Max Sound's RICO attorney, Professor G. Robert Blakey the author and nation's foremost authority on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO),

"SAN DIEGO, CA--(Marketwired - July 26, 2017) - Max Sound Corporation (MAXD) (OTC PINK: MAXD) provides the following update regarding the Attia litigation against Google, Flux Factory, Larry Page, Sergey Brin and other related defendants.

On July 25, 2017 Law firm Buether Joe & Carpenter LLC filed a Fourth Amended Complaint against Defendants Google, Inc., Flux Factory, Inc., Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Sebastian Thrun, Eric "Astro" Teller, Michelle Kaufmann, Jennifer Carlile, Augusto Roman, Nicholas Chim, and DOES 1-100. The fourth amended filing is a Motion for Leave to add Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.

Download the filing from the court here: Amended Complaint or download entire motion from BJC here: Share File

G. Robert Blakey

Max Sound's RICO attorney, Professor G. Robert Blakey the author and nation's foremost authority on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), teaches criminal law and procedure, federal criminal law and procedure, terrorism, and jurisprudence at Notre Dame Law School.

Prof. Blakey's extensive legislative drafting experience resulted in the passage of the Crime Control Act of 1973, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970 and the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Title IX of which is known as "RICO". He has been personally involved in drafting and implementing RICO-type legislation in 22 of the more than 30 states that have enacted racketeering laws. He frequently argues in or consults on cases involving RICO statutes at both the federal and state levels, including several cases before the United States Supreme Court.

Read more: Professor Blakey Bio and CV

"We continue to pursue claims to seek justice for all inventors who have been harmed by Google's standard pattern of bad practices," states John Blaisure, Max Sound's CEO.

The amended filing in the Motion for Leave alleges the following:

1. MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS

2. BREACH OF CONTRACT (ISA/SOW)

3. DECLARATORY RELIEF

4. RACKETEERING (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.)

Background of the Attia vs. Google case:

In May 2014, MAXD entered into a representation agreement with world renowned architect Eli Attia giving MAXD the exclusive right to pursue claims on his behalf against violators of Attia's intellectual property rights.

The lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2014, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against Google, its co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Google's spinoff company Flux Factory, and senior executives of Flux alleging among other causes of action misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract. The lawsuit contends that Google and the other Defendants stole Mr. Attia's trade secrets, proprietary information, and know-how regarding a revolutionary architecture design and building process that he alone had invented, known as Engineered Architecture which Google called Genie before it changed the name to Flux.

Defendants engaged Attia in 2011 to translate his architectural technology into software for a proof of concept, based on decades of his life's work with the goal of determining at that point whether to continue with full-scale development of Attia's project. The lawsuit alleges that once Attia had disclosed the trade secrets and proprietary information which Google needed to bring the technology to market, they severed ties with Attia and continued to use his technology without a license and without compensation in order to bring the technology to market without him. Google valued the project at $120 billion dollars a year. Google later spun-out the business, and the new company was renamed Flux Factory. Flux Factory is substantially funded and has grown according an interview with one if its founders to 800 employees.

Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendants, punitive damages, and restitution.

About Professor G. Robert Blakey: George Robert Blakey is an American attorney and law professor. He is best known for his work in connection with drafting the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and for scholarship on that subject. Prof. Blakey has considerable expertise in federal and state wiretapping statutes as well. He helped draft and secure passage of Title III on wiretapping of the federal 1968 Crime Control Act, and has been personally involved in drafting and implementing wiretapping legislation in 39 of the 43 states that have enacted such laws."

Source and Full Article

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/-2227796.htm

Click Below to Read Full Complaint
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiQ1ZZMG9kLWRHTm8/view?usp=sharing

"Recently, the SEC imposed the harshest fine ever levied for insider trading in a case that involved former Galleon Group hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam. Rajaratnam was fined $10 million, a civil penalty of nearly $93 million, in addition to an 11 years sentence in federal prison.

Roomy Khan, an employee of Galleon worked with the FBI in sealing Rajaratnam's fate. But although she collaborated and assisted the FBI, the SEC clearly wanted to send a message by jailing Khan for a term of one year in federal prison for illegally passing inside information as well as obstructing justice. The formal charge that led to her incarceration was categorized as wire fraud."

