcase of cash, claimed to be from the Proskauer investors, was used to attempt to bribe employees to steal trade secrets and proprietary equipment, and further such equipment was stolen off with by Proskauer’s management team led by Utley, as he was being fired with cause when he was found to be misappropriating patents into his name. This alleged theft of between Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) by Proskauer and their management referrals, of money loaned to the Company, was referred to the Boca Raton Police Department who have purportedly referred the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (West Palm Beach) was also notified.
That as a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Wheeler, Rubenstein, Joao, MLGS and Proskauer, Petitioners have been damaged in a sum estimated to be approximately Seventeen Billion Dollars ($17,000,000,000.00), based on company projections and corroborated by industry experts as to the value of the Technology and the applications to current and future uses over the twenty year life of such patents.
That after discovering initial evidences of core patent applications being stolen off with, that Brian G. Utley levied threats against the Companies and the life of inventor Eliot I. Bernstein, threatening to bring down the companies “brick by brick” and that Bernstein should watch his back when returning from California to his home in Boca Raton, Florida as Utley, Dick and Wheeler would be watching if he were to continue notifying parties of the patent malfeasances that were being uncovered.
Bernstein moved his family from Boca Raton the next week in fear of their safety to a California hotel and then sought temporary residency throughout a two year period, where Bernstein immediately notified all Board members, investors and the authorities of the atrocities being uncovered. As with any complex conspiracy, this onion had many layers and with every new day over that period, mounds of evidence began to be uncovered revealing a criminal network of individuals involved in hosts of illegal ploys to heist the Technology by once trusted attorneys.
Bernstein returns to Florida to deliver Counter Complaint and present first evidences of crimes uncovered in two-year period.
New level of cover-up starts for Proskauer as Companies file state bar complaints, complaints against SB, complaints against Labarga. The Company is virtually bankrupted, with no way to get funding, with no legal counsel to trust at this point and with SB having failed on their contract and cost the Company it’s due process at trial and in other related matters, it looked hopeless for the inventors to save any rights to their inventions. Further troubled loomed as patent counsel for the Company began a series of steps that further looked as if they had become involved in aiding and abetting these crimes, as the Company went to patent office and found some startling revelations, that have exposed an entire level of cover-up extending now to the Supreme Courts of New York and Florida and their bar associations and disciplinary committees.
The patent office confirmed that the patent dockets prepared by company counsel were materially false and misleading, in inventors, assignements, owners and other information currently pending review, which led to the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline, Harry I. Moatz, to advise the Company that the first step would be to file charges of fraud upon the United States Patent & Trademark Office with the Commissioner of Patents, in an attempt to have the patents put into a six month suspension pending outcome of the investigation into the charges and official attorney complaints lodged against attorney members of the Patent Office Bar which Mr. Moatz is personally handling. The commissioner has now granted a series of suspensions, and in certain instances, revival of core patents which were abandoned in more fraud by the attorneys are now pending consideration with the Director of Petitions for the United States Patent & Trademark Office of how to revive in a most complicated matter, these patents rights to a core invention are currently lost, and perhaps it will take an act of congress or This Court to rectify such problem, when the very system to prevent such a travesty from occurring is being manipulated adversely by those held accountable for protecting the citizen’s constitutional rights.
That this information from the Patent Office led to an uncovering of corporations which appear to show similarly named companies with patents transferring to places unbeknownst to shareholders and lied about by their attorneys on patent dockets used to raise capital and submitted to investigatory bodies. That these false and misleading dockets, covered up further the truth about matters and now reveal a far more devious and diabolical attempt to abscond with the patents and perhaps had this ploy worked, patents would have been transferred into wrongeful companies and with wrongful inventors and all that would have been left was to destroy the shareholder companies and leave bogus patents fraught with problems to the investors and secretly steal off with the core inventions. Unbelievable and yet factually correct.
That once Defendant’s realized that the proverbial cat was out of the bag, they immediately began a series of steps to further cover-up their crimes and at the same time reek havoc on the companies and inventor Bernstein’s life. Initially, without knowledge of the Company or Board, Proskauer management referral Utley and other Proskauer referred management filed an Involuntary Bankruptcy on companies which they had no legal rights in and which may have been shell corporations as described herein, in an attempt to smear Iviewit and secure leans on the Iviewit Intellectual Properties through bogus and false submissions to the Bankruptcy courts. Second, Proskauer, began a billing lawsuit, again unbeknownst to shareholders or management, in a further attempt to harass and seek claims against Companies with which they had no legal rights or contracts with, again in what appears to gain control of patents hidden away in this myriad of corporations and dually named inventions with differing inventors than the true and correct inventors.
