united states supreme courtiviewit.tv/companydocs/rico/federal complaint/federal exhibit… ·...

AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

I, Eliot I. Bernstein, am the petitioner in the above-entitled case. In support of my motion to

proceed in forma pauper is, I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of this

case or to give security therefor; and I believe I am entitled to redress.

For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each of the

following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received weekly,

biweekly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use gross amounts, that

is, amounts before any deductions for taxes or otherwise.

INSERT FINANCIAL STATEMENT FROM COURT

List your employment history for the past two years, most recent first. (Gross monthly pay is

before taxes or other deductions.)

INSERT employment statement FROM COURT

List your spouse’s employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first. (Gross

monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.)

INSERT employment statement FROM COURT

How much cash do you and your spouse have ? Below, state any money you or your spouse have

in bank accounts or in any other financial institution.

INSERT statement FROM COURT

List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing and

ordinary household furnishings.


State every person, business, or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the amount

owed.


1Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42

Private and Confidential Attorney/Client Privileged Information

State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support.


Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your family. Show separately the amounts

paid by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly, quarterly, or annually

to show the monthly rate.


Do you expect any major changes to your monthlyincome or expenses orin your assets or

liabilities during the next 12 months? � Yes � No

If yes, describe on an attached sheet.


Have you paid –or will you be paying –an attorney any money for services in connection with

this case, including the completion of this form? � Yes � No

If yes, describe on an attached sheet.


Have you paid –or will you be paying –an attorney any money for services in connection with

this case, including the completion of this form? � Yes � No

If yes, how much? If yes, state the attorney’s name, address, and telephone number:

Have you paid—or will you be paying—anyone other than an attorney (such as a paralegal or a

typist) any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this

form? Yes No� �

If yes, how much?

If yes, state the person’s name, address, and telephone number:

Provide any other information that will help explain why you cannot pay the costs of this case.

2Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed

on: ,2005

(Signature)

3Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


No. _________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN – PETITIONER

vs.

THE FLORIDA BAR, et. al. — RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN

10158 STONEHENGE CIRCLE

SUITE 801

BOYNTON BEACH, FLA 33437

561-364-4240

4Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


QUESTION(S) PRESENTED1. Florida Supreme Court and The Florida Bar failure to uphold the Florida

Constitution through obstruction of the attorney complaint process for disciplining

attorney misconduct and abuse of public offices within such court and its disciplinary

aegis.

2. Conflict of Interests at the Florida Supreme Court and The Florida Bar

unregulated according to the established Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and the

Florida Criminal Statues inapposite of the intent of the Florida Constitution.

3. Attorney complaint process is denied Petitioner in filing complaint against

Matthew Triggs, Eric Turner and others as The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme

Court refuse to docket complaints with verified abuses of public offices within the

Florida Supreme Court and The Florida Bar, inapposite the Rules Regulating The

Florida Bar and inapposite of the intent of the Florida Constitution.

4. Failure to follow judicial cannons in regard to suggested conflict of

interest at Florida Supreme Court.

5. Failure to publicly disclose conflicts and verify in writing publicly that

conflict does not exist, inapposite the Florida statues.

6. Failure of Florida civil court to allow due process through obstruction

caused by conflict and violations of judicial cannons. Denial of rights to counsel.

Denial of rights to a trial.

7. Failure to follow judicial cannons in notifying authorities of attorney

misconduct when alleged corruption of attorneys was presented in a counter

5Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


complaint prepared by competent attorneys. Counter complaint showed that crimes

had been committed against the federal government, the state, and its citizens, by

attorneys practicing before the court in the case. Once notified of such crimes instead

of reporting the alleged activities to the proper authorities as regulated by judicial

cannons, the Petitioners legal rights were usurped through obstruction of justice.

8. Can the legal system be manipulated in several states and across several

agencies where complaints have been filed to deny due process through conflicts and

obstructions, that even verified are ignored, and so prevent inventors from losing

constitutionally protected rights to their inventions through denial of rights and access

to the legal system to press claims void of conflicts and improprieties.

6Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


LIST OF PARTIES

[X ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all

parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

Iviewit companies – Appendix ___

Proskauer Rose, LLP (All Partners, Associates and Of Counsel)

Christopher C. Wheeler

Matthew Triggs

The Florida Bar

Eric Turner

Lorraine Hoffman

Kelly Overstreet Johnson

Joy Bartmon

Kenneth Marvin

John Anthony Boggs

7Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


TABLE OF CONTENTSAFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS...................................................................................1QUESTION(S) PRESENTED.............................................................................................5LIST OF PARTIES..............................................................................................................6TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................7INDEX TO APPENDICES.................................................................................................9

APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................9APPENDIX B..................................................................................................................9APPENDIX C..................................................................................................................9APPENDIX D..................................................................................................................9APPENDIX E..................................................................................................................9APPENDIX F..................................................................................................................9

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED................................................................................10CASES...........................................................................................................................10STATUTES AND RULES............................................................................................10OTHER..........................................................................................................................15

JURISDICTION................................................................................................................29CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED........................30

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION..........................................................................301. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8.......................................................................302. AMENDMENT VI - RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL, CONFRONTATION OF WITNESSES. . .303. AMENDMENT VII - TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES.............................................304. AMENDMENT XIV - CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.............................................................305. ARTICLE 3 - THE JUDICIAL BRANCH - SECTION 2 - TRIAL BY JURY, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, JURY TRIALS.......................................................................................316. ARTICLE 6 - THE UNITED STATES........................................................................31FLORIDA CONSTITUTION......................................................................................327. SECTION 8 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT.................................................................328. FLORIDA SECTION 15- ATTORNEYS; ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE......................329. SECTION 21 – ACCESS TO COURTS......................................................................3310. SECTION 22 - TRIAL BY JURY..........................................................................3311. SECTION 24 - ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS AND MEETINGS..........................3312. SECTION 8 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT............................................................3313. SECTION 9 – DUE PROCESS.............................................................................3414. TITLE V – JUDICIAL BRANCH – CHAPTER 38 – JUDGES; GENERAL PROVISIONS – DISQUALIFICATION WHEN JUDGE PARTY; EFFECT OF ATTEMPTED JUDICIAL ACTS..3415. SUGGESTION OF DISQUALIFICATION; GROUNDS; PROCEEDINGS ON SUGGESTION AND EFFECT...........................................................................................3416. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FOR PREJUDICE; APPLICATION; AFFIDAVITS; ETC

3517. OTHER STATE (VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, CALIFORNIA), INTERNATIONAL TREATISES AND FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE CRIMES HAVE BEEN PERPATRATED........36

8Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........................................................................................38Introduction................................................................................................................38JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IN THIS MATTER AND ALL RELATED MATTERS..........421. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE TO PROTECT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION....422. PATENT OFFICE TIME OF ESSENCE......................................................................453. TIME ACTS AS CONDUIT TO FURTHER ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM................524. TIME ALLOWS FOR FURTHER CRIMES PERPETRATED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND FOREIGN NATIONS.............................................................58A. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE............................................59B. UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE...................................................................60C. EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE.................................................................................60D. JAPANESE PATENT OFFICE..................................................................................60E. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION....................................................................60F. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FLORIDA.......................................................................61G. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DELAWARE...................................................................61H. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT................................................................61I. FLORIDA FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL............................................................................615. OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE – DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS CONTRIBUTING TO LOSS OF INVENTION RIGHTS................................................................................................61A. FIFTEEN JUDICIAL FLORIDA – CASE #_________________...............................61B. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT – THE FLORIDA BAR.................................................68C. NEW YORK SUPREME COURT AND NEW YORK FIRST DEPARTMENT DDC AND SECOND DEPARTMENT DDC........................................................................................76D. BOCA RATON PD.................................................................................................93E. FBI......................................................................................................................946. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTERS......................957. NO OTHER COURT OF LAW..................................................................................96

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.............................................................102CONCLUSION................................................................................................................103PROOF OF SERVICE.....................................................................................................104QUESTIONS FOR THE CLERK OF THE COURT – remove from final.....................105

9Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

10Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES PAGE NUMBER

STATUTES AND RULES

Including but not limited to all of the following and pending further information from

ongoing investigations and further filings with several additional state, federal and international

authorities.

THIS SHOULD LINK TO DOC INSERT TABLE FROM LIST OF CRIMES FOR FLORIDA

AND LINKAGE FOR SECTIONS OF LAW – COMBINE WITH EXHIBIT 1 SECTIONS

THIS SHOULD GO IN APPENDIX B OR SOMETHING WITH THE REST PER THE RULES

FLORIDA STATE CRIMES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND I. FLORIDA CONSPIRACY ........................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE XLIV - CIVIL RIGHTS CH 760-765-760.01 THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992. ........................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 760.51 VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, CIVIL ACTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; CIVIL PENALTY. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XLV – TORTS - CH 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.103 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XLV TORTS - CH 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.104 CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XLV TORTS - CH 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.11 CIVIL REMEDY FOR THEFT OR EXPLOITATION. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XLV TORTS – CH 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES - 772.185 ATTORNEY'S FEES TAXED AS COSTS. ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

II. FLORIDA RICO (RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION) ACT ................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

CH 895 - OFFENSES CONCERNING RACKETEERING AND ILLEGAL DEBTS 895.01 "FLORIDA RICO (RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION) ACT. ........................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

11Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


895.03 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND DEFENSE. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 895.04 CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND ALTERNATIVE FINE. ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 895.05 CIVIL REMEDIES. ....................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 895.06 CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 895.07 RICO LIEN NOTICE. .................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 895.08 TERM OF RICO LIEN NOTICE. ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

III. CH 896 - OFFENSES RELATED TO FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS 896.101 FLORIDA MONEY LAUNDERING ACT .. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

896.102 CURRENCY MORE THAN $10,000 RECEIVED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS; REPORT REQUIRED; NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES. . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 896.103 TRANSACTION WHICH CONSTITUTES SEPARATE OFFENSE. .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 896.104 STRUCTURING TRANSACTIONS TO EVADE REPORTING OR REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS PROHIBITED. ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

IV. VIOLATION OF PUBLIC OFFICES FLORIDA SUPREME COURT – CASE SC04-1078, FLORIDA BAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST MATTHEW TRIGGS, CHRISTOPHER WHEELER AND ERIC TURNER . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

PART III – CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. ..................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 112.312 DEFINITIONS ........................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 112.313 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES OF AGENCIES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 112.320 COMMISSION ON ETHICS; PURPOSE. ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 112.324 PROCEDURES ON COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS; PUBLIC RECORDS AND MEETING EXEMPTIONS. ......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 112.3241 JUDICIAL REVIEW .................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 112.3173 FELONIES INVOLVING BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST AND OTHER SPECIFIED OFFENSES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS. ......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 112.52 REMOVAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHEN A METHOD IS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED. ............................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE X PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS CH 112 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC 112.317 PENALTIES. ............................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND CH 838 - BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE SEC 838.022 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. ........................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

12Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


CH 839 - OFFENSES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SEC 839.13 FALSIFYING RECORDS. .............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 839.26 MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XLVI CH 777 PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY SEC 777.011 PRINCIPAL IN FIRST DEGREE. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XLVI CH 777 SEC 777.03 ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT. ............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

V. FLORIDA TRADE SECRETS ACT .................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS CH 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT. ................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS CH 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 688.003 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS CH 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 688.004 DAMAGES . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

VI. FLORIDA TITLE XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

CH 495 REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS SEC 495.121 FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION. . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XXXIII CH 495 SEC 495.131 INFRINGEMENT. .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XXXIII CH 495 SEC 495.141 REMEDIES. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XXXIII CH 495 SEC 495.151 INJURY TO BUSINESS REPUTATION; DILUTION. .............................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE XXXIII CH 495 SEC 495.161 COMMON-LAW RIGHTS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 559.791 FALSE SWEARING ON APPLICATION; PENALTIES ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

VII. FLORIDA PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

SEC 812.081 TRADE SECRETS; THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT; UNLAWFUL COPYING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTY. ........................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

VIII. 812.13 ROBBERY .................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 812.155 HIRING, LEASING, OR OBTAINING PERSONAL PROPERTY OR EQUIPMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD; FAILING TO RETURN HIRED OR LEASED PERSONAL PROPERTY OR EQUIPMENT; RULES OF EVIDENCE. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

IX. CH 815 - COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

SEC 815.01 "FLORIDA COMPUTER CRIMES ACT”. ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

13Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


SEC 815.04 OFFENSES AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; PUBLIC RECORDS EXEMPTION. .......................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 815.045 TRADE SECRET INFORMATION. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 815.06 OFFENSES AGAINST COMPUTER USERS. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 815.07 THIS CHAPTER NOT EXCLUSIVE ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 831.03 FORGING OR COUNTERFEITING PRIVATE LABELS; POSSESSION OF REPRODUCTION MATERIALS. ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 831.04 PENALTY FOR CHANGING OR FORGING CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS OF WRITING. ............................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 831.04 PENALTY FOR CHANGING OR FORGING CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS OF WRITING. ............................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 831.05 VENDING GOODS OR SERVICES WITH COUNTERFEIT TRADEMARKS OR SERVICE MARKS. .............................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

X. FLORIDA - FORGERY ........................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 831.01 FORGERY. ........................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 831.02 UTTERING FORGED INSTRUMENTS. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 831.03 FORGING OR COUNTERFEITING PRIVATE LABELS; POSSESSION OF REPRODUCTION MATERIALS. ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 831.04 PENALTY FOR CHANGING OR FORGING CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS OF WRITING. ............................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 831.05 VENDING GOODS OR SERVICES WITH COUNTERFEIT TRADEMARKS OR SERVICE MARKS. ................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 831.06 FICTITIOUS SIGNATURE OF OFFICER OF CORPORATION. ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XI. FLORIDA CH 817 - FRAUDULENT PRACTICES - PART I - FALSE PRETENSES AND FRAUDS, GENERALLY ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

CHAPTER 817 - SEC 817.02 OBTAINING PROPERTY BY FALSE PERSONATION. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 817.025 HOME OR PRIVATE BUSINESS INVASION BY FALSE PERSONATION; PENALTIES. ............................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.03 MAKING FALSE STATEMENT TO OBTAIN PROPERTY OR CREDIT. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.031 MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS; VENUE OF PROSECUTION. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.034 FLORIDA COMMUNICATIONS FRAUD ACT. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.05 FALSE STATEMENTS TO MERCHANTS AS TO FINANCIAL CONDITION. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.06 MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS PROHIBITED; PENALTY. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

14Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


SEC 817.061 MISLEADING SOLICITATION OF PAYMENTS PROHIBITED. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.12 PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF S. 817.11. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.15 MAKING FALSE ENTRIES, ETC., ON BOOKS OF CORPORATION. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.155 MATTERS WITHIN JURISDICTION OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE; FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR FRAUDULENT ACTS, STATEMENTS, AND REPRESENTATIONS PROHIBITED; PENALTY; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.19 FRAUDULENT ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE OF STOCK OF CORPORATION. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.20 ISSUING STOCK OR OBLIGATION OF CORPORATION BEYOND AUTHORIZED AMOUNT. ......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.21 BOOKS TO BE EVIDENCE IN SUCH CASES. ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.234 FALSE AND FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.562 FRAUD INVOLVING A SECURITY INTEREST. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

CROSSBOW & DISTREAM – SECURED CREDIT – ATTEMPTED TRANSFER .............................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

SEC 817.566 MISREPRESENTATION OF ASSOCIATION WITH, OR ACADEMIC STANDING AT, POST SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. ................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 817.567 MAKING FALSE CLAIMS OF ACADEMIC DEGREE OR TITLE. . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XII. FLORIDA PERJURY .......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND CHAPTER 837 – PERJURY. .............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 837.02 PERJURY IN OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 837.021 PERJURY BY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS. . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 837.05 FALSE REPORTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 837.06 FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XIII. FLORIDA STATE TAX LAW - CHAPTER 220 - INCOME TAX CODE ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

CH 220 - INCOME TAX CODE ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 220.21 RETURNS AND RECORDS; REGULATIONS ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND PART X TAX CRIMES 220.901 WILLFUL AND FRAUDULENT ACTS. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 220.905 AIDING AND ABETTING .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

15Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


XIV. THEFT, ROBBERY AND MISAPPROPRIATION AND CONVERSION OF FUNDS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XV. FLORIDA LAW SEC 812.081 TRADE SECRETS; THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT; UNLAWFUL COPYING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTY. . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

SEC 812.035 CIVIL REMEDIES; LIMITATION ON CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XVI. FRAUD UPON IVIEWIT ................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND FLORIDA LAW - TITLE XXXVI BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS CH 607 CORPORATIONS SEC 607.0129 PENALTY FOR SIGNING FALSE DOCUMENT .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 607.1402 DISSOLUTION BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS; DISSOLUTION BY WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHAREHOLDERS. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 607.0129 PENALTY FOR SIGNING FALSE DOCUMENT ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 607.830 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR DIRECTORS. ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 607.830 DIRECTOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 607.0834 LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTIONS .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 607.0841 DUTIES OF OFFICERS. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

SEC 607.0901 AFFILIATED TRANSACTIONS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

OTHER - THIS SHOULD LINK TO STATE, FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXHIBIT 1

FEDERAL CRIMES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND I. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INVENTOR RIGHTS – ARTICLE I, SECTION VIII, CLAUSE VIII THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

ARTICLE I, SECTION VIII, CLAUSE VIII OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 13 SEC 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 13 SEC 245 FEDERALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITIES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

II. VIOLATION OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 31. MONEY AND FINANCE SUBTITLE III. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 37. CLAIMS SUBC III. CLAIMS AGAINST

16Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

III. ANTITRUST CIVIL PROCESS .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT: THROUGH A COURSE OF ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT THAT MAINTAINED ITS PATENT POOL SYSTEM OF MONOPOLY ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND THE OFFENSE OF MONOPOLIZATION .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND RELEVANT PRODUCT IN GEOGRAPHIC MARKET .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND MARKET STRUCTURE AND COMPETITIVE EFFECTS .................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND THE NEED FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SYSTEMS MARKET IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 34 SEC 1312 CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMANDS .................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 34 SEC 1313 CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS, ANSWERS AND TRANSCRIPTS ......................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND PRODUCT VIOLATES SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 AND 2; RECORDS AND REPORTS . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

III. VIOLATIONS OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO) ............................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1965 RICO VENUE AND PROCESS. . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1961 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (“RICO”). .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (A) – RICO PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (A) RICO ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (B) RICO ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (C) RICO ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 SEC 1962 (D) RICO ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND LIST OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED: BY REASON OF THE VIOLATION OF § 1962, INDICATING THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH EACH DEFENDANT IS ALLEGEDLY LIABLE. ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND DESCRIPTION OF THE DIRECT CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGED INJURY AND THE VIOLATION OF THE RICO STATUTE. ........................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

17Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INJURY TO BUSINESS OR PROPERTY .......................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF U.S.C. § 1962(D) ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND STATEMENT OF WHO IS EMPLOYED BY OR ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGED ENTERPRISE, AND WHETHER THE SAME ENTITY IS BOTH THE LIABLE “PERSON” AND THE “ENTERPRISE” UNDER U.S.C. § 1962(C) ................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND DESCRIPTION OF THE ACQUISITION OR MAINTENANCE OF ANY INTEREST IN OR CONTROL OF THE ALLEGED ENTERPRISE IN VIOLATION OF U.S.C. § 1962(B) ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITS, THE ALLEGED ENTERPRISE RECEIVES FROM THE ALLEGED PATTERN OF RACKETEERING .................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ENTERPRISE AND THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY. .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND STATEMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ALLEGING THAT THE PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY AND THE ENTERPRISE ARE SEPARATE OR HAVE MERGED INTO ONE ENTITY. ............................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED “ENTERPRISE”. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1964 RICO CIVIL REMEDIES. .................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1968 RICO CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND ............................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

