in the supreme court of the united statesiviewit.tv/companydocs/rico/federal complaint/united... ·...

Supreme Court Petition Draft –Version 3 Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 19:49:35

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No.

EIB + PSL ,Petitionerv.PR

MLGS, etc

IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Notice of Motion andMILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, ) Motion for Leave toCARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) Proceed In Forma PauperisCRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY )LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and )BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )ZAFMAN LLP IIPATENT POOLSNDA’SALL LAW FIRMSDONALD KANEJEFFREY FRIEDSTEIN

1THIS MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED FILES INCORPORATED HEREIN CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THIS MAIL AND IT'S ATTACHMENTS. PLEASE DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED FILES WITHOUT READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THEM, AND NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT 561.364.4240. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM FORWARDING THEM OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSING THESE CONTENTS TO OTHERS, UNLESS EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED BY THE SENDER. THANK YOU!

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:"CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER ... 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."

Eliot I. Bernstein, 01/03/-1,

GENERAL COMMENTS I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn't travel any way but sideways or backways. Mark Twain"A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" Do we need to cite and exhibit all court rulings? NYSC ruling to deny petition further Cahill conflict by accepting his petition, FL to deny Iviewit pro-se v. NY, Labarga = whole case to be reviewed in light of Triggs conflicts with public office and illegal access to private gov. files while in civil case, conflicts exhibit and denial of FL bar to file proper complaints. We need to state that we cannot get counsel for a number of reasons and seek relief of court for one court appointed protected attorney – not conflicted. We are in direct conflict with Bars and SC in two states that would be normal to file in because events unfolded there. Point to Federal Complaint and evidences contained in it Point to Fed Complaint to illustrate mass multi-jurisdictional and international complexities. Show Fed issues and state issues = “” from SC that states all fed matters and all state fed matters end up at This Court


We need to put in all companies and all shareholders and represented by pro-se lamont and Bernstein in FL and NY courts ruled differently on corp representation, In Labarga case company was usurped counsel at last minute and pro-se response were way to deny due process Buff up Defendants – Were is MPEG and Pools and others that are directly culpable, NDA’s, etc. I say we represent SBA interest for the time being and add SBA to current investigation in fed complaint that will be used as exhibit with all evidences and investigations

Draft –Version 3 Friday, October 01, 2004 08:28:04

SHELDON FRIEDSTEINGOLDMAN SACHSSTEVEN C. KRANEFLORIDA BARMATTHEW TRIGGSERIC MONTEL TURNERTHOMAS J. CAHILL )

)

ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )P. STEPHEN LAMONT )AND AS PRO-SE REPRESENTATIVES ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND INVENTORS OF:

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.ETC… ELLEN DEGENERES ALANIS MORRISETTE ALPINE/CROSSBOW VENTURES INVESTECH HOLDINGS/H. WAYNE HUIZENGA JR. ETC.

)Petitioners. )

The object of the patent law is to secure inventors what they have actually invented or discovered, and it ought not to be defeated by a too strict and technical adherence to the letter of the statute or by the application of artificial rules of interpretation.

COME NOW the Petitioners, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN (“BERNSTEIN”) and P.

STEPHEN LAMONT (“LAMONT”), ETC. to request that this Court enter an

order granting a motion for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis and in support state

as follows:

1. That Petitioners are possessing of minimal resources for such proceedings

according to Exhibit A.

IVIEWIT PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION

Mr. Justice Brown

Topliff v. TopliffUnited States Supreme Court

145 U.S. 156, 171 (1892)

2


2. Explain why company and EIB are financially unable to mount defense.

a. Money was stolen

b. Involuntary BK defense

c. IV v. PR defense

d. IV v Bars

e. IV v POOLS

f. IV v NDA’s

g. Number of defendants and infringers

h. Investors afraid to invest, not sure what they own now

i. Cost to mount defense must be encumbered by legal system that

caused mess

WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Court enter an order granting a

motion for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis together with such other and further

relief as tThis Court deems just and equitable.

This __ day of October 2004

Attorney for PetitionerEliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437Tel.: (561) 364-4240

By: Eliot I. Bernstein

By: _______________________ Eliot I. Bernstein – President, Founder & InventorIviewit Holdings, Inc.


3


P. Stephen Lamont, Pro SeFour Ward StreetBrewster, N.Y. 10509Tel.: (914) 217-0038

By: P. Stephen Lamont

By: _____________________ P. Stephen Lamont – CEO Iviewit Holdings, Inc.

Affidavit of Service

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this __ day of October 2004, to Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe & Goldstein LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Ryjo Inc., Ryan Huisman, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Foley & Lardner LLP, Gerald R. Lewin, Erika Lewin, Goldstein Lewin & Co., Brian G. Utley, Raymond T. Hersch, Michael A Reale, F. Ross Miller,


4


Tiedemann Prolow LLC, Carl Tiedemann, Bruce Prolow, Craig Smith, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Honorable Jorge Labarga, and Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP.

Eliot I. Bernstein

CERTIFICATE OF AFFIRMATION

STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY OF PALM BEACH

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Eliot I. Bernstein, who was duly sworn and says, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is


5


true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”

Eliot I. Bernstein

Notary Public

STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared P. Stephen Lamont, who was duly sworn and says, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”

P. Stephen Lamont

Notary Public


6


EXHIBIT “A”


7


[INSERT INCOME, EXPENSE, NET WORTH FORMS]


8



IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Notice of Motion andMILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, ) Motion for Leave toCARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) File a Petition for an CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY ) Extraordinary WritLLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and )BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )ZAFMAN LLP II )

)ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )P. STEPHEN LAMONT )

)Petitioners. )


STEPHEN LAMONT (“LAMONT”), to request that this Court enter an order

granting a motion for leave to file a petition for an Extraordinary Writ and in

support state as follows.

“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to

observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”

Justice Thomas Clark

Mapp v. Ohio


9


1. That Petitioners show that the writ is in the aid of the Court’s appellate

jurisdiction as due process of law has been denied Petitioners at various times and

in various forums as described herein.

2. That Petitioners show that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the

Court’s discretionary powers as from the very inception of the inventions of

Petitioners (“Technology”) (PATENT LIST) and others, powerful forces (@4K

LAWYERS FROM MAJOR LAW FIRMS HAVE ADVERSE INTEREST; 3@

PATENT POOL MEMBERS; 500 NDA VIOLATORS AND ON A GLOBAL

BASIS, have assembled against Petitioners using unlawful means, AS FULLY

DEFINED IN EXHIBIT B (FEDERAL COMPLAINT TEMPLATE) AND ALL

EVIDENCES CONTAINED THEREIN to circumvent theUSE THE Technology

WITHOUT PAYING ROYALTIES DUE including, but not limited to:

3. POINT TO FEDERAL AND STATE CRIMINAL CODES THAT WERE

VIOLATED.

4. EXPLAIN PATENT SUSPENSIONS CAUSED BY FILING OF FRAUD ON

USPTO

a. Knowing and willful missing of the core subject matter of the patent

applications of the Technology; and

b. Knowing and willful misstatement of inventors in the patent

applications of the Technology; and

c. Knowing and willful wrongful assignments of the patent applications

of the Technology by means of a corporation forming “shell game” as


10


to which affiliated companies held assignment to which patent

applications; and

d. As part and parcel of the corporate “shell game,” the unauthorized

formation of similarly named companies in different States so as to

confuse Petitioners as to which similarly named companies held

assignment to which Technology; and

e. Knowing and willful duplication of patent applications of the

Technology under differing titles amongst the United States Patent

and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the European Patent Office

(“EPO”), and the Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”); and

f. Knowing and willful filing of patent applications of the Technology to

an individual who played no part in the invention stage of the

Technology and without assignment to any entity affiliated with

Petitioners whereby the USPTO has denied Petitioners’ request for

information on these particular patent applications; and

g. Knowing and willful creation of false intellectual property documents

by patent counsels, the dockets of which Petitioners have used to

secure investment capital; and

h. The misappropriation and conversion of up to One Million Dollars

($1,000,000) or more of funds of Petitioners invested in affiliated

companies; and

i. Where all of the above have caused the Petitioners to face critical time

deadlines for repair of subject matter, repair of inventorship, repair


11


of assignments, resurrection, and in some cases refilling of patent

applications of the Technology.

j. WHERE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN LOST ALREADY BY THESE

ACTIONS IN FILING FOR GLOBAL PROTECTION AND HAVE

CAUSED LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS

OF INVENTORS. DAMAGES FOR GLOBAL LOSS OF PATENT

RIGHTS ESTIMATED TO BE 30-40 BILLION IF

UNRECOVERABLE BY ACTIONS OF THIS COURT THAT

RECAPTURE LOST RIGHTS BOTH IN THE US AND THROUGH

TREATISE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

k. THAT DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN DENIED AND CAUSED

FURTHER LOSS OF RIGHTS, THAT PATENT OFFICE

EXTENSIONS AND CORRECTIONS ARE NECESSARY

IMMEDIATELY BEFORE REMAINING RIGHTS ARE

FORFEITED. THIS IS WHY SUSPENDED IN US,

l.

5. That Petitioners state that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form

or from any other court as follows:

a. In Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case No. CA 01-

04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm

Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001) (“Litigation”) wherein the

court denies a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Counter

Claim for Damages due to timing issues of any amended answer.


12


Where in fact it appears that Defendants created a suit as a means of

harassment and attempts at burying certain companies which may

have been set up to misappropriate patents and where for several

months the Company was unaware that it was even in litigation and

being represented by counsel. Once represented by counsel, company

was never given a chance to assert proper defense and when trial

came time, judge relieved all corporate counsel for company and

would not allow pro-se filing by inventor or shareholders. Default

judgement was granted to PR for IV failing to retain counsel. Iviewit

had deposed attorney’s and found perjured statements to court versus

statements to supreme court bar responses; and

b. In the Litigation, the court’scourts granting motions of counsel of

Petitioners to withdraw at the same hearing on the same day and at

the same time leaving Petitioners inadequate time to retain new

counsel in a complex case, denying due process through denying

counsel. Exhibit C – SB Deal was supposed to provide counsel and

instead set company up to lose with no counsel; and

c. In the Litigation, that the Judge Labaraga ruled on a motion

submitted to have his conduct reviewed and him removed from the

case for outrageous conduct. Iviewit had two counsels Selz and SB

and both were let go because they stated to court that the other was

going to represent company. cCourt’s unilateral denial of a Motion to

Set Aside the Amended Order Striking the Defendants Pleadings and


13


Entering a Default Against the Defendants for Failure to Retain

Replacement Counsel (“Amended Order”), Reinstate the Pleadings,

and Remove Hon. Jorge Labarga From the Proceedings; and

d. The dismissal without investigation, by The Florida Bar, of the

Petitioners’ Complaint Against Christopher C. Wheeler The Florida

Bar File No. 2003-51,109 (15C) (“Wheeler Complaint”), a member of

Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), on grounds inapposite to the

rules of The Florida Bar; and

e. The Florida Bar issuing statements in favor of Proskauer position

when no investigation into the matters had been formally done,

inapposite of the rules.

f. In conflict with Supreme Court of Florida and it’s aegis The Florida

Bar due to insurance issues whereby a conflict of interest was

discovered in the Wheeler complaint by Wheeler’s Proskauer

attorney, Matthew Triggs, who violated his public office position as

Grievance Committee member, representing Wheeler when he was in

a blackout period excluding him from representing anyone without

The Florida Bar Board express waiver and approval. Whereby

Triggs was also simultaneously in conflict as he represented Wheeler

in a Bar complaint and was in a private litigation against similar

parties, in similarly related matters. This access to private

government files for use in private litigation also represents an abuse

of public office.


