No. ________



Supreme Court of the United States








On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Florida Supreme Court


writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus

In Forma Pauperis

Eliot I. Bernstein - Pro Se

10158 Stonehenge Circle - #801
Boynton Beach, FL 33437

Counsel for Petitioners

*Additional Parties Listed on Page iii.




1.       Does this Court have the power to intercede on behalf of Petitioners' constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution when all other legal remedies instituted to protect such rights at the state level, such as access to the courts, due process and procedure and others, have all been usurped Petitioner by dubious methods employed by members of the system designed to protect such rights? 

2.       Does this Court have the power to intercede on behalf of Petitioner when the state courts and their self regulated attorney disciplinary system has been infiltrated and corrupted so as to turn the traditional mechanisms of protection for Petitioners' rights, against Petitioners' rights, by those charged with upholding such rights?

3.       Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification?

4.       Did the Florida Supreme Court not only err in decisions but in fact take actions to aid and abet members of that court and its disciplinary agencies and agents from escaping prosecution of violations of public office and conflicts of interests?

5.       Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the petition for relief and did it also err in failing to provide an opinion or explanation?

6.       Did the Florida Supreme Court err in refusing Petitioner's request for conflict of interest checks prior to considering the original petition?

7.       Did the Florida Supreme Court err in failing to seek Judicial Qualifications Commission approval as requested by Petitioner prior to the ruling on the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification, in evaluating if their order to destroy the records pertinent to conflicts of interests and violation of public offices of its members, prior to record retention policies, was an attempt to obstruct due process and procedure in effort to aid and abet its members caught in conflict and does this Court have power to levy such charges against them?

8.       Does the order to destroy the work product files of The Florida Bar and only return Petitioner filings to Petitioner constitute the basis for charges of obstruction of justice by this Court, as that courts efforts were designed to deny this Court all the facts and evidence in the matters now before this Court?

9.       Was the Florida Supreme Court obligated to report the conflicts of interest, violations of public offices at The Florida Bar they oversight, asserted and confirmed conflicts of interests, to the proper authorities? 

10.   Does the failure to report constitute basis for charges by this Court against that court for failure to uphold justice and follow state law and procedure?

11.   Was the Florida Supreme Court obligated to review the merits of attorney misconduct pursuant to their exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and discipline attorneys in the state of Florida?

12.   Did the Florida Supreme Court err and further act as accomplice by not allowing Petitioners' complaints to be filed against public office members of Respondent caught in conflict of interest and abuse of public office?  Is such refusal of complaints against public officers against the intent of the Florida and United State constitutions when creating a complaint process to protect the public's interest from conflict of interests and abuses of public offices?

13.   Did the Florida Supreme Court fail to follow judicial cannons and attorney conduct codes, in its refusal to make disclosed conflicts of interest at the Florida Supreme Court, and at the Florida civil court. 

14.   Should this Court take a leading role in establishing oversight to the administration of justice in the matters where the state supreme courts of the states having traditional jurisdiction are now in an adversarial role with Petitioner to block access to the legal and enforcement agencies of those states.


[X] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

Iviewit Technologies, Inc., any and all affiliates both known and unknown

Iviewit Holdings, Inc., any and all affiliates both known and unknown

The Florida Bar

Christopher C. Wheeler

Matthew Triggs

Eric Turner

Lorraine Hoffman

Kelly Overstreet Johnson

Joy Bartmon

Kenneth Marvin

John Anthony Boggs













Appendix C - found at www.iviewit.tv and the link on that homepage appropriately titled - United States Supreme Court Appendix C and including any other site information available throughout that site.

appendix d - Petition for extension of time draft filed with clerk of the court jeff atkins







AMENDMENT V - fifth amendment - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. due process



Rules of Professional Conduct florida

federal code

The Economic Espionage Act



the sherman act


TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1961 ("RICO")

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1962 (a) - RICO



title 18 part i ch 19 sec 1962 (d) RICo




TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1952 Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1956 Laundering of monetary instruments

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 103 SEC. 2112 - Personal property of United States

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 RELATING TO MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE Sec. 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 6 - Forfeiture of property in transit

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec 6a - Conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 14 - Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 18 - Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another

TITLE 15 CH 1 Sec 19 Interlocking directorates and officers


TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH I Sec 45 Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH I Sec 57b Civil actions for violations of rules and cease and desist orders respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices

TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH II SEC 62 - Export trade and antitrust legislation

TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH II SEC 64 - Unfair methods of competition in export trade

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 501 Infringement of copyright. 

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 502 Remedies for infringement: Injunctions

TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 503 Remedies for infringement: Impounding and disposition of infringing articles

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 504 Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 505 Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 506 Criminal offenses

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 507 Limitations on actions

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 508 Notification of filing and determination of actions

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 509 Seizure and forfeiture


TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 511 Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of copyright

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 512 Limitations on liability relating to material online

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 513 Determination of reasonable license fees for individual proprietors

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 13 Sec 1312 - Oaths and acknowledgments

TITLE 17 CH 13 Sec 1326 Penalty for false marking

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 13 Sec 1327 - Penalty for false Representation

TITLE 17 cH 13 Sec 1329 Relation to design patent law

TITLE 17 CH 13 Sec 1330 Common law and other rights unaffected

TITLE 35 PART I CH 2 Sec 25 Declaration in lieu of oath

TITLE 35 PART II CH 11 Sec 115 Oath of applicant

TITLE 35 PART II CH 11 Sec 116 Inventors

TITLE 35 PART III CH 261 Ownership; assignment


TITLE 35 PART IV CH 37 Sec 373 Improper applicant

SEC1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability

SEC 1.63 regarding Oaths and declarations


SEC 1.64 regarding person making false oaths and Declarations

SEC 1.71 regarding detailed description and specification of the invention.

SEC 1.137 for Revival of abandoned application, terminated reexamination proceeding, or lapsed patent




SEC10.18 Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Patent and Trademark Office

SEC 10.20 Canons and Disciplinary Rules

SEC 10.21 Canon 1

SEC 10.23 Misconduct

SEC 10.25 - 10.29 [Reserved] SEC 10.30 Canon 2

SEC 10.31 Communications concerning a practitioner's services

SEC 10.33 Direct contact with prospective clients

SEC 10.40 Withdrawal from employment

SEC 10.50 - 10.55 [Reserved] SEC 10.56 Canon 4

SEC 10.57 Preservation of confidences and secrets of a client

SEC 10.58 - 10.60 [Reserved] SEC 10.61 Canon 5

SEC 10.64 Avoiding acquisition of interest in litigation or proceeding before the Office

SEC 10.65 Limiting business relations with a client

SEC10.66 Refusing to accept or continue employment if the interests of another client may impair the independent professional judgment of the practitioner

SEC 10.68 Avoiding influence by others than the client

SEC 10.69 - 10.75 [Reserved] SEC 10.76 Canon 6

SEC 10.77 Failing to act competently

SEC 10.78 Limiting liability to client

SEC 10.79 - 10.82 [Reserved] SEC 10.83 Canon 7

SEC 10.84 Representing a client zealously

SEC 10.85 Representing a client within the bounds of the law

SEC 10.94 - 10.99 [Reserved] SEC 10.100 Canon 8

SEC 10.104 - 10.109 [Reserved] SEC 10.110 Canon 9

SEC 10.112 Preserving identity of funds and property of client


TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1831 Economic espionage

TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1832 Theft of trade secrets

TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1834 Criminal forfeiture


TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1837 Applicability to conduct outside the United States

TITLE 15 CH 22 TRADEMARKS Sec 1116 Injunctive relief

TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1117 - Recovery for violation of rights



TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1126 False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden



TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 Sec 156 - Knowing disregard of bankruptcy law or rule

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 Sec 157 - Bankruptcy fraud

TITLE 11 CHAPTER 1 Sec 110 - Penalty for persons who negligently or fraudulently prepare bankruptcy petitions


TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 Sec 1031 - Major fraud against the United States

TITLE 18 PART I CH 65 Sec 1361 - Government property or contracts

TITLE 18 PART I CH 103 Sec 2112 - Personal property of United States

TITLE 18 PART I CH 103 Sec 2114 - Mail, money, or other property of United States


TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2315 - Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, moneys, or fraudulent State tax stamps

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2318 - Trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, and copies of motion pictures or other audio visual works, and trafficking in counterfeit computer program documentation or packaging

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2320 - Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services

TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1621 - Perjury generally

TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1622

TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1341 - Frauds and swindles

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1342 Fictitious name or address

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1344 - Bank fraud

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1346 - Definition of ''scheme or artifice to defraud''

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1345 - Injunctions against fraud

TITLE 18 PART I CH 83 Sec 1701 - Obstruction of mails generally

TITLE 18 PART I CH 83 Sec 1702 - Obstruction of correspondence


TITLE 18 PART I CH 31 Sec 641 - Public money, property or records

Sec 654 - Officer or employee of United States converting property of another


TITLE 18 PART I CH 73 Sec 1511 - Obstruction of State or local law enforcement











TITLE XLIV - CIVIL RIGHTS Ch 760-765-760.01 the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992

760.51 Violation of constitutional rights, civil action by the Attorney General; civil penalty

Title XLV - TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.103 Prohibited activities. Title XLV TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.104 Civil cause of action.

Title XLV TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.11 Civil remedy for theft or exploitation

Title XLV TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES - 772.185 Attorney's fees taxed as costs

CH 895 - OFFENSES CONCERNING RACKETEERING AND ILLEGAL DEBTS 895.01 "Florida RICO (Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act

895.03 Prohibited activities and defense

895.04 Criminal penalties and alternative fine

895.05 Civil remedies

895.06 Civil investigative subpoenas

895.07 RICO lien notice

895.08 Term of RICO lien notice

896.102 Currency more than $10,000 received in trade or business; report required; noncompliance penalties

896.103 Transaction which constitutes separate offense 896.104 Structuring transactions to evade reporting or registration requirements prohibited


112.313 Standards of conduct for public officers, employees of agencies, and local government attorneys. 112.320 Commission on Ethics; purpose

112.324 Procedures on complaints of violations; public records and meeting exemptions

112.3241 Judicial review

112.3173 Felonies involving breach of public trust and other specified offenses by public officers and employees; forfeiture of retirement benefits

112.52 Removal of a public official when a method is not otherwise provided


CH 838 - BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE sec 838.022 Official misconduct

CH 839 - OFFENSES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES sec 839.13 Falsifying records

839.26 Misuse of confidential information

Title XLVI Ch 777 PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY sec 777.011 Principal in first degree

Title XLVI Ch 777 sec 777.03 Accessory after the fact





Ch 495 REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS sec 495.121 Fraudulent registration

Title XXXIII Ch 495  sec 495.131 Infringement

Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.141 Remedies

Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.151 Injury to business reputation; dilution

Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.161 Common-law rights

559.791 False swearing on application; penalties


sec 812.081 Trade secrets; theft, embezzlement; unlawful Copying; definitions; penalty

sec 812.13 ROBBERY

sec 812.155 Hiring, leasing, or obtaining personal property or equipment with the intent to defraud; failing to return hired or leased personal property or equipment; rules of evidence


sec 815.01 "Florida Computer Crimes Act"

sec 815.04 Offenses against intellectual property; public records exemption

sec 815.045 Trade secret information

sec 815.06 Offenses against computer users

sec 831.03 Forging or counterfeiting private labels; possession of reproduction materials

sec 831.04 Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing

sec 831.04 Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing

sec 831.05 Vending goods or services with counterfeit trademarks or service marks


sec 831.01 Forgery

sec 831.02 Uttering forged instruments

sec 831.03 Forging or counterfeiting private labels; possession of reproduction materials

831.04 Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing

831.05 Vending goods or services with counterfeit trademarks or service marks

sec 831.06 Fictitious signature of officer of corporation


CHAPTER 817 - SEC 817.02 Obtaining property by false personation

817.025 Home or private business invasion by false personation; penalties

sec 817.03 Making false statement to obtain property or credit

sec 817.031 Making false statements; venue of prosecution.

sec 817.034 Florida Communications Fraud Act

sec 817.05 False statements to merchants as to financial condition

sec 817.06 Misleading advertisements prohibited; penalty

sec 817.061 Misleading solicitation of payments prohibited.

sec 817.12 Penalty for violation of s. 817.11

sec 817.15 Making false entries, etc., on books of corporation

sec 817.155 Matters within jurisdiction of Department of State; false, fictitious, or fraudulent acts, statements, and representations prohibited; penalty; statute of limitations

sec 817.19 Fraudulent issue of certificate of stock of corporation

sec 817.20 Issuing stock or obligation of corporation beyond authorized amount

sec 817.21 Books to be evidence in such cases

sec 817.234 False and fraudulent insurance claims

sec 817.562 Fraud involving a security interest

sec 817.566 Misrepresentation of association with, or academic standing at, post secondary educational institution

sec 817.567 Making false claims of academic degree or title

sec 837.02 Perjury in official proceedings

sec 837.021 Perjury by contradictory statements

sec 837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities

sec 837.06 False official statements

220.21 Returns and records; regulations

PART X TAX CRIMES 220.901 Willful and fraudulent acts

sec 220.905 Aiding and abetting



Title XXXVI BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS Ch 607 CORPORATIONS sec 607.0129 Penalty for signing false document

607.1402 Dissolution by board of directors and shareholders; dissolution by written consent of shareholders

sec 607.0129 Penalty for signing false document

sec 607.830 General standards for directors

sec 607.830 Director conflicts of interest

sec 607.0834 Liability for unlawful distributions

sec 607.0841 Duties of officers

sec 607.0901 Affiliated transactions


New York State Consolidated Laws Penal ARTICLE 105 CONSPIRACY


S 200.03 Bribery in the second degree

S 200.04 Bribery in the first degree

S 200.05 Bribery; defense

S 200.10 Bribe receiving in the third degree

S 200.11 Bribe receiving in the second degree

S 200.12 Bribe receiving in the first degree

S 200.15 Bribe receiving; no defense

S 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree

S 200.22 Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree S 200.25 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree

S 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree

S 200.30 Giving unlawful gratuities

S 200.35 Receiving unlawful gratuities

S 200.40 Bribe giving and bribe receiving for public office; definition of term

S 200.45 Bribe giving for public office

S 200.50 Bribe receiving for public office


S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree. S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

S 175.15 Falsifying business records; defense

S 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree

S 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree S 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree

S 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree

NY Constitution ARTICLE XIII Public Officers

Public Officers  - Public Officers ARTICLE 1

ARTICLE 2 Appointment and Qualification of Public Officers - ARTICLE 15 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS

S 468-b. Clients` security fund of the state of New York

S 476-a. Action for unlawful practice of the law

S 476-b. Injunction to restrain defendant from unlawful practice of the law

S 476-c. Investigation by the attorney-general

S 487. Misconduct by attorneys

S 488. Buying demands on which to bring an action.

Public Officers Law SEC 73 Restrictions on the Activities Of Current and Former State Officers and Employees

Public Officers Law SEC 74 Code of Ethics



S 460.20 Enterprise corruption

S 460.25 Enterprise corruption; limitations

S 460.30 Enterprise corruption; forfeiture

S 460.40 Enterprise corruption; jurisdiction

S 460.50 Enterprise corruption; prosecution

S 460.60 Enterprise corruption; consent to prosecute

S 460.70 Provisional remedies

S 460.80 Court ordered disclosure


S 210.05 Perjury in the third degree

S 210.10 Perjury in the second degree

S 210.15 Perjury in the first degree

S 210.20 Perjury; pleading and proof where inconsistent statements involved

S 210.25 Perjury; defense

S 210.30 Perjury; no defense

S 210.35 Making an apparently sworn false statement in the second degree

S 210.40 Making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree

S 210.45 Making a punishable false written statement

S 210.50 Perjury and related offenses; requirement of corroboration



CH 5 SPECIFIC OFFENSES Subch I Inchoate Crimes SEC 521 Conspiracy SEC 531 Attempt to commit a crime

SEC 871 Falsifying business records; class A misdemeanor.

SEC 891 Defrauding secured creditors; class A misdemeanor

SEC 909 Securing execution of documents by deception


SEC 102. Contents of certificate of incorporation ›Amendment effective Aug. 1, 2004, included; see 74 Del. Laws, c. 32.

SEC 224. Form of records

SEC251. Merger or consolidation of domestic corporations and limited liability company

SEC253. Merger of parent corporation and subsidiary or subsidiaries

SEC 257 Merger or consolidation of domestic stock and nonstock corporations

SEC 372 Additional requirements in case of change of name, change of business purpose or merger or consolidation





TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > SEC 1831 Economic espionage

other federal, state, and international crimes and treatise violations

For a complete listing of currently known federal, state and international laws that have been violated in the commission of these crimes and filed with state, federal and international authorities, subject to further additions as more information is learned, are all evidenced in Appendix C.



No. ________



Supreme Court of the United States








On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Florida Supreme Court


writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus


Petitioner Eliot I. Bernstein respectfully requests that a WRIT OF CERTIORARI; EXTRAORDINARY WRIT; WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION and WRIT OF MANDAMUS all be issued to review the judgment and opinion of the Florida Supreme Court entered in this case and to review all related matters described herein and in Appendix C.



The Florida Supreme Court order denying Petitioner's petition for rehearing, clarification and certification is reported at unknown. That court's motion for Judgment Non Prosequitur was denied on January 12th 2005.


[X] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was January 12th 2005. A copy of that decision appears at Appendix A.

[X] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date April 25th 2005:, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix B.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. SEC1257(a); 28 U.S.C. SEC1651(a);.


The relevant constitutional and statutory provisions are as follows:

United States Constitution Article I, SEC 8, cl.8

The Congress shall have Power To…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

fifth amendment - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. due process

No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

seventh amendment - trial by jury in civil cases

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

fourteenth amendment - citizenship rights

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

florida CONSTITUTION - section 15 - attorneys; admission and discipline

The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.

florida CONSTITUTION - section 21 - access to courts

The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

florida CONSTITUTION - section 22 - trial by jury

The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate. The qualifications and the number of jurors, not fewer than six, shall be fixed by law.

florida CONSTITUTION - section 24 - access to public records and meetings

(a)  Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution.

florida CONSTITUTION - section 8 - ETHICS in government

A public office is a public trust. The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that trust against abuse. To assure this right:

c)  Any public officer or employee who breaches the public trust for private gain and any person or entity inducing such breach shall be liable to the state for all financial benefits obtained by such actions. The manner of recovery and additional damages may be provided by law.

(g)  A code of ethics for all state employees and nonjudicial officers prohibiting conflict between public duty and private interests shall be prescribed by law.

florida CONSTITUTION - section 9 - due process

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

the florida statutes - title v - judicial branch - chapter 38 - judges; general provisions - disqualification when judge party; effect of attempted judicial acts

Every judge of this state who appears of record as a party to any cause before him or her shall be disqualified to act therein, and shall forthwith enter an order declaring himself or herself to be disqualified in said cause. Any and all attempted judicial acts by any judge so disqualified in a cause, whether done inadvertently or otherwise, shall be utterly null and void and of no effect. No judge shall be disqualified from sitting in the trial of any suit in which any county or municipal corporation is a party by reason that such judge is a resident or taxpayer within such county or municipal corporation.

florida - suggestion of disqualification; grounds; proceedings on suggestion and effect

In any cause in any of the courts of this state any party to said cause, or any person or corporation interested in the subject matter of such litigation, may at any time before final judgment, if the case be one at law, and at any time before final decree, if the case be one in chancery, show by a suggestion filed in the cause that the judge before whom the cause is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto, or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in said cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to said cause, but such an order shall not be subject to collateral attack. Such suggestions shall be filed in the cause within 30 days after the party filing the suggestion, or the party's attorney, or attorneys, of record, or either of them, learned of such disqualification, otherwise the ground, or grounds, of disqualification shall be taken and considered as waived. If the truth of any suggestion appear from the record in said cause, the said judge shall forthwith enter an order reciting the filing of the suggestion, the grounds of his or her disqualification, and declaring himself or herself to be disqualified in said cause. If the truth of any such suggestion does not appear from the record in said cause, the judge may by order entered therein require the filing in the cause of affidavits touching the truth or falsity of such suggestion. If the judge finds that the suggestion is true, he or she shall forthwith enter an order reciting the ground of his or her disqualification and declaring himself or herself disqualified in the cause; if the judge finds that the suggestion is false, he or she shall forthwith enter the order so reciting and declaring himself or herself to be qualified in the cause. Any such order declaring a judge to be disqualified shall not be subject to collateral attack nor shall it be subject to review. Any such order declaring a judge qualified shall not be subject to collateral attack but shall be subject to review by the court having appellate jurisdiction of the cause in connection with which the order was entered.

disqualification of judge for prejudice; application; affidavits; etc

Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court, where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith. However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has been assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.


the tenth commandment
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."
One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which G-d has given to another.

This case comes before you as an appeal of a decision of the Florida Supreme Court ("FSC") denying Petitioners motion for rehearing, clarification and certification.  It also is an appeal of the decision of the FSC denying, again without issuing opinion, Petitioners Judgment Non Prosequitur.  The procedural and substantive aspects of those cases and the related matters are described in detail commencing at page 20, infra., under of the caption STATEMENT OF THE CASE REDUX.

The events underlying the case before this Court demonstrates that the events leading up to this appeal are a farce, a smoke screen, fraught with conflicts of interest and abuse of process and power in an attempt to take your eyes off the much larger case of patent theft by entrusted attorneys who violated their oaths under G-d to protect their clients' inventions as guaranteed in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.  In the process they violated a host of federal, state and international criminal codes and committed many torts against Petitioner in tandem with a complete and total violation of the attorney conduct codes in several states.  Do not let "smoke get blown up your ass" with the FSC nonsense before you, for the Florida case is so fraught with conflicts of interest and abuses of public office as to make it is worthless.  So outrageous, as to stand as evidence of a desperate attempt by the same attorney criminals that to date have been permitted to steal the patents, to then attempt a cover-up to evade the evidence and witnesses against them, hiding from the court room in legal trickery, through abuse of process and procedure, infiltrating the legal system and public office disguised as honest attorneys.  To evade prosecution these corrupt attorneys penetrated and planted some very conflicted attorneys from the Proskauer Rose LLP ("Proskauer") law firm, and others related to their firm, throughout the ethics and disciplinary departments and the civil courts, to derail Petitioners' rights to due process.  This was accomplished by causing each of Petitioners' complaints to be dismissed without the merits ever being considered.  Wherever charges were brought against them, conflict of interests are found in the state bar associations and disciplinary departments and in the civil courts, where all conflicts known at this time lead back to Proskauer.  The attorneys recruited to carry out the cover up positioned in conflict to derail the complaints against their partners, directly influencing the outcome and acting as counselor to parties when prohibited by their office roles and rules. 