IV. CONSPIRACY ..................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 CONSPIRACY SEC 371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENSE OR TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES ............... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

V. SUPREME COURT AGENCY PUBLIC OFFICE ABUSE, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPT AND THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 21 SEC 401 - POWER OF COURT .............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

VI. RACKETEERING ............................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1951 - INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1952 INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN AID OF RACKETEERING ENTERPRISES .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

18Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1956 LAUNDERING OF MONETARY INSTRUMENTS. ................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1957 ENGAGING IN MONETARY TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY DERIVED FROM SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. .............................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 103 SEC. 2112 - PERSONAL PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES. ................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

VII. COMMERCE AND TRADE ............... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 RELATING TO MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE SEC. 1 - TRUSTS, ETC., IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE ILLEGAL; PENALTY. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 SEC. - MONOPOLIZING TRADE A FELONY; PENALTY. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 SEC. 6 - FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY IN TRANSIT. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 SEC 6A - CONDUCT INVOLVING TRADE OR COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. ....................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 SEC. 14 - SALE, ETC., ON AGREEMENT NOT TO USE GOODS OF COMPETITOR. ....................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 SEC. 18 - ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION OF STOCK OF ANOTHER. ............................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 1 SEC 19 INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES AND OFFICERS. . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 1 SEC 26 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR PRIVATE PARTIES; EXCEPTION; COSTS ......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH I SEC 45 UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION UNLAWFUL; PREVENTION BY COMMISSION. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 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. ............................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH II SEC 62 - EXPORT TRADE AND ANTITRUST LEGISLATION. ........................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH II SEC 64 - UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN EXPORT TRADE. ..................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

IX. VIOLATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 501 INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 502 REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT: INJUNCTIONS . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 503 REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT: IMPOUNDING AND DISPOSITION OF INFRINGING ARTICLES. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

19Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 504 REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT: DAMAGES AND PROFITS ................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 505 REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT: COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES .................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 506 CRIMINAL OFFENSES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 507 LIMITATIONS ON ACTIONS ............ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 508 NOTIFICATION OF FILING AND DETERMINATION OF ACTIONS ................................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 509 SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 510 REMEDIES FOR ALTERATION OF PROGRAMMING BY CABLE SYSTEMS ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 511 LIABILITY OF STATES, INSTRUMENTALITIES OF STATES, AND STATE OFFICIALS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 512 LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY RELATING TO MATERIAL ONLINE .................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 513 DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE LICENSE FEES FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETORS ..................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CHAPTER 13 SEC 1312 - OATHS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 13 SEC 1326 PENALTY FOR FALSE MARKING ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CHAPTER 13 SEC 1327 - PENALTY FOR FALSE REPRESENTATION .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 13 SEC 1329 RELATION TO DESIGN PATENT LAW .............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 17 CH 13 SEC 1330 COMMON LAW AND OTHER RIGHTS UNAFFECTED .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

X. FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ............................................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 35 PART I CH 2 SEC 25 DECLARATION IN LIEU OF OATH ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 35 PART II CH 11 SEC 115 OATH OF APPLICANT . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 35 PART II CH 11 SEC 116 INVENTORS .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 35 PART III CH 261 OWNERSHIP; ASSIGNMENT ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 35 PART IV PATENT COOPERATION TREATY CH 35 SEC 351 .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

20Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


TITLE 35 PART IV CH 37 SEC 373 IMPROPER APPLICANT ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 1.56 DUTY TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 1.63 REGARDING OATHS AND DECLARATIONS. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND CONSOLIDATED PATENT RULES § 1.63 . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 1.64 REGARDING PERSON MAKING FALSE OATHS AND DECLARATIONS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 1.71 REGARDING DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND SPECIFICATION OF THE INVENTION. ........................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 1.137 FOR REVIVAL OF ABANDONED APPLICATION, TERMINATED REEXAMINATION PROCEEDING, OR LAPSED PATENT ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND LAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 1001 . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND LAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 2071 . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 37 - CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS - MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE PATENT RULES PART 10 - PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PART 10 - REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND §10.18 SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATE FOR CORRESPONDENCE FILED IN THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.20 CANONS AND DISCIPLINARY RULES ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.21 CANON 1 .................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.23 MISCONDUCT ........................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.25 - 10.29 [RESERVED] § 10.30 CANON 2 ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.31 COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING A PRACTITIONER’S SERVICES. . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.33 DIRECT CONTACT WITH PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.40 WITHDRAWAL FROM EMPLOYMENT .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.50 - 10.55 [RESERVED] § 10.56 CANON 4 ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.57 PRESERVATION OF CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS OF A CLIENT ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.58 - 10.60 [RESERVED] § 10.61 CANON 5 ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

21Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


§ 10.64 AVOIDING ACQUISITION OF INTEREST IN LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING BEFORE THE OFFICE .............................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.65 LIMITING BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH A CLIENT. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND §10.66 REFUSING TO ACCEPT OR CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT IF THE INTERESTS OF ANOTHER CLIENT MAY IMPAIR THE INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF THE PRACTITIONER. ............................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.68 AVOIDING INFLUENCE BY OTHERS THAN THE CLIENT ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.69 - 10.75 [RESERVED] § 10.76 CANON 6 ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.77 FAILING TO ACT COMPETENTLY .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.78 LIMITING LIABILITY TO CLIENT. ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.79 - 10.82 [RESERVED] § 10.83 CANON 7 ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.84 REPRESENTING A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.85 REPRESENTING A CLIENT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.94 - 10.99 [RESERVED] § 10.100 CANON 8 ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.104 - 10.109 [RESERVED] § 10.110 CANON 9 . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 10.112 PRESERVING IDENTITY OF FUNDS AND PROPERTY OF CLIENT .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND PATENT RULES PART 10 INDEX - PART 15 . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XI. VIOLATIONS OF PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 SEC 1831 ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 SEC 1832 THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS. ............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 SEC 1834 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 SEC 1835 ORDERS TO PRESERVE CONFIDENTIALITY. ......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 SEC 1837 APPLICABILITY TO CONDUCT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. ................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 22 TRADEMARKS SEC 1116 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III SEC 1117 - RECOVERY FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

22Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III SEC 1120 CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE OR FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III SEC 1125 FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III SEC 1126 FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XII. FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICES ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XIII. VIOLATION OF FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAW ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 BANKRUPTCY SEC. 152 CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS; FALSE OATHS AND CLAIMS; BRIBERY. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 SEC 156 - KNOWING DISREGARD OF BANKRUPTCY LAW OR RULE ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 SEC 157 - BANKRUPTCY FRAUD. ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 11 CHAPTER 1 SEC 110 - PENALTY FOR PERSONS WHO NEGLIGENTLY OR FRAUDULENTLY PREPARE BANKRUPTCY PETITIONS. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XIV. COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 25 SEC 470 COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY COUNTERFEIT ACTS COMMITTED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. ............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 25 SEC 473 - DEALING IN COUNTERFEIT OBLIGATIONS OR SECURITIES. ..................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 25 SEC 494 - CONTRACTORS' BONDS, BIDS, AND PUBLIC RECORDS ............................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 25 SEC 495 - CONTRACTS, DEEDS, AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY ............................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XV. FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS SEC 1001 .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 SEC 1031 - MAJOR FRAUD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. ................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XVI. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF VIOLATION ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 65 SEC 1361 – GOVERNMENT PROPERTY OR CONTRACTS .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XVII. ROBBERY AND BURGLARY .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

23Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


TITLE 18 PART I CH 103 SEC 2112 - PERSONAL PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES. ................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 103 SEC 2114 - MAIL, MONEY, OR OTHER PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES. ................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XVIII. STOLEN PROPERTY ..................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 STOLEN PROPERTY SEC 2311 ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 SEC 2314 - TRANSPORTATION OF STOLEN GOODS, SECURITIES, MONEYS, FRAUDULENT STATE TAX STAMPS, OR ARTICLES USED IN COUNTERFEITING. ................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 SEC 2315 - SALE OR RECEIPT OF STOLEN GOODS, SECURITIES, MONEYS, OR FRAUDULENT STATE TAX STAMPS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 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. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 SEC 2319 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT. ........................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 SEC 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES. ........................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XIX. SECURITIES VIOLATIONS .............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XX. BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 11 ..................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XXI. PERJURY ............................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 SEC 1621 - PERJURY GENERALLY ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 SEC 1622 ... . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 SEC 1623 - FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY OR COURT. .................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XXII. MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD ................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 SEC 1341 - FRAUDS AND SWINDLES ............... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 SEC 1342 FICTITIOUS NAME OR ADDRESS ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 SEC 1343 - FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 SEC 1344 - BANK FRAUD ............ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

24Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 SEC 1346 - DEFINITION OF ''SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD''. ............................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 SEC 1345 - INJUNCTIONS AGAINST FRAUD ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XXIII. VIOLATIONS OF POSTAL SERVICE ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 83 SEC 1701 - OBSTRUCTION OF MAILS GENERALLY .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 83 SEC 1702 - OBSTRUCTION OF CORRESPONDENCE .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XXIV. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE VIOLATIONS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XXV. EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 31 SEC 641 - PUBLIC MONEY, PROPERTY OR RECORDS .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND SEC 654 - OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF UNITED STATES CONVERTING PROPERTY OF ANOTHER .......................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

XXVI. TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH IV SUBCHAPTER IV - THE MADRID PROTOCOL ..................................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XXVII. CONTEMPT .................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XXVIII. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 73 SEC 1511 - OBSTRUCTION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ...................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

NEW YORK STATE CRIMES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND I. NEW YORK CONSPIRACY ......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS PENAL ARTICLE 105 CONSPIRACY ..................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

II. VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICES NEW YORK SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS PENAL ARTICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.03 BRIBERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE. . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.04 BRIBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.05 BRIBERY; DEFENSE. ............... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.10 BRIBE RECEIVING IN THE THIRD DEGREE. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.11 BRIBE RECEIVING IN THE SECOND DEGREE. ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

25Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


S 200.12 BRIBE RECEIVING IN THE FIRST DEGREE. . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.15 BRIBE RECEIVING; NO DEFENSE. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.20 REWARDING OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE. . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.22 REWARDING OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.25 RECEIVING REWARD FOR OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE SECOND DEGREE. ................................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.27 RECEIVING REWARD FOR OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE. ................................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.30 GIVING UNLAWFUL GRATUITIES. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.35 RECEIVING UNLAWFUL GRATUITIES. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.40 BRIBE GIVING AND BRIBE RECEIVING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE; DEFINITION OF TERM. ............................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.45 BRIBE GIVING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. ... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 200.50 BRIBE RECEIVING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. . . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.05 FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE SECOND DEGREE. ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.10 FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE. ............ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.15 FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS; DEFENSE. ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.20 TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC RECORDS IN THE SECOND DEGREE. . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.25 TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.30 OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING IN THE SECOND DEGREE. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.35 OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING IN THE FIRST DEGREE. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.40 ISSUING A FALSE CERTIFICATE. ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 175.45 ISSUING A FALSE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND NY CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XIII PUBLIC OFFICERS ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

26Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


PUBLIC OFFICERS - PUBLIC OFFICERS ARTICLE 1 ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND ARTICLE 2 APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS - ARTICLE 15 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 468-B. CLIENTS` SECURITY FUND OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 476-A. ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL PRACTICE OF THE LAW . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 476-B. INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN DEFENDANT FROM UNLAWFUL PRACTICE OF THE LAW. .............................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 476-C. INVESTIGATION BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 487. MISCONDUCT BY ATTORNEYS. . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 488. BUYING DEMANDS ON WHICH TO BRING AN ACTION. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 499. LAWYER ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES. .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 73 RESTRICTIONS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF CURRENT AND FORMER STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. .. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 74 CODE OF ETHICS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

III. NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS TITLE X ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT ARTICLE 460 ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

S 460.10 DEFINITIONS. ......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 460.20 ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 460.25 ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION; LIMITATIONS. . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 460.30 ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION; FORFEITURE. . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 460.40 ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION; JURISDICTION. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 460.50 ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION; PROSECUTION. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 460.60 ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION; CONSENT TO PROSECUTE. ............... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 460.70 PROVISIONAL REMEDIES. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 460.80 COURT ORDERED DISCLOSURE. ......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

IV. STATE OF NEW YORK TRADEMARK LAWS ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

§ 360. DEFINITIONS .............................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-A. REGISTRABILITY ..................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

27Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


§ 360-B. APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-C. FILING OF APPLICATIONS ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-D. CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-E. DURATION AND RENEWAL ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-F. ASSIGNMENTS, CHANGES OF NAME AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-G. RECORDS ................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-H. CANCELLATION ...................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-I. CLASSIFICATION ...................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-J. FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION. . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-K. INFRINGEMENT. ...................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-L. INJURY TO BUSINESS REPUTATION; DILUTION. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-M. REMEDIES. ............................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-O. COMMON LAW RIGHTS ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 360-Q. RULES AND REGULATIONS ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

V. NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS ARTICLE 210 - PERJURY AND RELATED OFFENSES ................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.05 PERJURY IN THE THIRD DEGREE. ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.10 PERJURY IN THE SECOND DEGREE. . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.15 PERJURY IN THE FIRST DEGREE. ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.20 PERJURY; PLEADING AND PROOF WHERE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS INVOLVED. ............................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.25 PERJURY; DEFENSE ................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.30 PERJURY; NO DEFENSE ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.35 MAKING AN APPARENTLY SWORN FALSE STATEMENT IN THE SECOND DEGREE. ................................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.40 MAKING AN APPARENTLY SWORN FALSE STATEMENT IN THE FIRST DEGREE. ................................................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.45 MAKING A PUNISHABLE FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENT. .............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND S 210.50 PERJURY AND RELATED OFFENSES; REQUIREMENT OF CORROBORATION. ................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

DELAWARE STATE CRIMES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND I. DELAWARE § 521 CONSPIRACY ................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

CH 5 SPECIFIC OFFENSES SUBCH I INCHOATE CRIMES § 521 CONSPIRACY § 531 ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME. ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 871 FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS; CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

28Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


§ 891 DEFRAUDING SECURED CREDITORS; CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 909 SECURING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DECEPTION. ................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

II. VIOLATIONS OF DELAWARE CORPORATE LAWS ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

§ 102. CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ›AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE AUG. 1, 2004, INCLUDED; SEE 74 DEL. LAWS, C. 32. ............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 224. FORM OF RECORDS ..................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 251. MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION OF DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. ............................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND 253. MERGER OF PARENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY OR SUBSIDIARIES. .............................................................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 257 MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION OF DOMESTIC STOCK AND NONSTOCK CORPORATIONS. .................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND § 372 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN CASE OF CHANGE OF NAME, CHANGE

OF BUSINESS PURPOSE OR MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION. ERROR:

REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND I. FRAUD UPON THE JAPANESE PATENT OFFICES (JPO) . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND II. FRAUD UPON THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICES (EPO) ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND III. ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > § 1831 ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

CALIFORNIA STATE CRIMES – COMING SOON ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND WISCONSIN STATE CRIMES – COMING SOON ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

29Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[X ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at Appendix to the petition and

is Florida Supreme Court

[ ] reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is

unpublished.

The opinion of the court appears at Appendix to the petition and is

[ ] reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is

unpublished.

ADD PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION, REHEARING AND CERTIFICATION WITH WHEELER DUI ATTACHED

30Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


JURISDICTION[ X] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was _______________. A copy of that

decision appears at Appendix .

[X] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date_________:, and a

copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix .

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and including

(date) on (date) in Application No. A .

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1257(a).

31Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

1. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to

pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but

all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United 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;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the

foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the

United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

2. AMENDMENT VI - RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL, CONFRONTATION OF WITNESSESIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,

by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which

district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause

of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process

for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

3. AMENDMENT VII - TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASESIn Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the

right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined

in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

4. AMENDMENT XIV - CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

32Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


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.

5. ARTICLE 3 - THE JUDICIAL BRANCH - SECTION 2 - TRIAL BY JURY, ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, JURY TRIALS

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this

Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under

their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all

Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be

a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another

State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands

under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,

Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in

which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other

Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and

Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

6. ARTICLE 6 - THE UNITED STATESAll Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this

Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the

Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance

thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,

33Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any

Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several

State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the

several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no

religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the

United States.

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION

7. SECTION 8 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENTA public office is a public trust. The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that

trust against abuse. To assure this right:

(c) Any public officer or employee who breaches the public trust for private gain and any

person or entity inducing such breach shall be liable to the state for all financial benefits obtained

by such actions. The manner of recovery and additional damages may be provided by law.

(g) A code of ethics for all state employees and nonjudicial officers prohibiting conflict

between public duty and private interests shall be prescribed by law.

(h) This section shall not be construed to limit disclosures and prohibitions which may

be established by law to preserve the public trust and avoid conflicts between public duties and

private interests.

8. FLORIDA SECTION 15- ATTORNEYS; ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINEThe supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons

to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.

History.--S.J.R. 52-D, 1971; adopted 1972.

34Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


9. SECTION 21 – ACCESS TO COURTSThe courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be

administered without sale, denial or delay.

10. SECTION 22 - TRIAL BY JURYThe right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications

and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.

11. SECTION 24 - ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS AND MEETINGS(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in

connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or

persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or

specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the

legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department

created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board,

and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution.

12. SECTION 8 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENTA public office is a public trust. The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that

trust against abuse. To assure this right:

c) Any public officer or employee who breaches the public trust for private gain and any

person or entity inducing such breach shall be liable to the state for all financial benefits obtained

by such actions. The manner of recovery and additional damages may be provided by law.

(g) A code of ethics for all state employees and nonjudicial officers prohibiting conflict

between public duty and private interests shall be prescribed by law.

35Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


13. SECTION 9 – DUE PROCESSNo person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be

twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness

against oneself.

History.--Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998,

filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

14. TITLE V – JUDICIAL BRANCH – CHAPTER 38 – JUDGES; GENERAL PROVISIONS – DISQUALIFICATION WHEN JUDGE PARTY; EFFECT OF ATTEMPTED JUDICIAL ACTS

Every judge of this state who appears of record as a party to any cause before him or her

shall be disqualified to act therein, and shall forthwith enter an order declaring himself or herself

to be disqualified in said cause. Any and all attempted judicial acts by any judge so disqualified

in a cause, whether done inadvertently or otherwise, shall be utterly null and void and of no

effect. No judge shall be disqualified from sitting in the trial of any suit in which any county or

municipal corporation is a party by reason that such judge is a resident or taxpayer within such

county or municipal corporation.

History.--s. 2, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(1); s. 1, ch. 59-43; s. 205, ch. 95-

147.