That Petitioner companies were informed of such Involuntary Bankruptcy and Proskauer litigation, while in a meeting with AOLTW/WB executives, while attempting to secure a $20,000,000.00 capital raise.
That Petitioner companies were informed that patents were incorrectly named when new patent counsel was hired jointly by Iviewit and Crossbow Ventures to investigate allegations into the patent malfeasances committed by Raymond Joao, Kenneth Rubenstein, William Dick, Douglas Boehm and Steven Becker, whereby such information was contrary to prior information given to investors in the companies.
That upon learning of these events Petitioner hired counsel to replace counsel that had been representing the Company without company knowledge or consent and it is at this juncture that Defendants had to escalate the cover-up. A longtime friend of inventor Eliot Bernstein and a licensed attorney, Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. was counseled to help the Company respond to complaints that it was prior unaware existed and to replace counsel which appears to have been conflicted with Proskauer and Wheeler, Sachs Saxs & Klien (PR v. IV) and Bart Houston (Utley, Reale, Hersch, REAL3D/RYJO (Intel, Silicon Graphics & Lockheed) v. Iviewit in the Involuntary BK.
These actions against the Companies caused the companies to; lose financing deals, licensing deals with SONY, WB, INTEL and others, caused uncertainty for investors Crossbow Ventures who pulled out of funding commitments, unsure about what they had invested in and what the state of the patents were and who owned them and if they had any interest them what-so-ever.
With new counsel representing the Companies with consent, the Involuntary BK was withdrawn by the opposing parties as evidence against them was first submitted. The Proskauer v. Iv case to a whole new twist as prior counsel was replaced by Rogers with Steven Selz, Esq. of West Palm Beach, Fla. and depositions were requested and new evidences were attempted to be submitted to the civil circuit court in the form of the attached Counter Complaint – Exhibit “”. The Counter Complaint was denied because it came late and after initial counsel that had been unauthorized to represent the Company had waived most of the companies rights to counter, somehow. That upon taking the deposition of Kenneth Rubenstein, who had written in a sworn statement to Judge Labaraga that he never heard of the Company and was being “harassed” to take a deposition and therefore refusing, the deposition and evidences presented at the deposition show perjured statements, as evidence and responses to questions paint a far more involved Rubenstein than he stated to the Court. That Rubenstein walks out of deposition, refusing to answer questions and is Court ordered to reconvene the deposition and answer questions. That the Company was set for trial where counsel would have confronted Utley, Rubenstein and Wheeler for materially perjured statements to the Court and under deposition.
That the Company then engaged SB to represent them through a signed retainer and investment LOU, attached herein, Exhibit “”, whereby SB after two years of research into the allegations and charges, claimed to have contacted senior members of Proskauer Rose LLP and prior to signing the LOU and without consent from Companies, negotiated a settlement which they claimed would be a multimillion dollar settlement and which would not release Proskauer from the liabilities of if the patents were unrecoverable.
That SB, upon signing the LOU, immediately after notify Companies of their representation and paying Selz in entirety, SB asked Selz to retire as counsel as they would be representing Iviewit. Selz filed a motion to such regard. On the day before trial, at the end of the business day, Eliot Bernstein was sent a draft of a settlement agreement, whereby SB had negotiated in multiple conflicting roles, a settlement with Proskauer Rose LLP. The settlement was given to Bernstein with express instruction that if it was not signed within five hours that the trial would be in the morning, the document was delivered at noon.
The settlement document had express instructions that each party have counsel review the settlement. Upon receiving the document Bernstein noted that several parties whom were not enjoined in the lawsuit were being asked to take part in the settlement, many of who had not even seen or reviewed the document and certainly whereby counsel had not even been noticed. Upon explaining to SB that they could not be counsel for all parties as they were attempting, due to their ownership acquisition in Petitioner companies and the conflict this represented, counsel was secured for both Bernstein and the Companies. Counsel for Bernstein and Petitioner Companies immediately found major flaws in the document that would need far more time to rectify and clarify before signing, in that some aspects of signing without such due-diligence could expose those signing the settlement to severe ramifications from shareholders, as the document also could not be found to offer any benefits to the shareholders, and in fact, exposed them to grave risks of losing protected attorney/client privileged patent information and allowing Proskauer a get out of jail free card even in the event that through these crimes they had lost shareholder rights to the patents. In fact, the settlement could not be signed, until the corporate governance matters were fully corrected and counsel for Bernstein and Petitioner companies both would only allow signature if they were waived as counsel prior to signing to as reduce liability for themselves. Needless to say, the document could not be signed and therefore the day ended with all parties stating that trial would be in the morning.