14


g. That once notified of the conflict of interest, The Florida Bar

attempted to destroy the file records twice and the Supreme Court of

Florida interceded on Iviewit’s behalf and stopped the destruction of

the very files necessary to review the conflict discovered and

acknowledged by The Florida Bar. That the matter is further being

reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court in case SC104-1078

h. That further denial of due process has occurred by the Florida Bar in

failing to file complaints that were formally filed with their offices,

involving the conflicts of interest and those involved.

i. That The Florida Bar has further denied Plaintiff, access to records

on its public officials to further define the conflict and has in fact

resisted all requests by the Company for information.

j. The deferment, with no investigation, by the First Judicial

Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (New York) of the

Petitioners’ Complaint Against Raymond A. Joao Docket 2003.0532

(“Joao Complaint”) formerly of counsel to Meltzer Lippe Goldstein

and Schlissel LLP and Complaint Against Kenneth Rubenstein

Docket 2003.0531 (“Rubenstein Complaint”) a member of Proskauer,

both since ordered to an investigation by New York’s Appellate

Division, First Department, after an eighteen (18) month delay that

jeopardizes the timely patent prosecution of the Technology; and


15


k. Conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety in another

public officer and Proskauer partner, Steven C. Krane, in the

response of Rubenstein.

l. That Steven C. Krane has been reworking his former website

advertisement and biography in a further attempt to conceal and

deny a verified conflict by Clerk of the Supreme Court Catherine

O’Hagan Wolfe and in fact fails to list his current role as a Referee at

the First Department. Mr. Krane in responding pro-se in a complaint

lodged against him, concealed such Referee role and attempted to

deny any conflict with the First Department. Thomas Cahill

supported this position and Wolfe uncovered this. Wolfe directed

Petitioner to file a Petition with the First Dept and Cahill filed first

after it was requested that he be admonished further involvement in

the matters due to conflict. That this was completely overlooked by

the NY SC in review makes further a case of denial due process or

procedure.

m. Conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety in the handling

of the Cahill petition after notice of conflict and complaint.

n. Steven C. Krane is embedded so deeply within the ethics and attorney

discipline system that a fair and impartial hearing must elevate

beyond New York to an unbiased third party oversight. Conflicts

with Krane exist in the following forums;

i. ABA


16


ii. NY Bar

iii. NY SC First Dept

iv. Judith Kaye

o. The dismissal with no investigation, by the Virginia State Bar, of the

Petitioners’ Complaint Against William J. Dick VSB Docket #04-052-

1366, formerly a special counsel to Foley Lardner LLP, on grounds

inapposite to the rules of the Virginia State Bar and based on false

and misleading statements by Dick to the VA Bar of the factual

outcome of the NY SC First Dept cases, The Florida Bar outcome and

the Proskauer v. Iviewit case, in fact claiming that the case and the

counter complaint had been tried when it factually was not. Calls and

letters to notify the VA Bar of information which was falsified by

Dick, including patent portfolio’s with materially false and misleading

information regarding patents which have been confirmed false by the

USPTO and complete avoidance to have the case elevated to next

highest level of review; and

p. The dismissal with no investigation, by the Pennsylvania State Bar, of

the Petitioners’ Complaint Against Andrew L. Barroway and Krishna

B. Narine, docket numbers never assigned, both formerly investors,

general counsel, and patent counsel to Petitioners, on grounds

inexplicable to Petitioners and further lack of returned phone calls by

the PA Bar in an effort to deny a further elevation of the complaints


17


further supports the appearance of impropriety that may have

permeated the PA Bar; and

q. The delay of the USPTO to file charges against attorneys involved in

these matters, causing actions to attempt to suspend the patents

pending the outcome of investigations by the USPTO Commissioner

and Harry I. Moatz of the OED.

r. The delay of the USPTO to send Petitioners files, commonly referred

to as “file wrappers” since the first request of on or about February

2004, with subsequent requests still unanswered, causing further

delay in assessing damages to shareholders and attempting to secure

US & foreign patent rights; and

s. The uncloaking of a conflict of interest and impropriety in the

Rubenstein Complaint, the Krane Complaint and the Joao Complaint

that moved Appellate Division caused by Steven C. Krane’s responses

on behalf of himself and Rubenstein while holding a multiplicity of

conflicting roles at the First Department, causing Chief Counsel

Thomas Cahill of the NY SC First Department to finallyFirst

Department to petition the Supreme Court Appellate Division: First

Dept to move the complaints to a new jurisdiction and investigation

after an eighteen (18) month delay that jeopardizes and that the

Supreme Court of New York has ruled to have the complaints moved

due to conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety further

hampering the timely patent prosecution of the Technology. Cahill’s


18


failure to acknowledge the conflicts and file Plaintiff’s complaints

against Krane and further denial of Krane’s positions with the

Department further support the denial of due process. Finally, the

NY SC ruling to deny Plaintiff disclosure of necessary information

regarding department positions held by Krane and others; and

t. The conflict of interest and impropriety in the Rubenstein Complaint

and the Joao Complaint demonstrates to Petitioners that adequate

relief, with respect to the complaints, cannot be obtained in any other

form or from any other court in the State of New York; and

u. The uncloaking of a conflict of interest and impropriety in the

Wheeler Complaint that moved the Supreme Court of Florida to stay

the destruction of the file to the Wheeler Complaint with other

motions pending after an eighteen (18) month delay that jeopardizes

the timely patent prosecution of the Technology. The destruction of a

file after notification of a confirmed conflict of interest and the denial

of filing complaints filed with The Florida Bar further supports the

denial of due-process; and

v. The conflict of interest and impropriety in the Wheeler Complaint

demonstrates to Petitioners that adequate relief, with respect to the

complaint, cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other

court in the State of Florida, as this conflict now causes insurance

issues as stated in the Bylaws of The Florida Bar which covers

Grievance Committee members and Plaintiff has asked The Florida


19


Bar to report such catastrophic liability such as the loss of patents

rights due to the delays and denial of due process that could have

prevented loss had due process been applied free of conflict and the

appearance of impropriety now before the Florida Supreme Court;

and

w. The steadfast refusal, as of even date herein, of The Florida Bar to

docket a complaint by Petitioners against Eric Montel Turner, Chief

Branch Discipline Counsel of The Florida Bar, demonstrates to

Petitioners that adequate relief, with respect to the complaint, cannot

be obtained in any other form or from any other court in the State of

Florida; and

x. The lack of communication from The Florida Bar concerning the

complaints of Petitioners against Matthew H. Triggs, a member of

Proskauer, who was in multiple conflicts of interest and abuses of

public office in his representation of Wheeler and a second complaint

against Christopher C. Wheeler, demonstrates to Petitioners that

adequate relief, with respect to the complaints, cannot be obtained in

any other form or from any other court in the State of Florida; and

y. The conflicted relationship of The Florida Bar president Kelly

Overstreet Johnson who is oversighted by James Wheeler at the law

firm of Broad & Cassell, and James Wheeler is the brother of

Christopher Wheeler, whom the Florida Bar complaint was initially

filed against as the main protagonist in the conspiracy to steal


20


Technology of Petitioner. That Kelly Overstreet Johnson received

several months of correspondences marked private and confidential

regarding Mr. Wheeler’s case and never disclosed her conflict until

after the conflict of interest was found in Mr. Wheeler’s complaint

with Matthew Triggs and then Plaintiff was called by Anthony Bogg’s

stating the Johnson could not participate in the matters.

z. The delay inherent in responding to the written statement of

Petitioners to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, West Palm Beach,

Fla. after an eighteen (18) month period jeopardizes the timely patent

prosecution of the Technology; and

aa. The delay inherent in responding to the written statement of

Petitioners to the Boca Raton, Fla. Police Department after an

eighteen (18) month period jeopardizes the timely patent prosecution

of the Technology; and

WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Court enter an order granting a

motion for leave to file a petition for an extraordinary writ together with such other

and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

This __ day of October 2004

Attorney for PetitionerEliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437Tel.: (561) 364-4240


P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se


21


Four Ward StreetBrewster, N.Y. 10509Tel.: (914) 217-0038


Affidavit of Service

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this __ day of October 2004, to Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer, Lippe & Goldstein, LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Ryjo, Inc., Ryan Huisman, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Foley & Lardner LLP, Gerald R. Lewin, Erika Lewin, Goldstein Lewin & Co., Brian G. Utley, Raymond T. Hersch, Michael A Reale, F. Ross Miller, Tiedemann Prolow LLC, Carl Tiedemann, Bruce Prolow, Craig Smith, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Honorable Jorge Labarga, and Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP.

Eliot I. Bernstein


22


II

CERTIFICATE OF AFFIRMATION

STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY OF PALM BEACH

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Eliot I. Bernstein, who was duly sworn and says that “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”

Eliot I. Bernstein

Notary Public


23


STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF WESTCHESTER

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared P. Stephen Lamont, who was duly sworn and says that “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”

P. Stephen Lamont

Notary Public


IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Briefs in Support of the MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, ) Motions for Leave to CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) Proceed In Forma PauperisCRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY ) and to File a Petition for an LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and ) Extraordinary WritBLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )


24


ZAFMAN LLP II ) )

ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )P. STEPHEN LAMONT )

)Petitioners. )

BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO FILE A PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY

WRIT


STEPHEN LAMONT (“LAMONT”), to brief this Court in motions for leave to

proceed In Forma Pauperis and to file a petition for an extraordinary writ and in

support state as follows:

QUESTION FOR REVIEW

Whether the circumstances surrounding the Petitioners, consisting of the alleged

violation of their constitutional rights as inventors and the denial of due process of

law when combined with the need for the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and

the factual setting that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from

any other court, are sufficient in of themselves to request review by this Court so as

to minimize the damages Petitioners have incurred and forestall the continued

jeopardy of the timely patent prosecution of the Technology.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The parties to the proceed are:

1. Proskauer Rose LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership and its

members, former general and patent counsel to Petitioners; and


25


2. Meltzer Lippe Goldstein LLP (“MLG”), a New York Limited Liability

Partnership and its members, former patent counsel to Petitioners; and

3. Raymond A. Joao, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New

York and a former of counsel to MLG, one of the former patent counsels for

Petitioners; and

4. Ryjo, Inc., upon information and belief, a Florida corporation, and one of the

initial potential licensees of the Technology; and

5. Ryan Huisman, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, and

a principal of Ryjo, Inc.; and

6. Foley & Lardner LLP, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Partnership and its

members, former patent counsel to Petitioners; and

7. William J. Dick, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida,

formerly a special counsel to Foley Lardner LLP and one of the former

patent counsels for Petitioners; and

8. Douglas A. Boehm, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Illinois,

formerly a member of Foley Lardner LLP and one of the former patent

counsels for Petitioners; and

9. Goldstein Lewin & Co., a Florida corporation, and outside CPA firm for

Petitioners; and

10. Gerald R. Lewin, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a

former outside CPA for Petitioners; and

11. Erika Lewin, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a



26


12. Brian G. Utley, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Minnesota,

a former President and Chief Operating Officer of affiliated entities related

to Petitioners; and

13. Raymond T. Hersch, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of

Florida, a former Chief Financial Officer of affiliated entities related to

Petitioners; and

14. Michael A Reale, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a

former Vice President of Operations of affiliated entities related to

Petitioners; and

15. F. Ross Miller, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Georgia, a

former Consultant of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and

16. Tiedemann Prolow LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and one of

the institutional investors of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and

17. Carl Tiedemann, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York,

a principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and

18. Bruce Prolow, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a

principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and

19. Craig Smith, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a


20. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership,

and former investors, patent counsel, and general counsel to affiliated entities

related to Petitioners; and


27


21. Honorable Jorge Labarga, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of

Florida, the presiding judge in the Litigation; and

22. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP, a California Limited Liability

Partnership, and former patent counsel to Petitioners; and

23. Eliot I. Bernstein, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida,

the principal inventor of the Technology; and

24. P. Stephen Lamont, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New

York, and Chief Executive Officer of affiliated entities related to Petitioners.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has the final word on all Constitutional questions arising in the Federal

Courts and all Federal questions arising in the State Courts.

Petitioners rely on Rule 20.1, Procedure for the Granting of an Extraordinary Writ,

of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein such rule states:

“[T]he petition must show that the writ will be in the aid of the Court’s appellate

jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s

discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form

or any other court.”1

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on Article 1,

Section 8, Clause 8 afforded by the Constitution of the United States that states: “To

promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to

1 Blue Book Citiation…


28


Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and

Discoveries.”2

Second, Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on V

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,

unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases

arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in

time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same

offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in

any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property

be taken for public use, without just compensation3.

Third, Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on XIV

Amendment, Section 1 to the Constitution of the United States that states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein

they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

laws4.

2 Blue Book Citation…3 Blue Book Citation…4 Blue Book Citation


29


Fourth, Petitioners request review of the conflicting Supreme Court decisions in

New York & Florida and request This Court allow Iviewit to be represented by pro-

se counsel until This Court can appoint counsel that is not in conflict with Petitioner

and protected from the backlash of the Defendants, including the State Bar

Associations of four states.

Fifth, Petitioner states that the time of appeals, all which would inevitably end up at

This Court make lower courts futile as patent rights will be lost in the interim on a

US and global basis. Time to suspensions is now.

Sixth, that all state court’s end up at the state supreme courts, where conflict

already exists with the Supreme Courts, leading to Federal intervention of This

Court in negating further conflicts.

Seventh, that the issues of trust in the patent system instituted to protect inventors

by the constitution is at stake and that if the denial of patent rights occurs due to the

system to protect them, than this jeopardizes the entire notion of free commerce.

Eight, that the issue of trust in the State Bar Associations to adequately administer

justice to it’s own members is so in question, that this matter makes the State Bar’s

more a defacto attorney protection agency than a system of due process under the

law, acting as a shield and accomplice to attorney malfeasances, including aiding in

these instances of fraud upon the USPTO by unwillingness of the legal system to

prosecute or investigate consumer complaints against attorneys.

Ninth, being that Plaintiff is now in direct conflict with two State Supreme Courts

through the Supreme Court of Florida – The Florida Bar in a case regarding the


30


same nexus of events, Bersntein, et. al. v. The Florida Bar, whereby The Florida Bar

and thus the Supreme Court is conflicted entirely and should be precluded from

reviewing a matter in which conflict exists. Conflict further exists since the

insurance policy covering Grievance Committee Members, which on information

and belief, The Florida Bar may have vested interest inapposite of the Petitioner

including interests adverse to a liability claim that could effect the Supreme Court

of Florida. That because of conflict, it appears that Florida Supreme Court cannot

investigate and rule on matters whereby it is conflicted.

Tenth, that in regard to the petition from Thomas Cahill, an officer of the New York

Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary

Committee and the further involvement of Steven C. Krane whom has a broad

array of roles in the rule creation and enforcement at the New York Supreme Court

Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and

other positions including past President of the New York Bar Association, yes, that

very same Steven C. Krane whom teaches ethics stands accussed of conflict of

interest and the appearance of impropriety, that involve covering up Bar complaints

for his partners at Proskauer Rose LLP at the First Department with undisclosed

conflicts and then later concealed conflicts whereby with malice he hid positions

that have now caused conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety to be cited

by Chief Counsel Cahill and ruled on by the New York Supreme Court Appellate

Division: First Department causing a transfer of the cases to the New York Supreme

Court Appellate Division: Second Department for investigation. Petitioner states

that this is a lateral move by the First Department and further stymies swift and


31


immediate justice. The NYSC also ruled that the remainder of the Petitioner’s

petition submitted was denied, and whereby relief would have forced disclosure of

information necessary for the speedy investigation of the conflict of Krane. Further,

prior to petitioning the court to move the complaints, Cahill vehemently resisted

filing complaints against Krane, promulgating false and misleading information to

Petitioner and after receiving a copy of a formal complaint against himself, asking

for his removal from the matter due to his conflict, the complaint sent in proper

procedure to the Chair of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First

Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Paul J. Curran, Esq.