In Florida, and in New York, it will be evidenced herein and in Appendix C, that an almost identical set of conflicts and abuses of public offices exist, again corruption elevates to the highest positions in those state disciplinary departments and courts.  That so much evidence and witnesses now stand against these attorneys the only way to delay certain retribution was to cover-up through public office violations and denial of Petitioners' rights to due process, access to the courts and finally stripping rights all together to complain against them.  As you read the lower court's work and then start with the original complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler[1] ("Wheeler"), it is the beginning of learning about a much broader and unbelievable crime of patent theft that has come to be discovered over the past several years as well as attorneys for Petitioner converting Petitioners' inventions for their own use and profit.  These crimes have culminated in some high level officials at federal agencies now investigating these attorneys and other professionals involved, in what perhaps is the most diabolical crime ever attempted in the history of our country.  One of the most sophisticated crimes in that it involved every level of abuse of attorney privileges and violations of confidences and oaths, including violations of the patent bar and violations of state supreme court public offices.  In the state supreme courts of Florida and New York where conflict and abuse of public offices has been evidenced and confirmed, and in New York even ordered for investigation, is the only place you will find that these attorneys who controlled the disciplinary process and courts evaded prosecution by misuse of the legal system.  Further they are found attempting to put on an air of vindication using the disciplinary departments as a shield.  Through smoke and mirrors mired in conflicts of interest and public office corruption leaving them controlling the disciplinary departments and certain high level court positions, they then acted as if these legal institutions were their own private law firm and used the letterhead of the state bars and the courts to advance positions in their favor when no formal investigations or due process has ever been undertaken.    

The lawyers and their law firms accused herein and in Appendix C, are on the other hand under very real investigations by the federal patent bar Office of Enrollment and Discipline ("OED") Director, Harry I. Moatz ("Moatz"), as well as the Commissioners office ("Commissioner") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for charges of fraud on the USPTO by the lawyers and their law firms defined herein and in Appendix C.  The patent theft is a very clever attempt by the patent attorneys and their cohorts, to convert their client inventors' patents into their own names and others, for monetization in patent pools that inure benefit to them instead of the true and proper inventors.  The patent office has suspended the patents of Petitioner based on the charges filed, on the bequest of Moatz, of fraud upon the USPTO.  Moatz and his offices found that attorney dockets for the intellectual property are materially false and misleading, including containing patents that they cannot disclose ownership to Petitioner and Petitioner companies' shareholders (the list of companies now uncovered has evidence of all of the following companies: UVIEW.COM, INC. - DL; IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. - DL; IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. - DL; IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. - FL; IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. - DL;       IVIEWIT.COM, INC. - FL; IVIEWIT.COM, INC. - DL; I.C., INC. - FL; IVIEWIT.COM LLC - DL; IVIEWIT LLC - DL; IVIEWIT CORPORATION - FL; IVIEWIT, INC.  - FL; IVIEWIT, INC. - DEL.) hereinafter referred to as ("Companies"), citing the Freedom of Information Act and where Moatz stated an act of congress would be necessary to disclose whose patents these are.  With that information, Moatz discharged all prior counselors from the patents and instituted formal investigations causing suspension of certain intellectual properties by the Commissioner while the matters are investigated by the Commissioner's office.  That false and misleading information to Petitioner and Petitioner Companies' Shareholders ("Shareholders"), who invested in the patents, who now find they have no rights, titles or interests in certain patents and companies and that these intellectual property dockets were prepared by Proskauer, Foley, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel ("MLGWS") and Blakely Sokoloff Taylor and Zafman ("BSTZ"), all submitted to investors and institutional funds to raise capital including the federally backed SBA.  This takes the crimes against the government, financial institutions, international patent authorities, Petitioner and the Shareholders to new levels since all of them were transmitted such false patent information. If that did not catch your eye as cause to investigate the same attorneys at the state bar level or at least work with federal authorities to collaborate efforts, it certainly shows an inconsistency that must be reckoned. How are the state bars writing letters of accommodations for the accused attorneys when federal authorities have begun formal procedural investigation on the same nexus of events and evidence?  How have the state bars overlooked the obvious, that the patents were in the wrong inventors' names; in some instances in the attorneys name and in others in Brian Utley's ("Utley") name[2]?  Utley a Proskauer referred[3] President and Chief Operating Officer for Petitioner Companies who claimed under deposition to have no patents in his name and this directly is refuted by Moatz's information at the USPTO.  Yet, when FSC and TFB were presented this overwhelming evidence, they ignored it and refused to talk or work with Moatz.  

The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") has taken the case to United States Attorney and has contacted the USPTO and Moatz to collaborate their investigations.  Again, one might ask why the state bars and state courts, looking at the same information, are rushing to judgment in favor of the accused attorneys without investigation and based on conflict riddled reviews.  The Inspector Generals office of the Small Business Administration ("SBA") is beginning to audit the trail of their investment monies and what has happened to their rights in the patents obtained through SBIC loans to a Proskauer referred venture capitalist.  Again The Florida Bar ("TFB") and FSC were presented evidence of the crimes committed by the attorneys against the United States and they refused to recognize these crimes that were presented to them and take any action.  As Petitioner learned more and more of these activities, Petitioner sent submission after submission to the bars who took an adversarial role against Petitioner and where TFB actually and without authority became the advocate and spokesperson for the same attorneys now under investigations.  Patents around the world will be in a total state of chaos if these actions are allowed to stand and cause loss of inventor rights and all directly due to attorney corruption and delays in due process.  Further loss now is caused by failure of the attorney complaint process to discipline and act according to their own laws and procedures.

Upon discovering evidence that patents were being stolen by the accused attorneys in conjunction with our accountants and management employees all referred by the accused attorneys, they were fired for cause.  The evidence was just a few pieces of paper at the time that were found in Utley's possession showing patents going into the wrong companies (albeit named similarly to Petitioner companies), in fraudulent inventors' names and where the named other inventors had no involvement in the invention process.  As we dug deeper, ninety patents were discovered in our attorneys name and they all resemble ideas learned under attorney/client privileges, quite the conflict.  A patent pool[4], MPEGLA, LLC. ("MPEG"), was acquired by the main protagonist Proskauer, to directly monetize and proliferate the inventions of their client converting such royalties to themselves.  MPEG and its founder, Kenneth Rubenstein ("Rubenstein"), gatekeeper to patent inclusion in the pool, of which Petitioners' technologies stood as a direct competitive threat to make obsolete, was at once acquired by Proskauer after learning of inventors' inventions.  MPEG then took the inventions as their own and began bundling and tying it with thousand of products, creating a barrier to entry to market of Petitioner and Shareholders, a major oversight of the antitrust laws they were supposed to be protecting Petitioner against. 

The FSC case before you is composed of conflicts and abuse of public offices to give you the impression that this case has been tried and heard and that is factually untrue.  In fact, in Florida in the state civil court, then at TFB, lawyers were found to have infiltrated the legal processes and acted to deny due process and keep the matters out of court and disciplinary actions, through handling complaints by persons directly in conflict of interest and violation of public office.  Those conflicts caused the complaint process to be tainted and was affirmed by TFB, proving that a Grievance Committee Member and Proskauer partner, Mathew Triggs ("Triggs"), had violated his public office.  Charges should have been filed immediately upon affirmation of the conflict.  Instead we find not only did TFB not file charges against a member caught violating a public office, they then denied the right of Petitioner and Shareholders to file complaint against Triggs and have it publicly docketed and afforded due process.  When evidenced to the FSC, including evidence that the corruption elevated to the executive offices of TFB, they too denied Petitioner and Shareholders due process and attempted to cause the case before you to go away through surreptitious orders, including orders to destroy the evidence. 

This may make FSC accomplice and culpable to the crimes.  The order to destroy the TFB files before this Court or law enforcement could prosecute the conflicts and violations of public offices stands not as an err in judgment but actions to aid and abet in evading prosecution.  FSC and TFB's attempt to destroy the case files, work product and evidence was with the intent to destroy the evidence before it was reviewed, including by this Court.  In fact, even upon motion for rehearing, clarification and certification which the FSC knew would escalate the matters to this Court they still gave the document execution orders to TFB.  That this petition stands not only as a call for this Court to review errors in the lower courts' decisions but to file charges against them for their involvement.

New evidence exposes that when the Proskauer accused attorneys discovered that the inventions were being heralded as the "holy grail" and worth a trillion dollars by leading industry experts, they told Petitioner and Shareholders that they were going to file for patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets that they billed Petitioner and Shareholders for.  They intentionally concealed that they were writing a second set of patents similar to Petitioners' inventions in name and in concept, with fraudulent owners, applicants and inventors.  They then brought in Dick from Foley, when evidence surfaced that Raymond Joao ("Joao"), an attorney referred by Proskauer under questionable and suspicious employment claims, claiming initially to be with Proskauer[5], was found possibly converting inventions in his name and leaving material pertinent to Petitioner patents out of the applications and failing to file certain inventions entirely, to replace Joao and fix errors that Foley claimed were repairable[6]

Dick failed to disclose to Petitioner and Shareholders that he was part of the scheme that attempted to commit theft of intellectual property causing loss to a South Florida businessman, as described herein.  Yet as the inventors signed oaths on their inventions, the new attorneys from Foley like Joao before them, threw out the corpus of the inventions and replaced them with frivolous filings certain to fail and wrote fraudulent applications to continue the scheme.  Proskauer's next step was to set up companies for Petitioner and Shareholders to hold the bogus patents.  They then fraudulently set up similar and identically named companies for themselves to house the stolen patents, for they needed those patents to truly monetize the pools and control the technologies, after getting rid of Petitioner and Shareholders. This crime just described violates the fundamentals of the Constitution which could lead to catastrophic endangerment of free commerce, as the sanctity of the patent office is defiled by those sworn to uphold it.  Before this Court stands these issues, not the Florida Court decision of the bar complaint review process on Wheeler and whether the review was done well or not.

The case before you arrived here through a cover up attempt by those caught in the act.  Once the first evidence was discovered against them and at the time it was only a small fragment, they began an immediate retaliation to destroy the companies, the inventor and to try to erase from the record their crimes.  In doing so, they began litigation, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit Technologies, Inc., Iviewit.com, Inc. and Iviewit Holdings, Inc., Case No. CA 01-04671 AB in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida ("Litigation") and an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy action, Case 01-33407-BKC-SHF in the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Florida ("Bankruptcy") against their own fraudulent companies, identically named to Petitioners, that housed the stolen patents by suing them and bankrupting them through felonious legal actions, with the intent of recovering the stolen core patents and other intellectual properties buried within.  It was by chance that after firing the accused attorneys and their management for cause that while doing due diligence for a twenty five million dollar (U.S. $25,000,000.00) license and investment, it was discovered by members of American Online Time Warner/Waner Bros. ("AOLTW/WB") that these legal actions existed and there went that deal.  In the same moment the lead investor in the company, referred by Proskauer, pulled funding and the companies were devastated.  Further, at the time the actions were discovered it was not known by Petitioner or Shareholders that the legal actions instituted against the companies by Proskauer in the Litigation and their management and others including Intel in the Bankruptcy, were against companies that were not owned by Petitioner and Shareholders but were identically named corporations owned by the attorneys and others. 

In fact, upon finding out of the legal actions, Petitioner contacted a friend, Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. who retained replacement counsel for the counsel that was representing the companies without authorization or retainers and without management or shareholder knowledge.  Rogers brought in bankruptcy counsel but that matter was instantly dropped.  In the Litigation it did not go away so fast, as counsel was retained and although nobody knew at the time that these were fraudulent actions on fraudulent companies in an attempt to abscond with stolen patents, the Shareholders began representing the actions.  The Litigation was a billing dispute instigated unbeknownst to Shareholder by Proskauer days after being fired with cause and failing to come to board meetings to explain themselves and the fragments of evidence uncovered to the remaining board.  These legal actions were efforts to get rid of the fraudulent companies and stolen patents before anyone discovered them.  Arthur Andersen at the time, was in an almost year long audit when they accused the accountant, Gerald Lewin ("Lewin") and Erika Lewin ("E. Lewin") of Goldstein Lewin & Co., PA ("Goldstein")[7], of misleading auditors regarding the corporate structure and immediately thereafter Andersen terminated the audit.  Petitioner and Shareholders did not find the transactional documents for years after the audit was terminated showing this evidence as exhibited in Appendix C and its exhibits.  Almost surreal this appears when looked at with hindsight of what really was going on and understood in light of the new evidence, to be the cause of very real suspensions on patents at the USPTO and investigations by federal authorities.  At first glance one might think that this was all unbelievable and then heap upon it all this collateral smoke screen at the bars and one might believe that it is impossible, yet dig at the evidence for a few days and it is irrefutable.  In the Litigation, after reviewing the matters without full knowledge that the companies were mirror companies owned by Proskauer, attorney Steven Selz ("Selz") filed a counter claim based on what little evidence existed at the time, advancing that fraud had taken place on the USPTO and other crimes against the Shareholders had been committed by their attorneys, accountants and management.

Amazingly, Judge Jorge Labarga ("Labarga") refused the counter claim stating that it came untimely and that prior counsel, Sachs, Sax & Klien ("Sachs") had somehow gave up the right to a defense.  The problem, Sachs was hired by Proskauer agents to represent the bogus companies.  Reviewing the Litigation by counsel now hired by Petitioners' Companies, Selz, the first thing that became apparent was that Proskauer sued companies that they had no retainer with and no bills for, and it appeared they were suing the wrong companies.  This was ignored by Labarga who refused to dismiss the action based on this fact evidencing that they had no cause to file against these entities.  Selz then took depositions on the key protagonists, Wheeler, Utley, Rubenstein and Lewin and what was learned was even more fascinating, they had lied and perjured themselves to no end.  In fact, Rubenstein had written a sworn statement to Labarga, in attempt to avoid his deposition, professing that he did not know anything about the inventions, inventors and that Proskauer had not done any intellectual property work.  Rubenstein claimed that he had merely referred Petitioner and Shareholders to his former law firm and Joao[8].  Further, Rubenstein wrote the judge that since he never had any involvement that this was a form of harassment and that he would not be deposed.  Yet, the judge ordered him to deposition and it was unbelievable what happened there, Rubenstein was confronted by Selz regarding his sworn statement to Labarga about not knowing the companies or inventors and was presented evidence to refute his claims, including the Proskauer billings where his name was logged in for over three years of dealings with the company and portraying far more involvement than his sworn statement to Labarga.  Rubenstein had also tendered a written response to a bar complaint against him in New York and the deposition showed perjured statements either in his sworn statements to the bar and judge or in his sworn deposition statements.  Rubenstein refused to answer direct deposition questions and left his deposition, demanding that Selz, take his refusal up with Labarga[9].  For Wheeler, deposition was equally as revealing and perjured statements cropped up in his testimony versus his sworn statements to TFB.  Wheeler the main corporate attorney was unable to explain even his own corporate set up in deposition and attempted to refuse to return to deposition to even answer the questions he stated he would have to check his notes to answer.  Both Rubenstein and Wheeler refused to return to even a second day of deposition and Selz had to motion the judge to compel them back to answer the questions they had refused under direct deposition.  With evidence that Rubenstein had perjured statements in his deposition versus statements written to the judge, it looked like only a moment until justice would prevail.  The judge ordered Rubenstein and Wheeler back to deposition to answer the questions they refused and finish their depositions.  That day, as yet has not come.

The next obstruction of justice, denial of due process and prevention of access to the courts came when the trial that was scheduled in the Litigation was cancelled without notification to Petitioner or Shareholders counsel.  Petitioner was then usurped two different counselors representing him, Selz and Schiffrin & Barroway LLP ("SB")[10] in the Litigation that had been representing him, at the rescheduling of the trial both counsels for Petitioner submitted withdrawal of counsel motions stating the other counsel would represent Petitioner at the rescheduled hearing.  The judge instead granted both counselors the right to withdraw and on the eve of trial left no one representing Petitioner and Shareholders, all inapposite of Petitioner and Shareholders' rights.  Labarga called Petitioner from the gallery to the bench, where he informed Petitioner that he had dismissed his counsels and that if he did not find replacement counsel immediately for such a complicated case, that a default would be entered against him.  For the next weeks, with very little funds even though there was a binding signed LOU by SB that was to pay two million dollars on signing and provide representation to Petitioner and Shareholders in the Litigation and where this breach after signing by SB caused catastrophic financial disaster which at the time rendered Petitioner, who had forgone other investments based on the legal case against Proskauer, to be left on the table in favor of the SB LOU and legal retainer, now unable to secure counsel and investment in such short notice.  Counsel Selz then went missing on vacation, leaving Petitioner with no access to the case files necessary to find replacement counsel.  One can now only wonder at how this travesty occurred but it appears a well intentioned plan to deny Petitioner counsel, bribe a judge to overlook high crimes against the United States and ignore judicial cannons obligating Labarga to report those accused lawyers practicing before him.  Through denying Petitioner his fundamental rights to access the civil legal system, right to due process, to trial, access to the courts and finally legal representation, Petitioner had no venue left to press claims and defend his constitutional rights.  Labarga immediately granted a default against Petitioner and Shareholders for failure to obtain replacement counsel and Petitioner pleaded with that court to allow Pro Se representation for Shareholders by management, until counsel could be found or the SB LOU could be enforced to provide counsel as called for under the binding LOU and legal retainer.  All these pleas fell on deaf ears.  This led to a filing with the Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") Docket No. 03352 against Labarga, for his part in aiding and abetting and otherwise violating his judicial cannons.

Driven to poverty and with the companies destroyed, unable to secure investment with the patent shenanigans going on, Petitioner turned to the state bar and disciplinary departments for the attorney conduct complaints that had been filed and put on hold pending the conclusion of the Litigation, to now finally begin to press the claims of attorney misconduct.  Evidencing new information of attorney perjured statements to TFB that showed that attorneys Wheeler and Rubenstein had committed perjury in their depositions that completely contradicted former sworn statements to the state bars could not be overlooked, these were direct perjured statements.  What happened next and all before discovering that conflicts were causing derailment, made TFB look like an attorney protection agency and consumer unfriendly place.

This is where the case before you begins to serve as evidence of how these attorneys have avoided prosecution through illegal infiltration of the processes that could prosecute them.  This will reveal yet another layer of crimes, crimes to prevent due process and usurp Petitioner and Shareholders access to the legal complaint process, established under the Florida Constitution.  The Proskauer/Wheeler Complaint, TFB Case #2003-51 109 15(C) and second Proskauer/Wheeler Complaint, TFB Case #(To Be Determined), were filed evidencing that Wheeler had partaken in a host of criminal activities against Petitioner, Shareholders, the United States government and foreign nations, in a violation of almost every Rule of Professional Conduct in Florida.  The Proskauer/Wheeler original bar complaint had been put on hold pending the conclusion of the civil Litigation and months went by during the Litigation where Petitioners were denied the ability to press these charges of crimes and violations of ethics in either forum, the Labarga court or the state bar, including crimes against the United States; caught in a catch 22 where Labarga's refusal to hear the counter complaint issues and the bars refusal to hear the attorney complaint issues, left Petitioner and Shareholders unable to press the claims in any venue, as would normally be provided.  A complete denial of access to the courts, access to counsel and a forum to be heard in by the very members of the legal community that were entrusted with providing such access and using dubious methods to achieve such in violation of the laws and rules.  Finally, at the conclusion of the Litigation, the bar began a "review", not an immediate investigation, of the matters, and concluded that they would not undertake prosecution of the Proskauer/Wheeler bar complaint and dismissed the case based on such review.  Staggering amounts of direct evidence had been presented to TFB in the Wheeler complaint and company rebuttal to the Triggs conflicted response on behalf of Wheeler (over one thousand pages).  Evidence that irrefutably showed cause for investigation, such as perjured statements to TFB[11] and yet TFB refused.  To add insult to injury, the bar reviewer Hoffman went further than just stating TFB was not going to prosecute and where without investigation, TFB is not permitted to espouse opinion in favor of either party according to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, yet that is exactly what transpired.  TFB had taken a position that based on review and not formal and tried investigation of the facts, evidence and witnesses, was in support of the very weak position maintained by Proskauer and Wheeler in their defense to the complaints, as if Proskauer were writing the letters for themselves.

That it was discovered after several levels of review and further letters supporting Proskauer that were tendered by the various reviewers, that Proskauer in fact was controlling the bar process with Triggs representing the Proskauer/Wheeler bar complaint in violation of his public office position with TFB.  Triggs was handling the complaint against his partner Wheeler while in a blackout period that prevented his representation of anyone before TFB for a period of one-year.  Plain and simple Triggs acted within the year and failed to disclose such conflict of interest and violation of his public office and acted for over a year without ever disclosing or seeking approval for his conflict and violations.  Complaints were filed against Triggs for the violation of public office and conflict of interest and even after securing affirmation from TFB, in writing in a letter dated July 9th 2004[12], showing that Triggs had violated his public office. TFB then refused to allow Petitioner and Shareholders an opportunity to press their claims by denying the  formal written complaint and refusing formal docketing and procedure.  This refusal stands directly against the intent of the Florida Constitution in creating TFB to handle formal complaints, further derailing the Petitioner and Shareholders of their rights to due process and procedure by now denying complaints for affirmed violations of public office against public officials.  How high did the conflicts elevate in TFB to be able to suppress the Petitioner and Shareholders their rights to the legal complaint process against corrupt attorneys? Evidence now shows conflicts and violations of office extending all the way to the President of TFB, Kelly Overstreet Johnson ("Johnson"). Johnson coincidently was found being a direct report to the brother of the main protagonist, James Wheeler ("J. Wheeler"), in a small Florida law firm.  This conflict of interest became known after Johnson began receiving Petitioner and Shareholders complaints for months from the Petitioner and Shareholders with pleas to intercede on behalf of their efforts to force formal docketing and disposition of the complaint against Triggs and begin formal charges against Triggs and Wheeler for conflict and abuse of office.  Also, pleas to have the Triggs responses tendered in conflict voided from the Wheeler complaint record and all prior complaint reviews re-evaluated in light of the conflicts and without their prejudicial influence, as would be required by law and procedure were submitted to Johnson.  Although Johnson took the information again and again, she failed to disclose the obvious conflict she had with Wheeler's brother, until of course she was confronted with the fact that Petitioner and Shareholders had discovered her conflicts and asked for formal written disclosure, upon which she refused to tender and had TFB counsel call and state that she would no longer take any submissions or speak with Petitioner in regard to the matters.

With no further ado and realizing that further complaints were frivolous at TFB having exhausted every level of review, Petitioner and Shareholders appealed the matters to the direct oversight of TFB, as instituted in the Florida Constitution, the FSC.  FSC at once issued orders to halt a proposed destruction of the Proskauer/Wheeler complaint files by TFB, prior to record retention rules and prior to the FSC review of the misconduct at TFB of its members[13].  Later without investigation into the matters FSC reversed their decision by ordering Petitioner's motion for Non Prosequitur denied, except to allow TFB to continue in the unlawful destruction of the files.  This constitutes cause for this Courts direct intervention.  Further, FSC then overturned a previous order for TFB to tender a response to the Petition and the allegations contained therein and when a non-response to the substantive issues was tendered they ruled to move the case closed without affording Petitioner the opportunity of further due process and procedure, all without explanation or basis in law.  Again reason for this Court to see that not only did they err in decision but actively participated in the denial of due process and procedure with intent to cover up crimes that had penetrated TFB.  The Justices, all being members of the opposing party, TFB, can be viewed as taking a matter where they have direct membership interests in one of the parties, and failing to disclose or respond to formal requests for their disclosure, as a means to handle the matters in conflict and protect the organization that they have ultimate state oversight for.  No longer is Petitioner asking this Court to review their errs in the matter, but institute charges against FSC and TFB for their direct involvement in furthering the crimes and failing their legal Rules of Professional Conduct and judicial cannons to uphold justice and afford citizens civil rights to fair and impartial access to the courts, due process, the attorney complaint process and counsel.  This same set of fact patterns emerges in New York and soon will rise to this Court for review as will be evidenced herein and in Appendix C.


By way of example, all of the following missteps and miscues in case SC04-1078, make the lower courts actions null and void, such as:

                                             i.            Ignoring Johnson's conflict with Wheeler's brother James Wheeler where Johnson failed to disclose this obvious conflict while accepting Petitioner complaint submissions on Wheeler and others for several months. 

                                           ii.            Ignoring the affirmed conflicts of interest and abuse of public office of Triggs.  Triggs also simultaneously acted as Proskauer counsel in the Litigation for Proskauer with a similar nexus of events while holding a TFB active role.  As such, this would have invalidated both the Litigation and the Wheeler complaint and set off a host of other conflicts as evidenced to FSC in the Triggs complaint attached to the original petition.  Triggs would have been precluded from maintaining both cases with a similar nexus of events where he has direct interest in the outcome, including ownership in Iviewit stock because Petitioner conveyed Iviewit stock to Proskauer in exchange for intellectual property and other legal fees.  These are the reasons a complaint was filed against Triggs for abuse of his public office and conflict, not surprisingly, the Triggs complaint was refused by TFB and FSC to be formally docketed and procedurally disposed of according to established law.

                                          iii.            Wheeler, who has recently been arrested in the DUI, having had an additional complaint filed against him for conflicts, including knowingly selecting Triggs to represent him in conflict in a blackout period.  That second complaint against Wheeler cited in Petitioners' petitions to FSC also went without formal docketing, due process and procedure by TFB and then FSC.

                                         iv.            Due to the discovery of conflicts at TFB and after conflict was discovered and affirmed by TFB, TFB attempted to hurriedly destroy the complaint file on Wheeler and Triggs prior to the time permitted under the state record retention laws in effort to obstruct justice and failed to prosecute Triggs as is a proscribed part of their duties on behalf of Petitioner complaint.  After ordering a halt on the destruction, FSC overturned their prior ruling, ordering without explanation the destruction of the TFB work product files.

                                           v.            The FSC order for TFB to respond to Petitioners petition which included the charges of conflict of interests and abuses of public office that went unanswered.  TFB's response addressed the court and parties incorrectly, so as to make the response unintelligible and legally invalid and further failed to address any of the claims asserted in the petition.  Again, TFB knew that they had to avoid having the merits considered at any level.  FSC, after realizing that TFB was unable to respond to the issues of public office abuse and conflict, then ruled against Petitioner by denying hearing the case further and attempted to aid evasion of prosecution of the confirmed conflicts and deny Petitioner further due process. 

                                         vi.            The United States Government through these SBA loans is the largest single shareholder in Petitioner companies and therefore the largest investor in the stolen patents. Regarding stolen investment funds from the companies by the putative attorneys and their management, formal filings were made at the Boca Raton Police Department ("Boca PD").  Boca PD has been supposedly investigating the matters now for several years and where Boca PD had told Petitioner they had taken the matters to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for collaborate investigation on the advice of the State Attorney and that this was what was taking so much time for investigations as stated by Detective Robert Flechaus.  Evidence showing that the SEC was never informed by Boca PD of the crimes was evidenced in a motion to FSC, including a plea for intervention to protect Petitioner and others, based on such information that Boca PD was transmitting false information.  The motion was denied stating to take the matters to another court, without explanation of what court, and then FSC removed the motion from the public docket on their website, after it had been docketed.  Petitioner, subsequent to the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification, filed yet another motion to FSC asking for clarification as to what court they referred to and why once they were notified of this law enforcement malfeasances they where not taking the matter to another court, where again their judicial cannons would have constituted such reporting of Florida law enforcement misconduct, even if they did not hear the matters.[14]

                                        vii.            Ignoring the fact that TFB reviewer Lorraine Christine Hoffman ("Hoffman") had placed the Wheeler complaint on hold pending the outcome of the Litigation, inapposite of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

                                      viii.            Ignoring the evidence that Petitioner was then given yet another inadequate review by Eric Montel Turner ("Turner") and again Turner acted wholly outside the bounds of law and the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and again wrote letters in favor of Proskauer's position, again based on review and not on formal investigation and disposition.  In fact, Turner now took the step of making legal conclusions in favor of Proskauer and Wheeler (such as they were not patent counsel, inapposite of evidence and witness statements submitted by Petitioner) and where his reviews were steeped in language that was not intelligible or legally sound for lack of clarity.  It appeared that Proskauer was authoring the letters that Turner wrote to support their weak defense that they were not intellectual property counsel for Petitioner.  Turner, upon formal written request, further refused to clarify his illegible statements.  Turner upon being challenged by Petitioner to take the matter to the next highest level for review, claimed there was no further review higher than his, and stated the FSC would not even entertain the complaints.  Prior to hanging up the phone he gave Petitioner the general number of TFB, stating no one would hear the matter or overturn his final decision.  Petitioner called such general number and came upon Kenneth Marvin ("Marvin) of TFB, who shocked at Turners claim that he was the final authority for TFB, stated that Turner was absolutely incorrect in his assessment and that indeed there were higher levels of escalating the review of his work, prior to filing for FSC intervention.  Marvin directed Petitioner back to Turner, to have Turner escalate the complaints to the next highest level of view. 

                                         ix.            Ignoring the fact that Turner then handed the complaint to Joy A. Bartmon ("Bartmon") and again there is evidence that without investigation, Bartmon acted merely as a Proskauer liaison and used the TFB letterhead as if it were Proskauer letterhead.  Making assertions that based on her review, she found that Proskauer was not patent counsel, etc., again where the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar clearly state that without formal investigation or prosecution of the matters, TFB is prohibited from making opinion or statement in favor of either party.  The only response should have been that after review they had decided not to take the matter under consideration and file charges.  Yet, letters continued to be authored that clearly advanced the Proskauer position, it was as if Proskauer were authoring these letters, letters they could use to influence other investigations in an attempt to claim that they had been vindicated of the crimes by TFB after investigation. [15]

                                           x.            Ignoring the fact that Petitioner within the original petition asked TFB for direct disclosure of the conflicts by those members accused of conflicts and yet there was not a single mention of the word conflict. The Triggs complaint attached to the petition citing multiple conflicts by Triggs while a member of TFB and neither Turner in his response on behalf of TFB or Triggs as a party to the petition provided a response. Johnson, the President, failed to respond to the allegations of her conflict with J. Wheeler.  Neither Wheeler nor Tuner tendered response to the allegations of Wheeler's conflicts in either the original or second complaint as requested in the petition.  The responses to the factual allegations in the petition were completely ignored, although FSC had ordered a response to the petition and Petitioner assumed that they meant the substantive issues and charges raised.  The response instead of addressing a single issue in the petition, instead was a response stating their work product was done well and an attempt to claim that they adequately reviewed the complaints and yet failed to acknowledge that such reviews were done with a tainted response included by an officer of TFB, Triggs. How can one claim anything about the reviews if conflict was present in the response which would have invalidated any reviews that could have been influenced by the tainted response? 

                                         xi.            Ignoring the fact that Petitioner then filed a rebuttal to the response, which asked the FSC to reconsider such response, a non response, and rule forward with prejudice against TFB members for defaulting on every substantive issue in their response to the petition. Not surprising to Petitioner at this point, FSC instead suddenly refused to hear the case further and again denied Petitioner the right to have these matters given fair and impartial due process. 

                                        xii.            The fact hat FSC pulled out the case after such failed response to the petition by TFB, without explanation for their actions.  This further increased Petitioners contempt for the legal system, with cause, and where such contempt is not against the whole of the system, just for how easily the process has become susceptible to penetration by a few mob type lawyers and how it has failed in its system of self regulation entirely that must be revamped from ever allowing this infiltration by criminal enterprises disguised as law firms to control it. 

                                      xiii.            Overlooking information that showed that while Petitioner was making a filing with the OED Director Moatz, who after review of the state bar complaints against several of the same attorneys being filed against with his offices, asked what the status of the cases in Florida and New York were.   These state bars were looking at the same evidence and Moatz further asked Petitioner to have such state bar authorities contact his offices to coordinate and streamline efforts, surprised that nothing had already been done.  Petitioner would hate to label Moatz as an instigator or troublemaker (and truly thinks of him as an angel) but Petitioner was blown away by the response to the requests of Moatz first by the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division: First Department Departmental Disciplinary ("First Dept DDC") and then TFB.  When First Dept DDC, Chief Counsel, Thomas Cahill ("Cahill") was asked the status of the case, weeks went by without answer to submission after submission asking for status to give to the patent office.  When finally Petitioner confronted Cahill in a phone call it was learned that similar to TFB, the matters of the attorney misconduct complaints had been put on hold there pending the civil the Litigation.  The problem, this was in a letter misaddressed to Petitioner and never delivered return to sender to First Dept DDC.  Evidence suggests that the letters were created overnight to try and cover up for the lack of due process for well over a year in New York.  In the deferral letter, the matters were stated to have been placed on hold again in violation of the rules regulating First Dept DDC, which states similar to Florida that disciplinary complainants should not be delayed do to civil actions in progress, related or non-related.   Again, the civil case had already been limited to billing dispute matters only and thus none of the crimes were being investigated in yet another catch 22 of injustice, where again, crimes against several government agencies were involved and exposed to the disciplinary departments and action was cleverly evaded. 

When Cahill was asked to call Moatz and given his number, Cahill refused and stated that his offices would begin immediate investigation of the Rubenstein and Joao matters.  Weeks again went by where Cahill was harder to find than the Wizard of Oz, when suddenly Petitioner received information from an undisclosed third-party, that perhaps the reason for so much delay was due to the fact that the two most powerful members of the New York courts and the disciplinary departments were directly tied to the accused Proskauer and controlling the complaint process.  The information revealed that Steven C. Krane ("Krane") was directly representing the complaints of Rubenstein and later himself at the First Dept DDC, where he was in fact the most conflicted person in New York.  Krane's conflicts come from the irrefutable fact that he holds positions, including at the time the as President of the NYSBA with a year of time after his position where he maintained duties, and held other concealed roles as a member of the First Department DDC, all while handling the complaints. Further, Krane is a member of Proskauer's intellectual property department formed after learning of Petitioners' inventions.  That with an ethics background this appears even stranger that Krane would have not known that with personal interests in the matters and a multiplicity of roles of influence in the rule creation and enforcement divisions of the NYSBA and First Dept DDC and others that he was in conflict.  Such concealment reveals instead that this was done with intention by Proskauer and Krane to act as a barrier to due process and with Krane handling the complaints directly Petitioner's chance of due process was nil.  With such fresh information that Krane was abusing his public office position and in conflict, Petitioner approached Cahill with the conflicts.  Cahill immediately denied that he knew of any conflicts and Petitioner and Shareholders then filed a complaint against Krane for his conflicts.  In fact, while Cahill stated that he knew of no roles that conflicted Krane and did not know Krane, Petitioner was sitting on resumes of Krane clearly showing that he held numerous positions with the NYSBA and First Dept DDC, in both rule creation and enforcement committees, including post service activities in his role as President of NYSBA, that would have all singularly forced at minimum disclosure, but more certainly recusal of his involvement in any way.  Add to this his direct personal interest in the matters and it is apparent that Proskauer choose the most conflicted individual in New York for a reason.  Other conflicts exist since Proskauer is accused in the complaint and directly named as a respondent in that matter, Krane's self representation of the firm, his partner Rubenstein and later in the complaint against him, were prohibited.  Krane had direct public offices roles that could even remotely affect the outcome and again failed to disclose any of these prior to representation.  In response to the complaint filed against Krane, Krane tendered what can only be described as a response so fraught in fraud and concealment as evidenced in Appendix C, attempting to separate his NYSBA roles he maintained from the First Dept DDC roles he maintained but concealed them in his response.  Krane in his response claims that his roles at NYSBA as former President (and still with post position duties) and his roles in rule creation and enforcement that affect all disciplinary departments in New York were not conflicting; a hard yarn for even Krane to spin.  So hard in fact, that when Cahill was confronted with this and refused to file formally the written complaint on Krane for the conflicts, Petitioner went to the Clerk of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department ("First Dept"), Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe ("Wolfe") to find out what the next step was to get the complaints filed against Krane formally docketed and heard.  Upon telling Wolfe the circumstances, she informed Petitioner that Krane factually was a member of the First Dept DDC at that present moment, with a Referee role of influence (confirming information Petitioner had) and that she served alongside Krane and Cahill at the First Dept and that they certainly knew that this was conflicted.  She was astonished that Krane would have denied his roles and that Cahill would have similarly denied knowing Krane who was a direct member of the First Dept DDC or his conflicts.  Wolfe advised Petitioner to file a Petition with the First Dept on Krane, Rubenstein, Joao and Cahill for knowingly allowing the conflict to succeed and for their efforts to cover such facts up. Furthermore, Wolfe stated that Krane's influence in the all of the disciplinary departments and rule creation and enforcement roles were obvious conflicts.

Petitions were filed at First Dept, resulting in a court ordered investigation[16] of Rubenstein, Krane and Joao and just how they have evaded that investigation will reveal further conflicts and will be a subject for perhaps the next petition to this Court, if Petitioner is unsuccessful in his efforts here and now.  Evidence of how such derailment was achieved can be found in Appendix C and through review of the New York matters.   That the point of New York here, is how it relates to the immediate matter before this Court and that is that such conflicts of Krane led to discovery of Triggs acting in conflict as counsel to Wheeler.  In New York, the court ordered investigation was then derailed by the department it was transferred to and again we find department members acting as counsel to the accused and the accused provide no response of their own to complaints against them.  Again, formal written complaints were filed and refused in this instance by those who they were filed against, with no legal or procedural basis, denying Petitioner access again to the legal system and complaint process in New York.  The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division: Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee ("Second Dept DDC") was transferred the complaints against Rubenstein, Joao and Krane to conduct the court ordered investigation by five Justices concurring after "due-deliberation" to have an investigation of Krane, Rubenstein and Joao.  Yet, to get out of this would truly take some magic, and that magic comes in the form of altering the word investigation to mean review or good review.  Upon reviewing the complaints, instead of addressing that court that ordered the investigation, the Second Dept DDC wrote to inform Petitioner and Shareholders that no investigation was done after only a review was done of the materials.[17]  The review had not tested a single piece of evidence and failed to call a single witness that was presented in the New York matters.  A review that ignored the fact that the USPTO and the USPTO OED, had begun formal investigation of two of three attorneys complained and commenced investigation of them.  A review that ignored the fact that the FBI had taken these matters to the United States Attorney for further disposition and investigation and also failed to take into account that the patents were suspended by the USPTO Commissioner directly due to charges of fraud upon the USPTO by two of three attorneys.  A review that failed to seek a response from Krane directly to the conflicts he was caught in and in fact where the Second Dept and Second Dept DDC authored his response and defense for him and again without legal basis. Finally, members of Second Dept, not even legally involved in the complaint process tried an attempt to dismiss all the cases and allow formal complaints and investigations to be evaded.

Second Dept DDC immediately became suspect with their failure to follow the court ordered investigation in favor of review. Upon confronting the reviewer, Chief Counsel, Diana Maxfield Kearse ("Kearse"), further conflicts were immediately discovered and affirmed by the reviewer herself.  Kearse having admitted having professional and personal relations with Krane then stated that if Petitioner and Shareholders wanted a disclosure of her conflicts to put it in writing.  Once caught in conflict and failure to follow a court ordered investigation, Kearse failed to respond to the conflict letter and continued to handle the matters personally.  Finally refusing to docket complaints against her, refusing disclosure of her conflicts with Krane and Kaye that she had already admitted, Kearse still persisted in maintaining her decision to review and not investigate, stating that she was not under the jurisdiction of the First Dept, and thus not obligated to investigate.  The matter was escalated to the Chairman, Lawrence DiGiovanna ("DiGiovanna") of Second Dept DDC and for his refusal to docket the complaints against Kearse, his failure to force her to publicly disclose the conflicts she had admitted having, a complaint was filed against DiGiovanna that similarly Kearse refused to formally docket according to proper procedure.   Where Krane and Kaye's influence were obvious at Second Dept DDC now, Petitioner called James Pelzer ("Pelzer") Clerk of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division: Second Department ("Second Dept") to find out what the next step was in elevating these matters and having Second Dept move the complaints due to conflicts and failure to docket formal written complaints against Second Dept DDC members and force the investigation ordered by First Dept.  Pelzer, than took the matter to Chief Justice of the Second Dept, A. Gail Prudenti ("Prudenti") who made a grandstand effort to use her position of influence, similar to what Boggs had done in Florida to exculpate Triggs on disciplinary letterhead, to act as counsel for everyone involved from the department and all the Proskauer partners. Prudenti attempted to justify the actions of the accused, applaud their work, state that a review is kind of like an investigation and get the complaints out of her court as evidenced in Appendix C.  Petitioner prior to these actions by Pelzer and Prudenti had formally requested that prior to their involvement, which had no basis in law or formal procedure in the disciplinary process, that they formally and publicly disclose any conflicts.  On information and belief, it was learned prior to their involvement that Prudenti and Pelzer had conflict with Krane & Kaye and whereby their refusal to affirm or deny a formal written disclosure request stating if they were conflicted with any of the parties prior to having involvement, is taken by Petitioner that the source information regarding the conflicts is correct.  The reason this disclosure was so important was that Petitioner was now weary of Pelzer who had turned the complaints over to Prudenti, as Petitioner and Pelzer had prior discussed the need for conflict waivers from all parties due to positions of prominence in the disciplinary department of those being accused and where Pelzer had assured Petitioner that he would make certain everyone disclosed any conflicts in advance.  Petitioner was shocked when Kearse was first confronted regarding her decision to obstruct the First Dept order for investigation, with an attorney present on the line, Marc Garber, Esq. ("Garber"), and admitted that he she had conflicting relations with Krane and Kaye.  Petitioner called Pelzer, being the direct cause of two formerly innocent people, Kearse and DiGionvanna, now having complaints filed against them for his failure to screen for conflicts as promised.  Pelzer then assured Petitioner that he would talk to Prudenti to find out if Petitioner should petition First Dept to enforce the investigation order or Second Dept.  Instead, Petitioner received a letter from Prudenti authored by Pelzer, attempting to dismiss everything, to claim that investigation had been done (directly opposite the statements in the reviewer's letter stating no investigation was done) and put a spin on the word investigation never before heard.  Again, where that letter has no bearing as it comes with no legal or procedural basis by two people not involved in the disciplinary process and thus that letter of recommendation for Proskauer may be considered garbage, except as evidence for forthcoming complaints against Prudenti and Pelzer for their involvement and misuse of public office.  Yet it is useless to file complaints when they control the department and refuse to process complaints against members of their department, until such controls are removed. 

How could this be happening, crimes ignored, violations of ethics so grotesque unheard, crimes against the United States and foreign nations overlooked by members involved in the disciplinary processes and investigations derailed?  The answers were unknown until recently where again through undisclosed third parties, information regarding how such blockage occurred surfaced, revealing that controls were so high up in the process, as to block Petitioner from access to the courts and disciplinary processes in New York.  This led to uncovering in New York, conflict that permeates directly from Krane, to Chief Judge of the New York Supreme Court of Appeals ("NYSC"), Judith Kaye ("Kaye") whom Krane not only formerly clerked for but who is married to a Proskauer partner, Stephen Kaye ("S. Kaye"), also strangely a member of the Proskauer newly formed patent department.  Kaye has vested interest in Petitioner Companies as a holder of founding shares of stock vis a vis her marriage interests.  A greater conflict is the fact that if Petitioner is successful in securing fair and impartial due process anywhere in New York, that S. Kaye, Krane and Proskauer, will face lengthy federal prison sentences and loss of property.  There is also conflict in that Kaye is the most powerful figure in both the courts of New York and its disciplinary departments and where in a recently published article she states that Proskauer is the "in firm" to work for in New York.  In New York, after discovery of conflict, Petitioner had contacted the court of appeals to gain Kaye's intervention (not knowing at the time her marital interests in the matter) and sent over the petition filed at First Department to that court.  These concealed conflicts and violations of public office is how Proskauer and their partners evaded the evidence, prosecution and retribution for the crimes.  Simply through controlling justice top down in conflict and perverting the whole legal system and all it stands for, acting in concealed conflicts and committing ever increasing numbers of crimes to prevent Petitioner from fair and impartial due process through a complete desecration of law and public office.  Petitioner has played fair at every level and fears not their ability to purchase justice, to pervert justice or to otherwise use the law to commit these most heinous of crimes, as Triggs and Krane so eloquently stated in their conflict tendered responses on behalf of their criminal firm and partners, Petitioner "fears no evil."  For further evidence of this, please refer to Appendix C and the deposition in the Litigation of Petitioner[18] contained therein.  Whereupon confronting TFB to work with Moatz, similar to New York, collaboration was refused and later led to uncovering the Triggs conflicts.

                                      xiv.            Ignoring that the verified conflict of Triggs and Krane should have forced the prior reviews that were tendered in conflict in both states to be thrown out and resulted in immediate charges against Triggs, Krane, Wheeler and Rubenstein for violations of their legal ethics, the law and public offices in New York and Florida.  How this was allowed to evade prosecution cannot be understood by reading the former reviewers or responses in either state and trying to evaluate the matters from those conflicted members, it must be understood by first removing the controllers of the process in conflict entirely, which is all the Petitioner has constantly asked for, a conflict free forum in which to have due process.  It is an irony to note that with leading law firms being accused they all seem to be afraid of the courtroom against a solo Pro Se inventor, having all the lawyers in the world to defend them at their disposal.  Yet, again and again, the only way they have prevailed in these state supreme court run disciplinary agencies, is to keep the matters out of the courtroom through conflict and abuse of power.  All of these failures of the legal system are caused by a few bad apples positioning perfectly to use the establishment as a criminal tool to serve their other criminal ends, nonetheless such conversion of the establishment has had a massive impact on the loss of Petitioners' rights as an inventor, protected at the opening of the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 and denied by the very system the Constitution created to protect those rights.

With all due deference in regard to this Court's schedule, Petitioner prays this Court to hear this case as soon as possible once filed, as Petitioners' invention rights are close to being permanently lost due to the above referenced actions of the accused attorneys and judicial officials.  These losses of rights will occur in only weeks both nationally and internationally.  Any such permanent loss of Petitioners' rights as an inventor or otherwise, would now be directly attributable to not only the accused lawyers but the legal systems failure to take actions against its own members and allow conflicts to prevail.  This Court must find reason to intercede on behalf of Petitioner as the legal systems involvement in causing such loss from corrupted patent attorneys, to corrupted bar members acting in violation of public offices, to denial of Petitioners' rights to file complaints against members of the legal community and to an obstruction of justice by justice are compelling in that they represent the single largest threat to the institution of law this country has ever witnessed.  These factors make it impossible for Petitioner to assert claims, in any venue he goes, to protect the intellectual properties and his constitutional rights in those states. 

Yet, while the bad guys continue to control the courts and disciplinary processes, they appear bullet proof even when caught.  Neither Triggs nor Krane has been forced to respond to conflicts and formal filed complaints against them and that takes some heavy controls.   In fact, not only do they not have to respond we find the disciplinary agencies responding and defending them as if they were counsel for them.  Petitioner thus comes before this Court battered and abused, denied all of his rights in the legal system and processes with his inventions not only stolen but converted and monetized by his attorneys for their profit and having no safe harbor to press his claims free of conflicts of interest. Petitioner having exhausted his legal remedies within a corrupted system acting as a barrier to his rights and causing further damages as a contributory factor in denying his constitutionally protected rights to inventions, calls to this Court to join his efforts.  From the legal systems failure to act, no matter the reason in the end, in fact has become an accomplice to the crimes and will be viewed by the public as such. Due to the delays caused by the conflicts and abuses of public offices the denial of due process, the denial to access to the courts, Petitioner and Shareholders have lost permanently it appears, certain intellectual property rights already, already in violate of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 caused by a catastrophic failure of the legal system to protect civil rights from corruption within.  These losses already incurred may cause this Court to later be called in anyway, to determine how exactly the law will have to change to revive and restore inventors' rights already lost.

Despondent, denied access to the legal system at every level, exhausted of every dollar in efforts to bring these matters to justice, so much so as to force his family to poverty to protect Shareholder interests in the patents, Petitioner prays that these walls of justice cannot and will not allow this mockery of the legal system to continue for a second longer.  These threats to: (i) the legal system which freedom is dependent on, (ii) the bar and disciplinary system which ensure that corruption cannot penetrate the legal system that freedom is dependent on, (iii) the patent system which free commerce is dependent on and instituted by congress under Article 1 to protect the constitutional rights of inventors, (iv) the patent bar which ensures that free commerce is ensured through attorney regulation and protects inventors from corrupt patent attorneys, all hang in the balance of this Court's decision to hear these matters and force due process and procedure free of further possible conflict or abuse of public office.  Never before this Court have so many issues and threats to the Constitution and the establishment of law combined.  So significant are these issues that if the crimes succeed it could cause the public and inventors to fear that patent lawyers can steal their inventions, then block due process, block access to the courts of the inventors trying to get them back and finally deny any rights to complain against the attorneys or public officials involved.  Further, that to achieve their ends they can violate public offices and conflicts laws ad nauseam and then do everything to destroy the inventor's life, liberty and pursuit of the good old American dream, will cause panacea worldwide.  A wrong decision or no decision or no help from this Court (the Court of last resort), would eventually as the matters are tried and afforded due process at some point, lead to a collapse in the patent system and fear that invention is something to tell your children not to do[19] or to file in Russia for any patents. When the legal system itself serves its enemy, the end of our freedoms has arrived.  Is this worth Proskauer and their co-conspirators stealing Petitioners' inventions however valuable they are, absolutely not, the buck must stop here.

In praying that this Court will pave the way for Petitioners' rights to be fully restored through due process, the Petitioner begs for all relief this Court has in its power in the matters and including but not limited to the following:

                                             i.            Secure the files of Respondents and all parties listed herein and in Appendix C that have records pertaining to these matters. Where evidence has already shown that official documents have all ready been tampered with, including but not limited to, the USPTO, the State Departments of Florida and Delaware, Supreme Courts and Disciplinary Departments of Florida and New York and foreign nations. These documents are essential to the patent matters and determining culpability and before further destruction takes place, order an immediate seizure of all records.

                                           ii.            Issue any orders to secure and freeze all remaining patent filings both here and abroad before any other loss can occur while these matters are being investigated and until all matters are concluded to the fullest extent of the law and all appeals exhausted.

                                          iii.            Issue any orders in its power to insure that going forward that fair and impartial due process will prevail and where all parties involved are pre-screened for conflict with the thousands of lawyers and legal establishments now entangled in history's greatest bungled crime.

                                         iv.            Pre-Screen all members of even this Court for possible conflict prior to review and where Petitioner asks as a pre-cautionary measure.  Further, that all Justices write a simple statement that they are not conflicted or related to any of the thousands lawyers or members of the bars accused herein and in Appendix C so as to provide absolute assurance that there is no chance that later a conflict arises causing any cause for public concern with this most esteemed Court. To have a statement that no prior conversations with any of the accused has taken place and where this is precautionary as well, as these attorneys have access to even this Court and even the slightest prior conversation with anyone involved could be cause of concern or later conflict.  Since Petitioner has no access to this Court on either a social or professional basis and the accused do, it could be construed as unethical if prior conversations or any involvement in the matters had taken place prior without full public disclosure.  Petitioner is ashamed to ask this Court for such but such request is also valid since these law firms have prior infiltrated state supreme courts and have had plenty of time to started to plant even at this level and where again, Petitioner states that this is precautionary versus accusatory.  Humbly I ask this request.

                                           v.            Issue any relief in response to the statutes cited herein and in Appendix C that have been violated federally.

                                         vi.            Issue the relief of aiding Petitioner to find a counselor at law that is not conflicted with any of the parties and licensed to practice before this Court.  Or provide an attorney to Petitioner due to the catastrophic ruins preventing Petitioner from affording or even trusting a lawyer, caused by the failures in the legal system due to the accused abuses of such systems.

                                        vii.            Issue relief to provide an oversight committee to these matters composed of non conflicted third party non lawyers, such as a grand jury or special inquisition, or whatever this Court sees fit.

                                      viii.            Hear this case exclusively and hear the matters directly in this Court, if possible, as even over ruling FSC in this case and sending the matters back to Florida or New York cannot ensure fair and impartial due process at any level where those supreme courts and bar agencies are now in conflict directly with Petitioner.

                                         ix.            Take this case before this Court or provide some forum of quorum as to ensure that delay in the courts does not happen again through infiltration and corruption in filing legal remedies that could cause further loss of rights to invention and where by the time appeals would be heard, total loss of the intellectual property both here and abroad would be lost.

                                           x.            Provide patent counsel for Petitioner, as Moatz has suggested that it would benefit both the USPTO in their efforts and Petitioner in his but after the fiasco Petitioner has had with now five or six patent counsels, he would prefer that this Court provide such counselor who will fear repercussion of this Court for any further attempts at foul play.

                                         xi.            Issue orders to make this case expedited due to the imminent dangers inventor Bernstein and others are in, in trying to expose this scandal as close to a Watergate as this nation has come.  Recent evidence shows in a petition[20] that was going to be filed requesting additional time to file this petition sent to the Clerk of this Court, Jeff Atkins ("Atkins"), which demonstrates that abuse of process is now occurring to attempt to cause harm such as loss of home to Petitioner and Petitioners family through another frivolous and harassing legal action of eviction, that was later withdrawn by the opposing lawyers on the eve of that hearing, yet interfered with the preparation of the filing significantly as Petitioner had to devote considerable time preparing a Pro Se response and learning yet another code section of law.  Also, that eviction action is part of the reason Petitioner decided to hold on the extension request to prepare the best possible petition for this Court under extreme fear that prior to filing he would be evicted and penniless on the street with his family and unable to file anything with this Court in such state. Where evidence shows that lawyers involved in that proceeding submitted a series of false and fraudulent documents to achieve their ends to that court, and then ran away from the courtroom when confronted with Petitioners Pro Se response.  Petitioner has no money, is on welfare, has been entirely deprived of his rights and freedoms and can not turn to legal remedies to help him and his family, anywhere they go.  Petitioner begs this Court to look at this eviction case carefully, as described in the extension sent to Atkins, and see the damages caused to my children by these attorneys that ignored mold issues identified by state health agencies and Florida Power and Light as problems.  Where instead of dealing with the mold growth and instead of curing the problem they ignored them and filed legal actions against Petitioner, ignoring serious health problems which may now have caused permanent damage to his children.  Petitioner prays for his children and his wife's safety that this Court cause immediate resolution to these matters that obstructions of justice have obstructed long enough and before these monsters described herein take further harmful actions either through abuse of legal process to harass and harm or other actions. 


Petitioner and Shareholders are seeking this Courts intervention to turn the patents back to the rightful owners and be compensated for the losses endured.  That all of these financial gains through patent pools such as MPEG and other illegal mechanisms, be redirected to Petitioner and Shareholders and the licensing royalties be redirected to the true and proper inventors as called for under the Constitution.  Finally to have this Court put the criminal enterprises disguised as law firms out of existence and all those who aided and abetted the crimes through utter desecration of the legal institution and all it stands for, stripped of their legal titles and put in federal prison.  Petitioner prays this Court should see no mercy in distributing punishment to those directly in violation of law and everything sacred in our Constitution entrusted them to uphold.  That this Court send a message so powerful to attorneys thinking of corrupting and violating their attorney/client privileges and further violating public offices to further crimes, that attorneys going forward will fear the repercussions of this Court and cite this case and the punishments meted out as reason to follow the path of the righteous.    This case represents one of the greatest threats to this nation in our history by a quasi mafia type of lawyer group that has infiltrated the legal system and the patent office to carrier out their criminal enterprise of theft of intellectual properties.  This case also represents one of the greatest tales of perseverance of the inventors and the Petitioner and Shareholders, against all odds, denied of almost every legal right normally afforded to protect them and where those systems designed to protect inventors, turned from protection to further abuses of process both civilly and through the attorney disciplinary agencies, becoming the further cause of loss of rights.  Because the criminal organization controls the courts and acts to block due process and deny the rights of the inventors, never has an inventor been subjected to such abuse not only by big business but by their trusted attorneys and the entirety of the legal process that now serves to further their criminal ends.  This Court must be where the buck stops to this madness heaped on your steps by attorneys that to Petitioner and Shareholders are nothing more than crooks cloaked in lawyers clothing, that must be stopped short of succeeding, as a success for them in stealing the inventions and successfully derailing due process and access to the courts, is a loss for the legal system and every honest lawyer practicing law.  In fact, along with the threat this case poses to free commerce and the faith in the patent system by Johnny Q. Public ("Public") it represents a threat to the beliefs in the Constitutions' powers to establish laws designed to protect inventors and the checks and balances that should have ceased the madness when the claims were first presented.  This case also could cause a loss by Public in the faith of the state legal systems self-regulating disciplinary process, the state civil court processes and the state supreme courts ability to oversight the process, where it could be construed that the system was easily infiltrated entirely by the very criminals being accused.   If they are successful we can teach our children the following lessons:

                                             i.            Do not invent essential technologies and then seek to patent them using white shoe law firms for they may steal them and violate their attorney/client privileges to convert your inventions to their own names and profit.

                                           ii.            Do not take inventions to USPTO for fear that those representing the patent offices can then file your inventions to inure remuneration for themselves while destroying you and your patents, through a conversion that comes through violation of their oaths and legal privileges and frauds on the patent office. 

                                          iii.            If you catch them in the act of stealing your patents and inventions, you cannot trust taking it to the legal system to protect your rights for they can block you there from your rights to due process and procedure by violating public offices and other dubious methods to prevent you from pressing any legal rights. 

                                         iv.            That in fact, if you then catch them in conflict and violation of their public offices you may be denied the right to complain against them and in some instances they may refuse the complaints against themselves and their criminal brethren at the door. 

This obviously is a story that would put and end to the patent office for inventors in the United States and poses significant threat to the lawyers who practice patent law and that patent office that is the engine of free commerce.  A failure to correct these overwhelming injustices would cause catastrophic distrust and disdain for the legal system civilly and the attorney complaint and disciplinary agencies, fearing they are no more than legal country clubs penetrable by corrupt attorneys who run them as their own private law firm, in conflict to deflect complaints, wholly inapposite of the Florida and United States' constitutional intent in creating such organizations and self-regulating enforcement agencies.  Where the moral of the story to your kids would have to be that with the odds stacked against you in every legal venue, to take your patents to another country and hope for a more honest system that has not corrupted from A to Z.  Foreign inventors would fear the United States patent system and fear patenting their inventions here, United States inventors would seek protections elsewhere and the damage to the economy and legal system would be staggering.

Therefore, we ask this Court not only to invoke its regulatory oversight of the state supreme courts and the state disciplinary agencies, as it has power under its jurisdiction when they appear infiltrated by corruption but to also invoke its powers to protect the inventors' rights under the Constitution and their rights under due process and procedure.  This matter cannot be turned back over to the states for further abuse, as this may lead perhaps to a further loss of inventions and where recent actions in the European Patent Office have led to loss, that was caused directly by the delays in due process and procedure under international treatise designed to protect United States inventors rights in foreign countries when filed as PCT applications in the United States.  Certainly there is no other court in the land that can resolve in as timely a fashion as this matter now merits, the multiplicity of state, federal and international crimes committed and the retributions necessary to save the rights' of the inventors.  That this Court must oversight justice gone awry at the state level, to stop the corruption that maintains control over the process of justice in those states and to prevent further loss of Constitutionally protected rights' of the citizens from being denied as direct result of failure of the state courts and disciplinary agencies in those states.  Perhaps this is why the forefathers in designing the Constitution placed the inventors' rights after creation of this Court and immediately prior to state courts being created in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9, and left such matters as inventors' rights directly with this Court, the inventor and those that opposed the rights of the inventor.  Petitioner begs this Court, to force the return of the inventions to their proper owners and restore and remunerate Petitioner and Shareholders their civil rights to their property and all other rights heretofore denied and issue all relief to protect them and the United States and enjoin Petitioner and Shareholders in actions that correct this infiltration of corruption in the legal system and restore justice and civil rights as the Constitution mandates. 


PETITIONS FOR: WRIT OF CERTIORARI; EXTRAORDINARY WRIT; WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are all necessary here to address fundamental elements of this Court's power to protect the constitutional rights' of the citizens to their property, access to the courts, access to counsel and due process under law, when state courts have failed in, and further acted as, accomplice to preventing such freedom of rights.  Similarly these are all necessary for this Court to take action on behalf of the government and the threat these matters pose to the establishment.

Respectfully submitted,

In Forma Pauperis

Eliot I. Bernstein - Pro Se

10158 Stonehenge Circle - Suite 801

Boynton Beach, FL 33437

Counsel for Petitioners


DATED: July 25, 2005


[1] Wheeler recently arrested for Felony Driving Under the Influence with Injury by Del Ray Beach Police Department - Docket No. FLO 500400 ("DUI")

[2] Utley was nowhere near the inventions at the time of discovery or had any part in inventing them as stated in his deposition in a civil litigation and evidenced herein and in Appendix C.  Utley sought no approval from the true and proper inventors or the Shareholders to add his name and was caught with a set of patents by accident that began the onion peeling.

[3] Proskauer prepared and disseminated a false and misleading resume for Utley, failing to state that he was immediately prior fired by another South Florida company for attempted intellectual property thefts with Wheeler and a one William J. Dick ("Dick") of Foley & Lardner ("Foley") both accused herein and in Appendix C, all of whom failed to disclose this past event to Shareholders and concealed it through false resume and other false claims.  Under deposition and in a Virginia State Bar ("VSB") complaint against Dick, statements were found made by Dick, Wheeler and Utley that were inconsistent regarding these events as evidenced in Appendix C.

[4] Patent pools have had a history before this Court that has led to the cessation of such pools as being direct anticompetitive forces and where this pooling is another example of such anticompetitive behavior.

[5] Joao initially was claimed to be with Proskauer, as was Rubenstein, until it was discovered that Rubenstein was not with Proskauer but with MLGWS.  Rubenstein was immediately upon discovery that he was not yet a Proskauer partner transferred to Proskauer to form the newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department specializing in patent pools directly competing with Petitioners' inventions.

[6] With Proskauer/Rubenstein handling the oversight of the patents and Foley/Dick by referral of Proskauer handling the filings, Petitioner and Shareholders were confident that with these leading law firms no problems would continue. 

[7] Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation complaints against Goldstein & Lewin Co., PA Case # 2004053428, Erika Renee Lewin Case # 2004053999 and Gerald R. Lewin Case # 2004053434

[8] Even had Rubenstein's statements been true about referring Joao, this still would have held him accountable for Joao's actions as his direct referral and oversight under attorney conduct codes in New York.  That the referral to Joao was a referral to his former firm, makes him more accountable.   This is not the truth as evidence including Private Placement Memorandums for Wachovia Securities prepared, disseminated and billed for by Proskauer and even tendered to the SBA for compliance, clearly shows Rubenstein as "patent counsel" and as an Advisory Board Member of Petitioners' companies, and lists him as oversight to Foley.

[9] Upon motion by Selz to Labarga to have Rubenstein and Wheeler return to answer the questions they refused in their first depositions, acting in violation of Florida law, Labarga issued orders for them to return, yet placed highly restrictive terms upon the re-deposition, in odd favor of Rubenstein and Wheeler.

[10] SB was under contract and retainer to represent the Litigation under a binding Letter of Understanding that served as both an investment by SB and a legal retainer, see Appendix C exhibits.

[11] In response to the rebuttal, Triggs acting in conflict and violation of his public office, admits that Wheeler had perjured his prior statement but claims that it was only a minor issue and not very relevant, and TFB accepts this as fact and never investigates the statements or prosecutes the perjury.  When in fact, the perjured statement had everything to do with Wheeler's prior involvement with Utley that had not been disclosed, involving them in the undisclosed and further concealed  false resume to cover up attempted theft of intellectual property from another South Florida businessman forcing closure of that company.

[12] That John Anthony Boggs ("Boggs") Director, Legal Division for TFB states "This is a form over substance issue.  The fact that for a short period of time Mr. Triggs represented Mr. Wheeler without a waiver does not automatically create a conflict.  Waiver would have been routinely granted under standing board policy and if the situation had come to our attention all that would have happened was notice to Mr. Triggs to submit a waiver request."  Although Boggs goes on to attempt to state what should have, would have and could have happened had Triggs disclosed his conflict, Florida law and the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar do not allow for should have, could have, would have defenses, and clearly state that Triggs was prohibited from representation for a period of one year any party before TFB without seeking waiver by the TFB board first.  Boggs in what can only be called a failed attempt to support his position, goes on in that letter to cite proposed legislation instead of the law and perhaps legislation drafted by himself, to divert Petitioner and support his nonsensical claims in defense of Triggs.  Strange that Triggs is not forced to respond to the conflict and has Boggs, a member of TFB write his defense.


[13] Pleas of Petitioner and Petitioner Companies' Shareholders to halt the destruction of the complaint files to TFB had gone unanswered with anything but an offer by TFB and later FSC to give the Petitioner back copies of the files they intended to destroy.  The only catch was that the files would be missing the work product of TFB and their employees and was merely granted to make it look like they were giving the entirety of the file back to Petitioner making the destruction seem irrelevant.  Yet, missing the TFB attorney reviewers work product would have made prosecution of the conflicts and public office violations impossible or at minimum harder and the deceit that surrounds this order makes for a case of intent.

[14] It can be argued that FSC attempted to obfuscate their obligations and transfer the responsibilities of reporting law enforcement misconduct by claiming that Petitioner should be the one to advance the charges, knowing that Petitioner did not have a "pot to piss in" and no access to legal representation to press the claims.  The Petitioner should not have been the one to advance such charges in a different court that FSC to date has failed to clarify exactly why and what court Petitioner should have gone to, avoiding that motion entirely.

[15] In fact, evidence of this is clearly presented in the VSB complaint, VSB Docket #04-888-1004 filed against Dick of Foley, a co-conspirator in the patent crimes. Dick attempts in his response to state that a trial was completed in the Labarga Litigation and that the matters were investigated by TFB and all led to vindication of Proskauer and thus he should be cleared too.  That the VSB case will serve as another reason for Petitioner to eventually elevate that complaint process to this Court, if Petitioner is unsuccessful on this round in getting this Court to put a stop to all these legal shenanigans which only serve to get more people, innocent people involved in the cover up of these high crimes against the United States and foreign nations.  In so far as this Court now has the opportunity to prevent further exposure of innocent parties by hearing these matters or at minimum by providing a conflict free forum for them to be heard, all those complaints filed collaterally against those who have derailed justice, could have been prevented had Labarga,  TFB or FSC done their jobs in the first place and followed their ethical obligations. 

[16] In unpublished orders issued by concurrence of five Justices of the First Dept, Unpublished Order Nos. M-3198, M-2820 and M-3212.

[17] In a letter dated October 5th 2004, the Chief Counsel for Second Dept DDC states, "After reviewing your complaint, it has been determined that it does not state a complaint of professional misconduct.  Therefore, although we appreciate your efforts, we are unable to open this matter for investigation."  Petitioner had thought that five justices had ordered investigation after "due deliberation" as their order stated, having found sufficient evidence to order investigation.  How was Chief Counsel of Second Dept DDC overruling them to Petitioner and allowing them out of formal investigation?


[18] The deposition of Petitioner was obtained and disseminated by Proskauer without giving Petitioner a chance to have a "read" of the final transcript and Petitioner cannot attest to the accuracy of such deposition and further investigation may reveal tampering of that deposition by Proskauer who obtained it without the "read" by Petitioner that is allowed for by law if requested, as it was, before disseminations.  Yet, although parts appear to have been tampered with it serves the purpose for review of some of Petitioners statements pertinent to these matters.

[19] Petitioner tells his children that invention is the single most dangerous job occupation in the world due to circumstances such as these that they suffer through.  Telling them further, that this is why it is the only private sector job to require constitutional protections and where the Constitution is being violated, they will see that this Court is placed as the only Court to defend the inventor for a reason.  The reason, to protect the little ole inventor when the world is attempting to steal their inventions, as the only force powerful enough to overcome any parties greed.  

[20] The actual facsimile of that petition for extension of time, sent at the request of Atkins for review before submitting it to this Court, was destroyed due to a virus on Petitioners machine and therefore Petitioner respectfully requests that this exhibit not contained herein, and inserted missing as Appendix D, be provided in copy by Atkins to Petitioner for inclusion and dissemination to all parties or directly submitted to all parties by Atkins including Petitioner.  Where further, on July 22nd 2005, when asking Atkins to review the form of this Petition before submission, and in the midst of faxing such to him, Atkins turned off his fax machine on page 16 and refused upon repeated request to aid Pro Se Petitioner in determining if this Petition complied with the this Courts decorum and refused acceptance of the fax to confirm or help.  This caused Petitioner then to waste valuable time attempting to elevate the refusal of Atkins to aid Petitioner to his superiors and a volley of calls went refused by other representatives of the Court to allow Petitioner to speak with anyone but Atkins, who refused to reveal his direct report.  Although this may all be innocuous, where Petitioner is thrust into adversarial positions by court members so many times before that have all revealed hidden conflicts, Petitioner despite how it looks, asks that this Court screen Atkins for any possible conflicts before allowing his further involvement and would prefer, due to his unprofessional behavior of hanging up on Petitioner over ten times when Petitioner was merely seeking his ordained help to Pro Se advocates, that he be removed from this matter.  If there are any problems with the filing, such as length or areas that could have been corrected through review of the form of the petition, Petitioner begs this Court to overlook them in the name of the national emergency before them versus sending it back for further delay that could cause further loss without providing immediate relief requested herein.