The following morning Steve Selz and Eliot Bernstein showed up for trial, to a trial that had been unilaterally postponed by Proskauer and the Judge, with no notice to Petitioner Companies counsel or Petitioner Companies. In the ensuing days, one of the greatest travesties to due-process unfolded. First, at a hearing to reschedule the trial, Petitioner Companies counsels (both SB and Selz) submitted withdrawal as counsel papers to the Judge, both stating that the other would be representing Petitioner Companies. The Judge granted both withdrawals on the same day, at the same hearing, leaving Petitioner with no counsel.
That the series of events outlined above,Courts refusal to acknowledge the Counter Complaint resulted in Petitioners’ filing of the bar complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, Wheeler, Dick, members of SB, written statements complaints against registered patent attorneys; Rubenstein, Joao, Dick, Boehm, Becker, Zafman, Coester, Ahmini, Weisberg to the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline, the European Patent Office, the Japanese Patent Office, the Department of Justice – Antitrust Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Florida Bar, The New York Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the Virginia State Bar and the Boca Raton Police Department, and subsequently this Petition.
SUMMARY
That contained in Petitioners’sPetitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Motion for Leave to File a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ, this Brief, and the accompanying Petition to Intervene in All Matters to Protect Rights of Inventors According to the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 Afforded by the Constitution of the United States and Petition to Fulfill Due Process Afforded by V Amendment and the XIV Amendment, Section 1, Petitioners show a pattern of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so wide and so deep, that it tears at the very fabric of free commerce, and in that the circumstances involve inventors’ rights, the pattern tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States.
Petitioners specify the types of relief sought as follows:
1. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of The Florida Bar under the aegis of the Supreme Court of Florida; and
2. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Bar Association of the State of New York and the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee under the aegis of the Appellate Division, Second Department (New York); and
3. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Virginia State Bar; and
4. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Pennsylvania Bar Association; and
5. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, West Palm Beach, Fla. branch office; and
6. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Boca Raton, Fla. Police Department.
7. Levying of Cease & Desist to all users of petitioners under NDA and Patent Pools
8. Levying relief under RICO, Conspiracy and fraud against the United States and the USPTO
9. Levying relief to protect patent inventions lost, recover patents from attorney’s with them in their names, rectify problems caused globally
10. Freeze assets of law firms
11. Do not allow self representation of PR due to already conflicts that have cost US Supreme Courts to be disgraced
12. Intercede to protect the lives and inventions of the inventors
13. Intercede to provide a single court appointed attorney to either oversight pro-se submissions in this case and lessen the burden to the Clerk of This Court or provide counsel designated by This Court, that Plaintiff will trust under such arrangement.
14. Issue subpoenas for all records for all parties involved in all matters, to prevent further loss of records that are imperative to dating inventions and protecting constitutional rights of inventors.
15. Issue immediate investigations into all filed charges, question all witnesses, account for all submitted evidences, report all liabilities to exposed parties and with This Court’s oversight of these matters, Petitioner and Inventors weary eyes feel that it will assure due process as this being the SUPREME COURT, and this will preclude others from becoming entangled or conflicted further, offsetting further cover-up and further liability to all those already exposed and This Court must not fail as in the weary eyes of the Petitioner and Inventors this is the court of last resort before all is truly lost.
16. That This Court provide protection and relief to the inventors so as to restore the rightful condition of the company so as the true inventors and shareholders enjoy their rights afforded to them under the Constitution and relieve those accountable for such crimes with no worldly possessions in retribution for any involvement and whatever criminal sanctions should be at the maximum legal sentence for as lawyers they were surely aware of the statement “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” and were fully cognizant of the laws they were breaking, This Court cannot give any leniency to preclude the look of favoritism inherent already in the process if the accused are found guilty of the crimes, which would cause loss of confidence in This Court by the People.
17. That This Court establish through a fair and impartial review of the evidences who the rightful inventors to the Technologies are and restore to such inventors their due recognition and historical importance and finally a treble damage minimum award against those who tried to claim others inventions and destroyed lives in the pursuit.
18. Grant all reliefs afforded under the law as This Court may find applicable under the strenuous circumstances that now exist.