15. SUGGESTION OF DISQUALIFICATION; GROUNDS; PROCEEDINGS ON SUGGESTION AND EFFECT

In any cause in any of the courts of this state any party to said cause, or any person or

corporation interested in the subject matter of such litigation, may at any time before final

judgment, if the case be one at law, and at any time before final decree, if the case be one in

chancery, show by a suggestion filed in the cause that the judge before whom the cause is

pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree,

is a party thereto, or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney

36Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


or counselor of record in said cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that

said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to said cause, but such an order

shall not be subject to collateral attack. Such suggestions shall be filed in the cause within 30

days after the party filing the suggestion, or the party's attorney, or attorneys, of record, or either

of them, learned of such disqualification, otherwise the ground, or grounds, of disqualification

shall be taken and considered as waived. If the truth of any suggestion appear from the record in

said cause, the said judge shall forthwith enter an order reciting the filing of the suggestion, the

grounds of his or her disqualification, and declaring himself or herself to be disqualified in said

cause. If the truth of any such suggestion does not appear from the record in said cause, the judge

may by order entered therein require the filing in the cause of affidavits touching the truth or

falsity of such suggestion. If the judge finds that the suggestion is true, he or she shall forthwith

enter an order reciting the ground of his or her disqualification and declaring himself or herself

disqualified in the cause; if the judge finds that the suggestion is false, he or she shall forthwith

enter the order so reciting and declaring himself or herself to be qualified in the cause. Any such

order declaring a judge to be disqualified shall not be subject to collateral attack nor shall it be

subject to review. Any such order declaring a judge qualified shall not be subject to collateral

attack but shall be subject to review by the court having appellate jurisdiction of the cause in

connection with which the order was entered.

History.--s. 3, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(2); s. 1, ch. 26890, 1951; s. 6, ch.

63-559; s. 206, ch. 95-147.

16. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FOR PREJUDICE; APPLICATION; AFFIDAVITS; ETC

Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear

that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court, Exhibit “” – Petition for _______ where the

suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in

37Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be

designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the

trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the

facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied

by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith.

However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an

order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has been

assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so

assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party

making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge

admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the

parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as

between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered

on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling

of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.

History.--s. 4, ch. 7852, 1919; RGS 2674; s. 1, ch. 9276, 1923; CGL 4341; s. 3, ch. 83-

260; s. 212, ch. 95-147.

17. OTHER STATE (VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, CALIFORNIA), INTERNATIONAL TREATISES AND FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE CRIMES HAVE BEEN PERPETRATED

For a complete listing of currently known federal, state and international laws that have

been violated in the commission of these crimes, subject to further additions as more information

is learned and has been evidenced to the proper authorities for procedural disposition are all

evidenced in Exhibit “1” and its exhibits. Many of these crimes are crimes committed in the

obstruction of justice through abuse of public office and failure to protect the people, the United

38Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


States Constitution, the state constitutions of those states named herein, and in exhibit, by those

certain attorneys and law firms that have acted outside the bounds of their sworn oaths to uphold

such justice. Several other states, federal agencies and foreign nations will become involved as

crimes committed and recently discovered have penetrated other agencies where charges have not

been filed yet. Where international treatise and foreign governments have already become

involved, new charges are being formalized in those countries for similar fraud on those

international patent offices with now well over 30 countries where similar fraud on these

governments has occurred through falsification of patent oaths.

39Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


STATEMENT OF THE CASEINTRODUCTION

That there has come to pass the theft of intellectual properties by the law firm Proskauer

Rose LLP, subsequent other counsel and others, as evidenced within Appendix ___,1 which

includes a civil and criminal conspiracy to steal inventions from inventors by their once trusted

intellectual property attorneys. Where such attorneys acted in violation of almost every ethical

misconduct and criminal code, in light of a numerosity of corrupted individuals, lawyers and law

firms working in concert to commit the crimes to steal the patents, including crimes against the

United States, foreign nations, Petitioner, other inventors of the technology and all those investors

in Petitioners’ technologies. When caught in the act, further crimes to further obstruct justice and

prevent due process were committed to cover-up, by a diabolical manipulation and infiltration of

the legal system and its disciplinary agencies through conflicted public officers violating their

public office rules. Through a series of abuses of public office, through the use of lawyers (with

enormous influence) in conflict and violating established public office procedures, Proskauer

partners have repeatedly been found to have obstructed the attorney complaints process and the

complaints filed against them. Where these obstructions cause delay and prevent due process

through illegal means, the inventors rights to their patents, which are in the wrong peoples names,

including many in the patent attorneys name and their referred management, hang in the balance

and may be lost if Petitioner is further prevented from accessing the legal and justice system.

Where Petitioner begs This Court to allow fair and impartial due process, free of further conflicts

and improprieties to determine the validity of the claims and truly test the evidence and hear the

witnesses. Where those individuals and law firms who are lawyers, had attorney misconduct

1 Appendix ___ is intended to give this filing a breadth of information on the nexus of events worldwide and provide ample initial evidence and support for the statements contained herein. This Appendix contains thousands of pages of exhibits and most of the documentation related to the charges contained herein.

40Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


eib, 05/05/05,

workit

charges filed against them for crimes which transcend their ethical obligations (such as patent

attorneys putting patents in their names of client inventions), including voluminous crimes

against the government and foreign nations. In part, these actions were intended to cause a legal

recognition of those acts that are criminal and violate both criminal codes and attorney conduct

codes, to afford law enforcement and the attorney disciplinary departments, the opportunity to

review the evidences, hear the witnesses and to prosecute those individuals who have caused a

loss of Petitioners’ constitutionally protected patent rights. Where the states constitutionally

enacted disciplinary agencies charged with prosecuting attorney misconduct, have been infiltrated

by highly influential and conflicted Proskauer partners, and where such state bar associations in

Florida and New York have subsequently failed to perform according to the laws and

constitutions of those states. In contrast, the conflicts have acted as a shield, to further protect

and aid and abet these criminal attorneys. Yet, it is not that such disciplinary agencies have

failed, it is that the accused attorneys have planted conflicted individuals, with public office

positions within such departments, to defeat the established protections against attorney

corruption, and control such departments and courts from the top down, having personal and

conflicting interests in the matters.

The companies listed in Appendix ___, some of which Petitioner is founder of, were

capitalized with funds, which include significant monies from the federally backed SBA. In fact,

it will be proven and evidenced that the SBA is the largest benefactor and shareholder of the

company stock and thus the rights to the patents. Thus, the SBA is one of the most aggrieved

shareholders of Petitioner companies.

These are no ordinary inventions that have invoked such far and wide reaching crimes

and caused attorneys to violate the laws and ethics they are beholden to uphold under sworn oath.

To further use, such legal privileges to not only commit the crimes but then to corrupt the legal

system to evade prosecution. Yet, these patents, deemed by multitudes of industry experts as

41Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


“holy grail” inventions that have changed the history of digital imaging and video, with an

estimated value in the billions to even trillions of dollars over the twenty year life of the patents,

provides ample motive. Where such ill gotten gains from the stolen intellectual properties

continues to fund the criminal activities and cause continued obstructions of justice described

herein and in Appendix ___. Where now confronted with overwhelming evidences and

witnesses, these attorneys will stop at no cost to stave off investigations and certain lengthy

federal prison sentences, if tried and convicted, including catastrophic financial and personal ruin,

similar to what they caused upon Petitioner through these thefts. Where once the onion began to

peel, the evidence against them became overwhelming and complaints were filed in a number of

legal venues. When confronted with the evidences presented to the state civil court, the state

bars, the state supreme courts and their disciplinary agencies, these attorneys began a pattern of

fraud and deceit to these tribunals. At the same time, through a series of Proskauer partners that

were senior members of the disciplinary agencies where the complaints were filed, handling the

complaints against them, with concealed conflicts with their public offices, Proskauer used these

conflicted agents to derail the complaints and avoid the evidence confronting them. Once such

controls were established through conflict, it was easy to deny all the evidence, avoid

investigation, and use the departments as shields, to attempt to create an impression that the bars

investigated the matters and the attorneys were vindicated or that there was not a preponderance

of evidence worthy of investigation. All these “reviews”, not investigations, were further based

on responses to the complaints, tendered by attorneys in violation of conflict laws that influenced

the reviewers’ decisions to not investigate. When conflict was discovered and where full

disclosure was requested, it was denied. Where conflict was discovered and it was requested that

the conflicted authors’ responses be voided and the accused stand without response, for

concealing conflicts in the initial response tendered in defense, it was denied. When complaints

were then filed for certain of those departmental members and others caught in conflict who

42Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


appeared to have failed their duties at the state courts, the state bars and there disciplinary

agencies, these agencies have refused to formally and publicly docket the complaints. Further the

have refused to institute investigations and discipline, denying due process and access to the

courts, all in violation of Petitioners’ rights under the United States Constitution and the

constitutions of those states.

The only hope these major law firms and others involved now have to evade prosecution

is through the purchase of justice and infiltration of the legal system. To further violate and deny

Petitioner of his rights to due process, access to the courts, access of counsel, access to the

attorney complaint process and access to the complaint process against public officials. Where

the use of the law as an instrument to commit and further perpetrate crime, by certain corrupt

attorneys, is to such degree that on first glance it causes the appearance that the legal system itself

has become involved in aiding and abetting the crimes committed. Crimes committed not only

against Petitioner, and against the shareholders of Petitioner companies, but crimes committed

also against the government and foreign nations. Crimes committed by the very attorneys

beholden to protect the citizens and nation from such crimes. Where the crimes involve crimes of

intellectual property and fraud upon the USPTO by attorneys sworn to the patent bar, no greater

threat to the patent system and free commerce has come before This Court. Where the crimes

committed have circled the globe in false patent oaths filed in the United States to foreign

nations, the threat to international commerce is at risk. The threat to faith in the patent system

and lawyers sworn to uphold it is uncertain. By the crimes committed in conflict and abuse of

public office, the threat to the faith in the legal system and its disciplinary agencies is uncertain.

Where future inventors faith in the United States patent system may crumble both here and

abroad, causing fear to take inventions to patent attorneys and the patent office, making these

matters of significant national importance because as the evidences are tried, sooner or later, the

ramifications and loss of faith in the USPTO worldwide will be certain. Where The Constitutions

43Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


ability to protect the rights’ of inventors, steeped in protection by law and The Constitution, may

fail due to corruption and penetration of the legal system designed to protect such rights, loss of

faith in legal system could be catastrophic. Where the legal systems failure, due to penetration by

a handful of corrupt attorneys can be evidenced as a contributing factor to the loss of

constitutionally established rights, are matters for This Court to correct, and This Court alone, as

they pose significant threat nationally and internationally to free commerce and our legal system.

Where these matters pose significant threat to the establishment of law and its ability to protect its

citizens from a failure to regulate corruption within, through state courts, state bar associations

and the supreme courts that oversight them. That all of these legal establishments appear to be

acting in disregard to law and established procedure, all inapposite of there constitutional intent to

protect citizens and instead act to defend the attorneys from prosecution the public is at risk.

Where public confidence in the legal system and the patent system would collapse upon

recognition that attorneys could violate their attorney/client privileges, further steal and commit

horrific crimes against the government, the citizens and foreign nations, and where then these

attorneys can shield themselves from prosecution through manipulation and violations of legal

system and its disciplinary agencies.

OTHER CAUSES FOR THE INVOCATION OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IN THE MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT AND ALL RELATED MATTERS

That this case and all related cases to the similar nexus of events, provides ample reason

for This Court to hear such matters of national and international significance, including but not

limited to, all of the following reasons:

1. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE TO PROTECT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INVENTOR RIGHTS TO INVENTION UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Due to a continued pattern of obstruction of justice by attorneys, acting in conflict and

violating public office statutes within the departments charged with investigation of attorney

44Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


complaints, Petitioner, other inventors, and investors are in jeopardy of losing, and have already

lost, their constitutionally protected rights to their inventions. Where obstructions have occurred

at every step of the process, in attempting to have these law firms and lawyers disciplined at the

state level, and where such delays in prosecution and denials of due process, have contributed and

continue to contribute to loss of inventors’ rights to their inventions at the USPTO2. Repeatedly,

in the states where complaints were filed, it will be evidenced herein and in exhibit, that the

inventors’ are being denied their constitutional rights to: fair and impartial due process, access to

the courts, access to law enforcement and access to counsel. Where such obstructions at almost

every level of law enforcement and the disciplinary departments have been discovered, they have

further enabled the criminals to continue to operate under the legal system and further corrupt

such legal system at every level to stymie and prevent prosecution of their crimes. Where had

certain individuals within the state supreme courts and their disciplinary agencies, acted swiftly

and according to the proscribed rules and regulations, as provided for by the state constitutions in

disciplining corrupt attorneys, justice would have served to have at minimum have these

attorneys disbarred. Such disbarment at minimum would have prevented them from furthering

continuing to commit crimes and violate public offices to deny fair and impartial due process

through unjust means. Further, these disciplinary agencies, even if they failed to investigate the

case, should have reported the crimes alleged to the proper authorities as obligated to under their

attorney conduct codes which state that even probable crimes like these should be reported when

an attorney or judge becomes aware of even the possible misconduct of another attorney. Where

such crimes include crimes against the government its citizens and foreign nations, it behooves

one to wonder why the civil court, the state supreme courts and the disciplinary agencies have

continuously attempt to skirt their responsibilities. Where repeatedly these courts and agencies

have stated these are matters for other courts, never specifying which other court, and why 2 Due to charges of fraud upon the USPTO, certain patents pending filed by the attorneys named herein and in exhibit, have been granted suspension by the Commissioner of Patents.

45Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


Petitioner is charged with bringing the criminal and attorney misconduct charges, charges that

they are supposed to be filing. It is almost as if a murder were committed and those that reported

the crimes are somehow to bring the charges of murder against the murderer if law enforcement

fails its duties when presented the evidence. The ability to continue to not only operate without

investigation or discipline, but further to be allowed to continue to act in conflict in matters

against them, in violation of their public office rules, has further led these corrupted attorneys to

utilize highly conflicted, and highly influential attorneys with public offices, to act in the very

matters against them. As the concealed conflicts went undetected for several years and were

successful at preventing fair and impartial due process through abuse of public offices, the

Petitioner was forced to continue to complain that due process and the rules regulating these

regulatory agencies were being ignored, and the evidences and witnesses were untested or even

acknowledged. The question becomes how even once caught violating public office in conflict

and further where the violations of public office were verified, how the state bar associations and

their supreme court oversights have failed to prosecute those involved in violation of those states

constitutions and their respective civil and criminal codes? Where even when conflicts have been

verified how these individuals caught further elude even complaints from being filed and

docketed according to law against them, acting to further deny Petitioner access to the legal

system and courts, as insured by those states constitutions and the US Constitution, is beyond

belief. This is reminiscent of Russian communism where the right to make complaints against

public officials is denied the citizens, yet this is what has happened. Where in the United States,

such right to complain about public officials through the established complaint process is a

guaranteed right in The Constitution and the state constitutions, and has never been denied by the

establishment to Petitioners knowledge. Where denied such constitutional rights to have these

criminals tried, confronted by the evidences and witnesses, disciplined and sentenced, perhaps

makes it impossible to defend ones rights to ones inventions, if the legal system has been

46Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


penetrated by corruption within to block and deny such constitutionally protected rights’ at every

level. Where if these conflicts and abuses of public office continue to deny Petitioners’

constitutional rights, than at some time soon, all rights to the patents will have been lost.

2. PATENT OFFICE TIME OF ESSENCE At the bequest of Harry I. Moatz (“Moatz”), Director of the Office of Enrollment and

Discipline (“OED”) for the USPTO, charges were filed with the Commissioner of Patents

(“Commissioner”) to suspend the United States patent applications and other intellectual property

rights of the Petitioner, the Iviewit shareholders, the other inventors and the federally backed

SBA. The suspensions were granted, based on review of the charges filed by both Petitioner and

the largest investor in the company, Crossbow Ventures of South Florida who represent the rights

and interests of the SBA monies invested in the intellectual properties. Where such charges

assert fraud committed against the USPTO, therefore the United States Commerce Department,

by corrupted members of the patent bar and others, attached Appendix ___ - Show Charges Filed

By Crossbow. After review of the charges, certain patents were suspended by the Commissioner

based on the assertions contained in the complaints, as evidenced in Appendix ___ - Show last

suspension notice. Where the charges were drafted at the direction of Moatz and then reviewed

by the Commissioner, which led to such unprecedented actions, should give one cause for

concern, and to wonder why; if Petitioners’ patents are not in danger and there is no fraud in the

attorney work product, why are they suspended? Additionally, Moatz has opened formal

investigations of the accused attorneys registered with the USPTO, and has spoken with the FBI

who has turned the matters over to the United States Attorney, regarding these same matters.

Where the time frame and number of extensions is limited at the USPTO for suspensions and

where the second six-month extension has been granted and time runs low on the expiration of

these suspensions, Petitioner prays that This Court force immediate investigation and disposition

47Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


of all related matters and pave the way for unobstructed justice to prevail, to prevent further loss

of constitutionally guaranteed rights of the inventors. Where for This Court to further test the

lower courts ability to be fair and impartial where conflicts already prevail in certain states, only

to again rise to the state supreme courts already embroiled in these matters on appeal, may take so

much time in appeals, so as to cost Petitioner, the other inventors and the Iviewit shareholders,

complete loss of their rights to the inventions. Where in such instance, where the legal system

and the disciplinary systems have been penetrated by corrupted attorneys to prevent Petitioner

from having fair and impartial unobstructed due process from prevailing to reclaim his inventions

from patent attorneys who claim them as their own, the burden on This Court multiplies

exponentially. As these delays and obstructions, contribute significantly to loss of rights to

invention both here and abroad. One must also question why with the patents in suspension,

ongoing state and federal investigations of these attorneys including the USPTO and USPTO

OED in progress, are the states disciplinary departments without investigating and based on

conflicted and thus tainted reviews (not investigations) attempting to close their files and writing

letters attempting to impart opinion in exoneration of their fellow bar associates? Certainly

something seems fishy when even court ordered investigations of the attorneys in one state go

uninvestigated and in another the party that fails to respond to the substantive issues in a petition,

via court order, merits a ruling in favor of the party defaulting to answer the questions ordered by

the court regarding public office abuses and conflicts. When court ordered investigations go un-

investigated and court ordered responses go unanswered, and they are further fraught with

conflicted public officials with adverse interest to Petitioner, then something is seriously wrong

with our legal system being vulnerable from corruption within. This is the exact opposite effect

the forefathers of our country intended, when drafting The Constitution with a system of checks

and balances, that seems to have finally been thwarted by a corrupt group of unethical lawyers

who have turned law into a tool for crime. Where public officials at the highest level are

48Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


involved, every effort should have been made to avoid further conflict. Yet, that is exactly the

opposite of what has transpired, in fact, at every level across several states with every new

reviewer, new conflicts were discovered that were concealed, and when discovered they are

buried and denied due process instead of prosecuted according to established procedure and legal

statues. Where all investigations, especially where public officials have affirmed violations of

their offices, every effort should have been made for full public disclosure and discipline and

again we find that it has attempted to be swept under the rug.

Every form of relief sought by Petitioner, who merely was following the established

procedures for bringing these matters to the attention of law enforcement and disciplinary

departments, now is discovered to have been derailed, through leading legal public officers in

conflict of interest at the highest levels in the states where they have been charged. Where with

many of the public offices violated through conflicts of interest and improprieties, almost every

one has direct tentacles to Proskauer. Where without This Courts’ immediate intervention and

oversight in all state, federal and international investigations, further loss of constitutionally

protected rights, and if, and how, the legal system can rectify such loss of rights may be issues for

This Court and This Court alone to determine. Where the legal system has contributed to the

losses due to corruption within the system, may be an issue for This Court when the state courts

now involved, albeit through a corrupt few, has caused conflict and injury against Petitioner.

