Complaint Review: Proskauer Rose LLP Foley & Lardner Kenneth Rubenstein Christopher Wheeler Steven C. Krane

A patent scam is unfolding regarding the anticompetitive monopolistic patent pool known as MPEGLA LLC. The pool and its primary legal representative Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose LLP are under federal and international investigations relating to the theft of patents from inventors at Iviewit Technologies.

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

____________

ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN,

Petitioner,

v.

THE FLORIDA BAR, et al.,*

Respondents.

____________

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Florida Supreme Court
____________

Petition's FOR: WRIT OF CERTIORARI; EXTRAORDINARY WRIT; HABEAS corpus;

writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus
____________

In Forma Pauperis

Eliot I. Bernstein - Pro Se

10158 Stonehenge Circle - #801
Boynton Beach, FL 33437
561-364-4240

Counsel for Petitioners

*Additional Parties Listed on Page iii.

_________________________

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

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.

LIST OF PARTIES

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

Iviewit 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


TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE REDUX

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION

INDEX OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - DENIAL OF JUDGMENT NON PROSEQUITUR

APPENDIX B - DENIAL OF MOTION FOR REHEARING, CLARIFICATION & CERTIFICATION

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


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

STATUTES

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8

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

AMENDMENT XIV - CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR

Rules of Professional Conduct florida

federal code

The Economic Espionage Act

ANTITRUST CIVIL PROCESS

THE SHERMAN ACT

the sherman act

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1965 RICO VENUE AND PROCESS

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

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

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (B) RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (C) RICO

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

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1968 RICO CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 CONSPIRACY Sec 371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENSE OR TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING Sec 1951 - INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE

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 1 Sec 26 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR PRIVATE PARTIES; EXCEPTION; COSTS

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 510 REMEDIES FOR ALTERATION OF PROGRAMMING BY CABLE SYSTEMS

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 PATENT COOPERATION TREATY CH 35 Sec 351

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

CONSOLIDATED PATENT RULES SEC 1.63

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

LAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 1001

LAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 2071

Title 37 - Code of Federal Regulations Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights - MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE PATENT RULES Part 10 - PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PART 10 - REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK

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

PATENT RULES PART 10 INDEX - PART 15

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 1835 ORDERS TO PRESERVE CONFIDENTIALITY

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 1120 CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE OR FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION

TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1125 FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN

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

TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 BANKRUPTCY Sec. 152 CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS; FALSE OATHS AND CLAIMS; BRIBERY

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 FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS Sec 1001

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 STOLEN PROPERTY Sec 2311

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 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

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 15 CH 22 SUBCH IV SUBCHAPTER IV - THE MADRID PROTOCOL

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

OTHER AUTHORITIES

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND STATUES

SECTION 8 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT

SECTION 15 - ATTORNEYS; ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE

SECTION 21 - ACCESS TO COURTS

SECTION 22 - TRIAL BY JURY

SECTION 24 - ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS AND MEETINGS

SECTION 8 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT

SECTION 9 - DUE PROCESS

TITLE V - JUDICIAL BRANCH - CHAPTER 38 - JUDGES; GENERAL PROVISIONS - DISQUALIFICATION WHEN JUDGE PARTY; EFFECT OF ATTEMPTED JUDICIAL ACTS SUGGESTION OF DISQUALIFICATION; GROUNDS; PROCEEDINGS ON SUGGESTION AND EFFECT DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FOR PREJUDICE; APPLICATION; AFFIDAVITS; ETC.

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

PART III - CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

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

Title X PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS Ch 112 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS sec 112.317 Penalties

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

Title XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT

Title XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 688.003 Injunctive relief

Title XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 688.004 Damages

FLORIDA TITLE XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

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

FLORIDA PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS

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 CH 815 - COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES

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

FLORIDA - FORGERY

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

FLORIDA CH 817 - FRAUDULENT PRACTICES - PART I - FALSE PRETENSES AND FRAUDS, GENERALLY

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

THEFT, ROBBERY AND MISAPPROPRIATION AND CONVERSION OF FUNDS

FLORIDA LAW SEC 812.081 TRADE SECRETS; THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT; UNLAWFUL COPYING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTY

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 CRIMES

New York State Consolidated Laws Penal ARTICLE 105 CONSPIRACY

New York State Consolidated Laws Penal ARTICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES

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

ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS

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

NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS TITLE X ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT ARTICLE

ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION

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

NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS ARTICLE 210 - PERJURY AND RELATED OFFENSES

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

DELAWARE STATE CRIMES

DELAWARE SEC 521 CONSPIRACY

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

VIOLATIONS OF DELAWARE CORPORATE LAWS

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

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES

FRAUD UPON THE JAPANESE PATENT OFFICES (JPO)

VIOLATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT COOPERATION (PCT) TREATISE

ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT

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. ________


IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

____________

ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN,

Petitioner,

v.

THE FLORIDA BAR, et al.,*

Respondents.

____________

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Florida Supreme Court
____________

Petition's FOR: WRIT OF CERTIORARI; EXTRAORDINARY WRIT; HABEAS corpus;

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.



OPINIONS BELOW

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.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

[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);.

PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

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.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

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 a*s" 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 d**k 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].

d**k 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 tha