Attorney for Petitioners
Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se
10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801
Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437
Tel.: (561) 364-4240
By:
Eliot I. Bernstein
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Four Ward Street
Brewster, N.Y. 10509
Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By:
P. Stephen Lamont
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )
LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )
JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )
WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )
LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )
LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)
T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Original Jurisdiction
MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, )
CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) Case No.
CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY )
LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and )
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )
ZAFMAN LLP II )
)
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )
P. STEPHEN LAMONT ) )
Petitioners. )
PETITION TO INTERVENE IN ALL MATTERS TO PROTECT RIGHTS OF INVENTORS ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8 AFFORDED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND PETITION TO FULFILL DUE PROCESS AFFORDED BY V AMENDMENT AND THE XIV AMENDMENT, SECTION 1
QUESTION FOR REVIEW
Whether the circumstances surrounding the Petitioners, consisting of the alleged violation of their constitutional rights as inventors and the denial of due process of law when combined with the need for the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and the factual setting that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court, are sufficient in of themselves to request review by this Court so as to minimize the damages Petitioners have incurred and forestall the continued jeopardy of the timely patent prosecution of the Technology.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
The parties to the proceeding are:
1. Proskauer Rose LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership and its members, former general and patent counsel to Petitioners; and
2. Meltzer Lippe Goldstein LLP (“MLG”), a New York Limited Liability Partnership and its members, former patent counsel to Petitioners; and
3. Raymond A. Joao, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York and a former of counsel to MLG, one of the former patent counsels for Petitioners; and
4. Ryjo, Inc., upon information and belief, a Florida corporation, and one of the initial potential licensees of the Technology; and
5. Ryan Huisman, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, and a principal of Ryjo, Inc.; and
6. Foley & Lardner LLP, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Partnership and its members, former patent counsel to Petitioners; and
7. William J. Dick, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, formerly a special counsel to Foley Lardner LLP and one of the former patent counsels for Petitioners; and
8. Douglas A. Boehm, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Illinois, formerly a member of Foley Lardner LLP and one of the former patent counsels for Petitioners; and
9. Goldstein Lewin & Co., a Florida corporation, and outside CPA firm for Petitioners; and
10. Gerald R. Lewin, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a former outside CPA for Petitioners; and
11. Erika Lewin, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a former outside CPA for Petitioners; and
12. Brian G. Utley, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Minnesota, a former President and Chief Operating Officer of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
13. Raymond T. Hersch, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a former Chief Financial Officer of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
14. Michael A Reale, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a former Vice President of Operations of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
15. F. Ross Miller, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Georgia, a former Consultant of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
16. Tiedemann Prolow LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and one of the institutional investors of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
17. Carl Tiedemann, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and
18. Bruce Prolow, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and
19. Craig Smith, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and
20. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership, and former investors, patent counsel, and general counsel to affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and
21. Honorable Jorge Labarga, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, the presiding judge in the Litigation; and
22. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, and former patent counsel to Petitioners; and
23. Eliot I. Bernstein, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, the principal inventor of the Technology; and
24. P. Stephen Lamont, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, and Chief Executive Officer of affiliated entities related to Petitioners.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CITATIONS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Petitioners rely on Rule 20.1, Procedure for the Granting of an Extraordinary Writ, of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein such rule states: “[T]he petition must show that the writ will be in the aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or any other court.”[5]
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 afforded by the Constitution of the United States that states: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”[6]
Second, Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on V Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation[7].
Third, Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on XIV Amendment, Section 1 to the Constitution of the United States that states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[8].
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Contained in this Petition, and as summarized by the following graph, Petitioners depict a conspiratorial pattern of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so wide and so deep, that it tears at the very fabric of free commerce, and in that the circumstances involve inventors’ rights, the pattern tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States.
[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
That Wheeler, was a partner of Proskauer Rose, LLP (“Proskauer”) and who provided legal services to Petitioner.
That Rubenstein who at various times relevant hereto was initially misrepresented by Wheeler as a partner of Proskauer and later became a partner of Proskauer, and who provided legal services to the Petitioners both while at MLGS and Proskauer.
That Joao who initially was represented to be Rubenstein's associate at Proskauer, when in fact Joao has never been an employee of Proskauer but in fact was an employee of MLGS.
That beginning in 1998, Petitioners held discussions with Wheeler and Rubenstein with regard to Proskauer providing legal services to Petitioners involving specific technologies developed by Eliot I. Bernstein (one of the Petitioners in this matter) and two others, Zakirul Shirajee and Jude Rosario collectively termed hereinafter (“Inventors”), which technologies allowed for:
v. Zooming of digital images and video without degradation to the quality of the digital image due to what is commonly referred reed to as "pixelation"; and,
vi. The delivery of digital video using proprietary scaling techniques whereby a seventy-five percent (75%) bandwidth savings was discovered and a corresponding seventy-five percent (75%) processing power decrease and storage efficiency were realized; and,
vii. A combination of the image zoom techniques and video scaling techniques described above; and,
viii. The remote control of video cameras through communications networks.