Where the system designed to ensure such constitutionally protected rights to due process and

procedure, and those sworn to uphold such rights, are the very criminals actually causing the

inventors the loss to their rights to their inventions, cannot and must not go overlooked any

longer. Petitioner pleads This Court to see that where he has failed to bring these matters to

justice and failed to invoke fair and impartial due process that Petitioner feels that many of the

subsequent complaints are due to his failures to prosecute these matters and prevent further

corruption. Where This Court and perhaps This Court only has the power to force states to

49Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


comply with their own laws and ensure due process for Petitioner, when those courts and their

disciplinary departments fail to follow procedure in regards to public officers and attorney

misconduct charges, especially where such failure leads to loss of constitutionally protected rights

of inventors. Where certainly, these will all be questions for This Court, and This Court alone in

the end to resolve, and where the sheer complexities of the legal case in so many of these issues

rises to your esteemed level, where so many jurisdictions and violations of law and international

treatise are involved to deny Petitioner rights ensured by The Constitution. Where such issues far

surpass the knowledge of this pro se Petitioner, Petitioner prays that This Court will stand

alongside the inventor when such unscrupulous forces work in tandem against him and where due

to the lengthy delays caused by such unscrupulous actions, the time on the patent clock ticks

away. Where such state supreme courts, their constitutionally created bar associations, the

disciplinary departments, judges and leading members of the bar association in those states now

have conflict with the Petitioner, certainly lower courts and other judicial mechanisms in those

states may already be stacked against Petitioner and where evidence contained herein and in

exhibit, already suggests such is the case. Where further, conflicts although verified and cause

for court ordered investigations, remain in play, unchecked and disciplined, and continue to

prevent fair and impartial justice to the matters, the patent clock ticks away. Legally, this further

makes the task for Petitioner to save or resurrect such lost rights impossible, where those in

conflict remain in conflict, and escape even court ordered investigations.

Where time acts to further enable the accused to grow stronger through the proliferation

of the stolen intellectual properties, and until such time that the accused stand trial for their

criminal actions and violations of their attorney ethics, investigated through unobstructed justice,

the patent clock ticks away. Where it may be argued by the other side that Petitioner is filing

numerous complaints, and where Petitioner comes before This Court to state that as many

complaints will be filed as necessary to provide an accurate fingerprint of every person who

50Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


becomes involved in conflict, or fails to follow the laws and procedures of this great nation. No

matter title or legal degree, until justice prevails, Petitioner will paper the walls of justice with

complaints and in each complaint; the culpable will have to find new ways of corruption to ebb

the tide. Where based on information recently learned from the leading investor Crossbow, that

SBA monies and interests have been absconded, the Inspector General of the SBA was notified

and a complaint is being formulated. Where fraud on state departments has been uncovered, new

complaints will soon be filed with each state. Where patent crimes have occurred in foreign

nations, authorities are being notified. Where fraud on the United States Bankruptcy Court has

occurred, a new complaint is being formulated. Where there was fraud in the Proskauer

instigated civil billing litigation, new charges will be filed. Where there was fraud and may

continue to be fraud in the insurance policies secured by Proskauer, new complaints will be filed.

Where fraud has occurred on the IRS, new charges will be formulated. Where fraud has occurred

on the United States Commerce Department, the Inspector General will be notified and a

complaint will be filed. Where attorney misconduct charges will be brought against each of the

attorneys involved in every state where they are licensed. Where political and legal corruption

has occurred, Petitioner drafts letters to the commission on ethics in several states to investigate

internal political corruption and will notify the Judicial Qualifications Commission on the charges

against each judicial party involved. And so on, until each crime has been properly disclosed to

authorities at every level, where each further obstruction will be met with new complaints. Yet,

even if Petitioner is successful in getting the authorities to prevail on the complaints it may be to

late as the patent clock will have most certainly expired by then, leaving the inventors with total

loss nationally and internationally to their inventions in diametric opposition to the intent of The

Constitution.

Where evidence suggests that these attorneys have made hundreds of millions of dollars

already on the stolen intellectual properties only provides fertile grounds for others to be tempted

51Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


and bribed to act outside their sworn oaths to uphold law and abuse public office. Where without

this temptation caused by the profits from stolen goods and the ability to continue to operate as a

criminal organization, as evidenced in Appendix _____, under the guise of the MPEGLA patent

pool, free from prosecution, it acts to further fund corruption to prevent the Petitioner from his

rights to his inventions. Odds are that if justice is not discharged here and now, that the

complaints will continue, and every one of them will entangle others and Petitioner and This

Court will share responsibility for our failure to prevent this travesty of justice and protect the

rights that hang in the balance.

Where the threat to the constitutional rights’ of the inventors is protected at such level in

the Constitution, so as the forefathers placed it before the establishment of lower courts in Article

I, Section VIII, Clause IX, perhaps for situations identical to these, where massive forces work,

including states, may work against the inventor. Where not only does Petitioner have to fight to

claim patent rights against the thousands of corporate infringers who have gained access to the

patents through the criminal organization MPEGLA. First, before even that can be achieved,

Petitioner has to fight his own patent attorneys and the legal community they have penetrated to

attempt to get them back in the proper and true inventors’ names. Where now due to the massive

proliferation of the technologies for personal gain by the accused, the inventions have been

globally absorbed into almost every imaging and video digital device, this again causes massive

loss of the rights’ of the inventors to their inventions already. That part of the Proskauer scheme

was to proliferate the technologies through a patent pooling scheme, to use such pooling scheme

to monetize the patents for themselves, block Petitioners’ patents from succeeding and bundle

Petitioners’ concepts with those of the pools to preventing Petitioner from access to the market.

Further, as will be evidenced in Appendix ____, several hundred Non-Disclosure Agreements as

evidenced in Appendix _____, with leading US and foreign companies were signed, some even

conceding usage of Petitioner technologies, Appendix ____ - Colter Letter. Where these

52Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


eib, 05/12/05,

infringers pay usage royalties to MPEGLA and other pools set up by Proskauer and Rubenstein

for the technologies, and not the Petitioner, the inventors and the shareholders invested in the

companies bypassed. Where such scheme and artifice to defraud was concocted with the intent

that at some point, the bogus patents written for the true Iviewit companies which contained

missing and wrong invention disclosures, mathematically incorrect filings, purposefully filed

wrong by Joao (controlled by Rubenstein) Dick, Boehm and Becker, would be rejected. Where it

is not yet fully known what the end game was for these stolen patents was, it makes sense that

they would have been assimilated into the MPEGLA patent pool, controlled by Rubenstein and

Proskauer. Once approved by the USPTO, these patents in the wrong names and owners, would

have likely been submitted to MPEGLA, where Rubenstein/Proskauer acting as counsel to

MPEGLA, and controlling patent submissions, would have accepted them into the pool for a

share of royalties and to the wrong inventors and owners. A brilliant scheme, all that had to be

done, was to get rid of the true inventors, make the patent submissions be rejected due to the

improper filings, destroy the companies and break every rule in the book concerning law and the

sanctity of the trust lawyers have held since The Constitution was enacted to get away with it.

Where such scheme was almost completed, when as evidenced throughout Appendix

_____, evidence began to surface of the crimes. From that moment, the strategy changed to one

whereby Proskauer and others, to keep such horripilating crimes from surfacing and evade

prosecution, have made every effort to now cover their tracks and destroy Petitioner, his

companies and his family, to prevent the inevitable prosecution for their crimes.

To get rid of the shadow companies with the stolen patents, Proskauer resorted to a

grandiose plan, whereby they sued the shadow companies created in fraud, to try to mount debt

and then take it over in a bankruptcy. Where the true Iviewit companies were unaware, actions

were instituted against the other similarly named companies. Where these actions were done in

tandem with Utley, who had been planted by Proskauer from the start, with a falsified resume

53Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


concealing crimes in which the same group of key players, Wheeler, Dick and Utley, were

involved in prior theft of intellectual properties from Utley’s former employer DTE. Where it

was learned that at DTE, Dick filed the patent applications and Wheeler created the companies

and where such patent applications were put in Utley’s name with no assignment to his employer.

Where these astonishing facts were discovered in the depositions of Wheeler, Utley and Dick’s

Virginia Bar response, and where such facts were previously undisclosed and further concealed.

That Utley’s resume, tendered and verified by Wheeler on behalf of his close personal friend,

failed to disclose these prior patent malfeasances where the attorneys and Utley were caught

pulling an almost identical scheme on DTE, owned by a certain Monte Friedkin of Boca Raton,

Florida. Where per Friedkin, upon learning that Utley had been walking inventions out the door,

he fired Utley, quite inapposite of what the resume Wheeler submitted stated, evidenced in

Appendix ______ for his involvement in the theft of the intellectual properties. Where the

Wheeler resume submitted for Utley, at his very next job (as in heist) Iviewit, stated the company

DTE went on to be a raging success due to Utley. The companies and counselor Rogers found

the truth about Utley’s background from Friedkin, yet only after Utley’s termination for cause

from Iviewit, where again he was caught with evidence that he was stealing patents with counsel

into his name. That Friedkin, after learning that Utley was patenting ideas learned while running

his company, fired Utley immediately and closed DTE, taking a several million dollar loss, all on

account of a similar attempted theft of intellectual properties. Where Utley commits perjury after

perjury under deposition in these matters relating to his past, his relationship to Wheeler and even

his denial that patents applications are filed in his name, in contradiction to factual evidence at the

USPTO. This concealment points to the fact that these criminal efforts are intentional and

organized with a past pattern causing loss to the victims. Where documents are altered,

backgrounds falsified, past crimes covered up through falsified resumes by the lawyers and

management involved, shows that this crime began almost instantly upon Proskauer meeting

54Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


inventors. Further, this crime could only be committed by lawyers, who used such legal

attorney/client privileges, first and foremost to gain the trust of the inventors to learn the

processes. Where the patent crimes took attorneys’ with access to patent departments worldwide,

enabling the fraud without detection from those offices. To commit the crimes of the corporate

sham, these attorneys had access to departments of state, where bogus companies in identical

names to Petitioners’ companies were executed with precision and undetected. To avoid

detection at the corporate level, the attorneys’ maintained control of the records through their

management plants. With management in place, they had control of the accounting books for the

corporations and all corporate records, controlling the internal corporate processes, to further

fraud the inventors and shareholders. With the accountant who introduced the company to

Proskauer, Lewin, holding the tax returns and other accountancy records, and having placed his

daughter, Erika Lewin (accused by Arthur Andersen of misleading auditors), in the Iviewit

companies to do the record keeping, the criminals had full control of the companies to execute the

crime. Where Petitioner and other shareholders, thinking they were protected by their trusted

advisors, where completely unaware and vulnerable to these pariahs. As will be exhibited with a

preponderance of evidence, when caught, these same attorneys’ had access to the courts to deny

due process, avoid prosecution, and attempt to cover-up, through conflict and abuse of public

office. A brazen crime, a brazen attempt to cover-up and skirt due process, and, an utter

perversion of the integrity of law and every good lawyer who upholds an oath to serve.

When caught in the act, as described and evidenced herein and in exhibit, the first move

was to attempt to hide the companies and the bogus patents obtained through fraud. So began a

series of actions steeped in fraud in deceit and crimes committed with blatant disregard for law.

An attempt was made by Proskauer to sue these identically named companies, without

shareholders knowledge, while Utley and former Proskauer referred management attempted an

involuntary bankruptcy, all on companies the shareholders had no idea were ever formed. It was

55Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


by dumb luck that the company learned it was in a lawsuit with Proskauer and bankruptcy action,

not prior known, through due diligence being conducted by AOLTW/WB who was working with

Iviewit on a twenty-five million dollar license/investment. Where it appears that Proskauer, after

being terminated as counsel, along with Utley as evidence began to service, secretly sued these

bogus companies in order to create the illusion of having a large debt with them. Where

Proskauer had control of opposing counsel, there was no opposition, since the company did not

know actions had been taken against companies that at the time they did not know existed, and

had not hired or retained such counsel. Yet, when Petitioner was confronted in an AOLTW/WB

investment meeting and told that these actions against the companies were preventing investment;

Petitioner immediately called a trusted friend and attorney, Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. to

find out if this could be true. When it was discovered that these actions were for real, counsel

representing the company without authorization was terminated and Rogers enabled the company

to find replacement counsel for these actions. With new counsel, the crimes have slowly (slower

due to obstructions of justice) been unraveling, and with each new piece of information, the

number of crimes, and the number of people involved rises. Where even when new counsel

attempted to represent the company by filing a counter complaint, based on the facts known at

that time, including fraud on the United States, new counsel was denied the opportunity to submit

such counter complaint based on the unauthorized counsels actions earlier. It appeared that

Proskauer and management had no legal rights to be suing the companies they were suing, since

they had no retainer with, or contract with, or bill with the companies they were suing. Again, it

was unknown at the time of the counter complaint, even as new counsel and remaining

management were discovering the layers of the scheme, that there were identical companies with

different owners, so it looked like they were suing Petitioner companies. Unbelievable but true.

Where these allegations now have a preponderance of evidence to support the claims.

56Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


3. TIME ACTS AS CONDUIT TO FURTHER ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEMOnce caught, those accused with legal powers began a series of steps to stave off

prosecution through conflicts of interest and abuses of public offices within the legal system, to

deny due process of the complaints being filed by counsel for Petitioner and by Petitioner, in

order to prevent prosecution and maintain control of the stolen intellectual properties. Therefore,

with each attempt at pressing the claims, whether through civil action, through notification of the

criminal actions to the proper authorities and notice to the bar associations and the attorney

disciplinary departments of the ethical misconduct inherent in the commissioning of such crimes,

new blocks were positioned to thwart Petitioner through further and further crimes of conflict and

public office abuse, compounding exponentially with time and undiscovered until only recently,

so well concealed were they. That as the number of those involved as accomplice, to aid those

involved from fair and impartial due process rises dramatically it should have been prevented if

the established systems were not infiltrated by conflict and abuse of public offices by many of the

very attorneys being accused. Had even at the state bar level, due process been prevalent it would

have led to disbarment and prevented the accused lawyers from further using their legal degrees

to commit even further crimes, it would have led to the peeling of the onion, and even if the bars

choose not to bring the complaint, it should have forced them to notify the proper authorities.

The Petitioner stands humbly before This Court, to see if the highest court in this land, after

countless other courts and regulatory bodies have been penetrated by the accused who have

violated public offices, acting to obstruct the established state and federal laws designed to ensure

such fair and impartial due process, can get a timely fair shake before This Court. Petitioner

prays that This Court seek to invoke its power to force immediate investigation into the matters,

where such orders issued by lower courts have been derailed, in such a public office infiltration as

to be new in the annals of crime and public office corruption scandals. Leading public officials

with vested interests are caught in conflict and violation of their offices, and where the

57Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


disciplinary agencies they represent fail to take action for their violations of public office, tears at

the very fabric of The Constitution. This Court may be the only court to hear or establish

procedure to hear and investigate such matters free from prejudice or influence. Petitioner is

ready today, as a Pro Se litigant, to come before This Court or any other forum This Court so

chooses and argue the merits of the case. To face the accused (the several thousand lawyers and

others defined in Appendix ____, and square off with the evidences, facts and witnesses and put

these matters to rest once and for all, having been afforded fair and impartial due process. Where

Petitioner believes that in any forum where such fair and impartial investigations and legal

processes are afforded at the discretion and oversight of This Court, that This Court will find that

all of the hundred or so laws violated as stated and evidenced in Appendix _____, give or take a

few for Petitioners Pro Se understanding of all of these laws, have been committed as claimed,

and with clear and convincing evidence to prove such allegations. Petitioner will include making

a case for a conspiracy not only against the inventors by these criminal attorneys, not to be

confused with honest attorneys that represent criminals, but a conspiracy against many state,

federal and international agencies that such crimes have also been perpetrated against. Petitioner

again begs in the interest of the his rights to his inventions, the other inventors, the shareholders

invested in the inventions including the federally backed SBA, that This Court force all parties to

its bench to hear the evidences, where witnesses are heard and investigations have followed

procedure according to established law, to decide who is the true and proper inventor of the

intellectual properties -- the Petitioner as inventor or his attorneys who represented him, before all

rights are lost. Where This Court has the power to turn the odds stacked against the inventor,

invoke constitutional protections, convene unbiased investigations or grand juries, force state,

federal and international authorities to invoke immediate actions under law, to return the

intellectual properties to the rightful owners. There is no other court in the land with such far-

reaching powers; no other state court can invoke discipline on another state court or foreign

58Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


nations, and where certainly that would again elevate the matters over time, back to This Court.