Source
https://www.southflalaw.com/insider-trading-penalties-can-be-very-harsh.html

Also Check Out
http://trialbyblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/ceo-paul-otellini-says-it-was-surprise.html

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM AND PERMISSION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE AND OTHER RELIEF. Northern District of Illinois, John Robert Blakey.

"COMES NOW ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, APPELLANT PRO SE, WHO
RESPECTFULLY PLEADS AND SHOWS THIS COURT AS FOLLOWS:

1. I, Eliot Ivan Bernstein, am Appellant prose.

2. I respectfully make this Motion to Accept my late filing of the Statement of
Jurisdiction in response to this Court's Orders and further for permission to File
Electronically through the ECF system in the future, to accept my Infonna
Pauperis statement, to exceed the Page limits on my Jurisdiction statement if
needed, and for leave to cure any other defects or requirements by this Court.

3. It is respectfully submitted to this Court that good cause is shown in the filing of
this motion which I believe has merit and is not frivolous and request that the
motions be granted so this Appeal may be fully heard on the merits.

4. As shown herein, in addition to substantial recurring electrical and power problems
at Appellant's home spanning over the last 2 months and ongoing causing
computers and other work equipment to go out and other Hacking into Appellant's
online "repository" of documents and website, Appellant has been continually
engaged in unraveling and sorting out massive frauds which is something
Appellant repeatedly notified the US District Court about and where Appellant has
repeatedly had to seek extensions of time in the Florida State Courts due to
repeated sharp practices and fraudulent filings.

CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, LAW SINCE ENTRY OF ORDER ON APPEAL

5. There has been a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the District
Court's Order on Summary Judgment which was directly predicated in part upon a
clearly erroneous factual and legal determination that Appellant Eliot Bernstein
was not a "beneficiary" with "standing" in either the Estates or Trusts of Simon
and Shirley Bernstein which was then used by the District Court in its Summary
Judgement Order on Appeal on "collateral estoppel" grounds which was clearly
erroneous on multiple grounds including applying the clearly erroneous "legal
standard" for Collateral Estoppel by applying Illinois law instead of the law of
Florida where the Orders occurred as this is a Diversity of Citizenship case for
jurisdiction as cited in Appellant's response to the Summary Judgment ( "Round
2" ).

6. Respectfully, this Court should see that Appellant was clearly a "beneficiary"
"with standing" and remains such in the Simon Bernstein Estate case where there
has Never been an Order of any Court to the contrary, but Appellant also is and
always was a "beneficiary with Standing" in the Shirley Bernstein Estate case and
by the express terms of the Shirley Trust was an expressly "named" Beneficiary of
the Shirley Trust which became "irrevocable" upon her passing which was prior to
Simon Bernstein's passing.

7. Appellant had moved for "Injunctive relief' in the State Court of Florida even prior
to the "removal" of the "Insurance litigation" herein to Federal Court on or about
May 16, 2013.

8. This "Injunctive" relief filed in the State Court was predicated upon the "then
discovered" Frauds and forgeries of Dispositive documents filed in the Shirley
Bernstein Estate case by attorneys working for and with Ted Bernstein, the alleged
"Trustee" and Plaintiff in this action being attorneys at Tescher and Spallina who
were the Estate Planners for Simon and Shirley Bernstein and made themselves
Personal Representatives of the Estates and Co-Trustees of Trusts.

9. As shown by Appellant's Answer and Counterclaims in this case and by a Motion
for Injunctive Relief filed in the US District Court in this action in Feb. of 2016,
the "same parties" involved with the frauds in the State of Florida cases are the
same as those frauds before the US District Court where no "original" documents
have been produced and all key dispositive Documents like the Insurance Policy
and alleged controlling Trust have all allegedly become "lost" and "missing".

10. To the contrary, Appellant has alleged this is all part of a fraudulent scheme to
"control" the Assets and Disposition of Assets and take away Appellant's
"standing" and right to be heard after Appellant has exposed frauds and crimes in
both actions and reported same to Federal and State investigative authorities.