That Inventors and later Petitioners, initially engaged the services of Proskauer to provide legal services to a company to be formed, including corporate formation and governance for a single entity and to obtain multiple patents and oversee US and foreign filings for such technologies including the provisional filings for the technologies as described above, ("Technology"), and such other activities as were necessary to protect the intellectual property represented by the Technology.
That the Technology, when bundled with third-party technologies, provides for VHS quality video at transmission speeds of 56Kbps (“modem dial-up connection”), previously thought to be impossible, to DVD quality at up to 6MB per second (traditional terrestrial or broadcast station to home antennae), and has an incredible seventy five percent (75%) savings in throughput (“bandwidth”) on any digital delivery system such as cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery system, or the Internet, and a similar seventy five percent (75%) savings in storage and processing on mediums such as digital video discs (“DVD’s”), opening the door for low bandwidth video cell phones and other revolutionary video markets.
That at the time of the engagement of Proskauer and thereafter, Petitioners’ companies and shareholders at such time, were advised and otherwise led to believe that Rubenstein was the Proskauer partner in charge of the account for patents and Wheeler for corporate matters, further this information was used to raise all of the capital and included in a Wachovia Securities Private Placement Memorandum (“PPM”), pursuant to Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, that Proskauer co-authored, billed for and disseminated, whereby Wheeler and Rubenstein also served as active members of an Advisory Board for Petitioners’ companies in which Wheeler and Rubenstein were essential to raising capital and directing the patent applications, copyrights and corporate matters.
That upon information and belief, Proskauer, MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein, and Joao upon viewing the Technology developed by Inventors, realized the significance of the Technology, its various applications to communication networks for distributing video and images and for existing digital processes, including but not limited to, all forms of video delivery, digital cameras, digital imaging technologies for medical purposes and digital video, and that Proskauer, MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao then conspired to undertake and in fact undertook a deliberate course of conduct to deprive Inventors and Petitioners of the beneficial use of such Technology for their own gains. Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Wheeler and Joao, further allowed the unauthorized use of the Technology by third-parties, such as Rubenstein’s patent pools and, pursuant to Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDA’s”), for multitudes of their clients that are now not enforced, whereby Proskauer is fully cognizant of their client’s uses of Petitioners’ Technology under such NDA’s. Additionally, it is factually alleged that members of Proskauer, members of MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao all have had personal financial gains through the misappropriation of Petitioners’ Technology and Proskauer has earned profit and other gains to its entire partnership and all members, through the acquisition of the patent pools as a client (after learning of Petitioners’ Technology), and the further exclusion of Petitioners from such patent pools which generate enormous fees to Proskauer and perhaps other untold revenues, all to the detriment and damage of the Petitioners. This behavior may very well represent antitrust claims against Proskauer, Rubenstein and the patent pools they oversight and directly choose patents for inclusion therein.
That Wheeler, who was a close friend of Utley, recommended to Petitioners that Petitioners engage the services of Utley to act as President of Petitioners’ companies based on his knowledge and ability as to technology issues.
That at the time that Wheeler made the recommendation of Utley to the Board of Directors, Wheeler knew that Utley had been engaged in a dispute with his former employer, Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. (“DTE”) and the fact that Utley had misappropriated certain patents on hydro-mechanical systems to the detriment of DTE, as Utley was terminated for cause according to Monte Friedkin (“Friedkin”), owner of DTE and that DTE was closed due to Utley, forcing the owner to take a several million dollar loss.
That on information and belief, Proskauer and Wheeler may have had a part in the misappropriation of the patents from DTE with Utley, in that Wheeler had formed a company for Utley where the misappropriated patents are believed to have been transferred. Despite Wheeler’s involvement, Wheeler was fully cognizant of this patent dispute with Utley and DTE, as confirmed by the former owner of DTE, Friedkin, and further confirmed in depositions with Utley and Wheeler. That Proskauer and Wheeler’s recommendation of Utley to the Board of Directors knowingly failed to disclose these past patent problems to Petitioners and in fact Proskauer and Wheeler circulated a resume on behalf of Utley claiming that as a result of Utley’s inventions that DTE went on to become a leader in the industry, when Proskauer and Wheeler knew that the company had been closed by the patent problems of Utley and perhaps actions of Proskauer and Wheeler. That Proskauer and Wheeler further conspired with Utley to circulate a knowingly false and misleading resume to Petitioners’ shareholders and induced investment without ever disclosing this information.