Where clear and convincing evidence has been presented that these crimes and the mechanisms to

the cloak them, have been steeped in corruption and obstruction of justice that has infiltrated to

the top of the legal system, and where if these major law firms have nothing to hide from

Petitioner, investors in Petitioners companies, state, federal and international authorities, why do

they fear stepping forward and answering the questions to the evidences and witnesses? Why do

they elude the court room in fear of the solo Pro-Se litigant. Truly, this is the Goliath story of our

times, where lawyers fear facing due process and have used every dirty trick against the inventors

to prevent facing their accusers and attempting to destroy their lives, liberty and enjoyment of

their rights, in efforts that the accuser will go away before such due process occurs. Fair and

impartial investigation should be a breeze for these people, including a few hundred litigators and

yet they hide through further perversions of the legal system and The Constitution. Why are

these attorneys within earshot of conflict, let alone found in violation public offices and violating

their codes of ethical conduct if nothing is to hide? Why are they found inuring profits from

inventions they learned of through violations of their confidences to their clients? Why are they

found with inventors patents in the patent attorneys’ name? Why are they found holding stock in

unauthorized companies where it appears they may be the only shareholder of such identically

named companies, holding inventions that are in the wrong names? Why are they failing to

notify properly their insurance carriers of the impending hundreds of billions of dollars of

liability? Why are they refusing to answer hundreds of questions asked of them by shareholders,

as evidenced in Appendix A _____, to the shareholders they represented? Why are the patents in

suspension and found to be in the wrong names and wrong companies, causing them to be

suspended and in some instances? Why cannot the USPTO give the true inventors access to

certain patents that the attorneys claimed were owned by the shareholders, in false intellectual

property dockets circulated to induce investment in such patents, as evidenced in Appendix

59Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


_____, Letter From USPTO on Utley Patent? Why is there evidence after evidence pointing to

foul play in the legal system and where public inquiries are neglected when public offices are

involved? Why, the answer is simple, the accused are guilty and are willing to stop at no ends to

evade justice. There is no court room left that they can put on a defense before, because they

have been trapped into story told to the state bars of a failed dot com looking for someone to

blame and that they had nothing to do with the inventions, yet under deposition, that was

unexpected, in the billing litigation, perjured statement after perjured statement was found in

direct opposition to statements made prior to the disciplinary agencies investigating them. This is

the reason trial was denied in the billing litigation, with a judge who clearly saw that perjury had

taken place by Rubenstein, as evidenced in Appendix ____ - Rubenstein Statement to Judge and

Contradictory Statements Under Deposition, and Proskauer could not face trial where such

perjury was factually proven. Why did the bar complaints, where factual statements from

Rubenstein and Wheelers’ depositions clearly stood diametrically opposed to those made to the

respective tribunals, go uninvestigated or prosecuted? Why, in their own billing litigation, do

Wheeler and Rubenstein confronted under deposition, try to not answer the questions and evade

returning to answer them for a second day trying to escape further deposition that had already

gone tragically wrong. To the point where Labarga, after issuing an order from his own court,

forces them back to the answer the questions, and where Petitioner and all of those involved, wish

to continue such depositions. Yet, the continuation of the case and the trial whereby these

perjured statements and contradictory stories would be pressed, instantly is destroyed with

unscrupulous tactics to deny trial, deny counsel and rule against Petitioner and all those enjoyed

in such action against the companies with vested interest in inventions of the Petitioner. One

must ask what the cost of justice was at that point, yet there is more. Not is the court room closed

but when Petitioner and Petitioner companies complain to the state bars and judicial

qualifications commission, showing absolute perjured conflicting statements obtained under

60Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


deposition that contradicted those made to bar associations when Rubenstein and Wheeler

responded to the bar complaints filed against them. In each response, the authors, Triggs and

Krane, are found to have violated public offices and concealed conflicts. One must then

investigate the evidence again, free of such prejudice, and ask, how could that all have gone

afoul, how was the system foiled. Petitioner pleads with This Court to drop all prior tainted

reviewers work, based on responses factually tendered in conflict and in violation of public

office, by those responding on behalf Wheeler and Rubenstein, namely Triggs and Krane. Where

conflicts and complaints by the public have been railroaded, evaluate the facts, take a look at

every evidence and witness under a proper investigation free of further conflict, part the sea of

corruption to allow justice to prevail, and, protect the system from becoming that which it is

charged with protecting against, as a result of few bad apples. No matter how high this crime has

reached in the halls of justice to estoppel due process and evade prosecution which is not fully

known at this time (due to further obstructions), where the names of influence or prestige of the

law firms involved and the accused status within the legal community, should not stand to

obstruct justice unfairly, using the law as a shielding device that cloaks them. Where to find a

fair and impartial panel to both investigate and prosecute such national law firms and root out

those hidden within the system over the last seven years will be unbearably difficult, as to prevent

further conflict or obstruction, such men and woman of justice will have to swear that no conflict

of any sort exists or has already caused influence in the matters with any of the lawfirms or

thousands of lawyers within those firms. Where at the state level, when asked for conflict

waivers after discovery of conflict, a mere formality at that point, no one publicly disclosed or

verified that they were not conflicted before handling the matters, which has led to further

exposing new conflict and new complaints. That the levels of conflict already discovered should

compel This Court to demand such verification from all those involved already and certainly

those who come to hear these matters in the future, and where any such conflicted individuals

61Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


need to be identified, prosecuted, and removed from influence, prior to even considering the

evidence again. Once that is established as guaranteed by The Constitution, all past reviews of

any sort that were involved or otherwise unduly influenced by the conflicts, need be removed

from the record, other than to show that undue influence and misconduct was found, and fresh

non conflicted third parties partake in a formal investigation with full public disclosure relating to

the investigations of public officials and the guilty of these ung-dly crimes against our

government, its laws and its citizens by a criminal enterprise cloaked as lawyers. To make it

anymore to difficult for Petitioner and all those who have interest in the inventions to access the

legal system and courts with any chance of due process, where both sides come and answer the

evidences and witnesses in an open court, before constitutional rights to inventions are further

stolen and lost to the true inventors, is in itself a denial of constitutional rights by This Court to

inventors, as further inventions rights across the world will continue to be lost. Where Petitioner

is perhaps the last person on earth This Court would have presenting and representing a crime

against the States, the Federal government, foreign nations, shareholders, etc., Petitioner stands

locked, loaded and ready to fire on behalf of the government agencies, other inventors, himself

and the rights of all free men, pro se all the way, as long as This Court ensures fair and impartial

due process. On the perjuries alone, gauging from the sentence imposed on Martha Stewart

recently for obstruction of justice, this men will serve 100+ years for those alone, compounded by

the fact that the crimes were committed under legal guise. Add to it the hundreds of crimes these

men and woman named herein and exhibit have committed to attempt one of the largest crimes

and cover-ups ever, against the country, its citizens rights, against the history of invention, the

institution of law and certainly some formerly esteemed lawyers and others will not be released

for years to come.

62Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


4. TIME ALLOWS FOR FURTHER CRIMES PERPETRATED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND FOREIGN NATIONS

CURRENT STATE & FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

II. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE INVESTIGATIONS: ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND III. NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT (‘FIRST DEPT”) ACTIONS – CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCOVERED – STEVEN C. KRANE AND CHIEF JUDGE JUDITH S. KAYE ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND IV. STATE OF NEW YORK GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR SECOND AND ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS ............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND V. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE #SC04-1078 – ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND P. STEPHEN LAMONT V. THE FLORIDA BAR ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND VI. FEDERAL SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (“SBA”) FRAUD ................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND VII. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (“FBI”) ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND VIII. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (“SEC”) AND THE BOCA RATON POLICE DEPARTMENT (“BOCA PD”) ............... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND IX. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS (“AICPA”) ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND X. VIRGINIA STATE BAR (“VSB”) ................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XI. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (“DOJ”) ...... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XII. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (“IRS”) . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XIII. UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE INVESTIGATION (“USCO”) ............ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XIV. UNITED STATES FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT FRAUD . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XV. FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION .. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XVI. PENNSYLVANIA BAR .......................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XVII. INSURANCE FRAUD - AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP (“AIG”) ........ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XVIII. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XIX. EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (“EPO”) INVESTIGATIONS ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND XX. JAPANESE PATENT OFFICE (“JPO”) INVESTIGATION ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

63Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


A. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEWhereby licensed patent attorneys with leading national law firms are involved in

fraudulent oaths on patent and trademark applications, theft of tradesecrets and fraud upon

USPTO. Where such law firms further aided the in falsification of inventors and owners in

certain patent applications, all now under review by the FBI, Commissioner of the USPTO and

the OED Director Moatz. Where a criminal organization MPEGLA, controlled by the accused

Proskauer and its newly formed patent department specializing in patent pools which utilize

Petitioners inventions, has established and unfair and anti-competitive patent pool system to

monetize the illegal gains of the stolen inventions and prevent inventors from their rights to their

patents.

Where, once exposed and with evidence surfacing, such attorneys have attempted a

cover-up the crimes through obstructions of justice and abuse of public offices to prevent due

process from charges filed against them with a Florida Civil court, The Florida Bar, Florida

Supreme Court, Florida Law Enforcement, New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First

Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York Supreme Court Appellate

Division: Second Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee, and the New York

Supreme Court Appellate Division: Second Department, and perhaps interference as yet

undiscovered in other state, federal and international investigations.

B. UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICEWhere copyright materials billed for by the intellectual property attorneys has not been

protected. Now under review by the FBI, Commissioner of the USPTO and the OED Director

Moatz.

64Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


eib, 05/07/05,

move or lose this

C. EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE

D. JAPANESE PATENT OFFICE

E. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Monies stolen from the Company by certain of the named attorneys and their

management selections, came from investor in Petitioner companies, Crossbow Ventures and

where two-thirds of the Crossbow Ventures monies were funded by the SBA. Now under review

by the FBI. Charges have also been filed for the theft of between one and two millions dollars of

company funds by management referrals of Proskauer, where witnesses to theft and other

evidentiary materials have been filed with the Boca PD as well.

F. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FLORIDAIn order to perfect the theft of the patents, certain of the attorney’s filed fraudulent

companies named identical to the companies they were opening for Petitioner companies,

whereby shadow companies were formed that the attorneys own. The intent of these shadow

companies was to have two sets of companies, ones which the attorneys’ owned, and through

which they funneled a second set of patents that are to be considered part of the stolen intellectual

properties. It must appear strange, as is evidenced in Exhibit “1” that approximately thirteen

companies have been uncovered and whereby many of them have the identical name to

companies of Petitioner and where Proskauer retained corporate books for such companies are

missing.

G. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DELAWARESee above

H. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTWhere a fraudulent claim of bankruptcy was filed and charges and evidence have been

presented to federal and state investigators.

65Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


I. FLORIDA FIFTEENTH JUDICIALWhere a fraudulent billing lawsuit was instigated and charges and evidence have been

presented to state and federal investigators.

5. OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE – DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, DENIAL OF TRIAL, DENIAL ACCESS TO THE COURTS, DENIAL OF COUNSEL, DENIAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, ALL CONTRIBUTING TO LOSS OF INVENTION RIGHTS

A. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA - CASE #502001CA004671XXCDAB (formerly a different unknown case number)PROSKAUER ROSE, LLPV.IVIEWIT.COM, INC., IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

That this case should set precedence as a case where Petitioner defended a company that

at the time he believed he owned, against an action that was begun without knowledge of

Petitioner or the shareholders and management of the companies, and whereby it has only

recently been unearthed, from conversations with the USPTO, that have led to the discovery that

the companies sued by the Proskauer attorneys are in some instances named identical to

Petitioners companies, with Proskauer holding the stock in their name. Where it is learned that

this was an attempt to bury the shadow companies they formed and that held the stolen shadow

patents. Under audit from Arthur Andersen and investors at the time, Proskauer failed to provide

proof of ownership of the shadow companies and when forced to turn over their records under

court order, documents pertaining such corporations is non-existent. Knowing that their time was

running short before the crimes were discovered, they took a coordinated series of steps to

destroy the Iviewit companies, threaten the life of the primary inventor, and begin to plant deep

within the halls of justice to stave off prosecution.

Where property containing valuable proprietary processes was witnessed stolen and

reported to police and returned under the only true investigation to have ever taken place in these

66Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


matters by the Boca PD, case ______. Where immediately other charges were filed including eye

witness accounts of stolen monies in briefcases of cash used to attempt to bribe employees to

reveal trade secrets and steal off with equipment housing the data and proprietary processes

(where it will be evidenced, herein and in exhibit, that these investigations have subsequently

been railroaded through further obstruction). Where after stealing all of the remaining funds of

the Company, the attorneys and their management began to destroy pertinent patent and

accounting records and then attempted to abscond with the stolen patents. Where it seems that

somehow the law firms have now lost their patent files The Company was not initially even

aware that they had been sued and were represented by counsel and found out only through

executives of AOLTW/WB who discovered during due diligence that the Company was in

litigation and an involuntary bankruptcy. Upon learning of suits, the company replaced counsel

representing the company without authority and hired new counsel. The bankruptcy by

Proskauer referred former management was dissolved upon the retention of new counsel as the

opposing parties fled. It was not known at the time that these were unauthorized shadow

companies, whereby the Company had no stock or other interest, and that such companies were

harboring stolen patents. Until the USPTO confirmed that owners and inventors on certain

patents were not the intended parties, as the attorney dockets transmitted to investors showed and

whereby now the company is learning that certain companies were opened in identical names to

the names of the company, all which has led to the suspensions at the USPTO. In fact, it appears

that Proskauer sued themselves and attempted to bankrupt the shadow companies they owned

with their former referred management and where they may be the only shareholders to dissolve

the shadow companies before they were revealed and gain the assets, the stolen patents, before

anyone found such scheme. Whereby this should be completely invalidate such case and force

state and federal investigation based on these evidences alone, again somehow these crimes,

including crimes against Departments of State, go un-prosecuted and have even eluded formal

67Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


filing of the evidence and witness statements. Whereby representation was not proper by the

company, since it held no interest in such shadow companies, although no one at the time knew

such diabolical identical naming of corporations had taken place. It is interesting to note that

Proskauer sued these companies having no retainer agreement with any of them and no bills with

any of these companies and when this was presented to the court at the time, as reason for

dismissal of the case, the court refused such request.

That the Company upon hiring new counsel presented a counterclaim, Exhibit “”, and

where such counter complaint was prepared by competent attorneys who had reviewed the

evidences and prepared the charges, based on the evidence known at the time, regarding the

stolen patents and other crimes. That the court refused to accept the counter complaint, stating

that the time had passed, although the matters of the conspiracy and the multiplicity of crimes

committed to execute such crimes was just being unraveled and the counter complaint whether

admitted by the judge or not, fairly or unfairly, contained information of crimes against the

government committed by these attorneys and reported in the counter complaint by licensed

attorneys and yet the judge failed to notify the proper authorities. Where judicial cannons state

that even the presumption of attorney misconduct and crime, should have prompted his actions,

whether he were to hear such charges or not.

ii. That a new law firm was brought in to represent the company as co-counsel and

represent the matters through the entirety of the litigation, Appendix _______. That after

researching for over a year the merits of the case and evidences against the law firms and others,

the firm of Schiffrin & Barroway entered into Letter of Understanding with Petitioner and

companies and it appeared that at the upcoming trial or through other action, justice was going to

be served and the matters blown wide apart. One may ask where Schiffrin & Barroway is today,

why they are not here representing the Petitioner and again another macabre story of injustice is

told.

68Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


iii. That a trial was set in the case and was abandoned by the court without notifying

Petitioner and or counsel. Where Petitioner and counsel Selz arrived for a day in court to find it

had been cancelled without notice, to the Company or its counselors, and this is where

obstruction of justice and massive corruption of those involved in the legal matters began.

iv. That before a trial could be rescheduled, the new counsel asked former counsel to

resign from the case claiming that they were taking over the matters as evidenced in the signed

LOU and attorney retainer, Exhibit “”. When the case went for re-scheduling of the trial, not only

did former counsels motion for withdrawal get granted but new counsel for the Company,

Schiffrin & Barroway, in a surprise move, also filed a motion for withdrawal based on the claim

that the former counsel would be representing the Company at trial, although they had informed

prior counsel to step down as they would take over. More surprising is that the judge granted

both attorneys withdrawal and in the ensuing weeks, Petitioner unable to get new counsel or

access to the prior case records timely to even prepare new counsel, the judge refusing plea after

plea for just a little more time under the circumstances to get new counsel, was met not only with

this denial, but the denial to represent pro se under extenuating circumstances. Immediately

thereafter, despite having the LOU with Schiffrin & Barroway stating they were to represent the

matters before the court, the judge granted the law firm a default judgment for failure of the

companies to obtain counsel.

v. That Labarga had evidence from sworn statements by certain attorneys in the

matters and contradictory deposition statements, that perjury had occurred and failed to

acknowledge the claims, and further had strong reason to believe based on the counter-complaint

that attorney misconduct was rampant by attorneys involved in the case and that fraud was

occurring on government agencies and failed in his judicial cannons to report the crimes of

attorneys practicing before him.

69Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


vi. That Labarga after denying the Company counsel immediately before a new trial

was to be set for the one cancelled without notice the denied Petitioner the right to act pro-se in

the case and then further denied a motion to have him removed from the case for acting in

violation of his judicial canons and for throwing the initial trial, so as to preclude a new trial from

taking place. Labarga knew that the Company was in financial hardship due to the criminal

actions alleged in the counter complaint and that Schiffrin & Barroway had signed a LOU to

represent the case, and ignored every attempt by Petitioner to have counsel or access to the courts.

Even when Petitioner attempted to file pro se in the matter, since the corporations counsel was let

go, an administrative prohibition was cited against pro se litigants representing a corporation,

certainly such administrative prohibition was not intended to deny one a fair trial when counsel

could not be secured timely or afforded and under such extraneous circumstances. Finding new

counsel to take on a complex case like this in a matter of weeks was impossible. Further, prior

counsel Selz then disappeared for weeks preventing the company from access to the files and

time to prepare for an appeal.

vii. That based on new evidences presented herein and in exhibit, the corporations

sued (Iviewit Technologies, Inc., Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and Iviewit.com, Inc.) are not owned by

the shareholders of the company that represented them. It appears that these companies were part

of the larger scheme to steal the patents and where they were set up without ownership of the

companies being known to be that of the attorneys Proskauer, and that they were identically

named companies with different owners than those of Petitioners companies. Impossible, yet

true, and where evidence has been presented to the state bars, the state supreme courts and Florida

law enforcement showing such sham corporations, such evidences have not once been subjected

to investigative procedures, even where the crimes now are against the Department of State in

Florida and Delaware where such bogus shadow companies were formed. Where the sham nature

of the lawsuit, throws the entirety of the billing litigation into question, and cause for immediate

70Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


re-hearing or other relief of This Court. What is fascinating to note here is that the company

Iviewit Technologies, Inc. was formerly Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and that there is another Iviewit

Holdings, Inc. that was formerly known as Uview.com, Inc. and that two weeks prior to

Uview.com, Inc. changing its name, Proskauer and Proskauer referred management Utley, formed

their own Iviewit Holdings, Inc. Now immediately prior to the name change of Uview.com, Inc.

several core patents were assigned to Iviewit Holdings, Inc. by Joao and Utley and these patents

were transferred into the Iviewit Holdings, Inc. that will later become Iviewit Technologies, Inc.

Where the shareholders in Uview.com, Inc. being the true shareholders invested in the patents

where transferred subsequently bogus patents filed with missing disclosure information and other

problems by Foley and Lardner. Now on the morning of the name change from Uview.com, Inc.

to Iviewit Holdings, Inc. at 9:00am in Delaware, Iviewit Holdings, Inc. the unauthorized one with

the unauthorized patents changed its name to Iviewit Technologies, Inc. and at 9:01am in

Delaware Proskauer changed the Uview.com, Inc. to Iviewit Holdings, Inc. The only problem

was that the core patents in that two weeks were slipped out the back door, replaced by bogus

patents and the artifice to defraud was almost complete, evidenced in Appendix ______ -

Shareholder Letter.

viii. That the Company was directed in a joking manner both at the time of the refusal

of the counter complaint and at the conclusion of the case by judge Labarga, to take the matters of

the attorney misconduct up with the state bars and the matters of his misconduct up with the

Judicial Qualifications Committee. That until recently it was not known that the lead attorney for

Proskauer, Triggs, had argued such case in conflict with his public office position with the

Florida Bar. Whereby as a member of the grievance committee he was prevented from

representing his law firm and any partner of that firm in a bar complaint while in a black out

period.

QUOTE LAW

71Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


Triggs, when violating his blackout period to represent his firm and his partner in the

Wheeler bar complaint, also was simultaneously representing his firm the billing case that bore

similar issues and where in both he had interests, further giving him unauthorized access to

private government bar association files, yet another conflict of interest in the state of Florida and

violation of public office.

QUOTE LAW

Again making the billing litigation null and void, and the representation of his partner

Wheeler in an attorney misconduct complaint, simultaneously, and against prohibitions of law

regarding service and former service with The Florida Bar as a Grievance Committee member,

null and void and open to a new investigation, void of conflict. Further, Petitioner begs This

Court to permit as guaranteed under the Florida Constitution that the prosecution and docketing

publicly of the complaints filed for such violations be allowed to be submitted against those

individuals involved. Where it was apparent that TFB was never going to aid the Petitioner or

follow the Rules Regulating TFB, and now were attempting to destroy the records prior to record

retention rules, Petitioner took the matters to the Florida Supreme Court that has oversight

capacity of TFB to prevent the destruction of the complaints which would be necessary to

prosecute the conflicts of Triggs and Turner.

B. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT – THE FLORIDA BARThat upon filing a petition with the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court

forced complainants of the Wheeler, Triggs and Turner complaints to file pro se and where all the

shareholders of the company who filed such complaint were denied the ability to be represented

as the Florida Supreme Court denied the original filing and forced the petition to be wrongly

titled Eliot I. Bernstein and P. Stephen Lamont v. The Florida Bar, when truly it was Iviewit

Technologies, Inc. that filed the complaints and all of its shareholders. Certainly again, under

72Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


such circumstances the corporation should have been able to have been represented pro se by

executive officers, (since the corporate sham scam was not known at the time, Mssrs: Lamont and

Bernstein thought they were officers of such companies), especially where distrust for counsel

was at a record low and where after the Schiffrin & Barroway affair which showed that new

counsel was also not to be trusted, the Florida Supreme Court should not have denied counsel to

the companies or the executives, again as the law preventing pro se representation of corporations

seems more administrative than an attempt to deny due process and access to the courts. More

confusing is that in a similar situation in New York when a petition for a similar nexus of events

was filed, the First Department allowed such corporations to file the petition and ruled with such

companies named in the action, Appendix ______.

That the petition filed in Florida asserted violations of the attorney conduct rules of the

state of Florida and the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Whereby initially, inapposite of the

Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, the complaint was deferred by TFB stating that the delay was

due to the pending case before Labarga. The Florida Rules Regulating TFB states that a case

should not deferred based on a pending civil litigation and even where matters are similar, which

in this case due to the limiting of the civil case to billing matters, there was no similarity and

therefore should have never been deferred. Even if TFB could argue that they were deferring the

case, they had obligations once aware of the evidences of the crimes and the allegations of high

crimes against the United States and foreign nations, to have at minimum, according to the

professional conduct rules, reported the actions of the attorneys in question to the proper

authorities for immediate investigation. That such reporting would have constituted immediate

investigation and without such, further intellectual property rights were lost.

QUOTE LAW

It makes no sense that a judge who is apprised of such crimes by attorneys representing

Petitioner, goes ignored and not even reported to the authorities, even though Petitioner did not

73Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


file the counter complaint, licensed attorney Steven Selz did, after a thorough and competent

review of the thousands of pieces of evidence, in part, contained herein and in exhibit, with aid of

another attorney helping Petitioner and shareholders, Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq., and

where these attorneys have obligations to file charges that are not frivolous. This bears question

on the fact that if Petitioner did not have factual evidence of the allegations filed in the counter

complaint, including conspiracy and fraud on the USPTO, then why where these charges filed,

either Selz and Rogers filed a frivolous counter complaint in violation of their codes of conduct,

or the allegations had merit worthy of the charges filed. Where Petitioner, not well versed in law

at the time, merely presented the evidences and witnesses to competent attorneys who filed such

charges. Where at that point that such charges were entered into the record, whether Labarga

heard them or not, obligations to report the misconduct and take actions by the attorneys and

justices from that point forward, had obligations to report such to the proper authorities, and not

one has. Henceforth, at every junction of reporting to the state bars where such crimes and

counter complaint issues in the criminal sense, not civil, were presented to the proper authorities

by Petitioner, Petitioner companies and the shareholders of such companies, due process and even

formal procedures have gone to bury the evidences and charges and prevent them from formal

procedural and in some instances, court ordered investigations. In fact, it makes no sense for

Petitioner or Petitioner companies and shareholders, including the federally backed SBA, to bring

a civil action in crimes against the government and states, and until such time that a conflict free

environment is had to hear the evidences and witnesses in the criminal matters, it is presumed that

Petitioners chances civilly would bear that of a snowball in hell against these major law firms and

members of supreme courts and their disciplinary agencies, all working against him. Yet,

Petitioner stands ready before This Court, if This Court will ensure such conflict free forum.

Where TFB and FSC would refuse to review the case based on the civil case, where the

criminal and civil counter complaint crimes and attorney misconduct issues were prevented from

74Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


entering and where the judge limited the case to billing issues, caused both forums to state that

due to the other, the matters were being delayed or denied. Months passed from the point that the

counter complaint was refused, bar complaints were then filed, to the default judgment ruling in

the end, all costing Petitioner, other rightful inventors, shareholders in Petitioners companies loss

of rights to inventions and due process of their claims caught in this catch 22 of attorney

protectionism. Where repeatedly the Company evidenced that it was a violation of the Rules

Regulating TFB by those reviewing the matters, for putting such matters into hold based on a

non-related billing issue and the pleas for justice in the name of the inventors’ rights to their

inventions, to due process went ignored and further delayed, costing loss. At each step, Petitioner

moved the matters to the next highest level of review and new roadblocks occurred. Where at

each level of review the matters seemed to be delayed using new excuses to delay investigation of

the attorneys, as if the attorneys accused were investigating themselves. Yet, it is worse, and

after ad nauseam complaints against the attorneys and the members of TFB reviewing, conflict

was discovered elevating from Triggs, all the way to the President of TFB, Johnson, and where

the improprieties imparted by such conflicts and violation of public office, became factually

proven, it should have been clear that the reason for conflicts, was obstructionary and to deny due

process from the top down. It was clear that instead of screening attorneys to represent them free

of conflict, they had found conflicted individuals, with positions of influence, to skew the

outcome, handling the cases in conflict with their public offices within the disciplinary

departments and state Supreme Court disciplinary agencies.

ii. Matthew Triggs violated his public office position with TFB in that he violated a

blackout period for former Grievance Committee Members, banned from representing any party

for one year after his service ended, without express waiver from the board of TFB.

Quote Law

75Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


Triggs sought no waiver and yet represented his partner Wheeler within such year, this

is a fact of record. Where immediately after Boggs acknowledges such violation a complaint was

filed against Matthew Triggs for no less than ten violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida

Bar. These complaints resulted in TFB determining, with no formal docketing of the case, that

Triggs had been in violation of the blackout period confirming that there was a violation of the

blackout period, but that TFB would have, or could have, granted Triggs a waiver at that time but

they did not. Where the law leaves no room for what could have or should have occurred if

Triggs disclosed his conflict, it prohibits the action without disclosure and express waiver.

However, in an effort to exculpate and shield Triggs, knowing that this would lead to the

unraveling of all the related matters, and in to the hilt at this point, TFB refused to formally

docket and dispose according to procedure, the complaints against all those named in the conflicts

and cover-up; Triggs, Johnson, Turner, Wheeler, Proskauer, Boggs, Marvin and Hoffman. The

facts are clear that public office violations occurred and yet members of TFB further attempted to

shield Triggs and now themselves, by preventing complaints filed formally and according to

procedure against them to be docketed and disposed of according to law, impossible but true.

Further, had Triggs disclosed his conflict, the fact is that because of his representation in the

billing litigation at the time he was a grievance committee member and subsequently, he would

have also been excluded from representation of Wheeler in the bar complaint because of his

ongoing representation of his firm in the billing litigation and where the matters are related and

Triggs has interest in both matters. This is exactly what he did though, as he simultaneously

represented Wheeler in the bar complaint in violation of public office rules and the billing

litigation. In so doing the number of charges against him increased.

iii. Yet, even after affirming that Triggs had violated his public office, TFB refused

to docket the complaint against Triggs, without following any established procedure and

inapposite the Constitution of the State of Florida. Complaints were subsequently filed against

76Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


Eric Turner and other members of TFB, for failure to follow the Rules Regulating The Florida

Bar, pertaining to the failure to follow procedure and to docket, investigate, or even review the

complaints for conflicts now against them. It was here that it was discovered that Johnson who

had been accepting information directly from the Petitioners to TFB for months, was a partner

and direct underling to Wheeler’s brother in a small real estate firm in Florida, and when

confronted, see refused further contact with Petitioner and complainant of the complaints. It was

becoming increasingly clear that Petitioners rights to due process were being denied and a true

investigation and the established procedures were not going to be followed by TFB.

iv. The matters where elevated to the Supreme Court of Florida, Case SC04-1078.

Where Turner who is charged in a complaint that again is not filed as complaint with TFB, but

somehow Boggs determines that it is an internal employee matter, better handled outside

established procedures and formal docketing. The SCF then orders that a response to the petition

filed by Petitioner be answered by TFB, in an order ______________________ and where all of

the allegations and complaints were included, and surprisingly the response fails to address any of

the substantive issues raised in the petition. Instead TFB writes a response stating that the

reviewers of the matters work was good, failing to disclose the fact that the reviewers reviewed a

response by Triggs in violation of public office rules which would have voided his response.

Where the petition asked for public disclosures of the conflicts of these public officials, they

failed to advance a defense, where the Triggs complaint and all of the conflicts were asserted in

the petition TFB nor Triggs advances a defense, where evidence is presented of conflict by

Johnson and request for disclosure is made, TFB nor Johnson advance a defense, where in just

about every question in the petition is met with no defense or answer and therefore a default to

answer, SCF then rules against hearing the matters further and denies the case, ruling only that

TFB should immediately destroy the records, inapposite record retention rules. That the SCF,

fully apprised of the conflicts of Triggs and the actions of TFB and its members, has further

77Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


prevented complaints, attempted to deny Petitioner due process, access to the courts and the

disciplinary departments, to prevent these matters from being heard and now to cover up a major

public scandal. Where even on a pro se read of the Florida and United States Constitutions and

statues, this is completely inapposite the intent of the laws and Constitutions which allow citizens

to make complaints against those in office. Especially when dealing with public office officials

caught in affirmed violations of their public office rules. Where formal public disclosure rules

and all procedures should be followed to a tee in instances as these, we find the opposite prevails

and investigations are railroaded, court ordered responses go unanswered, public disclosure of

conflict is denied, and every effort is made to further deny due process and prevent public

disclosure. Where no rule or law allows the bars to hide complaints against themselves and their

members and prevent citizens from making complaints with those agencies established on behalf

of the citizens, against those caught in violation of their offices, now matter if they are judges,

lawyers, senior ranking members of the courts or its disciplinary departments, no one stands so

above the law as that the complaints cannot be filed against them in this country, yet this is what

we find in both Florida and New York. To prevent such public office scandal from erupting,

almost every law and right of Petitioner has been violated in these matters, by all those who have

handled these matters in conflict and subsequently failed in their duties, and although not the

primary focus of the Petitioner, they must be tried as accomplice to the crime. Where Petitioner

will leave the investigative work of determining who exactly was involved, since when Petitioner

asks for disclosure or conflict waivers, from those involved, he is again and again denied such

right to question these bullet proof individuals, insulated in conflicts elevating to the highest posts

in the courts and their disciplinary agencies. Where all who attempt to evade the very laws they

are to uphold, in dishonor to there country and public offices, who have failed their oaths as

attorneys and the laws and Constitutions they have sworn under, need to be immediately tried

78Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


publicly and investigated fully before these matters can have fair and impartial due process

applied.

Finally TFB and now FSC, against established rules of record retention in Florida as

established in the petition and rebuttal by Petitioner to FSC tries desperately to destroy such

records, where they now contain valuable evidences to prove the conflicts and violations of

public office. Where Petitioner begs This Court to intercede such obstruction and force all

parties, to turn over all records to This Court, until such time that all complaints and

investigations are concluded to finality, especially all patent matters. To further issue orders

forcing all additional complaints of conflict and public office abuse be filed and disposed of

according to procedure and ensure fair and impartial, conflict free due process which evidences

are dependent on such files, work products of all of those involved (where although TFB and FSC

are willing to turn over Petitioner files they refuse to turn over their work product publicly and is

what they desire to destroy) before charges against those involved escalate to evidence tampering

to obstruct justice. Where this transparent attempt to destroy the records in question with

ongoing federal and state investigations and patents in suspension pending charges of fraud on

the United States stands as further evidence of corruption that has elevated to the highest levels.

Where Petitioner begs This Court to request and maintain the records pertaining to all of these

matters, by every party mentioned herein and in exhibit, to prevent further obstructions or

document tampering similar to what happened in the Enron scandal with Arthur Andersen.

Where Petitioner has shown document tampering at the USPTO, departments of state and foreign

nations, it should be a request that despite the enormous effort, should force the end of further

attempts by any party. Where the documents have bearing on patent rights and contributing as a

cause for loss of such rights, and patent attorneys now claim to be losing or not in possession of

patent records, makes every record and document or other form of medium from every party to

these matters or those parties named in exhibit, relevant to this case. Perhaps critical in

79Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


establishing timelines and liabilities caused by obstructions in matters involving lost patent rights

and critical to establishing what This Courts powers are to correct such wrongs and establish if

the lost rights to inventions can now be returned to the inventors. Where Petitioner has even

offered TFB and FSC the necessary funds to store such documents, he is met with rulings against

all established law in favor of destruction.

Motion for Rehearing, Clarification, and Certification is denied without explanation for

any of the decisions proffered by FSC.

C. NEW YORK SUPREME COURT AND NEW YORK FIRST DEPARTMENT DDC AND SECOND DEPARTMENT DDC

Complaints are filed against patent attorneys Rubenstein and Joao in New York for

violations of disciplinary rules several weeks after filings were made in Florida against Wheeler

initially. It should be noted here, that the conflicts and abuse of public offices of Triggs was

found after the conflicts in New York were discovered. As with Florida, similar subterfuge

tactics were taken to bury the complaints in New York, whereby again Proskauer attorneys with

public offices have violated in conflict their offices, and were caught, and yet continue to elude

prosecution through similar top down control of the New York courts and its disciplinary process.

Where one of the most senior ranking officials in the attorney disciplinary departments and

former President of the NYSBA, Krane, yet another Proskauer attorney caught in conflict of

interest and abuse of public office that seems to elude charges and even court ordered

investigations. Where until recently it was not learned that Chief Judge of New York, Judith

Kaye, also having major positions of influence in the disciplinary process and courts has a

conflict so large as to force any reviewer of the matters to clear a certain conflict check with

either Kaye or Krane, since the entirety of their futures is at stake. Where both Kaye and Krane

own two and one half percent shares in Petitioner Iviewit companies and in some fraudulent

Iviewit’s may own the entirety of the stolen patents with the Proskauer firm, and where Krane

80Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


and S. Kaye are partners in the newly formed, again post meeting inventors, Proskauer

intellectual property specializing in anti-competitive patent pools using stolen inventions. That’s

pretty phenomenal and where the appearance of impropriety is so great, where Krane is caught

concealing roles and evading prosecution, at least it offers a viable explanation and motive, as to

how and why. In fact, it would be near impossible to get fair and impartial, conflict free

treatment in the New York courts or disciplinary agencies when again the accused have

positioned top down.

Where it is evidenced herein and in exhibit that Krane, while holding public offices

directly at First Department, and positions at NYSBA that influence the disciplinary departments

of New York, including First Department. Where Krane directly effects policy enforced in

regards to discipline in New York, where Krane responds with concealed roles and then decides

to represent his firm, his partner Rubenstein, and himself, with absolutely no disclosure. All who

know of his positions and influence, and that he and his firm are directly implicated in the

matters, close a blind eye to his representations in conflict. As will further be evidenced herein

and in exhibit, once caught Krane further attempts to conceal his roles and deny his conflicts,

until caught by Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, the clerk of First Department. Again, as in Florida, it

will be evidenced that in violation of statutory law and the intent of the New York Constitution

that the disciplinary departments and bar associations, although created by the Constitution and

laws of that state on behalf of consumers to protect from attorney corruption, are found again

acting more like an elitist country club, that is above the laws, in another attorney protectionism

agency.

QUOTE LAW

Where the letter putting the cases on hold, again based on a non-relevant civil billing case where

the counter complaint issues of attorney misconduct were not heard, and where this time the letter

is lost in the mail for several months, supposedly due to miss postmarking and where Petitioner

81Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


was never advised of such delay and where First Department claims not to have been returned the

mail that was misaddressed by the post office. Where all other correspondences prior did not get

lost this seemed remarkable. Therefore, due to lost mail, it was not until several months later

when USPTO OED Director Moatz asked for the status of the New York and Florida disciplinary

cases, where Petitioner was informed that New York had done nothing to investigate after

receiving the Rubenstein and Joao rebuttals, Appendix ____ and Appendix _____. Where Chief

Counsel of the First Department DDC, Cahill refuses to contact Moatz and states that he will

begin investigation personally into the matters. Where again, it was evidenced in such rebuttals

that Rubenstein and Krane in the initial response to the complaint had committed perjury to such

tribunal with factual evidence of conflicting deposition statements and statements to the courts as

was made to them. Instead of reviewing the rebuttals and investigating, the matters again where

put on hold pending the non-related billing case, again in apposite of the intent of the NYCRR

that prohibits such deferral of complaints based on civil matters, especially where the matters of

attorney misconduct were prevented from being entered into the civil case. Same catch 22 as

Florida. Same attorney protectionism tactics taken in attempts to prevent prosecution and public

disclosure of public office scandal. Same refusals to docket complaints according to the rules of

NYCRR against members of the elitist group controlling the processes and where such group is

handling complaints in violation of their public offices. Where public disclosure of public

officers acting in violation of public office is attempted to be buried, again not only is it presumed

to be top down but evidence supports tentacles that steeped in conflict at the top and where those

involved in investigating are further caught in conflict and charges against them are prevented

again. Yet, New York provides yet another hurdle or conundrum for This Court to resolve and

that is that once caught in conflict, the matters were petitioned by Cahill to a panel of five justices

of the First Department for review based on alleged conflict of interests and the appearance of

impropriety. Where First Department, after reviewing the merits of the Cahill petition Appendix

82Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


___ and Petitioners petition, Appendix ______, astonishingly in what appears the first step

towards due process, orders an investigation of Krane, Rubenstein and Joao. What unfolds to

usurp this court order will again finger the guilty parties, as this imparts one of the most

ridiculous attempts to avoid investigation, through altering the definition of investigation to one

where evidences and witnesses are denied due process, through a review process. Where further

those attempting to impart such new definitions, including a Presiding Justice and Clerk of the

Court for the Second Department, have no formal part in the complaints filed, acting outside their

duties, attempting to claim that they have reviewed the matters and case closed, investigation was

had and concluded. Yet, this stands in direct opposition to the department that was mandated to

investigate where the Chief Counsel charged with investigating, Kearse, states that based on a

review (of what, unknown) that the department has not choose not to investigate Krane based on

the mistaken statement that Petitioner did not cite a case for cause of attorney misconduct when

filing. Yet, petitioner did not file the action for investigation against Krane, a panel of five

justices concurred that investigation, not review, was to be undertaken based on their thorough

review of the evidences and petitions filed. Further, Kearse states that complaints were not of

attorney misconduct, and Petitioner is at a loss to what the complaints were about, perhaps the

bird.

iv. Company asks for investigations into the matters to commence immediately as

the billing litigation had ended and none of the attorney misconduct issues had been heard or

tried. Cahill states he is personally handling investigations. Several months pass, Cahill is again

contacted due to new information, that Proskauer partner Krane has violated conflict laws in

representing Rubenstein, since Krane was at the time of representation holding positions of

influence in the First Department DDC and within the rule creation and enforcement policy

committees that have influence upon the First Department DDC.

83Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


v. Krane authors a response, acting again as counsel for Rubenstein and now as

counsel for himself, in the complaint now filed against him, Appendix ____, Krane tenders this

response while concealing a role as referee at the First Department DDC and attempting to lead

one to believe that his roles at NYSBA where not in conflict. This attempt to conceal his current

role with First Department DDC, so that he could attempt a response for Rubenstein and himself

while hiding the conflict is further perpetuated by Cahill, who denies that Krane has positions of

conflict in defense of the responses of Krane and refuses to formally docket a complaint against

him or publicly disclose his department positions or dates of service.