11. Attached is a recent Order of Florida 15th Judicial Circuit Judge Scher which
confirms that I, Appellant, Eliot I. Bernstein am in fact a Beneficiary of the
Simon Bernstein Estate which thus changes the circumstances and facts upon
which the District Court issued its Order.

12. Further, Judge Scher has also found that Ted Bernstein, who is the Plaintiff in this
case, is adverse to the Estate of Simon Bernstein and has a conflict of interest
involving the Illinois Insurance action and yet as later shown herein, continues to
act "in unity" with the Estate PR Brian O'Connell to "control" Discovery and
documents and the frauds and litigation in both this "Insurance" action and the
Florida cases.

13. As this Court will note, while I have attempted in good faith to cite to the Docket
Entries in the Record of the US District Court of the Northern District of Illinois in
both the Jurisdiction State1nent and this motion herein, there are references to
newly discovered facts and change of circumstances which have occurred after the
issuance of the Order being Appealed and this Court's Orders which I believe are
important and while I have attached some of these items in hard copy print, it
would be burdensome to do so for the entire motion and would further delay the
filing of these papers and I request permission to Electronically file in the future
and if required by this Court, to supplement my filings Electronically.

UNDISPUTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF OF ONGOING

FRAUD BY PLAINTIFF TED BERNSTEIN, HIS COUNSELS ALAN B.

ROSE, ESQ. AND ADAM SIMON, ESQ. AND INTERVENOR PR BRIAN

O'CONNELL, ESQ. FOR THE ESTATE OF SIMON BERNSTEIN ACTING

IN CONCERT AND ACTIVE CONCEALMENT OF THE FRAUD

DIRECTLY IMPACTING THE US DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER ON

SUMMARY JUDGMENT "NEWLY DISCOVERED" AFTER ISSUANCE

OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER ON APPEAL; FRAUD THAT

HAS BEEN CONCEALED FROM BOTH THE US DISTRICT COURT AND

NOW THIS 7TH CIRCUIT US COURT OF APPEALS DESPITE

APPELLANT'S REQUEST OF FLORIDA 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

JUDGE SCHER TO NOTIFY ALL PROPER AUTHORITIES

14. The U.S. District Court below, Northern District of Illinois, abused its discretion
acting clearly erroneously by failing to determine any actual proof or evidence in
the Record and submitted on Summary Judgment by the Plaintiffs to support the
False and Fraudulent claim by Ted Bernstein and Counsels Adam Simon and Alan
Rose that Appellant Eliot Bernstein is not a beneficiary of the Estate of Simon
Bernstein, lacks standing and is barred from that Probate action lacking standing
asserted as collateral estoppel which was improperly relied upon by the District
Court in granting Summary Judgment dismissing all of Appellant's claims.

15. On Jan. 30th, 2017, Appellant notified the US District Court prior to the actual
issuance of the Order now on Appeal in part "about important circumstances in the
Florida Courts which I believe are consistent with what I notified this Court about
in my All Writs petition where there is Direct collusion between the parties in the
Florida proceedings which are impacting the Integrity of this Court's
proceedings and path to Judgment Specifically, that in Florida, the Estate of
Simon Bernstein and PR Brian O'Connell are now directly acting in Unity
with Ted Bernstein and Alan Rose and even permitting Ted Bernstein's
attorney Alan Rose to act as the Counsel for the Estate which is a major
conflict of interest. This conflict has also been raised in Florida by the Creditor's
attorney Peter Feaman, Esq. and Hearings are scheduled in a few weeks in
Florida to address this Conflict and it is also important to note that these
hearings are before a new Judge, Judge Scher, and all the Orders that the
Plaintiffs are relying upon for Collateral Estoppel before this Court were
issued by a Judge Phillips who has now left the Bench prematurely and
retired.'' See, US District Court Docket No. 271 filed Jan. 30, 2017.