Moreover, although the complaints of Rubenstein, Krane and Joao have all been

moved to the Second Dept, Cahill has not been. Here we find the New York

Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Deptarment attempting to investigate a

matter whereby conflict is inherent.

Question: If state supreme court’s are conflicted with Petitioner, is there any other

court than US SC that can. For example, say the SC were involved and played a

part through the state bar association to cover up, who would investigate them?

What if NY wants to assert that Florida Bar is guilty of aiding and abetting because

payola and Florida Supreme Court in conflict with Petitioner does not want to press

charges on itself because of laibility? Can any other court other than USSC

investigate and if so found, charge the SC with crimes or charge those involved?

Here we have two Supreme Courts in total conflict with Petitioner, perhaps with

extraordinary liability (perhaps conflicts run as deep as Hon. Judith Kaye in NY


32


and to Pres of Bar in Florida Johnson where the appearance of impropriety is

known to exist with both with key alleged conspirators Krane and Wheeler)

So deep are these issues and the mere fact that This Court is the only court in the

land capable of disciplining the legal system and the internal affairs of the State

Bars and perhaps the patent system whereby this punishment so severe so as this

series of events never be replicated. Swift justice afforded due process under the

wing of This Court, and the prompt and immediate return to the rightful inventors

their inventions from for lack of better description criminal attorneys. That these

attorney criminals and their accomplices have so jeopardized the legal system

through systematic abuse of the legal system to attempt a crime as heinous as this

attempt to deprive inventors their constitutional rights to their inventions, that This

Court being the highest and most revered court in the land, must administer such

punishment for the highest crimes committed against the United States as to parallel

high crimes against the United States of fraud and theft, and in fact, since the

Federal Small Business Administration is the single largest investor in the

petitioners companies, in fact they have attempted to abscond with the patents

owned by the United States Government, whereby royalties owed to the government

via it’s investment have been stolen, along with the patents invested in.

STATEMENT OF FACTS


33


Contained in this Petition, and as summarized by the following graph, Petitioners

depict a conspiratorial pattern of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so

wide and so deep, that it tears at the very fabric of free commerce, and in that the

circumstances involve inventors’ rights, the pattern tears at the very fabric of the

Constitution of the United States.

[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]


34

LACK OF DUE PROCESS AND INFRINGMENT OF INVENTORS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Petitioners

Robert Kafin, Christopher C. Wheeler, Kenneth Rubenstein

& Proskauer Rose LLP

Joint and several Malpractice, Theft of Trade Secrets,

Conspiracy

Prior Management &Certain Directors

Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Conspiracy

Huizenga Holdings

Theft of Trade Secrets,

Conspiracy

MPEG LA and other Infringers

Theft of Trade Secrets, Breach of Contract

Raymond A. Joao & MLG

Joint and several Malpractice, Theft of

Trade Secrets, Conspiracy

William Dick, et al & Foley Lardner


Conspiracy

Tiedemann/Prolow and Principals Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Grand theft,

Conspiracy

Conflicts of Interest, Impropriety, No

Investigation

The Florida Bar & Supreme Court

Joint and several Malpractice, Conspiracy


Investigation

BSTZ

NY Disc Comm’s & Appellate Division

15th Judicial Circuit (Florida)

Denied Motions: Counterclaim, Granted Motions: Counsel

Withdraws

FBI, Local PD, USPTO

More than 12 Mo. Delays, No

Investigation

SB


PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!


WEISBERG, WILDMAN, Japanese dude, NDA VIOLATORS, GOLDMAN, POINT TO PRODUCTS USING GLOBALLY SHOW HOW PATENTS GOT MISDIRECTED, MAYBE ANOTHER FLOW CHART, THE UTLEY SCAM, THE CORP SCAM, THE R3D SCAM, WE SHOULD SHOW HOW ROYALTIES HAVE FLOWED TO WRONG HANDS



35



FLOW CHART OF CRIMES

US & FOREIGN PATENT THEFT

COPYRIGHT THEFT

TRADEMARKS THEFT

ABUSE OF SC BAR AGENCIES

STOLEN SBA MONIES

FRAUD ON IVIEWIT

ETC.

ETC.

That Wheeler, was a partner of Proskauer Rose, LLP (“Proskauer”) and who

provided legal services to Petitioner.

That Rubenstein who at various times relevant hereto was initially misrepresented

by Wheeler as a partner of Proskauer and later became a partner of Proskauer, and

who provided legal services to the Petitioners both while at MLGS and Proskauer.

That Joao who initially was represented to be Rubenstein's associate at Proskauer,

when in fact Joao has never been an employee of Proskauer but in fact was an

employee of MLGS.


36


That beginning in 1998, Petitioners held DISCLOSURE discussions with Wheeler

and Rubenstein with regard to Proskauer providing legal services to Petitioners

involving specific technologies developed by Eliot I. Bernstein (one of the Petitioners

in this matter) and two SEVERAL others, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO;

Zakirul Shirajee, JEFFREY FRIEDSTEIN, JAMES F. ARMSTRONG,

MATTHEW MINK, PATRICIA DANIELS, and Jude Rosario, Anthony Frenden,

collectively termed hereinafter (“Inventors”), which technologies allowed

forinvented, including but not limited to, the following inventions (“Technology”):

Mathematical Scaling Formula For Encoding & Playback of Video

I-View-It's revolutionary process for video compresses video at an incredible 75% less data than previous technologies by utilizing a scaled encode for large screen playback.

This process yields:

o File size for full screen representation reduced by 75% making high impact full screen video available for download at any bandwidtho Less processing power required for full screen data by 75%o Full-screen, full-frame rate video (including high quality stereo) at previously before unthinkable levels 150-300 Kbpso At lesser 28-56Kbps bandwidths this process provides a markedly improved video quality over prior Internet industry standardso The process has applications on the higher ends of the encoding and bandwidth spectrums such as HDDVD and beyondo As a result of the efficiencies created by the I-View-It scaled video processes on the encoding and decoding systems, these applications may yield efficiencies in High Definition markets.Applications include; creates low bandwidth video communication market such as video cell phones (previously impossible

Mathematical Scaling Formula For Encoding & Viewing Images with Enhanced Zoom & Pan Capabilities

The I-View-It proprietary imaging system is designed to provide clear, sharp images, which can be zoomed into at great depth, and panned around at the discretion of the viewer, or under program control. The resulting experience is one of full immersion into the image and an ability to view detail at a level previously thought impossible at low resolution, making it ideal in any viewing medium and applicable to all hardware and software.

This process yields:

o User controlled zoom & pan for screen applicationso Resilient to pixel distortion when magnified over 200x, solving the age old problem of pixelation upon zoom on standard low resolution image file formats


37


o The image scaling process is applicable to every known screen for imagingo Allows new user controlled zoom & pan for imaging and video applianceso Applications include; digital cameras, televisions, video cameras, DVD players, scanners, printers & copierso Easily integrates into Hardware and Software Applications

Combined I-View-It video and imaging processes to create a user interface allowing camera control and zoomable video streams.

o Allows user to take video feeds and pan & zoom on individual frames or streams.o Ideal for the security market and sports eventso May apply to all video playback devices

Zooming of digital images and video without degradation to the quality of the digital

image due to what is commonly refereed to as "pixelation"; and,

The delivery of digital video using proprietary scaling techniques whereby a

seventy-five percent (75%) bandwidth savings was discovered and a corresponding

seventy-five percent (75%) processing power decrease and storage efficiency were

realized; and,

A combination of the image zoom techniques and video scaling techniques described

above; and,

i. The remote control of video cameras through communications networks.

That Inventors and later Petitioners, initially engaged the services of Proskauer to

provide legal services to a company to be formed, including corporate formation

and governance for a single entity and to obtain multiple patents and overseefile US

and foreign filings for such technologies including the provisional filings for the

technologies as described above, ("Technology"), and such other activities as were

necessary to protect the intellectual property represented by the Technology.

That the Technology, when bundled with third-party technologies, provides for

VHS quality video at transmission speeds of 56Kbps (“modem dial-up connection”),

previously thought to be impossible, to improved DVD quality at up to 6MB per


38


lamont exhibit revenues


LAMONT TO PUT IN EXHIBIT OF REVENUE STREAMS AND STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF TECHNOLOGY TO MARKETS


second at 75% lower bandwidth than previously obtainable (traditional terrestrial

or broadcast station to home antennae), and has an incredible seventy five percent

(75%) savings in throughput (“bandwidth”) on any digital delivery system such as

cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery system, or the Internet, and a

similar seventy five percent (75%) savings in storage and processing on mediums

such as digital video discs (“DVD’s”), opening the door for low bandwidth video cell

phones and other revolutionary video markets.

LIST OF PATENTS

That at the time of the engagement of Proskauer and thereafter, Petitioners’

companies and inventors, and shareholders at such time, were advised and

otherwise led to believe thatby Rubenstein and Wheeler that Rubenstein was the

Proskauer partner in charge of the account for patents and Wheeler for corporate

matters, further this information was used to raise all of the capital and included in

a Wachovia Securities Private Placement Memorandum (“PPM”), pursuant to

Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, that Proskauer co-authored, billed for

and disseminated, whereby Wheeler and Rubenstein also served as active members

of an Advisory Board for Petitioners’ companies in which Wheeler and Rubenstein

were essential to raising capital and directing the patent applications, copyrights

and corporate matters. Of interest in this case, and recently uncovered, is that upon

learning of the fraud’s alleged that Crossbow Ventures acknowledged and informed

the Petitioner Companies that 2/3rd of the investment capital of $4lamont, was

money invested by the Federal Small Business Administration making the SBA the

largest investor in the Technology. In filing compliance papers for securing such


39


funds with the SBA, a copy of the PPM management section lists Kenneth

Rubenstein as “Iviewit patent counsel” and Proskauer Rose, LLP is named as

“retained” patent counsel. Both Kenneth Rubenstein and Christopher Wheeler are

listed as Advisory Board members responsible for the intellectual properties and

management of the Company. This is quite inapposite of the current statements

made by Proskauer partner’s Rubenstein and the law firm of Proskauer Rose, LLP

to the NY and FL Bars, The Florida Civil Circuit Court and under deposition and

inapposite of direct evidence given to such agencies investigating the matters. The

matter is currently being submitted after recent conversations with the Chief

Inspector whom requested all information and accounting. Where Rubenstein and

Proskauer Rose LLP now try to claim virtually no knowledge of the Technology

and at the same time have suddenly come into possession and control of the patent

pools, all which have proliferated Petitioners technology globally and generated

profit for Proskauer Rose LLP and not Petitioners or Inventors.

That upon information and belief, Proskauer, MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein, and

Joao upon viewing the Technology developed by Inventors, realized the significance

of the Technology, its various applications to communication networks for

distributing video and images and for existing digital processes, including but not

limited to, all forms of video delivery, digital cameras, digital imaging technologies

for medical purposes and digital video, and that Proskauer, MLGS, Wheeler,

Rubenstein and Joao then conspired to undertake and in fact undertook a

deliberate course of conduct to deprive Inventors and Petitioners of the beneficial

use of such Technology for their own and others gains, all to the detriment of


40


Petitioner. Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Wheeler and Joao, further allowed the

unauthorized use of the Technology by third-parties, such as Rubenstein’s patent

pools and, pursuant to Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDA’s”) secured by

Proskauer on multitudes of their client introductions, for multitudes of their clients

that are now not enforced, whereby Proskauer is fully cognizant of their client’s

uses of Petitioners’ Technology under such NDA’s. Additionally, it is factually

alleged that members of Proskauer, members of MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein and

Joao all have had personal financial gains through the misappropriation of

Petitioners’ Technology and Proskauer has earned profit and other gains to its

entire partnership and all members, through the acquisition and formation of

multiple the patent pools all benefiting from Petitioner Technology as a client (after

learning of Petitioners’ Technology), and the further exclusion of Petitioners from

such patent pools which generate enormous fees to Proskauer and perhaps other

untold revenues, all to the detriment and damage of the Petitioners. This behavior

may very well represent antitrust claims against Proskauer, Rubenstein and the

patent pools they oversight and whereby Rubenstein directly solely and in this case

soullessly chooses patents for inclusion or exclusion therein into the global video

standard. Patent pools have had a historical anti-trust problem for these very

reasons.

That Wheeler, who was a close friend of Utley, recommended to Petitioners that

Petitioners engage the services of Utley to act as President of Petitioners’ companies

based on his knowledge and ability as to technology issues.


41


That at the time that Wheeler made the recommendation of Utley to the Board of

Directors, Wheeler knew that Utley had been engaged in a dispute with his former

employer, Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. (“DTE”) and the fact that Utley had

misappropriated certain patents on hydro-mechanical systems to the detriment of

DTE, as Utley was terminated for cause according to Monte Friedkin (“Friedkin”),

owner of DTE and that DTE was closed due to Utley, forcing the owner to take a

several million dollar loss.

