Draft –Version 4 10/18/200410/15/2004
THIS MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED FILES INCORPORATED HEREIN CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THIS MAIL AND IT'S ATTACHMENTS. PLEASE DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED FILES WITHOUT READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THEM, AND NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT 561.364.4240. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM FORWARDING THEM OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSING THESE CONTENTS TO OTHERS, UNLESS EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED BY THE SENDER. THANK YOU!
Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution provides:
"Congress shall have the power ... to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries."
IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, CHRISTOPHER WHEELER, KENNETH RUBENSTEIN, ALAN JAFFE, STEVEN C. KRANE, MELTZER )
LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )
JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, INTEL, GERALD STANLEY, )
WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, STEVEN C. BECKER )
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )
LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )
LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)
T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS )
MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, )
INTERNET TRAIN SYSTEMS, CARL )
TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, )
CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, ANDREW BARROWAY, RICHARD SCHIFFRIN, KRISHNA NARINE ) Notice of Motion and
LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, ) Motion for Leave to
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR NORMAN ZAFMAN, THOMAS COESTER, FARZAD AHMINI & ) Proceed In Forma Pauperis
ZAFMAN LLP, MPEG LA LLC, DVD 6C, (ALL POOLS )
LICENSING AGENCY, IISAX SACHS KLEIN, )
FURR & COHEN, DONALD KANE, JEFFREY )
FRIEDSTEIN, SHELDON FRIEDSTEIN, THE )
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE )
FLORIDA BAR, ERIC MONTEL TURNER, )
THOMAS J. CAHILL, and all those executors of )
non-disclosure agreements (“NDA’S”) attached )
herein as Appendix A. )
)
Respondents )
)
)
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, P. STEPHEN )
LAMONT, and IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. )
)
)
Petitioners. )
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
COME NOW the Petitioners, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, P. STEPHEN LAMONT, and IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. (collectively, “Petitioners”) to request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis and in support state as follows:
1. That Petitioners are possessing of minimal resources for such proceedings according to ExhibitAppendix B and the following statements of support:
- As part and parcel of the statement of facts outlined in Petitioners’ forthcoming petition, Petitioners affirm that former management, as attested to by former employees, were seen in possession of a large suitcase full of cash, alleged funds of Petitioners and allegedly the investment proceeds of Tiedemann Prolow LLC, Crossbow Ventures and the Federally backed Small Business Administration; and
- Petitioners have already expended relatively large sums in defending a frivolous involuntary bankruptcy cases brought by former management and Ryjo, Inc. in an attempt to dissolve Petitioners and gain judgment to the rights, title, and interest to patent applications; and
- Petitioners have already expended relatively large sums in defending a frivolous billing dispute case brought by Proskauer Rose LLP in an attempt to dissolve Petitioners and gain judgment to the rights, title, and interest to patent applications; and
- Petitioners have already expended relatively large sums in bringing complaints with the respective State bar associations against attorneys, the specifics of which are forthcoming in a Petition to Intervene in all Matters to Protect Rights of Inventors According to the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 aAfforded by the Constitution of the United States and Petition to Fulfill Due Process Afforded by Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1; and; and
e. Petitioners have been denied licensing revenues from all those violators of NDA’s; and
f. Petitioners have been denied licensing revenues from the patent pools organized by MPEGLA LLC and DVD6c Licensing Agency resulting from the technical disclosures given to Kenneth Rubenstein, a member of Proskauer Rose LLP, in his role as counsel to the patent pool organizers and patent reviewer of those pools; and
g. Petitioners affirm that the number of Respondents are so voluminous as to dwarf the financial capabilities of Petitioners; and
h. Petitioners have been unable to raise investment capital due to the myriad of patent application problems caused by Respondents’ and the confusion this raises in the minds of potential investors.
i. i. Cost to mount defense must be encumbered by legal system that caused mess
Affidavit of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this __ day of October 2004, to Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe & Goldstein LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Ryjo Inc., Ryan Huisman, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Foley & Lardner LLP, Gerald R. Lewin, Erika Lewin, Goldstein Lewin & Co., Brian G. Utley, Raymond T. Hersch, Michael A Reale, F. Ross Miller, Tiedemann Prolow LLC, Carl Tiedemann, Bruce Prolow, Craig Smith, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Honorable Jorge Labarga, and Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP.
Eliot I. Bernstein
CERTIFICATE OF AFFIRMATION
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Eliot I. Bernstein, who was duly sworn and says, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”
Eliot I. Bernstein
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared P. Stephen Lamont, who was duly sworn and says, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”
P. Stephen Lamont
Notary Public
EXHIBITAPPENDIX “A”
[INSERT LIST OF NDA’S]
APPENDIX “B”
[INSERT INCOME, EXPENSE, NET WORTH FORMS]
IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, CHRISTOPHER WHEELER, KENNETH RUBENSTEIN, ALAN JAFFE, STEVEN C. KRANE, MELTZER )
LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )
JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, INTEL, GERALD STANLEY )
WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, STEVEN BECKER )
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )
LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )
LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)
T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS )
MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, )
CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, )
CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, ANDREW BARROWAY, RICHARD SCHIFFRIN, KRISHNA NARINE )
LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, )
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ) Notice of Motion and
ZAFMAN LLP, NORMAN ZAFMAN, THOMAS COESTER, FARZAD AHMINI MPEG LA LLC, (ALL POOLS) DVD 6C ALL MEMBERS ATTACHED HEREIN AS APPENDIX A ) Motion for Leave to
LICENSING AGENCY, IISAX SACHS KLEIN, ) File a Petition for an
FURR & COHEN, DONALD KANE, JEFFREY ) Extraordinary Writ
FRIEDSTEIN, SHELDON FRIEDSTEIN, THE )
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE )
FLORIDA BAR, ERIC MONTEL TURNER, LORRAINE HOFFMAN, KENNETH MARVIN, ANTHONY BOGGS, Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. )
THOMAS J. CAHILL, and all those executors of )
non-disclosure agreements (“NDA’S”) attached )
herein as Appendix AB. )
)
Respondents II )
)
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, P. STEPHEN )
LAMONT, and IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. )
) )
Petitioners. )
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT
COME NOW the Petitioners, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, P. STEPHEN LAMONT, and IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. (collectively “Petitioners”) to request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to file a petition for an Extraordinary Writ and in support state as follows:
1. That Petitioners show that the writ is in the aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction as due process of law has been denied Petitioners at various times and in various forums as described herein.
2. That Petitioners show that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers as from the very inception of the inventions of Petitioners (“Technology”) as described herein as Appendix B, powerful forces, including but not limited to national and regional law firms with adverse interests, licensors and licensees of patent pools operated by MPEG LA LLC and DVD 6C Licensing Agency conducting the unauthorized use of the inventions of Petitioners, some five hundred violators of NDA’s conducting the unauthorized use of the inventions of Petitioners on a global basis, have assembled against Petitioners using unlawful means, as fully described in the list of civil and criminal events described herein as Appendix C EXHIBITEVIDENCEScircumvent theincluding, but not limited to:
a. That the events recited herein have caused the loss of constitutionally protected inventor rights to their inventions, through a disingenuous scheme that involves changing the actual history of the country to a false history, whereby lawyers have attempted through reckless abuses of the law to claim inventors inventions as their own, deny inventors of their rightful and respected places in history, attempt to skirt the law embellished in conflicts that reach to highest levels of country’s legal system, to further involve the justice system in failing to provide due process, to hide from their accusers, witnesses and evidence through further abuse of the legal system and in so doing, they have destroyed the lives of inventors and stolen off with the profits due to investors in such inventions, and further have embroiled Supreme Courts, State Courts, Bar Associations, Law Firms, Police Departments, Investment Firms, United States and International Patent Offices, and myriads of others in the resulting mess of attempting to cover up such crimes. A mess so grand as only This Court can issue sanction and restore Truth, Justice and the American Way and turn back history to reflect the proper and rightful inventors and owners of such technology, technology you will learn that has changed the world in so many ways already. So high do these crimes rise, as to demand, by the forefathers of the Constitution that a matter as grave as the loss of the right to inventions comes before in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 the creation of any other court in the land in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9, making This Court have original jurisdiction and absolute authority over these matters. That the lower courts thus far have failed to provide any elements of justice and have through delay after delay in dealing with evidence, through conflicted individuals abusing public offices such as the patent office in outright fraud, abusing public offices steeped in conflicts and in violation of Supreme Court rules, so as to use the legal system to cause the loss of inventors rights. A case so perverse to the patent system, the justice system and the legal system by lawyers may perhaps be the single largest issue ever presented before This Court which may cause loss of public confidence in the patent, economic, legal and justice systems entirely, which is perhaps why the forefathers placed the rights of the inventor when at stake, with This Court and only This Court.
b. That a denial by This Court of original jurisdiction could unintentionally cause further denial of due process, furthering the loss of constitutionally protected inventor rights and loss public confidence that would result from such loss of rights attributable directly to very system that is instituted by the Constitution to prevent such catastrophes from occurring, if effect giving the appearance of impropriety by This Court an appearance that must be negated by This Court resolving the issues through unobstructed due process and denial of legal procedure that is the basis for the formation of our country.
c. Knowing and willful criminal activity, including fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) by licensed patent attorneys, in mismisstating sing of the core subject matter of the patent applications of the Technology to prevent such applications from issuing, and that has caused the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeUSPTO (“USPTO”) to direct Petitioners’ patent applications into suspension pending the outcome, of investigations into the patent attorneys who filed such fraudulent patents among other things, and of the proceedings prayed for herein; and
d. Knowing and willful misstatement through further fraud upon the USPTO of inventors in the patent applications offor the Technology that has caused the USPTO to direct Petitioners’ patent applications into suspension based on filed allegations of fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of Patents and the Office of Enrollment and Discipline at the USPTO, pending the outcome, among other things, of the proceedings prayed for herein; and
e. Knowing and willful wrongful fraud upon the USPTO through assignments of the patent applications of the Technology by means of a corporation forming “shell game” and a patent “shell game” as toin which affiliatedaffiliated companies to Petitioner held assignments to bogus which patent applications and whereby the more robust patent applications are assigned to a non-affiliatedn entity controlled owned by Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), all unauthorized by the board of directors of Petitioners, that has caused the USPTO to direct Petitioners’ patent applications into suspension pending the outcome, among other things, of the proceedings prayed for herein; and
f. As part and parcel of the corporate corporate and patent “shell game,” the unauthorized formation of similarly named companies in different States so as to confuse Petitioners as to which similarly named companies held assignment to which Technology applications whereby the more robust patent applications are assigned to an entity controlled owned by Proskauer, all unauthorized by the board of directors of Petitioners, that has caused the USPTO to direct Petitioners’ patent applications into suspension pending the outcome, among other things, of the proceedings prayed for herein; and
g. Knowing and willful, fraud upon the USPTO and foreign patent offices in the duplication of patent applications of the Technology under differing titles amongst the USPTO, the European Patent Office (“EPO”), and the Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”) to the detriment of Petitioners and whereby the more robust patent applications are assigned to an entity owned and controlled by Proskauer and other Defendants, all unauthorized by the board of directors of Petitioners, that has caused the USPTO, JPO and where the EPO is pto resently conducting an investigations, to direct Petitioners’ patent applications into suspension pending the outcome, among other things, of the proceedings prayed for herein; and