16. This Court should note that the "Ted Bernstein" Plaintiffs and the Estate of Sitnon
Bernstein as Intervenor are the only remaining parties left in the case and yet these
parties are not only acting in "unity" but doing so in such a "controlled manner" as
to further and protect the frauds at play as shown in the All Writs but now further
proof has emerged showing this scheme even further where there is no "real
controversy" left before the District Court but instead an "inside, secret deal and
nee;otiation" amongst parties acting in fraud and misconduct.

17. The US District Court was repeatedly apprised of these Conflicts including in the
All Writs Act Motion for Injunction of Feb. 2016, Par. 4, providing in part, "until
this Court sorts out conflicts of interest as set out herein and exercises its
inherent powers to probe "side deals" compromising the integrity of this
Court's Jurisdiction and that such injunction should specifically include but
not be litnited to enjoining proceedings before Judge Phillips in Palm Beach
County" ( emphasis added). See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Docmnent #: 214 Filed:
02/24/16 Page 3 of 132 PageID #:3637.

18. Further in the All Writs Motion for Injunction Appellant moved the District Court
stating "that sufficient evidence will be shown to justify this Court exercising its
inherent powers to make inquiry of the parties and respective counsels
about"side agreements" and other "agreements" outside the record of any
proceedings impairing the integrity of proceedings in this Court similar to the
inquiry discussed in Winlder v. Eli Lilly & Co., 101 F.3d 1196, 1202 (7th Cir.
1996)" ( emphasis added). See, Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 11 of 132
PagelD #:3645.

19. Thus, the District Court had been moved for relief under Winkler v. Eli Lilly &
Co. 101 F.3d 1196, 1202 (7th Cir. 1996) and the All Writs Motion itself set out
sufficient grounds for relief. Appellant respectfully asserts that further grounds
now exist for Injunctive relief and notifies this Court that it will be moving for
Injunctive relief under the Rules.

20. The U.S. District Court's Order on Appeal ( Docket Entry No. 273) appears
in all material respects in this part of the Order to be no more than a simple
"copy and paste" by the Court of False statements and arguments submitted by
Plaintiffs' attorney Adam Simon which have been regurgitated into an official
federal Court Order with no evidence, proof or documents in support, a
"fraud within a fraud" in an ongoing series of frauds.

21. Plaintiffs and their attorney Adam Simon had wholly failed to submit ANY Order
or Judgment from Florida showing Appellant was not a Beneficiary in the Estate of
Simon Bernstein and lacked standing in the Estate of Simon Bernstein. Of course,
legally, the Plaintiffs and Adam Simon could not submit such an Order as No Such
Order exists as this never happened in the Florida state Courts but instead
Plaintiffs and Counsel Adam Simon simply knowingly "stated Fal~e Facts" to
the US District Court that this was the case and such an Order existed in efforts
to wholly remove Plaintiffs Constitutionally protected Due Process and Procedure Rights .

22. The US District Court below appears to have bought into this fraud "hook, line
and sinker" without requiring any Proof or evidence as the Order on Appeal not
only makes reference to these False Facts stated by Adam Simon but instead of
Citing to some actual Order or Judgment document from Florida provided in the
Summary Judgment filings, the District Court simply cites to the Statement of
Facts submitted by Counsel Adam Simon for Plaintiffs.

23. For example, the US District Court states in the Order on Appeal, "First, Eliot
cannot sustain cognizable damages related to the disposition of the Estate or the
testamentary trust in light of the Probate Court's rulings. The Probate Court found,
inter alia, that Simon Bernstein's "children - including Eliot - are not
beneficiaries" of the Will of Simon Bernstein or the related testamentary trust.
[240] at 11." See, US District Court Order Docket No. 273 pages 7-8. The US
District Court had made it clear in FOOTNOTE 1 that, " The facts are taken from
the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and the Court's previous rulings [106,
220[. (240[ refers to Plaintiffs' statement of material facts." Thus, the US
District Court simply ruled based upon a section of False Statement of Facts from
Plaintiffs citing to Plaintiffs Statement of Facts [2401 at 11 that had NO Orders
attached or submitted used to provide the Findings and language that the District
later gives "preclusive effect to" and thus, a fraud within a fraud, a lie within a lie.