That despite such knowledge, Proskauer and Wheeler never mentioned such facts concerning Utley to any representative of Petitioners and in fact undertook to "sell" Utley as a highly qualified candidate who would be the ideal person to undertake day to day operations of Petitioners acting as a qualified engineer which he was not.
That additionally, Proskauer and Wheeler continued to assist Utley in perpetrating such fraud on both the Board of Directors of Petitioners and to third parties, including for the Wachovia Securities PPM, by approving a false resume for Utley which was included in the raising funds, pursuant to and in violation of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933.
That based on the recommendations of Proskauer and Wheeler, and Wheeler relationship as a ten year friend of Utley, the Board of Directors agreed to engage the services of Utley as President and Chief Operating Officer based on false and misleading information knowingly proffered by Proskauer and Wheeler.
That almost immediately after Utley's employment, Proskauer and Wheeler provided a purported retainer agreement (“Retainer”) for the providing of services by Proskauer to Petitioners, addressed to Utley. That the Retainer agreement comes after one year of Proskauer providing services whereby patent disclosures were given directly from Inventors to Proskauer partners in that time, including but not limited to, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao. Finally, on information and belief, Petitioners states that Proskauer through Wheeler and Utley conspired to replace the original retainer agreement with the Petitioners companies, with the Retainer void of patent services that were originally agreed upon and performed on. That the services provided were in fact to be partially paid out of the royalties recovered from the use of the Technology, which was to be included in patent pools overseen by Proskauer and Rubenstein who had already deemed them “novel” and “essential” to the patent pools.
That the Retainer by its terms contemplated the providing of corporate and general legal services to Petitioners by Proskauer and was endorsed by Utley on behalf of Petitioners, the Board of Directors of Petitioners would not have Utley authorized to endorse same as it did not include the intellectual property work which Proskauer and Rubenstein had already undertaken.
That prior to the Retainer, Proskauer, Rubenstein, and Wheeler had provided legal services to Petitioners, including services regarding patents with Rubenstein being given full disclosure of the patent processes.
That Proskauer billed Petitioners for legal services related to corporate, patent, trademark, copyright and other work in a sum of approximately Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) and now claims to have not done patent work, a materially false statement with insurmountable evidence to the contrary, as evidenced by the management section, including Advisory Board, for the Wachovia Securities PPM used to induce investment and loans including from the Small Business Administration, a federal agency, and whereby it states that Proskauer was “retained patent counsel” for Petitioners companies and contrary to the current claims by Proskauer and Rubenstein that they preformed no patent work told to state and federal investigatory bodies.
That Proskauer billed Petitioners for copyright legal services never performed causing loss of intellectual property rights, double-billed by the use of multiple counsel on the same issue, falsified and altered billing information to hide patent work and systematically overcharged for services provided.
That based on the over-billing by Proskauer, Petitioners paid a sum in of approximately Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) together with a two and one-half percent (2.5%) equity interest in Petitioners’ companies, which sums and interest in Petitioners’ companies was received and accepted by Proskauer.
That Wheeler, Utley, Rubenstein, Joao, Proskauer, and MLGS conspired to deprive Petitioners of its rights to the Technology developed by Inventors by:
xi. Aiding Joao in improperly filing patents for Petitioners Technology by intentionally withholding pertinent information from such patent applications and not filing same timely, to allow Joao to apply for similar patents in his own name and other malfeasances, both while acting as counsel for Petitioners and subsequently. That Joao now claims that since working with Petitioners companies he has filed approximately ninety patents in his own name, and;
xii. Upon discovery of the problems in Joao’s work and that Joao was writing patents benefiting from Petitioners’ Technology in his name, that Proskauer, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Utley referred the patent matters for correction to Dick of Foley, who was also a close personal friend of Utley and who had been involved, unbeknownst and undisclosed to Petitioners at the time, in the diversion of patents to Utley at his former employer DTE, perhaps with Wheeler, to the detriment of DTE, thereby establishing a pattern of patent malfeasances; and,
xiii. Proskauer, Rubenstein, Wheeler, Dick and Utley further conspiring to transfer patent assignments to the wrong companies, the formations of which were unauthorized by Petitioners, whereby Proskauer may now have full ownership of such patents, quite to the detriment of Petitioners and Petitioners’ companies shareholders; and,
xiv. Proskauer, Rubenstein, Wheeler, Dick and Utley further conspiring in the transferring of prior patent applications or the filing of new patent applications, unbeknownst to Petitioners, conspiring with Foley so as to name Utley as the sole holder or joint inventor of multiple patents fraudulently and with improper assignment to improper entities, when in fact such inventions were and arose from the Technology developed by Inventors and held by Petitioners companies, prior to Utley's employment with Petitioners; and,
xv. Further failing to list proper inventors and fraudulently adding inventors to the patents, constituting charges now pending before the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) of fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) against these attorneys as filed by Petitioners and its largest investor Crossbow Ventures, resulting in the failure of the patents to include their rightful and lawful inventors as confirmed in conversations and correspondence with the USPTO. The wrong inventors has lead to investors not having proper and full ownership in the patents and in some cases NO ownership; and,
xvi. Failing to properly assign the inventions and fraudulently conveying to investors and potential investors knowingly false and misleading intellectual property dockets and other false and misleading information, prepared and disseminated by these attorneys. The intellectual property dockets illustrate false and misleading information on the inventors, assignees and owners of the Technology. The wrong assignments may lead to investors not having proper and full ownership in the patents; and,
xvii. Knowingly and wifully, failing to ensure that the patent applications for the Technology contained all necessary and pertinent information relevant to the Technology and as required by patent law; and,
xviii. Billing for, and then failing to secure copyrights. Failing to complete copyright work for the source code for the Technology of Petitioners as intellectual property. Further, falsifying billing statements to replace copyright work with trademark work, although the billings are full of copyright work that has never been performed; and,
xix. Allowing the infringement of patent rights of Petitioners and the intellectual property of Petitioners by patent pools overseen by Proskauer and Rubenstein, and, other clients of Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler, whereby Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler profit from such infringement to the detriment of Petitioners. Finally, that Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler clients all profit from violations of NDA’s secured by Proskauer and their partners, infringements all to the detriment of Petitioners; and,
xx. Allowing Rubenstein, whom acted as patent counsel and an Advisory Board member to Petitioners, full access to the patent processes to proliferate throughout the patent pools he controls with Proskauer, causing exposure to Petitioners. Thereafter, Rubenstein now attempts to state that he does not know the Company, the Inventors, or the Technology and never was involved in any way, thereby constituting perjured deposition testimony and further false statements to a tribunal by Proskauer and Rubenstein. Witnesses and direct evidence refute Rubenstein’s denials, and, further, Proskauer failed to secure conflict of interest waivers from Petitioners, has no “Chinese Wall” between Rubenstein and Petitioners, that under ordinary circumstances such conflict waivers and separations would have been common place for Proskauer, as a result of the patent pools and Proskauer and Rubenstein’s involvement with such pools, which directly compete with Petitioners’ Technology. Furthermore, Rubenstein heads the following departments for Proskauer all of which did work and billed for such work for Petitioners and likewise would have caused conflict waivers to be secured: patents, trademarks and copyrights, and whereby Proskauer and Rubenstein are now the single largest benefactor of Petitioners’ Technology because of such conflicts and failure to obtain such waivers.
That Petitioners, in discussions with the USPTO on or about February 1, 2004, finds patent information different from every intellectual property docket delivered to Petitioners by every retained patent counsel, as to inventors, assignments, and, in particular, one or more patent applications in the name of Utley with no assignment to Petitioners, and to which, according to the USPTO, Petitioners presently holds no rights, titles, or interest in that particular patent application. That such patent issues have caused Petitioners, in conjunction with its largest investor, Crossbow Ventures (the largest South Florida venture fund) and Stephen J. Warner, the Co-Founder and former Chairman of the Board, to file a complaint with the USTPO alleging charges of Fraud Upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office, now causing the Commissioner, after review, to put multiple six-month suspension on all Petitioners’ US patent applications while investigations should proceed into the attorney malfeasances and attempt to mitigate further damages and protect the remaining patent applications from further loss.
That Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer, rather than pursuing the corporate formation and governance for entities directed by the Board of Directors, proceeded to engage in fraud and deceit by the corporate formation of multiple entities in a multi-tiered structure thus engaging, effectively, in a “shell game” as to which entity and under what structure would hold assignment of the Technology.
That upon information and belief, Wheeler, Rubenstein, Joao, MLGS and Proskauer through a disingenuous scheme comprised of the unauthorized formation of similarly named entities, unauthorized asset acquisitions and transfers, unauthorized name changes, falsification of inventors and falsification of assignments, all that effectively result in the assignment of Petitioners’sPetitioner’s core inventions to: wrong inventors, wrong assignees, and, finally, on information and belief, an entity, Iviewit Technologies, Inc., of which Proskauer is one of four, or lessthe only, presumed shareholders and whereby the company was set up solely by Proskauer to hold Proskauer stock in Petitioners’ companies, and whereby the Petitioners’ companies shareholders now have no verifiable ownership interest in Iviewit Technologies, Inc. which now holds several core patents, not none of these shell transactions were ever authorized by the Board of Directors. With no evidence of an ownership position of Petitioners in Iviewit Technologies, Inc., and whereby a terminated Arthur Andersen audit, terminated by Arthur Andersen, failed to prove any incident of ownership, it remains unclear if the Petitioners’ shareholders have any interest in these patents in such unauthorized entity. This potential “shell game” resulted from a name change from the unauthorized Proskauer entity named originally Iviewit Holdings, Inc. to Iviewit Technologies, Inc., which was formed by Proskauer, unbeknownst to the Board of Directors, with an identical name to a Petitioners’ company Iviewit Holdings, Inc. that was changing its name from , Inc. and in the two weeks the unauthorized entity maintained an exactly identical name to Petitioners’ to-be-renamed company, patents were assigned into the now named Iviewit Technologies, Inc., which on the day Petitioners company changed it’s name to Iviewit Holdings, Inc. Proskauer changed the name of their entity from Iviewit Holdings, Inc. to Iviewit Technologies, Inc., with the assigned patents ending up in the unauthorized company, whereby Proskauer may be a majority shareholder with Petitioners’ investors not having any ownership in the patents in the unauthorized entity. It is alleged that Proskauer maintained two sets of corporate books, two sets of patent books and was attempting to direct the core patents out of the Petitioners’ companies naming Utley as the inventor and leaving Petitioners’ companies bankrupt and with inferior patents while the core technologies were absconded with.
That Utley, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer engaged in the transfer of a loan from a group of Proskauer referred investors and that such loan transacted without approval from the Board of Directors or the Petitioners’ lead investor and without full and complete documentation of the transaction ever being properly completed and no bank records produced to correspond to such transaction. That upon learning of such loan transaction and requesting auditing of such transaction, Petitioners found missing records and that, further, employees’ eyewitness testimonies in written statements, show a large briefcase of cash, claimed to be from the Proskauer investors, was used to attempt to bribe employees to steal trade secrets and proprietary equipment, and further such equipment was stolen off with by Proskauer’s management team led by Utley, as he was being fired with cause when he was found to be misappropriating patents into his name. This alleged theft of between Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) by Proskauer and their management referrals, of money loaned to the Company, was referred to the Boca Raton Police Department who have purportedly referred the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (West Palm Beach) was also notified.
That as a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Wheeler, Rubenstein, Joao, MLGS and Proskauer, Petitioners have been damaged in a sum estimated to be approximately Seventeen Billion Dollars ($17,000,000,000.00), based on company projections and corroborated by industry experts as to the value of the Technology and the applications to current and future uses over the twenty year life of such patents.
That the series of events outlined above, resulted in Petitioners’ filing of the complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, Wheeler, Dick, members of SB, written statements to the USPTO, the European Patent Office, the Japanese Patent Office, the Department of Justice – Antitrust Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Boca Raton Police Department, and subsequently this Petition.
SUMMARY
That contained in Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Motion for Leave to File a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ, this Brief, and the accompanying Petition to Intervene ______________, Petitioners show a pattern of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so wide and so deep, that it tears at the very fabric of free commerce, and in that the circumstances involve inventors’ rights, the pattern tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States.
Attorney for Petitioners
Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se
10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801
Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437
Tel.: (561) 364-4240
By:
Eliot I. Bernstein
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Four Ward Street
Brewster, N.Y. 10509
Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By:
P. Stephen Lamont
-----------------------
[1] Blue Book Citiation…
[2] Blue Book Citation…
[3] Blue Book Citation…
[4] Blue Book Citation
[5] Blue Book Citiation…
[6] Blue Book Citation…
[7] Blue Book Citation…
[8] Blue Book Citation
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- vice president of the united states office
- president of the united states job description
- history of the united states flag
- ranks of the united states army
- sociologists think of the united states as
- list of the united states alphabetically
- title 26 of the united states code
- president of the united states list
- weather map of the united states today
- constitution of the united states printable pdf
- populations of the united states in 2020
- racial makeup of the united states 2020