Astounded by Cahill’s reaction Petitioner contacts clerk of the court Wolfe, who states

that Krane and Cahill sit on a First Department DDC committee together and that Krane response

is a conflict. Wolfe requests that Petitioner file a petition for conflict of interest and appearance

of impropriety. Cahill upon discovering that Petitioner had found that Krane was a member of

the department from Wolfe, contradicting his prior statements that Krane had no involvement

whatsoever with the department, finds that he is caught lying. Where now Cahill suddenly does

an about face and exposed by Wolfe, then files a petition, ahead of Petitioner petition, to First

Department, asking for the cases of Krane, Rubenstein and Joao to be transferred because of

conflict of interest and improprieties. For his part in aiding and abetting Krane, a complaint is

filed against Cahill and is pending an investigation by special investigator Martin Gold, for

Cahill’s actions inapposite the NYCRR.

Where after a thorough review of the petitions of both Petitioner and Cahill, a First

Department panel of five justices rules to move the case for “investigation” and disposition to the

Second Department DDC. Second Department DDC dismisses the cases and shockingly ignores

the court order requiring investigation, stating that no investigation was preformed instead a

review was performed and the matter of Krane was being dismissed, Appendix ____. It is

interesting that Kearse attempts to dodge the investigatory bullet here, stating that Petitioner did

84Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


not make a case against Krane warranting investigation. Where one must ask, did Petitioner find

cause to order an “investigation” of Krane or did a panel of five justices after due-deliberation

order Kearse to “investigate” the matters. Why then does Kearse violate the court order and

contact the Petitioner to attempt such trickery. In fact, Kearse takes this one step further and

attempts to claim with no investigation based on a review of unknown materials, that the

complaint against Krane does not state attorney misconduct. Why then did such justices order an

investigation?

Upon calling Kearse to ask why she was violating a court order, it was discovered from

her own admission, that she also had professional and personal conflicts with Krane. When asked

to disclose the conflicts she refused stating the company should request such in writing and she

would disclose. The company then filed such letter for such disclosure and Kearse refused to

respond with any disclosure, how atypical for a public official who at once admitted conflict and

yet denies the public an explanation. In fact, where Petitioner has asked all those involved with

the New York complaints to file public disclosure of possible conflicts, with any of the parties,

including Krane, Kaye, Proskauer, Rubenstein, Joao, MLGWS, Foley and all those named herein

and in exhibit as conspirators in the crimes, prior to doing any work on the matters, this request

falls on deaf ears. Where certainly, when the justices of the First Department transferred the

matters, they anticipated that those involved investigating would be conflict free in fulfilling the

court ordered “investigation”. Again, Petitioner states that due to the influence and control of all

of the disciplinary departments by both Krane and Kaye it is nearly impossible to find such

conflict free, unbiased, uninfluenced, or planted in conflict individuals in the entire state of New

York.

For her actions in conflict and violation of a court order, a complaint is lodged against

Kearse and Kearse quite shockingly refuses to file the complaint against her, in violation of the

established procedures of the NYCRR. Again, the pattern will emerge that once the conflicts are

85Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


exposed, a cover-up begins, starting with the refusal to docket formally and procedurally against

those complained against. Where the shielding begins by obfuscating the rights of Petitioner to

access the courts and the disciplinary departments to file complaints against department members.

Where again, it is self-evident that not only to attempt such obstruction, but to get away with it,

takes some heavy hitters at the top to enable such actions to go unregulated or uninvestigated and

even to prevent complaints from being publicly docketed against public officials caught in

conflict. Again, Petitioner has taken exhausting steps that are supposedly rights granted under

statue and the Constitution of New York to protect the citizens from public office corruption, and

is met with brut force opposition where all the rules are broken to prevent him from due process

by those who are supposed to be enforcing them. Where those at the top of the disciplinary

departments and the courts are directly implicated in the matters, makes further fair and impartial

due process impossible for Petitioner in the state of New York and where they still act in these

matters is intolerable. In fact, Krane, even after he is found in conflict, never resigns as counsel

for Rubenstein or himself in the matters, even while holding office with the First Department

DDC and being caught, now that takes some chutzpah.

The complaint against Kearse and her refusal to disclose her conflicts and failure to

follow the court orders, are then elevated to the Chairman of Second Department DDC, Lawrence

DiGiovanna. DiGiovanna decides to dismiss without investigation in concurrence with Kearse

(whose decision was tainted in unknown conflict) and again for further obstruction of justice and

failure to follow the court order, a complaint is filed against DiGiovanna for failure to comply

with court order. Second Department DDC then refuses to file formal complaints against both

Kearse and DiGiovanna inapposite the NYCRR. Where it may seem that Petitioner likes to files

numerous complaints, it is not the intent of Petitioner or the result of unfounded complaining, and

where in every instance the facts are clear but are stymied from reaching fair and impartial due

process. Wherever Petitioner goes, it seems like a minefield of planted obstructions await, and

86Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


until such time as due process is had, Petitioner will continue to file complaints against every

individual that partakes in obstruction as his right under the state Constitutions and the US

Constitution, no matter the title or political standing of those named, until the pattern of

obstruction is broken.

On a recent attempt to dismiss without investigation the complaints against Krane,

Rubenstein and Joao we find more evidence of obstruction and further attempts at hypocrisy by

the Second Department. Where Petitioner was shutdown at Second Department DDC and

complaints were going un-docketed and further ignored, Petitioner contacted clerk of the Second

Department, James Pelzer, to find out how to file a petition forcing the court ordered

investigation to proceed and the filing of the new complaints to commence under proper

procedure and free of conflict. Here we disembark from any proper procedure or the NYCRR

rules being followed in a grandstand effort to stonewall Petitioner and dismiss the complaints.

Further, it is evidenced herein and in exhibit, that where Kearse admits conflict and refused to

disclose publicly her conflicts, she surprisingly authors a second letter, reversing her prior

position that she had dismissed the claims based on review instead of investigation, and now

claiming a review of First Department DDC “investigation” in fact occurred. Wordsmithing with

care, she attempts to justify her dismissal without investigation, against the court ordered

investigation, and while her letter fails to disclose that a complaint is filed against her since she

decided not to docket it against herself, she acts to justify her prior work. What is most

disturbing, is that there was never a formal investigation at First Department DDC because the

cases were put on hold, pending the civil litigation, and when that was over, the conflicts were

learned and the cases transferred, again by five justices in a court order, for investigation. One

might add why the justices did not order a review of the matters, or a review of the prior

investigation that does not exist and ordered investigation. One must ask why Kearse attempts to

deny the court order again to Petitioner, when it was not Petitioner who ordered the investigation.

87Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


The reason is because she was caught and in attempt to cover-up her first letter where she

blatantly admits she failed to investigate, now she realizes with her complaint against herself

buried deep, that she must find explanation for her failure. Are you ready for some smoke and

mirrors?

Now the second letter from Kearse gets misaddressed and is lost in the mail and by the

time Petitioner is done reading, another letter comes from the clerk of court, Pelzer, Appendix

____ Exhibit “”, and under unknown authority or procedure under NYCRR, attempting to further

dismiss all of the complaints. Where Pelzer’s letter is based on no established procedure or law,

it stands as inadmissible other than to impart more violations of law and the basis of, you guessed

it, more complaints. Pelzer claims that he took the complaints to Presiding Justice A. Gail

Prudenti, where Petitioner asked that due to a multiplicity of articles found where Prudenti and

Kaye appear to be in conflict, and with the overwhelming appearance of impropriety this

represents, that before she makes any ruling, Petitioner requests from Pelzer, at his request, a

formal request for a conflict of interest waiver from Prudenti, which again in the name of public

disclosure and fairness, is completely ignored. Where Petitioner sought only how to file a

petition compelling Second Department DDC to follow established procedure and law and obey

the court ordered investigation of Rubenstein, Joao and Krane, what was received baffles the

mind. In a move that is both desperate and outside the procedure in matters such as these, Pelzer

now tries to impart a new meaning on the word investigation, in a shallow attempt to explain how

although Kearse’s own words are that she did not investigate, and only reviewed, Pelzer will now

try to impart that such review constitutes an investigation. Now what exactly the clerk, speaking

both the opinions of Prudenti and himself, is doing writing this letter or reviewing the matters, is

absurd, as nowhere in the formal procedures under NYCRR calls for such handling of complaints

by either the clerk or Prudenti. Pelzer, states that Petitioner requested such review and opinion,

and even if such were the case, both Prudenti and Pelzer knew it was not part of procedure but

88Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


went ahead in justifying the actions of the members of Second Department DDC and in fact

imparting that they had conducted a formal and procedural investigation but that such

investigation was stopped at the review level. Further, that Prudenti, who has no influence or

position in the formal procedural disposition of the complaints under NYCRR, now suddenly

decides against any known policy, to author opinions on matters she is not involved in, and one

that reeks again of trying to sell that investigation and disposition by due process, free of conflict,

has occurred and the matters are closed. Again, this stands to evidence that Prudenti, conflicted

with Kaye in a number of roles, will do anything and use her Supreme Court Department to do

whatever it damn well pleases, inapposite of the laws and state Constitution of New York, to

shield and protect the accused. Pelzer goes further and offers his own opinion of the complaints,

stating that they are retaliatory to the billing litigation, where had investigation into the evidences

submitted to First Department, First Department DDC and Second Department DDC relating to

the sham corporations and further crimes against the Department of State in Delaware and

Florida, Pelzer would have discovered the truth, that the billing litigation was part of a larger

scheme to defraud the United States and deprive its citizens of their constitutional rights to

inventions. Petitioner begs This Court to ask, when Pelzer describes in his letter, that Iviewit is a

failed dot com, which of the thirteen or so Iviewit companies he refers too. Petitioner asks what

Pelzer and Prudenti based their conclusions on, and why is a failed dot com, here before This

Court defending inventions that are in suspension at the USPTO based on allegations of crimes

committed by the accused against a number of state, federal and international frauds? Why again,

are Prudenti and Pelzer, two people not involved in the process, rushing to impart that justice has

been served and further taint the review process with conflicting and unethical conduct?

Yet Pelzer, knee deep in this, for he was the one charged by the court with transferring

the case to the Second Department DDC, and initially promised Petitioners that he would

personally conduct all steps necessary to pass the complaints free of conflict of Krane and Kaye,

89Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


and where he failed this task and instead found conflicted people, he should take responsibility

for the ensuing calamities and the subsequent complaints against Kearse and DiGiovanna. Where

Prudenti, who controls the court, is also responsible for this travesty, kudo’s are offered as she

certainly stepped up to the plate with her neck, by writing a letter on departmental stationary no-

less, completely outside of her jurisdiction in the complaint matters and imparting opinion on

matters she has no right opining on. Especially where the department that should be writing such

letters as charged with the court order for investigation plainly admits that no investigation was

done. What sort of investigation was this where no one thought to call Moatz, nor the FBI, nor

any evidence was tested, nor a single witness provided was contacted, nor a single conflicted

public official has been forced to respond to the allegations against them, where conflicted

individuals continue to control the outcome and attempt to blow smoke up your ass that an

investigation was done and state the term investigation is not open to question by Petitioner and

dismiss the accused while the patents they did and the corporate work they did is the cause of

patent suspensions where they are under investigation for fraud on the USPTO and hundreds of

other crimes in a multitude of ongoing investigations. Yet, in an attempt to protect their brethren

from facing prison sentences, and federal at that for these crimes, and where such individuals

making the decisions and writing letters imparting that investigations have been done, influencing

the outcome, are all conflicted with the accused. Petitioner asks how with no formal and

complete investigation into any of the complaints and in some cases outright denial of the

complaints to be filed and docketed procedurally, how they are willing make opinions in favor

and releasing from discipline the accused. What sort of investigation was done, where the

accused do not have to respond publicly or privately, where none of the evidence or witnesses are

examined or heard? Did they call the USPTO, or Moatz or Luchessi at the FBI, or investigate the

state departments records on the sham companies, or give both sides fair and impartial

investigation and due process to present their claims as an investigation would force? How can

90Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


they attempt to close the matters, deny Petitioner the right to the complaint process, go around

formal procedure to get high ranking court officials to write exculpatory letters and opine when

ongoing investigations and actions are pending and open against the vary attorneys complained of

across the globe. If investigation was done, the complainants of the complaints, the shareholders

and inventors, have a right to know, especially where public officials are involved, what exactly

the answers by the accused, there former trusted attorneys, were to the evidences and witnesses

against them. As yet, not a single witness Petitioner has presented to testify against them has

been called and where one is unclear what the reviewers actually reviewed and conflicts are

allowed to go unchecked even after discovery, it is painfully clear that New York cannot cleanse

itself, as those at top, prohibit fair and impartial due process.

Petitioner begs This Court to strike all prior responses steeped in conflict, strike all prior

reviews where tainted responses have been tendered, remove all conflicted parties from further

partaking at the expense of the entire legal community and its place of prominence and respect by

the people, and pick up the evidences from the start and make a determination of if the accused

have responded in total to all of the allegations against them, faced their accusers, publicly been

tried for their violations of public office, and if not, demand such. Let justice be served here and

now and prevent the madness from continuing, again if there is nothing to hide, this should be a

breeze to explain by any of the hundreds of litigators at any of the accused law firms. Yet, due to

the enormity of the conflicts already found by Proskauer’s self representation of the matters by

public officials in conflict, Petitioner begs This Court to level the playing field a bit by forcing

Proskauer to seek outside counsel for further representation. Where again, Petitioner begs This

Court force those representing Proskauer and the investigators to verify publicly that they have no

conflicts with any of the parties involved prior to involvement. Simple requests, in light of the

circumstances and ones that should go without mention.

91Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


Where these attorney when attempting to answer the questions against them in the

attorney misconduct complaints have relied upon fraudulent statements to tribunals by conflicted

individuals, and in fact, where there exists hard evidence that certain of these attorneys have

made perjured statements to such tribunals, all should stand subject to investigation. Where

conflicting deposition testimony was obtained, to the statements made to the First Department

DDC and TFB, in responding to the complaints against them, one needs to ask which of the

statements is true and why the evidence of such perjury has gone unanswered. In each rebuttal to

the responses provided by the attorneys, by conflicted partners in violation of public offices, more

evidence was presented including the perjured statements, in some cases over one-thousand pages

of evidence, for example the rebuttals to Raymond Joao, Kenneth Rubenstein and Christopher

Wheeler responses as evidenced in Appendix ____ - Rebuttals. Yet, so confident were these

attorneys that they controlled the court rooms and the disciplinary agencies through conflict that

would prevent prosecution at the top, that they never presumed that after two years the conflicts

would surface, unraveling the public office abuses and further revealing how the matters have

gone covered up. Where first Krane was revealed in New York as having conflict and abuse of

public office, then in Florida it was discovered that Triggs had acted in violation of public office,

where then it was learned that First Department DDC was infiltrated with Krane and Cahill in

cahoots, where then it was learned that Krane may have protection from Judith Kaye due to his

former clerk relationship, where then it was learned that Kaye was married to a Proskauer partner

who was a partner in accused law firm and the intellectual property department accused, where

then it was learned that Kaye and Krane were the two most influential people in the disciplinary

departments of New York and the NYSBA and had influence in the investigative departments and

direct involvement in the matters, then it was learned that Kaye has direct interests in not only

Proskauer but Iviewit through her marriage, where then it was learned that TFB President,

Johnson, was direct report to Wheeler’s brother at a private practice in Florida and where the

92Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


breadth and how high up this cover up goes is still unknown, but certainly where all of these

evidence that Proskauer has unfairly and against law obstructed the entirety of these processes.

Where public officials are not forced to disclose publicly conflicts, investigations are railroaded,

witnesses ignored, evidence untested, trials thrown, counsel denied, and complaints cannot be

filed against the accused, all inapposite the Constitutions and statutes in those states, it appears

that justice can be penetrated and manipulated by those certain few criminals disguised as

attorneys and attorneys with public offices. Perhaps this is a danger where self-regulation has no

checks and balances, where conflicts are not disclosed publicly and violations of public office go

ignored by those entrusted to behold justice ensure fair and impartial due process. Certainly this

was not the will of the people in enacting state bar associations to regulate corruption by

attorneys on behalf of the people.

xvii. Where This Court must demand justice for all the related matters and where

Petitioner has been exhausted of financial remedies due to all of the following , including but not

limited to, monies stolen, paying for counsel to represent fraudulent law suits and bankruptcies

(against companies not even owned by Petitioner or the shareholders), defending night and day

for four years the patents globally in countless countries, working with a team of no less than five

top members of the USPTO to freeze and resurrect patents with no aid of patent counsel,

attempting to read through an understand the laws violated in foreign nations and against our

country in the commission of the crimes, preparing and filing thousands of pages of evidences

with witness after witness (the hero’s of this story who have put their lives on the line to tell the

truth and been ignored), preparing and formulating the evidences and complaints and the

corresponding laws broke civilly and criminally, and this has all been funded by Petitioner to the

cost to him and his family of financial ruin and welfare assistance, all to defend his rights and the

rights of those with investment in the intellectual properties. Where Petitioner stands alone here,

as he fears involving others until a path is paved for fair and impartial due process, as going

93Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


against these major law firms has only hurt those who have come forward to help thus far, and

where they are not being heard or even called, why endanger more. Where Petitioner stands here

alone as Petitioner and his entirety of not culpable shareholders, no longer trust our own lawyers,

where are own lawyers from major firms have violated the sanctity of attorney/client privilege

and the ensuing trust, making it safer to represent oneself. Where law firms involved nationally

and internationally are claiming to have lost records of inventors and so they should, when the

intellectual property dockets do not match up, when their corporations are found to wrong and

fraught with fraud. Where state courts and state bars have been stacked against the Petitioner to

this degree already makes any other forum than This Court, such burden on Petitioner, where loss

of constitutionally protected rights to invention, one of the most sacred of all rights protected with

free commerce dependent on it will have been caused by the lack of the system to protect such

rights. Where the complexities of the case on this many levels would be demanding on a full

scale law firm, the demands on Petitioner are steeped further as Petitioner to save dates on rights

from being lost around the world and file similar charges around the world has lost the ability to

turn around and love his children. Where every day since taking on the fight Petitioner tells his

children that he misses them but that he must fight the “bad men” who try to destroy the royalties

beholden to them, granted under The Constitution by our forefathers and like any battle of good

and evil one must fight to death preserve what is good and right, no matter the force of

opposition. Many die on the battlefield today in this or that war, I tell them, defending our

constitution and so will I and I pray that they to will learn to stand up to the evil tyranny of men,

no matter what form it disguises itself as. For without that which one fights for, there is naught.

xviii. Where Petitioner comes before This Court as one, looking for a partner in rooting

out evil and restoring the inventions to the rightful owners, to correct the flaws in the legal system

and patent system that almost allowed this horrific crime to occur, to restore order to law, to

protect the Constitutional rights of inventor both here and abroad and prevent a loss in faith in

94Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


free commerce and our Constitution. Where at the minimum if This Court refuses these matters,

Petitioner asks This Court for advice on what avenue is left, what court, what department, what

investigatory body, where these matters can be presented and ensured fair and impartial formal

investigation of each and every allegation free of conflict to any of the law firms and lawyers

involved, the several thousand of them in conflict with the Petitioner and I will be there in the

morning, evidence and witnesses in hand. Without ensuring that much, This Court can consider

this a death sentence to the inventor.

xix. Where a company valued at seventy million dollars on it’s way to an IPO, a

Wachovia Private Placement in hand, with deals with major players for its intellectual properties

such as Sony and Warner Bros. all acclaiming that the inventions revolutionized the world, all

stating that Proskauer was patent counsel and Rubenstein an Advisor to the Board, all documents

prepared by Proskauer, all blown apart when the first evidences of the scheme were discovered.