That on information and belief, Proskauer and Wheeler may have had a part in the

misappropriation of the patents from DTE with Utley, in that Wheeler had formed

a company for Utley where the misappropriated patents are believed to have been

transferred. Despite Wheeler’s involvement, Wheeler was fully cognizant of this

patent dispute with Utley and DTE, as confirmed by the former owner of DTE,

Friedkin, and further confirmed in depositions with Utley and Wheeler. That

Proskauer and Wheeler’s recommendation of Utley to the Board of Directors

knowingly failed to disclose these past patent problems to Petitioners and in fact

Proskauer and Wheeler circulated a resume on behalf of Utley claiming that as a

result of Utley’s inventions that DTE went on to become a leader in the industry,

when Proskauer and Wheeler knew that the company had been closed by the patent

problems of Utley and perhaps actions of Proskauer and Wheeler. That Proskauer

and Wheeler further conspired with Utley to circulate a knowingly false and

misleading resume to Petitioners’ shareholders, including the SBA for compliance

purposes in loans generated and induced investment without ever disclosing this

information.


42


That despite such knowledge, Proskauer and Wheeler never mentioned such facts

concerning Utley to any representative of Petitioners and in fact undertook to "sell"

Utley as a highly qualified candidate who would be the ideal person to undertake

day to day operations of Petitioners acting as a qualified engineer which he was not.

That additionally, Proskauer and Wheeler continued to assist Utley in perpetrating

such fraud on both the Board of Directors of Petitioners and to third parties,

including for the Wachovia Securities PPM, by approving a false resume for Utley

which was included in the raising funds, pursuant to and in violation of Regulation

D of the Securities Act of 1933 and was used for compliance purposes for loans

generated by the SBA.

That based on the recommendations of Proskauer and Wheeler, and Wheeler

relationship as a ten year friend of Utley, the Board of Directors agreed to engage

the services of Utley as President and Chief Operating Officer based on false and

misleading information knowingly proffered by Proskauer and Wheeler.

That almost immediately after Utley's employment, Proskauer and Wheeler

provided a purported retainer agreement (“Retainer”) for the providing of services

by Proskauer to Petitioners, addressed to Utley. That the Retainer agreement

comes after one year of Proskauer providing services whereby patent disclosures

were given directly from Inventors to Proskauer partners in that time, including but

not limited to, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao. Finally, on information and belief,

Petitioners states that Proskauer through Wheeler and Utley conspired to replace

the original retainer agreement with the Petitioners companies, with the Retainer

void of patent services that were originally agreed upon and performed on. That


43


the services provided were in fact to be partially paid out of the royalties recovered

from the use of the Technology, which was to be included in patent pools overseen

by Proskauer and Rubenstein and later acquired by Proskauer as clients,

Rubenstein and Proskauer who had already deemed them “novel” and “essential”

to the patent pools.

That the Retainer by its terms contemplated the providing of corporate and general

legal services to Petitioners by Proskauer and was endorsed by Utley on behalf of

Petitioners, the Board of Directors of Petitioners would not have Utley authorized to

endorse same as it did not include the intellectual property work which Proskauer

and Rubenstein had already undertaken.

That prior to the Retainer, Proskauer, Rubenstein, and Wheeler had provided legal

services to Petitioners, including services regarding patents, copyrights, trade-

secrets, Trademarks with Rubenstein being given full disclosure of the patent

processes through each of these departments he controlled when Proskauer Rose

LLP hired Rubenstein after learning of the importance of the Technology and as the

key to heisting the Technology.

That Proskauer billed Petitioners for legal services related to corporate, patent,

trademark, copyright and other work in a sum of approximately Eight Hundred

Thousand Dollars ($800,000) and now claims to have not done patent work, a

materially false statement with insurmountable evidence to the contrary, as

evidenced by the management section, including Advisory Board, for the Wachovia

Securities PPM used to induce investment and loans including from the Small

Business Administration, a federal agency, and whereby it states that Proskauer was


44


“retained patent counsel” for Petitioners companies and contrary to the current

claims by Proskauer and Rubenstein that they preformed no patent work told to

state and federal investigatory bodies.

That Proskauer billed Petitioners for copyright, trade-secret, patent services

including legal services never performed causing loss of intellectual property rights,

double-billed by the use of multiple counsel on the same issue, and when caught

began to falsifiedy and altered billing information and other documentation in an

attempt to hide the patent work and distance themselves from the Technology so as

to cover up and systematically overcharged for services provided.for the crimes

committed.

That based on the over-billing by Proskauer, Petitioners paid a sum in of

approximately Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) together with a two

and one-half percent (2.5%) equity interest in Petitioners’ companies, which sums

and interest in Petitioners’ companies was received and accepted by Proskauer.

That Wheeler, Utley, Rubenstein, Joao, Proskauer, and MLGS conspired to deprive

Petitioners of its rights to the Technology developed by Inventors by:

FIRST COUNT: VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 13 SEC 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 18 PART I CH 13 SEC 245 FEDERALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITIES ................................................... Error: Reference source not found

SECOND COUNT: ANTITRUST CIVIL PROCESS . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 15 CH 34 SEC 1312 CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMANDS ........ Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 15 CH 34 SEC 1313 CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS, ANSWERS AND TRANSCRIPTS .................................... Error: Reference source not found


45



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

THIRD COUNT: 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 foundTITLE 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 S EC 1962 (a) RICO ....... Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 18 PART I CH 19 SEC 1962 (D) RICO ...... Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1964 RICO CIVIL REMEDIES ............... Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1968 RICO CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND ....................................................... Error: Reference source not found

FOURTH COUNT: 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

FIFTH COUNT: 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

SIXTH COUNT: VIOLATIONS OF 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 foundTITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1952 INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN AID OF RACKETEERING ENTERPRISES ............... Error: Reference source not found 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

SEVENTH COUNT: VIOLATIONS OF COMMERCE AND TRADE ................ ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND


46


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 foundTITLE 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 foundTITLE 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

EIGHTH COUNT: VIOLATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 501 INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT ............... Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 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 foundTITLE 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 foundTITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 507 LIMITATIONS ON ACTIONS ....... Error: Reference source not found


47


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 foundTITLE 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 foundTITLE 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 foundTITLE 17 CH 13 SEC 1330 COMMON LAW AND OTHER RIGHTS UNAFFECTED ............................................... Error: Reference source not found

NINTH COUNT: 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 foundTITLE 35 PART II CH 11 SEC 115 OATH OF APPLICANT Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 35 PART II CH 11 SEC 116 INVENTORS Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 35 PART III CH 261 OWNERSHIP; ASSIGNMENT . Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 35 PART IV PATENT COOPERATION TREATY CH 35 SEC 351 ......................................................................... Error: Reference source not found 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 foundCONSOLIDATED 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


48


§ 1.137 FOR REVIVAL OF ABANDONED APPLICATION, TERMINATED REEXAMINATION PROCEEDING, OR LAPSED PATENT Error: Reference source not foundLAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 2071: ... Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 37 - CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS - MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE ......................... Error: Reference source not found 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§ 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


49


§ 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 § 10.131 INVESTIGATIONS ......................... Error: Reference source not found § 10.132 INITIATING A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING; REFERENCE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ........ Error: Reference source not found PATENT RULES PART 10 INDEX - PART 15 ..... Error: Reference source not found

TENTH COUNT: FALSE CLAIMS ...................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 31 SUBTITLE III CHAPTER 37 SUBCHAPTER III SEC 3729 - FALSE CLAIMS ............................................ Error: Reference source not found

ELEVENTH COUNT: 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 foundTITLE 18 PART I CH 90 SEC 1832 THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS ...... Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 18 PART I CH 90 SEC 1834 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE ............ Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 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 foundTITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III SEC 1117 - RECOVERY FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS .......................................................... Error: Reference source not found 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


50


TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III SEC 1126 FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN ..... Error: Reference source not found

TWELFTH COUNT: FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICES ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS ............................ Error: Reference source not found THIRTEENTH COUNT: 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 foundTITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 SEC 156 - KNOWING DISREGARD OF BANKRUPTCY LAW OR RULE AND TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 SEC 157 - BANKRUPTCY FRAUD ...................... 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

FOURTEENTH COUNT: 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 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

FIFTEENTH COUNT: 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 CHAPTER 47 SEC 1031 - MAJOR FRAUD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ................................. Error: Reference source not found

SIXTEENTH COUNT: 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

SEVENTEENTH COUNT: ROBBERY AND BURGLARY . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 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

EIGHTEENTH COUNT: STOLEN PROPERTY ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 STOLEN PROPERTY SEC 2311 . Error: Reference source not found


51


TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113 SEC. 2314 - TRANSPORTATION OF STOLEN GOODS, SECURITIES, MONEYS, FRAUDULENT STATE TAX STAMPS, OR ARTICLES USED IN COUNTERFEITING .... Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 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 CHAPTER 113 SEC. 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONORECORDS, COPIES OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS OR COMPUTER PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION OR PACKAGING, AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIO VISUAL WORKS, AND TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT COMPUTER PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION OR PACKAGING ................................................. Error: Reference source not found TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113 SEC. 2319 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT ......... Error: Reference source not found 506(A) ............................................................. Error: Reference source not found TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 113 SEC 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES .... Error: Reference source not found

NINETEENTH COUNT: SECURITIES VIOLATIONS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TWENTIETH COUNT: 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

TWENTY-FIRST COUNT: PERJURY ............... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 79 SEC 1621 - PERJURY GENERALLY Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 79 SEC 1622 . Error: Reference source not found TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 79 SEC 1623 - FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY OR COURT .......... Error: Reference source not found

TWENTY-SECOND COUNT: MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD .. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 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 CHAPTER 63 SEC 1343 - FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION ........................................... Error: Reference source not found TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63 SEC. 1344 - BANK FRAUD ............... Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63 SEC 1346 - DEFINITION OF ''SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD'' .................... Error: Reference source not found TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63 SEC 1345 - INJUNCTIONS AGAINST FRAUD ........................................................... Error: Reference source not found


52


TWENTY-THIRD COUNT: VIOLATIONS OF POSTAL SERVICE ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 83 SEC. 1701 - OBSTRUCTION OF MAILS GENERALLY ................................................. Error: Reference source not found TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 83 SEC 1702 - OBSTRUCTION OF CORRESPONDENCE .................................... Error: Reference source not found

TWENTY-FOURTH COUNT: INTERNAL REVENUE CODE VIOLATIONS .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE .... Error: Reference source not found TWENTY-FIFTH COUNT: EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 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

TWENTY-SIXTH COUNT: TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH IV SUBCHAPTER IV - THE MADRID PROTOCOL ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TWENTY-SEVENTH COUNT: CONTEMPTS . . . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TWENTY-EIGHTH COUNT: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

STATE COUNTS .................................... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND TWENTY-NINTH COUNT: NEW YORK CONSPIRACY .. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS PENAL ARTICLE 105 CONSPIRACY ................................................... Error: Reference source not found

THIRTIETH COUNT: DELAWARE § 521 CONSPIRACY . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

CH 5 SPECIFIC OFFENSES SUBCH I INCHOATE CRIMES § 521 CONSPIRACY ................................................... Error: Reference source not found

§ 531. Attempt to commit a crime. ................. Error: Reference source not found § 871. Falsifying business records; class A misdemeanor. ........ Error: Reference source not found§ 891. Defrauding secured creditors; class A misdemeanor. ..... Error: Reference source not found§ 909. Securing execution of documents by deception; class A misdemeanor ......................................................................... Error: Reference source not found

THIRTY-FIRST COUNT: 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 VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, CIVIL ACTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; CIVIL PENALTY Error: Reference source not found


53


TITLE XLV – TORTS - CH 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.103 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES Error: Reference source not foundTITLE XLV TORTS - CH 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.104 CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION Error: Reference source not foundTITLE XLV TORTS - CH 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES ................................................... Error: Reference source not found 772.11 CIVIL REMEDY FOR THEFT OR EXPLOITATION Error: Reference source not foundTITLE XLV TORTS – CH 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES ................................................... Error: Reference source not found 772.185 ATTORNEY'S FEES TAXED AS COSTS Error: Reference source not found

THIRTY-SECOND COUNT: 895.01 FLORIDA RICO (RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION) ACT .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

FLORIDA STATE LAW .................................... 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 895.03 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND DEFENSE . Error: Reference source not found895.04 CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND ALTERNATIVE FINE .............. Error: Reference source not found895.05 CIVIL REMEDIES ............................. Error: Reference source not found 895.06 CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS .... Error: Reference source not found895.07 RICO LIEN NOTICE ......................... Error: Reference source not found 895.08 TERM OF RICO LIEN NOTICE ....... Error: Reference source not found CH 896 - OFFENSES RELATED TO FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS 896.101 FLORIDA MONEY LAUNDERING ACT Error: Reference source not found896.102 CURRENCY MORE THAN $10,000 RECEIVED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS; REPORT REQUIRED; NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES Error: Reference source not found896.103 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 found896.105 PENALTY PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ........................................... Error: Reference source not found 896.106 FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT ..... Error: Reference source not found

THIRTY-THIRD COUNT: VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICES NEW YORK SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT .......... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND


54


NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS PENAL ARTICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES ............................................................................. Error: Reference source not found

ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS ......................................................................... Error: Reference source not found NY CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XIII PUBLIC OFFICERS ... Error: Reference source not foundPUBLIC OFFICERS - PUBLIC OFFICERS ARTICLE 1 ....... Error: Reference source not foundARTICLE 2 APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ...................................................... Error: Reference source not found ARTICLE 15 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Error: Reference source not foundS 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 foundS 476-C. INVESTIGATION BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. ............ Error: Reference source not foundS 487. MISCONDUCT BY ATTORNEYS. ... Error: Reference source not found S 499. LAWYER ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES. Error: Reference source not foundPUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 73 RESTRICTIONS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF CURRENT AND FORMER STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES .... Error: Reference source not found