SORTING OUT THE FRAUD AND THE FRAUDS WITHIN THE FRAUD,
UNFEELING THE ONION:

24. Part of the basis for Appellant to respectfully move this Court to accept the
separate Jurisdictional Statement is for this Court to consider, as shown and stated
to the US District Court, the painstaldng amount of time it takes and has tal<.en to
continually unravel the "lie within a lie of a lie" or "fraud within a fraud of a
fraud" that this case has been from the outset as pleaded by the Appellant in the
original Answer ( Docket No. 35 Filed: 09/22/13 ) and multiple other filings
including a Motion for Injunctive Relief under the All Writs Act filed Feb. 24,
2016 ( Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 ) and of course
Docket No. 271 above and other filings.

25. I respectfully request this Court to carefully examine Appellant's Motion for
Injunction under the All Writs Act filed by Appellant Feb. 24, 2016 as it is not
only relevant to this Court's Jurisdiction to hear this Appeal having moved for
Injunctive relief at the District Court, but further provides a roadmap to the
Documented "Missing Millions" Unaccounted for in these cases, "Missing
Originals" and documents and Discovery in general, "Missing Witnesses",
pervasive frauds herein and "sharp practices" by the parties against
Appellant including the pervasive "conflicts of interest" which have been
"controlling the withholding of Discovery" and "Discovery used as a Weapon"
throughout these related proceedings.

26. This Court is respectfully referred to Exhibit 10 of Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment
motion ( 1 of 2 "Probate Orders submitted by Plaintiffs) which is a "Final
Judgment" on "validity" of Testamentary instruments from Judge Phillips in
Florida issued Dec. 16, 2015 while the parties were awaiting the first Summary
Judgment determination from the US District Court ( Summary Judgment filings
"No 1 from summer of2015 ).

27. Paragraph 2 of that Final Judgment provides: "Based upon the evidence presented
during the trial, the Court finds that the Testainentary Docmnents, as offered in
evidence by Plaintiff, are genuine and authentic, and are valid and enforceable
according to their terms." See, Adam Simon and Plaintiffs "Round 2" Smnmary
Judgment filing Exhibit 10, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document #: 240-11 Filed:
05/21/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:4193.

28. Instead of the Plaintiffs actually attaching the Will of Simon Bernstein so the
US District Court could see the "terms" of the Will o[Simon Bernstein, Plaintiffs
attorney Adam Simon simply made False Statements of Fact in the Statement of
Facts submitted on Summary Judgment "Round 2" and in the Memorandum
supporting the motion quoting from Attorney at Law Adam Simon presently
licensed as follows:

"The Probate Orders entered after trial include findings that (i) Eliot is not
beneficiary of the Estate of Simon Bernstein; (ii) appoint a guardian ad litem
for Eliot's children; and (iii) Eliot has no standing in the Probate Actions on
behalf of himself, the Estate or his children." See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643
Docmnent #: 241 Filed: 05/21/16 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:4263
29. Further from Adam Simon, "The Probate Orders bar Eliot from the Probate
Actions to represent his own interests," See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document #:
241 Filed: 05/21/16 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:4263

ATTORNEY ADAM SIMON ACTING FOR TED BERNSTEIN
CONTINUING FALSE AND FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS NOW USED
BY THE US DISTRICT COURT IN THE ORDER ON APPEAL WHICH
BEGAN WITH TED BERNSTEIN'S COUNSEL ALAN B. ROSE MAKING
FALSE AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENTS OF FACT AND FRAUD UPON
THE COURT IN FLORIDA:

30. This "fraud" that Appellant was not a "beneficiary" in the Simon Bernstein Estate
case that Ted Bernstein's attorney Adam Simon has used before the US District
Court below began with Ted Bernstein's attorney Alan Rose falsely claiming this
to then "new" Judge Phillips in Florida in an after hours filing on the eve of a
Status Conference in the Simon Bernstein Estate case. See Ted Bernstein and
Attorney Alan Rose Status Conference filing in Florida as follows:
Ted and Rose in Filing# 32030300 E-Filed 09/14/2015 05: 18:25 PM
"TRUSTEE'S OMNIBUS STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE"

"Introduction - The overarching issue in these cases is Eliot Bernstein. He is
not named as a beneficiary of anything: yet he alone has derailed these
proceedings for more than two years and has harassed and attacked the prior
judges, fiduciaries and their counsel." ( See, full document to be uploaded upon
Permission to file Electronically or supplement this filing )

31. As shown in my All Writs filing, this lead to Appellant being denied fundamental
rights to be heard and due process even in the "Scheduling" of the alleged "one
day" "Validity Trial'' that has then been used before this Court to wrongly dismiss
all my claims and remove me from the action which had been scheduled in the
Shirley Bernstein Trust case which was not even "Noticed for Status Conference"
and thus in direct violation of Florida Procedural Laws. See, All Writs Motion
Feb. 2016.

32. On or about Jan. 4, 2016 just a few weeks after this "Validity Trial", Ted
Bernstein's attorney made the following False and clearly Fraudulent Affirmative
Statement of Fact in a Motion to the Florida Court to remove my "standing" in the
cases as follows:

"As a result of upholding these documents, the Court has determined that
Eliot Bernstein, individually, is not a beneficiary of either Simon's or Shirley's
Trusts or Estates. Instead, his three sons are among the beneficiaries of both
Simon1s and Shirleis Trusts, in amounts to be determined by further proceedings.
Eliot lacks standing to continue his individual involvement in this case." See,
Jan. 4, 2016 Motion by Ted Bernstein-Alan Rose to be submitted Electronically
upon permission or to be supplemented.

33. This statement, however, by this attorney at law Alan Rose, was clearly False and
Fraudulent as Judge Phillips had Never done the Acts being claimed as already
occurring and none of these alleged acts or findings are in existence in the "Final
Judgment" ( See, Adam Simon and Plaintiffs "Round 2" Summary Judgment filing
Exhibit IO Probate Order, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document#: 240-11 Filed:
05/21/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:4193. ) and the Transcript of the Validity Trial.
Instead, this is simply a FALSE and Fraud Upon the Court scheme and narrative
that continued for over a year in the Florida Courts and as alleged in the
Appellant's All Writs Motion for Injunctive relief is part of the wrongful scheme to
gain "collateral estoppel" advantage in these proceedings.

ACTUAL WILL LANGUAGE OF SIMON BERNSTEIN

34. While Appellant maintains various legal arguments and objections to any
detennination of"validity" of Testamentary Wills and Trusts from the Florida
proceedings, ARTICLE I of the Simon Bernstein Will upheld and used by
Plaintiffs for "collateral estoppel" actually provides by its express terms:

ARTICLE I. TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
I give such items of my tangible personal property to
such persons as I may designate in a separate written
memorandum prepared for this purpose. I give to
SHIRLEY, if SHIRLEY survives me, my personal
effects, jewelry, collections, household furnishings and
equipment, automobiles and all other non-business
tangible personal property other than cash, not effectively
disposed of by such memorandum, and if SHIRLEY
does not survive me, I give this property to my
children who survive me, [emphasis added] divided
among them as they agree, or if they fail to agree, divided
among them by my Personal Representatives in as nearly
equal shares as practical, and if neither SHIRLEY nor
any child of mine survives me, this property shall pass
with the residue of my estate."

35 _ Thus, being a natural born child and son to Simon Bernstein who has survived him,
the express language of the Will itself which Judge Phillips held to be enforceable
"by its tenns" establishes Appellant as a "beneficiary" in the Estate of Simon
Bernstein with Standing. See, Will of Simon Bernstein 2012 to be submitted upon
permission to file Electronically.

ACTUAL WILL LANGUAGE OF SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN HAS SAME LANGUAGE MAKING APPELLANT A "BENEFICIARY" WITH STANDING IN THE SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN ESTATE WHERE APPELLANT WAS EXPRESSLY NAMED AS A BENEFICIARY IN THE NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATION:

36. The actual Will language of the Shirley Bernstein "Will" which was "validated" by
the Probate Order ( Exhibit 10) advanced by Plaintiffs and Adam Simon expressly
makes Appellant a beneficiary with Standing.

WILL OF SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN
