Draft –Version 3 Friday, October 01, 2004 08:28:04
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )
LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )
JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )
WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )
LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )
LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)
T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Notice of Motion and
MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, ) Motion for Leave to
CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) Proceed In Forma Pauperis
CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY )
LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and )
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )
ZAFMAN LLP II
PATENT POOLS
NDA’S
ALL LAW FIRMS
DONALD KANE
JEFFREY FRIEDSTEIN
SHELDON FRIEDSTEIN
GOLDMAN SACHS
STEVEN C. KRANE
FLORIDA BAR
MATTHEW TRIGGS
ERIC MONTEL TURNER
THOMAS J. CAHILL
)
)
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )
P. STEPHEN LAMONT )
AND AS PRO-SE REPRESENTATIVES ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND INVENTORS OF:
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
ETC…
ELLEN DEGENERES
ALANIS MORRISETTE
ALPINE/CROSSBOW VENTURES
INVESTECH HOLDINGS/H. WAYNE HUIZENGA JR.
ETC.
)
Petitioners. )
COME NOW the Petitioners, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN (“BERNSTEIN”) and P. STEPHEN LAMONT (“LAMONT”), ETC. to request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis and in support state as follows:
1. That Petitioners are possessing of minimal resources for such proceedings according to Exhibit A.
2. Explain why company and EIB are financially unable to mount defense.
a. Money was stolen
b. Involuntary BK defense
c. IV v. PR defense
d. IV v Bars
e. IV v POOLS
f. IV v NDA’s
g. Number of defendants and infringers
h. Investors afraid to invest, not sure what they own now
i. Cost to mount defense must be encumbered by legal system that caused mess
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
This __ day of October 2004
Attorney for Petitioner
Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se
10158 Stonehenge Circle, #801
Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437
Tel.: (561) 364-4240
By:
Eliot I. Bernstein
By: ______
Eliot I. Bernstein – President, Founder & Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Four Ward Street
Brewster, N.Y. 10509
Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By:
P. Stephen Lamont
By: ______
P. Stephen Lamont – CEO Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
Affidavit of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this __ day of October 2004, to Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe & Goldstein LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Ryjo Inc., Ryan Huisman, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Foley & Lardner LLP, Gerald R. Lewin, Erika Lewin, Goldstein Lewin & Co., Brian G. Utley, Raymond T. Hersch, Michael A Reale, F. Ross Miller, Tiedemann Prolow LLC, Carl Tiedemann, Bruce Prolow, Craig Smith, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Honorable Jorge Labarga, and Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP.
Eliot I. Bernstein
CERTIFICATE OF AFFIRMATION
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Eliot I. Bernstein, who was duly sworn and says, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”
Eliot I. Bernstein
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared P. Stephen Lamont, who was duly sworn and says, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this __ day of October 2004 the facts alleged in the foregoing complaint are true.”
P. Stephen Lamont
Notary Public
EXHIBIT “A”
[INSERT INCOME, EXPENSE, NET WORTH FORMS]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN RE PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER )
LIPPE & GOLDSTEIN LLP, RAYMOND A. )
JOAO, RYJO INC, RYAN HUISMAN, )
WILLIAM J. DICK, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, )
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, GERALD R. )
LEWIN, ERIKA LEWIN, GOLDSTEIN )
LEWIN & CO., BRIAN G. UTLEY, RAYMOND)
T. HERSCH, MICHAEL A. REALE, F. ROSS ) Notice of Motion and
MILLER, TIEDEMANN PROLOW IILLC, ) Motion for Leave to
CARL TIEDEMANN, BRUCE PROLOW, ) File a Petition for an
CRAIG SMITH, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY ) Extraordinary Writ
LLP, HONORABLE JORGE LABARGA, and )
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & )
ZAFMAN LLP II )
)
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN AND )
P. STEPHEN LAMONT ) )
Petitioners. )
COME NOW the Petitioners, ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN (“BERNSTEIN”) and P. STEPHEN LAMONT (“LAMONT”), to request that this Court enter an order granting a motion for leave to file a petition for an Extraordinary Writ and in support state as follows.
1. That Petitioners show that the writ is in the aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction as due process of law has been denied Petitioners at various times and in various forums as described herein.
2. That Petitioners show that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers as from the very inception of the inventions of Petitioners (“Technology”) (PATENT LIST) and others, powerful forces (@4K LAWYERS FROM MAJOR LAW FIRMS HAVE ADVERSE INTEREST; 3@ PATENT POOL MEMBERS; 500 NDA VIOLATORS AND ON A GLOBAL BASIS, have assembled against Petitioners using unlawful means, AS FULLY DEFINED IN EXHIBIT B (FEDERAL COMPLAINT TEMPLATE) AND ALL EVIDENCES CONTAINED THEREIN to circumvent theUSE THE Technology WITHOUT PAYING ROYALTIES DUE including, but not limited to:
3. POINT TO FEDERAL AND STATE CRIMINAL CODES THAT WERE VIOLATED.
4. EXPLAIN PATENT SUSPENSIONS CAUSED BY FILING OF FRAUD ON USPTO
- Knowing and willful missing of the core subject matter of the patent applications of the Technology; and
- Knowing and willful misstatement of inventors in the patent applications of the Technology; and
- Knowing and willful wrongful assignments of the patent applications of the Technology by means of a corporation forming “shell game” as to which affiliated companies held assignment to which patent applications; and
- As part and parcel of the corporate “shell game,” the unauthorized formation of similarly named companies in different States so as to confuse Petitioners as to which similarly named companies held assignment to which Technology; and
- Knowing and willful duplication of patent applications of the Technology under differing titles amongst the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the European Patent Office (“EPO”), and the Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”); and
- Knowing and willful filing of patent applications of the Technology to an individual who played no part in the invention stage of the Technology and without assignment to any entity affiliated with Petitioners whereby the USPTO has denied Petitioners’ request for information on these particular patent applications; and
- Knowing and willful creation of false intellectual property documents by patent counsels, the dockets of which Petitioners have used to secure investment capital; and
- The misappropriation and conversion of up to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) or more of funds of Petitioners invested in affiliated companies; and
- Where all of the above have caused the Petitioners to face critical time deadlines for repair of subject matter, repair of inventorship, repair of assignments, resurrection, and in some cases refilling of patent applications of the Technology.
j. WHERE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN LOST ALREADY BY THESE ACTIONS IN FILING FOR GLOBAL PROTECTION AND HAVE CAUSED LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF INVENTORS. DAMAGES FOR GLOBAL LOSS OF PATENT RIGHTS ESTIMATED TO BE 30-40 BILLION IF UNRECOVERABLE BY ACTIONS OF THIS COURT THAT RECAPTURE LOST RIGHTS BOTH IN THE US AND THROUGH TREATISE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
k. THAT DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN DENIED AND CAUSED FURTHER LOSS OF RIGHTS, THAT PATENT OFFICE EXTENSIONS AND CORRECTIONS ARE NECESSARY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE REMAINING RIGHTS ARE FORFEITED. THIS IS WHY SUSPENDED IN US,
l.
5. That Petitioners state that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court as follows:
- In Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001) (“Litigation”) wherein the court denies a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Counter Claim for Damages due to timing issues of any amended answer. Where in fact it appears that Defendants created a suit as a means of harassment and attempts at burying certain companies which may have been set up to misappropriate patents and where for several months the Company was unaware that it was even in litigation and being represented by counsel. Once represented by counsel, company was never given a chance to assert proper defense and when trial came time, judge relieved all corporate counsel for company and would not allow pro-se filing by inventor or shareholders. Default judgement was granted to PR for IV failing to retain counsel. Iviewit had deposed attorney’s and found perjured statements to court versus statements to supreme court bar responses; and
- In the Litigation, the court’s granting motions of counsel of Petitioners to withdraw at the same hearing on the same day and at the same time leaving Petitioners inadequate time to retain new counsel in a complex case, denying due process through denying counsel. Exhibit C – SB Deal was supposed to provide counsel and instead set company up to lose with no counsel; and
- In the Litigation, the Judge Labaraga ruled on a motion submitted to have his conduct reviewed and him removed from the case for outrageous conduct. Iviewit had two counsels Selz and SB and both were let go because they stated to court that the other was going to represent company. cCourt’s unilateral denial of a Motion to Set Aside the Amended Order Striking the Defendants Pleadings and Entering a Default Against the Defendants for Failure to Retain Replacement Counsel (“Amended Order”), Reinstate the Pleadings, and Remove Hon. Jorge Labarga From the Proceedings; and
d. The dismissal without investigation, by The Florida Bar, of the Petitioners’ Complaint Against Christopher C. Wheeler The Florida Bar File No. 2003-51,109 (15C) (“Wheeler Complaint”), a member of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), on grounds inapposite to the rules of The Florida Bar; and
e. The Florida Bar issuing statements in favor of Proskauer position when no investigation into the matters had been formally done, inapposite of the rules.
f. In conflict with Supreme Court of Florida and it’s aegis The Florida Bar due to insurance issues whereby a conflict of interest was discovered in the Wheeler complaint by Wheeler’s Proskauer attorney, Matthew Triggs, who violated his public office position as Grievance Committee member, representing Wheeler when he was in a blackout period excluding him from representing anyone without The Florida Bar Board express waiver and approval. Whereby Triggs was also simultaneously in conflict as he represented Wheeler in a Bar complaint and was also in a private litigation against similar parties, in similarly related matters. This access to private government files for use in private litigation also represents an abuse of public office.
g. That once notified of the conflict of interest, The Florida Bar attempted to destroy the file records twice and the Supreme Court of Florida interceded on Iviewit’s behalf and stopped the destruction of the very files necessary to review the conflict discovered and acknowledged by The Florida Bar. That the matter is further being reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court in case SC104-1078
h. That further denial of due process has occurred by the Florida Bar in failing to file complaints that were formally filed with their offices, involving the conflicts of interest and those involved.
i. That The Florida Bar has further denied Plaintiff, access to records on its public officials to further define the conflict and has in fact resisted all requests by the Company for information.
- The deferment, with no investigation, by the First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (New York) of the Petitioners’ Complaint Against Raymond A. Joao Docket 2003.0532 (“Joao Complaint”) formerly of counsel to Meltzer Lippe Goldstein and Schlissel LLP and Complaint Against Kenneth Rubenstein Docket 2003.0531 (“Rubenstein Complaint”) a member of Proskauer, both since ordered to an investigation by New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, after an eighteen (18) month delay that jeopardizes the timely patent prosecution of the Technology; and
k. Conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety in another public officer and Proskauer partner, Steven C. Krane, in the response of Rubenstein.
l. Conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety in the handling of the Cahill petition after notice of conflict and complaint.
m. Steven C. Krane is embedded so deeply within the ethics and attorney discipline system that a fair and impartial hearing must elevate beyond New York to an unbiased third party oversight. Conflicts with Krane exist in the following forums;
i. ABA
ii. NY Bar
iii. NY SC First Dept
iv. Judith Kaye
- The dismissal with no investigation, by the Virginia State Bar, of the Petitioners’ Complaint Against William J. Dick VSB Docket #04-052-1366, formerly a special counsel to Foley Lardner LLP, on grounds inapposite to the rules of the Virginia State Bar and based on false and misleading statements by Dick to the VA Bar of the factual outcome of the NY SC First Dept cases, The Florida Bar outcome and the Proskauer v. Iviewit case, in fact claiming that the case and the counter complaint had been tried when it factually was not. Calls and letters to notify the VA Bar of information which was falsified by Dick, including patent portforlio’s with materially false and misleading information regarding patents which have been confirmed false by the USPTO and complete avoidance to have the case elevated to next highest level of review; and
- The dismissal with no investigation, by the Pennsylvania State Bar, of the Petitioners’ Complaint Against Andrew L.