THIRTY-FOURTH COUNT: VIOLATION OF PUBLIC OFFICES FLORIDA SUPREME COURT – CASE SC04-1078 ........... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

FLORIDA LAW ................................................. Error: Reference source not found PART III – CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ................................................. Error: Reference source not found 112.311 LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND DECLARATION OF POLICY . Error: Reference source not found112.312 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 found112.324 PROCEDURES ON COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS; PUBLIC RECORDS AND MEETING EXEMPTIONS ......... Error: Reference source not found112.3241 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


55


112.3187 ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYEE FOR DISCLOSING INFORMATION OF SPECIFIED NATURE PROHIBITED; EMPLOYEE REMEDY AND RELIEF. ............................... 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 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 foundTITLE 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

THIRTY-FIFTH COUNT: 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 688.004 DAMAGES ........... Error: Reference source not found

THIRTY-SIXTH COUNT: TITLE XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS - CH 495 REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS .... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

FLORIDA STATE LAW .................................... Error: Reference source not found TITLE XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS – 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 foundTITLE XXXIII CH 495 SEC 495.141 REMEDIES Error: Reference source not foundTITLE 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

THIRTY-SEVENTH COUNT: STATE OF NEW YORK TRADEMARK LAWS ............. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND THIRTY-EIGHTH COUNT: FLORIDA PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND


56


SEC 812.081 TRADE SECRETS; THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT; UNLAWFUL COPYING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTY ........ Error: Reference source not found 812.13 ROBBERY .......................................... Error: Reference source not found CH 815 - COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES SEC 815.01 "FLORIDA COMPUTER CRIMES ACT" ........................ Error: Reference source not found 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 foundSEC 815.06 OFFENSES AGAINST COMPUTER USERS ..... Error: Reference source not foundSEC 815.07 THIS CHAPTER NOT EXCLUSIVE . Error: Reference source not foundSEC 831.03 FORGING OR COUNTERFEITING PRIVATE LABELS; POSSESSION OF REPRODUCTION MATERIALS ... Error: Reference source not foundSEC 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

THIRTY-NINTH COUNT: FLORIDA - FORGERY ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

FLORIDA STATE LAW .................................... Error: Reference source not found SEC 831.01 FORGERY .................................. Error: Reference source not found SEC 831.02 UTTERING FORGED INSTRUMENTS .. Error: Reference source not foundSEC 831.03 FORGING OR COUNTERFEITING PRIVATE LABELS; POSSESSION OF REPRODUCTION MATERIALS ... Error: Reference source not foundSEC 831.06 FICTITIOUS SIGNATURE OF OFFICER OF CORPORATION ......................................................................... Error: Reference source not found

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

FLORIDA LAW ................................................. Error: Reference source not found CHAPTER 817 - FRAUDULENT PRACTICES - PART I - FALSE PRETENSES AND FRAUDS, GENERALLY 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


57


SEC 817.034 FLORIDA COMMUNICATIONS FRAUD ACT ............... Error: Reference source not foundSEC 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 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 foundSEC 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 foundSEC 817.234 FALSE AND FRAUDULENT INSURANCE CLAIMS ..... Error: Reference source not foundSEC 817.235 PERSONAL PROPERTY; REMOVING OR ALTERING IDENTIFICATION MARKS ......................... Error: Reference source not found SEC 817.34 FALSE ENTRIES AND STATEMENTS BY INVESTMENT COMPANIES OFFERING STOCK OR SECURITY FOR SALE ............ Error: Reference source not foundSEC 817.44 INTENTIONAL FALSE ADVERTISING PROHIBITED .... Error: Reference source not foundSEC 817.45 PENALTY .................................. Error: Reference source not found SEC 817.562 FRAUD INVOLVING A SECURITY INTEREST ............. Error: Reference source not foundSEC 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

FORTY-FIRST COUNT: FLORIDA PERJURY ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND FLORIDA LAW ................................................. Error: Reference source not found

CHAPTER 837 - PERJURY ........................... Error: Reference source not found SEC 837.011 DEFINITIONS ......................... Error: Reference source not found SEC 837.02 PERJURY IN OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS ......... Error: Reference source not found


58


SEC 837.021 PERJURY BY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ........ Error: Reference source not foundSEC 837.05 FALSE REPORTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... Error: Reference source not found SEC 837.06 FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS . . . Error: Reference source not foundSEC 837.07 RECANTATION AS A DEFENSE ..... Error: Reference source not found

FORTY-SECOND COUNT: NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS – ARTICLE 210 PERJURY AND RELATED OFFENSES ....... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND FORTY-THIRD COUNT: FLORIDA STATE TAX LAW - CHAPTER 220 - INCOME TAX CODE ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

FLORIDA LAW ................................................. Error: Reference source not found CH 220 - INCOME TAX CODE .................... 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

FORTY-FOURTH COUNT: THEFT, ROBBERY, AND MISAPPROPRIATION AND CONVERSION OF FUNDS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

FLORIDA LAW ................................................. Error: Reference source not found SEC 812.035 CIVIL REMEDIES; LIMITATION ON CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS ................................... Error: Reference source not found

FORTY-FIFTH COUNT: FRAUD UPON IVIEWIT ..... ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

FLORIDA LAW ................................................. Error: Reference source not found TITLE XXXVI BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS CH 607 CORPORATIONS SEC 607.0129 PENALTY FOR SIGNING FALSE DOCUMENT ........... Error: Reference source not found607.830 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR DIRECTORS Error: Reference source not found607.830 DIRECTOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Error: Reference source not found607.0834 LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTIONS Error: Reference source not found607.0841 DUTIES OF OFFICERS ................. Error: Reference source not found 607.0850 INDEMNIFICATION OF OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS ...................... Error: Reference source not found 607.0901 AFFILIATED TRANSACTIONS . . 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 foundSEC 607.830 GENERAL STANDARDS FOR DIRECTORS .. Error: Reference source not found


59


SEC 607.830 DIRECTOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ........ Error: Reference source not foundSEC 607.0834 LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTIONS. ........ Error: Reference source not foundSEC 607.0841 DUTIES OF OFFICERS ........ Error: Reference source not found SEC 607.0901 AFFILIATED TRANSACTIONS .. . Error: Reference source not found

FORTY-SIXTH COUNT: 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. 326 ................................................. 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

FORTY-SEVENTH COUNT: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AS DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

DELAWARE LAW ............................................ Error: Reference source not found FLORIDA LAW ................................................. Error: Reference source not found CALIFORNIA LAW .......................................... Error: Reference source not found

FORTY-EIGHTH COUNT: LEGAL MALPRACTICE . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND FORTY-NINTH COUNT: BREACH OF CONTRACT . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND FIFTIETH COUNT: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND FIFTY-FIRST COUNT: MISAPPROPRIATION AND CONVERSION OF FUNDS ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES .............................. ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND

FIFTY-SECOND COUNT: FRAUD UPON THE JAPANESE PATENT OFFICES (JPO) ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND FIFTY-THIRD COUNT: FRAUD UPON THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICES (EPO) ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND FIFTY-THIRD COUNT: ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT . ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND


60


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > § 1831

Error: Reference source not found

i. Aiding and abetting Joao in improperly filing patents for Petitioners

Technology by intentionally withholding pertinent information from such

patent applications and not filing same timely, to amongst other things allow

Joao to apply for similar patents in his own name and other malfeasances,

both while acting as counsel for Petitioners and subsequently, from concepts

stolen from the Company. That Joao now claims that since working with

Petitioners companies he has filed approximately ninety patents in his own

name rivaling Edison, and;

ii. Upon discovery of the problems in Joao’s work and that Joao was writing

patents benefiting from Petitioners’ Technology in his name, that Proskauer,

Wheeler, Rubenstein and Utley referred the patent matters for correction to

Dick of Foley, who was also a close personal friend of Utley and who had

been involved, unbeknownst and undisclosed to Petitioners at the time, in the

diversion of patents to Utley at his former employer DTE, perhaps with

Wheeler, to the detriment of DTE, thereby establishing a pattern of

conspiratorial criminal intent in the stealing of patent

malfeasancesinventions from their lawful owners; and,

iii. Proskauer, Rubenstein, Wheeler, Dick and Utley further conspiring to

transfer patent assignments to the wrong companies, the formations of which

were unauthorized by Petitioners, whereby Proskauer may now have full


61


ownership of such patents and companies, quite to the detriment of

Petitioners and Petitioners’ companies shareholders; and,

iv. Proskauer, Rubenstein, Wheeler, Dick and Utley further conspiring in

the transferring of prior patent applications or the filing of new patent

applications, unbeknownst to Petitioners, conspiring with Foley so as to

name Utley as the sole holder or joint inventor of multiple patents

fraudulently and with improper assignment to improper entities, when in

fact such inventions were and arose from the Technology developed by

Inventors and held by Petitioners companies, prior to Utley's employment

with Petitioners; and,

v. Further failing to list proper inventors and fraudulently adding inventors

to the patents, constituting charges now pending before the Commissioner of

Patents (“Commissioner”) of fraud upon the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (“USPTO”) against these attorneys as filed by Petitioners

and its largest investor Crossbow Ventures, resulting in the failure of the

patents to include their rightful and lawful inventors as confirmed in

conversations and correspondence with the USPTO. The wrong inventors

has lead to investors not having proper and full ownership in the patents and

in some cases NO ownership; and,

vi. Failing to properly assign the inventions and fraudulently conveying to

investors and potential investors knowingly false and misleading intellectual

property dockets and other false and misleading information, prepared and

disseminated by these attorneys. The intellectual property dockets illustrate


62


false and misleading information on the inventors, assignees and owners of

the Technology. The wrong assignments may lead to investors not having

proper and full ownership in the patents; and,

vii. Knowingly and wilfully, failing to ensure that the patent applications for

the Technology contained all necessary and pertinent information relevant to

the Technology and as required by patent law; and,

viii. Billing for, and then failing to secure copyrights. Failing to complete

copyright work for the source code for the Technology of Petitioners as

intellectual property. Further, falsifying billing statements to replace

copyright work with trademark work, although the billings are full of

copyright work that has never been performed; and,

ix. Allowing the infringement of patent rights of Petitioners and the

intellectual property of Petitioners by patent pools overseen by Proskauer

and Rubenstein, and, other clients of Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao

and Wheeler, whereby Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler

profit from such infringement to the detriment of Petitioners. Finally, that

Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler clients all profit from

violations of NDA’s secured by Proskauer and their partners, infringements

all to the detriment of Petitioners; and,

x. Allowing Rubenstein, whomwho acted as patent counsel and an Advisory

Board member to Petitioners, full access to the patent processes to proliferate

throughout the patent pools he controls with Proskauer, causing exposure to

Petitioners. Thereafter, Rubenstein now attempts to state that he does not


63


know the Company, the Inventors, or the Technology and never was involved

in any way, thereby constituting perjured deposition testimony and further

false statements to a tribunal by Proskauer and Rubenstein. Witnesses and

direct evidence refute Rubenstein’s denials, and, further, Proskauer failed to

secure conflict of interest waivers from Petitioners, has no “Chinese Wall”

between Rubenstein and Petitioners, that under ordinary circumstances such

conflict waivers and separations would have been common place for

Proskauer, as a result of the patent pools and Proskauer and Rubenstein’s

involvement with such pools, which directly compete with Petitioners’

Technology. Furthermore, Rubenstein heads the following departments for

Proskauer all of which did work and billed for such work for Petitioners and

likewise would have caused conflict waivers to be secured: patents,

trademarks and copyrights, and whereby Proskauer and Rubenstein are now

the single largest benefactor of Petitioners’ Technology because of such

conflicts and failure to obtain such waivers.

That Petitioners, in discussions with the USPTO on or about February 1, 2004, finds

patent information different from every intellectual property docket delivered to

Petitioners by every retained patent counsel, as to inventors, assignments, and, in

particular, one or more patent applications in the name of Utley with no assignment

to Petitioners, and to which, according to the USPTO, Petitioners presently holds no

rights, titles, or interest in that particular patent application. That such patent

issues have caused Petitioners, in conjunction with its largest investor, Crossbow

Ventures (the largest South Florida venture fund) and Stephen J. Warner, the Co-


64


Founder and former Chairman of the Board, to file a complaint with the USTPO

alleging charges of Fraud Upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

now causing the Commissioner, after review, to put multiple six-month suspension

on all Petitioners’ US patent applications while investigations should proceed into

the attorney malfeasances and mitigate further damages.

That Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer, rather than pursuing the corporate

formation and governance for entities directed by the Board of Directors, proceeded

to engage in fraud and deceit by the corporate formation of multiple entities in a

multi-tiered structure thus engaging, effectively, in a “shell game” as to which entity

and under what structure would hold assignment of the Technology.