And since that time, some four years ago, evidences have been piling up of more and more

violations of state, federal and international crimes committed. Where Petitioner in reviewing the

laws and formulating the charges presented to hosts of federal, state and international authorities

as cited in Exhibit “1” made each claim with substantial evidence. Where major investors have

signed complaints to the USPTO stating fraud has been committed, where all the investors

(except the culpable, all having links to Proskauer) stand wondering what has happened to their

stock and there patents, and why are the patents in the wrong companies and wrong inventors

name, and why does their patent attorney have 90+ patents in his own name, almost all looking

like they came from the business plans of Petitioner and are only possible with Petitioners

inventions, and why does Proskauer now have a patent department that controls the single largest

infringer of technologies worldwide, MPEGLA and why are the investigations derailed and why

and why are their companies that were unknown and similarly named that house patents no one

knew about, and why are insurance policies issued in the names of companies that do not exist,

95Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


and why are the patents being suspended, and why will the patent office not disclose information

regarding certain patents to the inventors claiming that the attorney dockets to not reflect that the

shareholders own such patents as the attorneys filed, and why if there is nothing to hide have they

not responded to these questions asked by the shareholders they represented. Why, why, why?

The answer is in the fact that they are guilty and the only way to stave off certain prosecution is

to infiltrate justice to prevent prosecution at any cost. The fact that these criminals have figured

out how to use legal degrees to rip off inventors and commit fraud on the USPTO, then use legal

degrees to infiltrate justice and prevent prosecution, stands as the single greatest threat to the

fabric of The Constitution and to certain of those entrusted to uphold it may tear legal robes into

prison garb. Where these matters are already matters of public knowledge and inquiring minds

want to know, and as these matters become known to more people, the faith in the Patent System,

the faith in Patent lawyers, the faith in state court bar associations, the faith in the supreme courts

to regulate their own, is lost. Where jokingly the Petitioner concludes in conversation that if one

is seeking to patent ones inventions it is perhaps a better bet to use the Russian patent office.

Who will ever take an invention to a patent attorney again, will invention as guaranteed to the

inventor by The Constitution be usurped by lawyers manipulating the system through violations

of pretty much every code of conduct and ethics in the book. This Petitioner has come to the

final steps of Justice exhausted

xx.

xxi. This letter comes completely outside the established procedure as stated in the

NYCRR, attempting to exonerate Krane, Rubenstein and Joao and dismiss the matters, based on

presiding Justice A. Gail Prudenti review. These decisions as evidenced in the letter from the

Clerk, with no investigation ever taking place, in violation of court order from First Department

and where such actions, where no law allows for such review and conclusion from a presiding

justice, shows further violations of the NYCRR. This also further demonstrates that Petitioner

96Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


cannot receive a fair and impartial investigation of the complaints filed in any forum specified by

the applicable state rules, even where a court order so requires, without the Supreme Court

intervention and invocation of its all writs jurisdiction , other aggrieved individuals will stand in

sufferance to those charged with ombudmanship of the attorneys and who instead of following

the proscribed rules, act by fiat.

xxii. Where complaints will be forthcoming against Clerk of the Court and Prudenti

for this attempt to exculpate Krane, Rubenstein and Joao, again acting as an obstruction of justice

and an affront to the justice system. Again, attempting to impart that an investigation occurred,

opposite of Kearse’s own admission that no investigation was done, Second Department DDC

stands as a shield to Proskauer and its partners Krane, Rubenstein and Joao. This pattern of

delay, denial and failure to investigate in contravention of governing law is particularly shameless

as Krane and Kaye are two of the most influential persons in the rule creation and enforcement

committees that enforce attorney discipline at the Second Department. Again without the

Supreme Courts intervention using it extraordinary all writs jurisdiction will the truth be learned,

justice be served and due process be had.

D. VIRGINIA BARIn fact, with investigations derailed in New York and Florida, in a bold move to create

the impression that there was an investigation and review on behalf of William Dicks Virginia bar

complaint, Dick attempts to impart to that bar association that investigations were done in Florida

and New York, and imparts that a trial was had in the billing litigation and where all accused

were vindicated after fair and impartial due process. Where these statements were categorically

false and no investigation into the matters had to date been undertaken at any bar association,

both First Department DDC, TFB and Virginia Bar were notified that false and misleading

information was being promulgated by Dick. Yet, like the evidence contained in the complaints,

97Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


this new evidence of misconduct again fell on deaf ears of the disciplinary departments. In fact,

although the patent bar is investigating Dick, Rubenstein and Joao, it seems like the state bars

have found ways to avoid evidence through conflicted reviews, tainted by conflicted responses in

defense, and allow these attorneys to paint a picture falsely that an investigation has been

conducted by their departments, and where Dick stretches this to no end by falsifying statements

to the Virginia Bar as to the outcome of these matters, and with such knowledge that these

statements were false, no one felt obligated to correct the record and prosecute Dick. In fact,

where when confronted with these evidences of false statements by Dick and new evidences of

the patent office actions, as if none of this existed, Virginia dismissed Dick.

E. BOCA RATON PDMany of the criminal charges filed were derailed through a bizarre and frightening series

of events. That Boca PD had claimed that the matters were taken to the District Attorney and

they were co-investigating the charges with the SEC. Upon contacting the Boca PD it was found

that complaints were not with the SEC and the names given at the SEC had never heard of the

matters and had no case filing, quite inapposite their statements. Where additional charges have

been filed for new crimes learned and where Boca PD now attempts to skirt their obligation to

investigate the crimes, including crimes against the Department of State and abuses of public

offices. It appears that Boca is obstructing and not doing justice where the crimes committed

include theft of assets from the United States government in the aforementioned SBA investments

in the company Petitioner founded, as well as, crimes against the USPTO, a US government

entity, the Boca PD’s failures are also an obstruction of justice against the United States

government.

i. Boca PD states meeting is set up with FBI and SEC, upon contacting SEC

contacts they state they have never heard of the matters and were not notified of any meeting.

98Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


ii. Company files with Florida SC for protection of inventors and management and

to oversight matters. Florida SC rejects this petition and then removes it from the permanent

record of the case. Florida SC is asked to clarify what court they refer to in their order denial that

the matters should be taken to and refuses to clarify the matter.

F. FBIWhere investigations into the matters has been commenced and where the FBI has taken

the matters to the State Attorney. pending investigation. No complaint has been filed in these

matters, although due to the excessive length of time, patent rights are being lost, inapposite the

inventors constitutional rights to their inventions.

6. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTERS Where attorneys from leading national law firms stand accused of theft of inventions as

well as a conspiracy to steal patents from the inventors through a pattern of fraud and deceit not

only against the inventors and the shareholders of companies formed to hold the patents but

against federal, state and international agencies. Where such attorneys have then abused their

public office positions with State Supreme Court bar agencies in Florida and New York to

prevent facing prosecution. Where further, state bar associations in New York and Florida have

acted outside the laws of those states and inapposite of the constitutions of those states, which

mandate the formation of such bar associations as agencies of the supreme court, to act in the

publics best interest and to ensure faith in legal system. Where in essence, those charged with

upholding the rules and procedure for attorney discipline, as dictated in the Rules Regulating The

Florida Bar and the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, have failed and when one digs

deep, one finds that the reason is plain and simple, Proskauer attorneys acting in conflict.

Where the threat to the publics faith in the legal system is at risk and at the level where

the legal system may become so distrusted upon the publics recognition that patent lawyers

99Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


cannot be trusted with inventions, that the patent system, fundamental to a democracy, will have

been violated perhaps beyond repair.

Where the threat to the faith in the state attorney bar associations is at risk and at a level

where the legal system may become so distrusted, caused by a few, upon the publics recognition

that attorneys disciplinary systems can be penetrated by lawyers acting in hidden and concealed

conflicts, makes this a matter for This Court and there is no higher court to regulate the actions of

the state Supreme Courts in violation of their duties under their state constitutions. Where

further such abuse of office and power, once found and verified is attempted to be swept under

the rug inapposite of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights to property through abuse of the legal

system by these corrupted few, yet a few gives the appear that these courts and their agencies aid

and abet criminal attorneys, and deny investigation were cause is proven, which could cause

complete loss in the faith of the legal system in such states, presents a matter for This Court, as

nothing is more sacred than the legal system that protects the rights and freedoms of the people.

Further, no person, or public official in any capacity stands above the laws of This Court and

where those now accused involve senior members of the lower courts and the disciplinary system

they control. Where certain of the accused have proven vested interests inapposite the Petitioner

and continue to act in the matters against themselves, while holding public office positions in

conflict, is a treason of sorts when the states fail to investigate and prosecute. Where not only

have the accused attorneys and others, violated the state supreme courts and their agencies but

they have defiled the federal patent office and where such is truly a conspiracy of treason, that

federally This Court will have supreme discretion in making decisions, as it pertains to crimes

against federal agencies, and many of them, as described and evidenced throughout Exhibit “1”.

Secondarily where civil remedies could not be had because of the Labarga counter

complaint being dismissed, due to theft of funds from the company by loaw firm management,

inability to hire counsel, Petitioners have resorted to filing criminal charges and per Labarga’s

100Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


recommendations to file claims at the bar associations and judicial oversight committees, all to no

avail.

7. NO OTHER COURT OF LAWNo forum can safely be had by the Petitioner in attempting to protect the constitutional

rights to the intellectual properties when viewed in light of the massive legal forces working

against Petitioner, where the courts and their affiliated bar associations in three states now have

adverse interest to Petitioner. Where in fact, at this level of corruption with tangible evidences,

credible with witnesses and complaints filed, it should not be the job of the Petitioner to bring

these elements before This Court or any other court but the very departments and agencies job

where the elements are either criminal or ethical in nature. In fact, whether Petitioner or

shareholders ever file a civil case should not intercede with the states and federal prosecution of

the crimes in a court of law and should not limit the discretion of This Court in invoking its

supreme powers to relegate justice. It is not the job of the Petitioner to file suit when the crimes

are against the United States Government either, when there are so many crimes against so many

governments as to make it more of a de-facto conspiracy against the government, as levied in the

charges of fraud upon the USPTO and against foreign nations as presented in the charges of fraud

upon the European Patent Office and all thirty or so countries. Again, with time running out,

bouncing between lower courts to get justice and fair and impartial due process not riddled with

conflict will certainly be the death of the inventions and the rights to them. When that happens

the question becomes to what extent did the very legal system designed to protect from such

calamity, partake in causing such to occur? By failing to follow the established rules and

regulations the people elected them to follow, especially where public office corruption is found,

the laws have failed and become a shield to deny due process and allow inventors to become

101Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


victims to patent lawyers who like the inventions as their own? Where such high crimes go

unchecked and all balances fail, our Constitution fails.

There are those attempting to steal the inventions and now also those attempting to

prevent prosecution under federal, state and international laws for the thefts. Where it appears

that these national law firms can position within and corrupt the legal process through obstruction

of justice and misuse of their legal powers and public positions. Add to that, that due to the

corruption now within the courts and state bar associations due to these conflicted individuals,

that such state courts may have bias and even conflict with the inventors in reviewing the matters

further. In Florida, since the bar association is a Supreme Court aegis and has insurance coverage

for the actions of their members, this makes for adverse interest with the Supreme Court and the

The Florida Bar, along with the inherent desire to avoid a scandal that elevates now to the

executive offices of The Florida Bar. In New York, the matter now elevates to Chief Judge

Judith Kaye and her husband Stephen Kaye (a Proskauer partner being accused of the patent

thefts as a member of the Proskauer intellectual department), the former President of the New

York State Bar Association Steven Krane (a Proskauer partner being accused of the patent thefts

as a member of the Proskauer intellectual property department and former law clerk for Kaye)

and where Kaye is the most powerful judge in New York at the highest court and Krane is the

most recognized and influential member of the rules creation division of the NYSBA and the

disciplinary departments that enforce them, the adverse interests are apparent. Where S. Kaye

and Krane face federal prison sentences and economic ruin for their involvement and Kaye could

lose control of the court, her robe and also economic ruin the chance of getting a fair shake in

New York courts, impossible. Where the liabilities are this massive to those involved in the

courts and where the courts refuse to have candidates screened after already discovering conflicts

and further fail to prosecute the conflicts or the attorney misconduct, it is obvious that obstruction

rises to the top. Where these attorneys, flush with cash from the stolen inventions, appear to

102Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


control the courts through positioning in conflict and in some instances what appears bribery of

other members. Where not only are the rules and laws broken, they are broken to the point of

violating express written laws in the respective states, to avoid due process. Where this may

seem at first impossible, when viewed knowing that if the matters are successfully prosecuted, the

handful of attorneys who have committed such crimes may cost the thousands of lawyers

involved with these national firms, everything, it is not implausible that in desperation they have

defiled the sanctity of law and all that it represents. No case in the history of This Court will test

the legal systems ability to regulate those bad apples that can spoil the bunch, who violate their

oaths sworn under G-d, who have taken what was learned in law and turned it into a criminal

organization. No case in the end, and that should be sometime after This Court clears the way to

investigation and trial of the evidence and witnesses, ensuring fair and impartial due process, will

have tested the constitutions ability to protect the rights of the inventor, small or large. Where the

inventors are against all odds when, (i) the patent system is violated by attorneys acting for their

own personal gains and are further found profiteering from their racketeering endeavors, (ii)

where the lower courts and then constitutionally invoked associations of discipline have been

violated by the same attorneys, to hide from due process through obstruction of justice, (iii)

Although this case has been brought to this court due to the failure of the constitutionally

created state bar associations and supreme courts failure to ensure fair and impartial due process

and have acted to obstruct justice through abuse of public office, the cases fundamental issues

would have inevitably ended up in This Court, as now rights to the inventions of the inventors

have been violated and the series of crimes nationally and internationally, federally and state,

have reached such proportion that only This Court has the necessary powers to protect such

constitutional rights and ensure that those charged with upholding the laws are not in conflict

with Petitioner further. Where now due to the failure of the system to protect itself from

corruption within its ranks at the highest levels of the most sacred offices of the state Supreme

103Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


Courts and its disciplinary system, This Court must take action to prevent complete loss of rights.

In fact, at the EPO, due to the abandonment of counsel with Petitioners invention records and

subsequent immediate dismantling of that London firm, without counsel who fled after filing

charges of fraud on the EPO similar to the charges here in the US. Yet, there Petitioner has not

had a Moatz, to freeze the patents and without foreign counsel and due to a seritiputous

abandonment by counsel, rights have been lost in several of the patents and where such

investigators of the EPO in foreign countries awaits being contacted by the FBI to proceed,

another snafu, costing loss of rights to the Inventor and where inventor is unsure of the rights of

the treatise that bind our nation with these nations, again Petitioner begs This Court to show the

way to the proper forum where the EPO actions began with US PCT applications that were filed

with fraud upon those thirty or so nations where fraud against those nations has occurred through

the transference of those false oaths.

On a final note to This Court, it is absurd that Petitioners inventions are now used by

every citizen connected to a web browser that watches video or zooms with clarity on any display

screen including every digital camera or where the technologies have allowed massive advances

in satellite and medical imaging and cell phones with video and all kinds of things you take for

granted today, use on your websites and inventors have nothing, not even the rights to their

inventions through an attempted crime that mirrors theft of identity an attempt to paint a

historically incorrect truth about who invented these inventions, the inventor or the lawyers and a

fraud against the government and people of epic proportions.

Where those who conspired in direct fraudulent actions against this government, other

governments throughout the world, the Iviewit Shareholders, in an attempt to rob the inventors of

their inventions and usurp their constitutionally protected rights to their inventions, disguised as

lawyers, will be served their just deserts when justice finally prevails.

104Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


In fact, Proskauer has recently added to their newly formed patent department (post

meeting the inventors) an ethics department, interesting acquisitions for a New York real estate

firm since meeting the inventors. Where such attorneys represent in conflict to Petitioner the

criminal organization MPEGLA and in fact have partners that have founded such organization, all

post performing intellectual property work for Petitioner, is outrageous. Where intellectual

property attorneys are found to have patents similar to the inventors inventions in their own

names is criminally insane for a patent lawyer. Where management referred to Petitioner by

counsel, is found to have a dubiously undisclosed past history of patent malfeasances with such

counsel, further undisclosed and concealed, embarks that this is a criminal group of attorneys and

others with a past history, who have successfully penetrated the legal system, the patent system,

the disciplinary process, the state supreme courts, to steal inventions and prevent prosecution.

One must ask, why all the conflicts and derailed investigations in the state courts and disciplinary

agencies, if there is nothing to hide; the last thing a law firm would due in a matter where

innocence is professed is to have any hint or scintilla of conflict.

105Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

106Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


CONCLUSIONThe petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

107Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


No. _______________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN — PETITIONER

VS.

THE FLORIDA BAR — RESPONDENT(S)

PROOF OF SERVICEI, Eliot Ivan Bernstein, do swear or declare that on this date, , 2005, as required by Supreme

Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS and PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above

proceeding or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing

an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed to each

of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier for

delivery within 3 calendar days.

The names and addresses of those served are as follows:

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on

______________ ,2005

______________________

(Signature)

108Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


Old stuff – remove from finalWhere the inventors are further stymied by the legal system, due to the abuse of power by

certain individuals in conflict at the state level and where now thousands of unauthorized users of

the technologies have interests adverse to Petitioner through the use of technologies, which

Petitioner taught many of them under NDA, and are now used by such NDA violators paying

royalties already to the improper party MPEGLA. Where how can the inventors collect royalties

or monetize their inventions when absorption into the public domain was gained by an illegal

monopolization of their stolen technologies through these illegal and anti-competitive run patent

pools, and who will pay double taxation for the same technologies. Where it is presumed that

This Court was placed at such supreme authority, to answer these issues when the inventor rights

are in question of being lost forever and stand to protect the small inventor as The Constitution

set out to protect, in forming a democracy that protected the time an inventor has to enjoy the

rights and royalties of his/her inventions, an essential element of free commerce. Where in this

instance where it is evidenced that not only does the little inventor fight big business, which is

often the case, but fights the entirety of the legal system that is supposed to be helping preserve

such rights, not claiming the inventions of others in their own names and friends of theirs names,

that mandates This Court to stand as partner with the Petitioner/Inventor no matter who opposes

those rights and what colors they come cloaked in to fetter out the truth and enforce The

Constitution. Perhaps, the forefathers had foreseen a case where the inventor was pitted against

the entirety of the world, including the legal system, and thus where free commerce in a free

world is dependent on these rights and thus placed This Court, before creating any other courts in

land in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9, as the true arbitrator of matters that rise to the level of

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 rights and where the jeopardy of those rights is in question, it is

obvious that no other court exists at that point in the constitution to rule. Under that presumption

109Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


in the intent of the placement of the Articles and Clauses of The Constitution, inventor is ready to

come before This Court, armed only with the truth, a handful of witnesses, enormous evidence

and the weight of The Constitution; to prove the facts and save rights to the inventions for all of

those other inventors and shareholders with rights to such inventions, which may be permanently

lost in this cataclysmic madness.

110Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


QUESTIONS FOR THE CLERK OF THE COURT – remove from final

1. Process for extension

2. Number of pages total. What constitutes pages? Exhibits and how they are prepared.

3. who will be the judge and how, can we choose

What is the correct font and what is the font for US SUPREME

111Friday, May 06, 2005 - 00:31:42


united states supreme courtiviewit.tv/companydocs/rico/federal complaint/federal exhibit… ·...

Documents