That upon information and belief, Wheeler, Rubenstein, Joao, MLGS and

Proskauer through a disingenuous scheme comprised of the unauthorized formation

of similarly named entities, unauthorized asset acquisitions and transfers,

unauthorized name changes, falsification of inventors and falsification of

assignments, all that effectively result in the assignment of Petitioners’sPetitioner’s

core inventions to: wrong inventors, wrong assignees, and, finally, on information

and belief, an entity, Iviewit Technologies, Inc., of which Proskauer is one of four, or

less, presumed shareholders and whereby the company was set up solely by

Proskauer to hold Proskauer stock in Petitioners’ companies, and whereby the

Petitioners’ companies shareholders now have no verifiable ownership interest in

Iviewit Technologies, Inc. which now holds several core patents, not authorized by

the Board of Directors. With no evidence of an ownership position of Petitioners in

Iviewit Technologies, Inc., and whereby a terminated Arthur Andersen audit,


65


terminated by Arthur Andersen, failed to prove any incident of ownership, it

remains unclear if the Petitioners’ shareholders have any interest in these patents in

such unauthorized entity. This potential “shell game” resulted from a name change

from the unauthorized Proskauer entity named originally Iviewit Holdings, Inc. to

Iviewit Technologies, Inc., which was formed by Proskauer, unbeknownst to the

Board of Directors, with an identical name to a Petitioners’ company Iviewit

Holdings, Inc. that was changing its name from Uview.com, Inc. and in the two

weeks the unauthorized entity maintained an exactly identical name to Petitioners’

to-be-renamed company, patents were assigned into the now named Iviewit

Technologies, Inc., which on the day Petitioners company changed it’s name to

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. Proskauer changed the name of their entity from Iviewit

Holdings, Inc. to Iviewit Technologies, Inc., with the assigned patents ending up in

the unauthorized company, whereby Proskauer may be a majority shareholder with

Petitioners’ investors not having any ownership in the patents in the unauthorized

entity. It is alleged that Proskauer maintained two sets of corporate books, two sets

of patent books and was attempting to direct the core patents out of the Petitioners’

companies naming Utley as the inventor and leaving Petitioners’ companies

bankrupt and with inferior patents while the core technologies were absconded

with.

That Utley, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer engaged in the transfer of a loan

from a group of Proskauer referred investors and that such loan transacted without

approval from the Board of Directors or the Petitioners’ lead investor and without

full and complete documentation of the transaction ever being properly completed


66


and no bank records produced to correspond to such transaction. That upon

learning of such loan transaction and requesting auditing of such transaction,

Petitioners found missing records and that, further, employees’ eyewitness

testimonies in written statements, show a large briefcase of cash, claimed to be from

the Proskauer investors, was used to attempt to bribe employees to steal trade

secrets and proprietary equipment, and further such equipment was stolen off with

by Proskauer’s management team led by Utley, as he was being fired with cause

when he was found to be misappropriating patents into his name. This alleged theft

of between Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) and One Million Dollars

($1,000,000.00) by Proskauer and their management referrals, of money loaned to

the Company, was referred to the Boca Raton Police Department who have

purportedly referred the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission; the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (West Palm Beach) was also notified.

That as a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Wheeler, Rubenstein,

Joao, MLGS and Proskauer, Petitioners have been damaged in a sum estimated to

be approximately Seventeen Billion Dollars ($17,000,000,000.00), based on company

projections and corroborated by industry experts as to the value of the Technology

and the applications to current and future uses over the twenty year life of such

patents.

That after discovering initial evidences of core patent applications being stolen off

with, that Brian G. Utley levied threats against the Companies and the life of

inventor Eliot I. Bernstein, threatening to bring down the companies “brick by

brick” and that Bernstein should watch his back when returning from California to


67


his home in Boca Raton, Florida as Utley, Dick and Wheeler would be watching if

he were to continue notifying parties of the patent malfeasances that were being

uncovered.

Bernstein moved his family from Boca Raton the next week in fear of their safety to

a California hotel and then sought temporary residency throughout a two year

period, where Bernstein immediately notified all Board members, investors and the

authorities of the atrocities being uncovered. As with any complex conspiracy, this

onion had many layers and with every new day over that period, mounds of

evidence began to be uncovered revealing a criminal network of individuals

involved in hosts of illegal ploys to heist the Technology by once trusted attorneys.

Bernstein returns to Florida to deliver Counter Complaint and present first

evidences of crimes uncovered in two-year period.

New level of cover-up starts for Proskauer as Companies file state bar complaints,

complaints against SB, complaints against Labarga. The Company is virtually

bankrupted, with no way to get funding, with no legal counsel to trust at this point

and with SB having failed on their contract and cost the Company it’s due process

at trial and in other related matters, it looked hopeless for the inventors to save any

rights to their inventions. Further troubled loomed as patent counsel for the

Company began a series of steps that further looked as if they had become involved

in aiding and abetting these crimes, as the Company went to patent office and found

some startling revelations, that have exposed an entire level of cover-up extending

now to the Supreme Courts of New York and Florida and their bar associations and

disciplinary committees.


68


The patent office confirmed that the patent dockets prepared by company counsel

were materially false and misleading, in inventors, assignements, owners and other

information currently pending review, which led to the Director of the Office of

Enrollment and Discipline, Harry I. Moatz, to advise the Company that the first

step would be to file charges of fraud upon the United States Patent & Trademark

Office with the Commissioner of Patents, in an attempt to have the patents put into

a six month suspension pending outcome of the investigation into the charges and

official attorney complaints lodged against attorney members of the Patent Office

Bar which Mr. Moatz is personally handling. The commissioner has now granted a

series of suspensions, and in certain instances, revival of core patents which were

abandoned in more fraud by the attorneys are now pending consideration with the

Director of Petitions for the United States Patent & Trademark Office of how to

revive in a most complicated matter, these patents rights to a core invention are

currently lost, and perhaps it will take an act of congress or This Court to rectify

such problem, when the very system to prevent such a travesty from occurring is

being manipulated adversely by those held accountable for protecting the citizen’s

constitutional rights.

That this information from the Patent Office led to an uncovering of corporations

which appear to show similarly named companies with patents transferring to

places unbeknownst to shareholders and lied about by their attorneys on patent

dockets used to raise capital and submitted to investigatory bodies. That these false

and misleading dockets, covered up further the truth about matters and now reveal

a far more devious and diabolical attempt to abscond with the patents and perhaps


69


had this ploy worked, patents would have been transferred into wrongeful

companies and with wrongful inventors and all that would have been left was to

destroy the shareholder companies and leave bogus patents fraught with problems

to the investors and secretly steal off with the core inventions. Unbelievable and yet

factually correct.

That once Defendant’s realized that the proverbial cat was out of the bag, they

immediately began a series of steps to further cover-up their crimes and at the same

time reek havoc on the companies and inventor Bernstein’s life. Initially, without

knowledge of the Company or Board, Proskauer management referral Utley and

other Proskauer referred management filed an Involuntary Bankruptcy on

companies which they had no legal rights in and which may have been shell

corporations as described herein, in an attempt to smear Iviewit and secure leans on

the Iviewit Intellectual Properties through bogus and false submissions to the

Bankruptcy courts. Second, Proskauer, began a billing lawsuit, again unbeknownst

to shareholders or management, in a further attempt to harass and seek claims

against Companies with which they had no legal rights or contracts with, again in

what appears to gain control of patents hidden away in this myriad of corporations

and dually named inventions with differing inventors than the true and correct

inventors.

That Petitioner companies were informed of such Involuntary Bankruptcy and

Proskauer litigation, while in a meeting with AOLTW/WB executives, while

attempting to secure a $20,000,000.00 capital raise.


70


That Petitioner companies were informed that patents were incorrectly named when

new patent counsel was hired jointly by Iviewit and Crossbow Ventures to

investigate allegations into the patent malfeasances committed by Raymond Joao,

Kenneth Rubenstein, William Dick, Douglas Boehm and Steven Becker, whereby

such information was contrary to prior information given to investors in the

companies.

That upon learning of these events Petitioner hired counsel to replace counsel that

had been representing the Company without company knowledge or consent and it

is at this juncture that Defendants had to escalate the cover-up. A longtime friend

of inventor Eliot Bernstein and a licensed attorney, Caroline Prochotska Rogers,

Esq. was counseled to help the Company respond to complaints that it was prior

unaware existed and to replace counsel which appears to have been conflicted with

Proskauer and Wheeler, Sachs Saxs & Klien (PR v. IV) and Bart Houston (Utley,

Reale, Hersch, REAL3D/RYJO (Intel, Silicon Graphics & Lockheed) v. Iviewit in

the Involuntary BK.

These actions against the Companies caused the companies to; lose financing deals,

licensing deals with SONY, WB, INTEL and others, caused uncertainty for

investors Crossbow Ventures who pulled out of funding commitments, unsure about

what they had invested in and what the state of the patents were and who owned

them and if they had any interest them what-so-ever.

With new counsel representing the Companies with consent, the Involuntary BK

was withdrawn by the opposing parties as evidence against them was first

submitted. The Proskauer v. Iv case to a whole new twist as prior counsel was


71


replaced by Rogers with Steven Selz, Esq. of West Palm Beach, Fla. and depositions

were requested and new evidences were attempted to be submitted to the civil

circuit court in the form of the attached Counter Complaint – Exhibit “”. The

Counter Complaint was denied because it came late and after initial counsel that

had been unauthorized to represent the Company had waived most of the

companies rights to counter, somehow. That upon taking the deposition of Kenneth

Rubenstein, who had written in a sworn statement to Judge Labaraga that he never

heard of the Company and was being “harassed” to take a deposition and therefore

refusing, the deposition and evidences presented at the deposition show perjured

statements, as evidence and responses to questions paint a far more involved

Rubenstein than he stated to the Court. That Rubenstein walks out of deposition,

refusing to answer questions and is Court ordered to reconvene the deposition and

answer questions. That the Company was set for trial where counsel would have

confronted Utley, Rubenstein and Wheeler for materially perjured statements to the

Court and under deposition.

That the Company then engaged SB to represent them through a signed retainer

and investment LOU, attached herein, Exhibit “”, whereby SB after two years of

research into the allegations and charges, claimed to have contacted senior members

of Proskauer Rose LLP and prior to signing the LOU and without consent from

Companies, negotiated a settlement which they claimed would be a multimillion

dollar settlement and which would not release Proskauer from the liabilities of if the

patents were unrecoverable.


72


That SB, upon signing the LOU, immediately after notify Companies of their

representation and paying Selz in entirety, SB asked Selz to retire as counsel as they

would be representing Iviewit. Selz filed a motion to such regard. On the day

before trial, at the end of the business day, Eliot Bernstein was sent a draft of a

settlement agreement, whereby SB had negotiated in multiple conflicting roles, a

settlement with Proskauer Rose LLP. The settlement was given to Bernstein with

express instruction that if it was not signed within five hours that the trial would be

in the morning, the document was delivered at noon.

The settlement document had express instructions that each party have counsel

review the settlement. Upon receiving the document Bernstein noted that several

parties whom were not enjoined in the lawsuit were being asked to take part in the

settlement, many of who had not even seen or reviewed the document and certainly

whereby counsel had not even been noticed. Upon explaining to SB that they could

not be counsel for all parties as they were attempting, due to their ownership

acquisition in Petitioner companies and the conflict this represented, counsel was

secured for both Bernstein and the Companies. Counsel for Bernstein and

Petitioner Companies immediately found major flaws in the document that would

need far more time to rectify and clarify before signing, in that some aspects of

signing without such due-diligence could expose those signing the settlement to

severe ramifications from shareholders, as the document also could not be found to

offer any benefits to the shareholders, and in fact, exposed them to grave risks of

losing protected attorney/client privileged patent information and allowing

Proskauer a get out of jail free card even in the event that through these crimes they


73


had lost shareholder rights to the patents. In fact, the settlement could not be

signed, until the corporate governance matters were fully corrected and counsel for

Bernstein and Petitioner companies both would only allow signature if they were

waived as counsel prior to signing to as reduce liability for themselves. Needless to

say, the document could not be signed and therefore the day ended with all parties

stating that trial would be in the morning.

The following morning Steve Selz and Eliot Bernstein showed up for trial, to a trial

that had been unilaterally postponed by Proskauer and the Judge, with no notice to

Petitioner Companies counsel or Petitioner Companies. In the ensuing days, one of

the greatest travesties to due-process unfolded. First, at a hearing to reschedule the

trial, Petitioner Companies counsels (both SB and Selz) submitted withdrawal as

counsel papers to the Judge, both stating that the other would be representing

Petitioner Companies. The Judge granted both withdrawals on the same day, at the

same hearing, leaving Petitioner with no counsel.

That the series of events outlined above,Courts refusal to acknowledge the Counter

Complaint resulted in Petitioners’ filing of the bar complaints against Rubenstein,

Joao, Wheeler, Dick, members of SB, written statements complaints against

registered patent attorneys; Rubenstein, Joao, Dick, Boehm, Becker, Zafman,

Coester, Ahmini, Weisberg to the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline, the

European Patent Office, the Japanese Patent Office, the Department of Justice –

Antitrust Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, The Florida Bar, The New

York Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee,


74


the Virginia State Bar and the Boca Raton Police Department, and subsequently

this Petition.

SUMMARY

That contained in Petitioners’sPetitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis, Motion for Leave to File a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ, this Brief,

and the accompanying Petition to Intervene in All Matters to Protect Rights of

Inventors According to the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 Afforded by the

Constitution of the United States and Petition to Fulfill Due Process Afforded by V

Amendment and the XIV Amendment, Section 1, Petitioners show a pattern of

fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so wide and so deep, that it tears at

the very fabric of free commerce, and in that the circumstances involve inventors’

rights, the pattern tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States.

Petitioners specify the types of relief sought as follows:

1. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of The Florida Bar under the

aegis of the Supreme Court of Florida; and

2. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Bar Association of the

State of New York and the Second Judicial Department Departmental

Disciplinary Committee under the aegis of the Appellate Division, Second

Department (New York); and

3. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Virginia State Bar;

and

4. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Pennsylvania Bar

Association; and


75


5. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, West Palm Beach, Fla. branch office; and

6. Assumption of the investigatory responsibilities of the Boca Raton, Fla.

Police Department.

7. Levying of Cease & Desist to all users of petitioners under NDA and Patent

Pools

8. Levying relief under RICO, Conspiracy and fraud against the United States

and the USPTO

9. Levying relief to protect patent inventions lost, recover patents from

attorney’s with them in their names, rectify problems caused globally

10. Freeze assets of law firms

11. Do not allow self representation of PR due to already conflicts that have cost

US Supreme Courts to be disgraced

12. Intercede to protect the lives and inventions of the inventors

13. Intercede to provide a single court appointed attorney to either oversight

pro-se submissions in this case and lessen the burden to the Clerk of This

Court or provide counsel designated by This Court, that Plaintiff will trust

under such arrangement.

14. Issue subpoenas for all records for all parties involved in all matters, to

prevent further loss of records that are imperative to dating inventions and

protecting constitutional rights of inventors.

15. Issue immediate investigations into all filed charges, question all witnesses,

account for all submitted evidences, report all liabilities to exposed parties


76


and with This Court’s oversight of these matters, Petitioner and Inventors

weary eyes feel that it will assure due process as this being the SUPREME

COURT, and this will preclude others from becoming entangled or conflicted

further, offsetting further cover-up and further liability to all those already

exposed and This Court must not fail as in the weary eyes of the Petitioner

and Inventors this is the court of last resort before all is truly lost.

16. That This Court provide protection and relief to the inventors so as to

restore the rightful condition of the company so as the true inventors and

shareholders enjoy their rights afforded to them under the Constitution and

relieve those accountable for such crimes with no worldly possessions in

retribution for any involvement and whatever criminal sanctions should be

at the maximum legal sentence for as lawyers they were surely aware of the

statement “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” and were fully

cognizant of the laws they were breaking, This Court cannot give any

leniency to preclude the look of favoritism inherent already in the process if

the accused are found guilty of the crimes, which would cause loss of

confidence in This Court by the People.

17. That This Court establish through a fair and impartial review of the

evidences who the rightful inventors to the Technologies are and restore to

such inventors their due recognition and historical importance and finally a

treble damage minimum award against those who tried to claim others

inventions and destroyed lives in the pursuit.


77


18. Grant all reliefs afforded under the law as This Court may find applicable

under the strenuous circumstances that now exist.

Attorney for PetitionersEliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437Tel.: (561) 364-4240


P. Stephen Lamont, Pro SeFour Ward StreetBrewster, N.Y. 10509Tel.: (914) 217-0038



IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Original JurisdictionMILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, )CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) Case No. CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY )LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and )BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )ZAFMAN LLP II )

)


78


ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )P. STEPHEN LAMONT )

)Petitioners. )

PETITION TO INTERVENE IN ALL MATTERS TO PROTECT RIGHTS OF INVENTORS ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8 AFFORDED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND

PETITION TO FULFILL DUE PROCESS AFFORDED BY V AMENDMENT AND THE XIV AMENDMENT, SECTION 1

QUESTION FOR REVIEW

Whether the circumstances surrounding the Petitioners, consisting of the alleged

violation of their constitutional rights as inventors and the denial of due process of

law when combined with the need for the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and

the factual setting that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from

any other court, are sufficient in of themselves to request review by this Court so as

to minimize the damages Petitioners have incurred and forestall the continued

jeopardy of the timely patent prosecution of the Technology.


79


PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The parties to the proceeding are:

1. Proskauer Rose LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership and its

members, former general and patent counsel to Petitioners; and

2. Meltzer Lippe Goldstein LLP (“MLG”), a New York Limited Liability

Partnership and its members, former patent counsel to Petitioners; and


80


3. Raymond A. Joao, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New

York and a former of counsel to MLG, one of the former patent counsels for

Petitioners; and

4. Ryjo, Inc., upon information and belief, a Florida corporation, and one of the

initial potential licensees of the Technology; and

5. Ryan Huisman, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, and

a principal of Ryjo, Inc.; and

6. Foley & Lardner LLP, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Partnership and its

members, former patent counsel to Petitioners; and

7. William J. Dick, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida,

formerly a special counsel to Foley Lardner LLP and one of the former

patent counsels for Petitioners; and

8. Douglas A. Boehm, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Illinois,

formerly a member of Foley Lardner LLP and one of the former patent

counsels for Petitioners; and

9. Goldstein Lewin & Co., a Florida corporation, and outside CPA firm for

Petitioners; and

10. Gerald R. Lewin, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a


11. Erika Lewin, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a



81


12. Brian G. Utley, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Minnesota,

a former President and Chief Operating Officer of affiliated entities related

to Petitioners; and

13. Raymond T. Hersch, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of

Florida, a former Chief Financial Officer of affiliated entities related to

Petitioners; and

14. Michael A Reale, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida, a

former Vice President of Operations of affiliated entities related to

Petitioners; and

15. F. Ross Miller, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Georgia, a

former Consultant of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and

16. Tiedemann Prolow LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and one of

the institutional investors of affiliated entities related to Petitioners; and

17. Carl Tiedemann, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York,

a principal of Tiedemann Prolow LLC; and

18. Bruce Prolow, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a


19. Craig Smith, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New York, a


20. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership,

and former investors, patent counsel, and general counsel to affiliated entities

related to Petitioners; and


82


21. Honorable Jorge Labarga, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of

Florida, the presiding judge in the Litigation; and

22. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP, a California Limited Liability

Partnership, and former patent counsel to Petitioners; and

23. Eliot I. Bernstein, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of Florida,

the principal inventor of the Technology; and

24. P. Stephen Lamont, a sui juris individual and resident of the State of New

York, and Chief Executive Officer of affiliated entities related to Petitioners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


83


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES


84


CITATIONS


85


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Petitioners rely on Rule 20.1, Procedure for the Granting of an Extraordinary Writ,

of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein such rule states:


86


“[T]he petition must show that the writ will be in the aid of the Court’s appellate

jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s

discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form

or any other court.”5

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on Article 1,

Section 8, Clause 8 afforded by the Constitution of the United States that states: “To

promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to

Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and

Discoveries.”6

Second, Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on V

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,

unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases

arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in

time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same

offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in

any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property

be taken for public use, without just compensation7.

Third, Petitioners request review of the question stated herein and rely on XIV

Amendment, Section 1 to the Constitution of the United States that states: 5 Blue Book Citiation…6 Blue Book Citation…7 Blue Book Citation…


87


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

laws8.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Contained in this Petition, and as summarized by the following graph, Petitioners

depict a conspiratorial pattern of fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so

wide and so deep, that it tears at the very fabric of free commerce, and in that the

circumstances involve inventors’ rights, the pattern tears at the very fabric of the

Constitution of the United States.


8 Blue Book Citation


88



89

LACK OF DUE PROCESS AND INFRINGMENT OF INVENTORS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Petitioners

Robert Kafin, Christopher C. Wheeler, Kenneth Rubenstein

& Proskauer Rose LLP


Conspiracy

Prior Management &Certain Directors

Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Conspiracy

Huizenga Holdings

Theft of Trade Secrets,

Conspiracy

MPEG LA and other Infringers

Theft of Trade Secrets, Breach of Contract

Raymond A. Joao & MLG

Joint and several Malpractice, Theft of

Trade Secrets, Conspiracy

William Dick, et al & Foley Lardner


Conspiracy

Tiedemann/Prolow and Principals Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Grand theft,

Conspiracy


Investigation

The Florida Bar & Supreme Court



Investigation

BSTZ

NY Disc Comm’s & Appellate Division

15th Judicial Circuit (Florida)

Denied Motions: Counterclaim, Granted Motions: Counsel

Withdraws

FBI, Local PD, USPTO

More than 12 Mo. Delays, No

Investigation

SB


PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!

PATENT RIGHTS LOST!


That Wheeler, was a partner of Proskauer Rose, LLP (“Proskauer”) and who

provided legal services to Petitioner.

That Rubenstein who at various times relevant hereto was initially misrepresented

by Wheeler as a partner of Proskauer and later became a partner of Proskauer, and

who provided legal services to the Petitioners both while at MLGS and Proskauer.

That Joao who initially was represented to be Rubenstein's associate at Proskauer,

when in fact Joao has never been an employee of Proskauer but in fact was an

employee of MLGS.

That beginning in 1998, Petitioners held discussions with Wheeler and Rubenstein

with regard to Proskauer providing legal services to Petitioners involving specific

technologies developed by Eliot I. Bernstein (one of the Petitioners in this matter)

and two others, Zakirul Shirajee and Jude Rosario collectively termed hereinafter

(“Inventors”), which technologies allowed for:

ii. Zooming of digital images and video without degradation to the quality of

the digital image due to what is commonly referred reed to as "pixelation";

and,

iii. The delivery of digital video using proprietary scaling techniques

whereby a seventy-five percent (75%) bandwidth savings was discovered and

a corresponding seventy-five percent (75%) processing power decrease and

storage efficiency were realized; and,

iv. A combination of the image zoom techniques and video scaling

techniques described above; and,


90


v. The remote control of video cameras through communications networks.

That Inventors and later Petitioners, initially engaged the services of Proskauer to

provide legal services to a company to be formed, including corporate formation

and governance for a single entity and to obtain multiple patents and oversee US

and foreign filings for such technologies including the provisional filings for the

technologies as described above, ("Technology"), and such other activities as were

necessary to protect the intellectual property represented by the Technology.

That the Technology, when bundled with third-party technologies, provides for

VHS quality video at transmission speeds of 56Kbps (“modem dial-up connection”),

previously thought to be impossible, to DVD quality at up to 6MB per second

(traditional terrestrial or broadcast station to home antennae), and has an

incredible seventy five percent (75%) savings in throughput (“bandwidth”) on any

digital delivery system such as cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery

system, or the Internet, and a similar seventy five percent (75%) savings in storage

and processing on mediums such as digital video discs (“DVD’s”), opening the door

for low bandwidth video cell phones and other revolutionary video markets.

That at the time of the engagement of Proskauer and thereafter, Petitioners’

companies and shareholders at such time, were advised and otherwise led to believe

that Rubenstein was the Proskauer partner in charge of the account for patents and

Wheeler for corporate matters, further this information was used to raise all of the

capital and included in a Wachovia Securities Private Placement Memorandum

(“PPM”), pursuant to Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, that Proskauer co-

authored, billed for and disseminated, whereby Wheeler and Rubenstein also served


91


as active members of an Advisory Board for Petitioners’ companies in which

Wheeler and Rubenstein were essential to raising capital and directing the patent

applications, copyrights and corporate matters.

That upon information and belief, Proskauer, MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein, and

Joao upon viewing the Technology developed by Inventors, realized the significance

of the Technology, its various applications to communication networks for

distributing video and images and for existing digital processes, including but not

limited to, all forms of video delivery, digital cameras, digital imaging technologies

for medical purposes and digital video, and that Proskauer, MLGS, Wheeler,

Rubenstein and Joao then conspired to undertake and in fact undertook a

deliberate course of conduct to deprive Inventors and Petitioners of the beneficial

use of such Technology for their own gains. Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein,

Wheeler and Joao, further allowed the unauthorized use of the Technology by third-

parties, such as Rubenstein’s patent pools and, pursuant to Non-Disclosure

Agreements (“NDA’s”), for multitudes of their clients that are now not enforced,

whereby Proskauer is fully cognizant of their client’s uses of Petitioners’

Technology under such NDA’s. Additionally, it is factually alleged that members of

Proskauer, members of MLGS, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao all have had

personal financial gains through the misappropriation of Petitioners’ Technology

and Proskauer has earned profit and other gains to its entire partnership and all

members, through the acquisition of the patent pools as a client (after learning of

Petitioners’ Technology), and the further exclusion of Petitioners from such patent

pools which generate enormous fees to Proskauer and perhaps other untold


92


revenues, all to the detriment and damage of the Petitioners. This behavior may

very well represent antitrust claims against Proskauer, Rubenstein and the patent

pools they oversight and directly choose patents for inclusion therein.

That Wheeler, who was a close friend of Utley, recommended to Petitioners that

Petitioners engage the services of Utley to act as President of Petitioners’ companies

based on his knowledge and ability as to technology issues.

That at the time that Wheeler made the recommendation of Utley to the Board of

Directors, Wheeler knew that Utley had been engaged in a dispute with his former

employer, Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. (“DTE”) and the fact that Utley had

misappropriated certain patents on hydro-mechanical systems to the detriment of

DTE, as Utley was terminated for cause according to Monte Friedkin (“Friedkin”),

owner of DTE and that DTE was closed due to Utley, forcing the owner to take a

several million dollar loss.

That on information and belief, Proskauer and Wheeler may have had a part in the

misappropriation of the patents from DTE with Utley, in that Wheeler had formed

a company for Utley where the misappropriated patents are believed to have been

transferred. Despite Wheeler’s involvement, Wheeler was fully cognizant of this

patent dispute with Utley and DTE, as confirmed by the former owner of DTE,

Friedkin, and further confirmed in depositions with Utley and Wheeler. That

Proskauer and Wheeler’s recommendation of Utley to the Board of Directors

knowingly failed to disclose these past patent problems to Petitioners and in fact

Proskauer and Wheeler circulated a resume on behalf of Utley claiming that as a

result of Utley’s inventions that DTE went on to become a leader in the industry,


93


when Proskauer and Wheeler knew that the company had been closed by the patent

problems of Utley and perhaps actions of Proskauer and Wheeler. That Proskauer

and Wheeler further conspired with Utley to circulate a knowingly false and

misleading resume to Petitioners’ shareholders and induced investment without

ever disclosing this information.

That despite such knowledge, Proskauer and Wheeler never mentioned such facts

concerning Utley to any representative of Petitioners and in fact undertook to "sell"

Utley as a highly qualified candidate who would be the ideal person to undertake

day to day operations of Petitioners acting as a qualified engineer which he was not.

That additionally, Proskauer and Wheeler continued to assist Utley in perpetrating

such fraud on both the Board of Directors of Petitioners and to third parties,

including for the Wachovia Securities PPM, by approving a false resume for Utley

which was included in the raising funds, pursuant to and in violation of Regulation

D of the Securities Act of 1933.

That based on the recommendations of Proskauer and Wheeler, and Wheeler

relationship as a ten year friend of Utley, the Board of Directors agreed to engage

the services of Utley as President and Chief Operating Officer based on false and

misleading information knowingly proffered by Proskauer and Wheeler.

That almost immediately after Utley's employment, Proskauer and Wheeler

provided a purported retainer agreement (“Retainer”) for the providing of services

by Proskauer to Petitioners, addressed to Utley. That the Retainer agreement

comes after one year of Proskauer providing services whereby patent disclosures

were given directly from Inventors to Proskauer partners in that time, including but


94


not limited to, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Joao. Finally, on information and belief,

Petitioners states that Proskauer through Wheeler and Utley conspired to replace

the original retainer agreement with the Petitioners companies, with the Retainer

void of patent services that were originally agreed upon and performed on. That

the services provided were in fact to be partially paid out of the royalties recovered

from the use of the Technology, which was to be included in patent pools overseen

by Proskauer and Rubenstein who had already deemed them “novel” and

“essential” to the patent pools.

That the Retainer by its terms contemplated the providing of corporate and general

legal services to Petitioners by Proskauer and was endorsed by Utley on behalf of

Petitioners, the Board of Directors of Petitioners would not have Utley authorized to

endorse same as it did not include the intellectual property work which Proskauer

and Rubenstein had already undertaken.

That prior to the Retainer, Proskauer, Rubenstein, and Wheeler had provided legal

services to Petitioners, including services regarding patents with Rubenstein being

given full disclosure of the patent processes.

That Proskauer billed Petitioners for legal services related to corporate, patent,

trademark, copyright and other work in a sum of approximately Eight Hundred

Thousand Dollars ($800,000) and now claims to have not done patent work, a

materially false statement with insurmountable evidence to the contrary, as

evidenced by the management section, including Advisory Board, for the Wachovia

Securities PPM used to induce investment and loans including from the Small

Business Administration, a federal agency, and whereby it states that Proskauer was


95


“retained patent counsel” for Petitioners companies and contrary to the current

claims by Proskauer and Rubenstein that they preformed no patent work told to

state and federal investigatory bodies.

That Proskauer billed Petitioners for copyright legal services never performed

causing loss of intellectual property rights, double-billed by the use of multiple

counsel on the same issue, falsified and altered billing information to hide patent

work and systematically overcharged for services provided.

That based on the over-billing by Proskauer, Petitioners paid a sum in of

approximately Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) together with a two

and one-half percent (2.5%) equity interest in Petitioners’ companies, which sums

and interest in Petitioners’ companies was received and accepted by Proskauer.

That Wheeler, Utley, Rubenstein, Joao, Proskauer, and MLGS conspired to deprive

Petitioners of its rights to the Technology developed by Inventors by:

xi. Aiding Joao in improperly filing patents for Petitioners Technology by

intentionally withholding pertinent information from such patent

applications and not filing same timely, to allow Joao to apply for similar

patents in his own name and other malfeasances, both while acting as counsel

for Petitioners and subsequently. That Joao now claims that since working

with Petitioners companies he has filed approximately ninety patents in his

own name, and;

xii. Upon discovery of the problems in Joao’s work and that Joao was writing

patents benefiting from Petitioners’ Technology in his name, that Proskauer,

Wheeler, Rubenstein and Utley referred the patent matters for correction to


96


Dick of Foley, who was also a close personal friend of Utley and who had

been involved, unbeknownst and undisclosed to Petitioners at the time, in the

diversion of patents to Utley at his former employer DTE, perhaps with

Wheeler, to the detriment of DTE, thereby establishing a pattern of patent

malfeasances; and,

xiii. Proskauer, Rubenstein, Wheeler, Dick and Utley further conspiring to

transfer patent assignments to the wrong companies, the formations of which

were unauthorized by Petitioners, whereby Proskauer may now have full

ownership of such patents, quite to the detriment of Petitioners and

Petitioners’ companies shareholders; and,

xiv. Proskauer, Rubenstein, Wheeler, Dick and Utley further conspiring in

the transferring of prior patent applications or the filing of new patent

applications, unbeknownst to Petitioners, conspiring with Foley so as to

name Utley as the sole holder or joint inventor of multiple patents

fraudulently and with improper assignment to improper entities, when in

fact such inventions were and arose from the Technology developed by

Inventors and held by Petitioners companies, prior to Utley's employment

with Petitioners; and,

xv. Further failing to list proper inventors and fraudulently adding inventors

to the patents, constituting charges now pending before the Commissioner of

Patents (“Commissioner”) of fraud upon the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (“USPTO”) against these attorneys as filed by Petitioners

and its largest investor Crossbow Ventures, resulting in the failure of the


97


patents to include their rightful and lawful inventors as confirmed in

conversations and correspondence with the USPTO. The wrong inventors

has lead to investors not having proper and full ownership in the patents and

in some cases NO ownership; and,

xvi. Failing to properly assign the inventions and fraudulently conveying to

investors and potential investors knowingly false and misleading intellectual

property dockets and other false and misleading information, prepared and

disseminated by these attorneys. The intellectual property dockets illustrate

false and misleading information on the inventors, assignees and owners of

the Technology. The wrong assignments may lead to investors not having

proper and full ownership in the patents; and,

xvii. Knowingly and wifully, failing to ensure that the patent applications for

the Technology contained all necessary and pertinent information relevant to

the Technology and as required by patent law; and,

xviii. Billing for, and then failing to secure copyrights. Failing to complete

copyright work for the source code for the Technology of Petitioners as

intellectual property. Further, falsifying billing statements to replace

copyright work with trademark work, although the billings are full of

copyright work that has never been performed; and,

xix. Allowing the infringement of patent rights of Petitioners and the

intellectual property of Petitioners by patent pools overseen by Proskauer

and Rubenstein, and, other clients of Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao

and Wheeler, whereby Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler


98


profit from such infringement to the detriment of Petitioners. Finally, that

Proskauer, MLGS, Rubenstein, Joao and Wheeler clients all profit from

violations of NDA’s secured by Proskauer and their partners, infringements

all to the detriment of Petitioners; and,

xx. Allowing Rubenstein, whom acted as patent counsel and an Advisory

Board member to Petitioners, full access to the patent processes to proliferate

throughout the patent pools he controls with Proskauer, causing exposure to

Petitioners. Thereafter, Rubenstein now attempts to state that he does not

know the Company, the Inventors, or the Technology and never was involved

in any way, thereby constituting perjured deposition testimony and further

false statements to a tribunal by Proskauer and Rubenstein. Witnesses and

direct evidence refute Rubenstein’s denials, and, further, Proskauer failed to

secure conflict of interest waivers from Petitioners, has no “Chinese Wall”

between Rubenstein and Petitioners, that under ordinary circumstances such

conflict waivers and separations would have been common place for

Proskauer, as a result of the patent pools and Proskauer and Rubenstein’s

involvement with such pools, which directly compete with Petitioners’

Technology. Furthermore, Rubenstein heads the following departments for

Proskauer all of which did work and billed for such work for Petitioners and

likewise would have caused conflict waivers to be secured: patents,

trademarks and copyrights, and whereby Proskauer and Rubenstein are now

the single largest benefactor of Petitioners’ Technology because of such

conflicts and failure to obtain such waivers.


99


That Petitioners, in discussions with the USPTO on or about February 1, 2004, finds

patent information different from every intellectual property docket delivered to

Petitioners by every retained patent counsel, as to inventors, assignments, and, in

particular, one or more patent applications in the name of Utley with no assignment

to Petitioners, and to which, according to the USPTO, Petitioners presently holds no

rights, titles, or interest in that particular patent application. That such patent

issues have caused Petitioners, in conjunction with its largest investor, Crossbow

Ventures (the largest South Florida venture fund) and Stephen J. Warner, the Co-

Founder and former Chairman of the Board, to file a complaint with the USTPO

alleging charges of Fraud Upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office,

now causing the Commissioner, after review, to put multiple six-month suspension

on all Petitioners’ US patent applications while investigations should proceed into

the attorney malfeasances and attempt to mitigate further damages and protect the

remaining patent applications from further loss.

That Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer, rather than pursuing the corporate

formation and governance for entities directed by the Board of Directors, proceeded

to engage in fraud and deceit by the corporate formation of multiple entities in a

multi-tiered structure thus engaging, effectively, in a “shell game” as to which entity

and under what structure would hold assignment of the Technology.

That upon information and belief, Wheeler, Rubenstein, Joao, MLGS and

Proskauer through a disingenuous scheme comprised of the unauthorized formation

of similarly named entities, unauthorized asset acquisitions and transfers,

unauthorized name changes, falsification of inventors and falsification of


100


assignments, all that effectively result in the assignment of Petitioners’sPetitioner’s

core inventions to: wrong inventors, wrong assignees, and, finally, on information

and belief, an entity, Iviewit Technologies, Inc., of which Proskauer is one of four, or

lessthe only, presumed shareholders and whereby the company was set up solely by

Proskauer to hold Proskauer stock in Petitioners’ companies, and whereby the

Petitioners’ companies shareholders now have no verifiable ownership interest in

Iviewit Technologies, Inc. which now holds several core patents, not none of these

shell transactions were ever authorized by the Board of Directors. With no evidence

of an ownership position of Petitioners in Iviewit Technologies, Inc., and whereby a

terminated Arthur Andersen audit, terminated by Arthur Andersen, failed to prove

any incident of ownership, it remains unclear if the Petitioners’ shareholders have

any interest in these patents in such unauthorized entity. This potential “shell

game” resulted from a name change from the unauthorized Proskauer entity named

originally Iviewit Holdings, Inc. to Iviewit Technologies, Inc., which was formed by

Proskauer, unbeknownst to the Board of Directors, with an identical name to a

Petitioners’ company Iviewit Holdings, Inc. that was changing its name from

Uview.com, Inc. and in the two weeks the unauthorized entity maintained an exactly

identical name to Petitioners’ to-be-renamed company, patents were assigned into

the now named Iviewit Technologies, Inc., which on the day Petitioners company

changed it’s name to Iviewit Holdings, Inc. Proskauer changed the name of their

entity from Iviewit Holdings, Inc. to Iviewit Technologies, Inc., with the assigned

patents ending up in the unauthorized company, whereby Proskauer may be a

majority shareholder with Petitioners’ investors not having any ownership in the


101


patents in the unauthorized entity. It is alleged that Proskauer maintained two sets

of corporate books, two sets of patent books and was attempting to direct the core

patents out of the Petitioners’ companies naming Utley as the inventor and leaving

Petitioners’ companies bankrupt and with inferior patents while the core

technologies were absconded with.

That Utley, Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer engaged in the transfer of a loan

from a group of Proskauer referred investors and that such loan transacted without

approval from the Board of Directors or the Petitioners’ lead investor and without

full and complete documentation of the transaction ever being properly completed

and no bank records produced to correspond to such transaction. That upon

learning of such loan transaction and requesting auditing of such transaction,

Petitioners found missing records and that, further, employees’ eyewitness

testimonies in written statements, show a large briefcase of cash, claimed to be from

the Proskauer investors, was used to attempt to bribe employees to steal trade

secrets and proprietary equipment, and further such equipment was stolen off with

by Proskauer’s management team led by Utley, as he was being fired with cause

when he was found to be misappropriating patents into his name. This alleged theft

of between Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) and One Million Dollars

($1,000,000.00) by Proskauer and their management referrals, of money loaned to

the Company, was referred to the Boca Raton Police Department who have

purportedly referred the matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission; the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (West Palm Beach) was also notified.


102


That as a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Wheeler, Rubenstein,

Joao, MLGS and Proskauer, Petitioners have been damaged in a sum estimated to

be approximately Seventeen Billion Dollars ($17,000,000,000.00), based on company

projections and corroborated by industry experts as to the value of the Technology

and the applications to current and future uses over the twenty year life of such

patents.

That the series of events outlined above, resulted in Petitioners’ filing of the

complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, Wheeler, Dick, members of SB, written

statements to the USPTO, the European Patent Office, the Japanese Patent Office,

the Department of Justice – Antitrust Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

and the Boca Raton Police Department, and subsequently this Petition.

SUMMARY

That contained in Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,

Motion for Leave to File a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ, this Brief, and the

accompanying Petition to Intervene ______________, Petitioners show a pattern of

fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, that runs so wide and so deep, that it tears at

the very fabric of free commerce, and in that the circumstances involve inventors’

rights, the pattern tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States.

Attorney for PetitionersEliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437Tel.: (561) 364-4240By:

Eliot I. Bernstein

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro SeFour Ward Street


103


Brewster, N.Y. 10509Tel.: (914) 217-0038By:

P. Stephen Lamont


104

in the supreme court of the united statesiviewit.tv/companydocs/rico/federal complaint/united... ·...

Documents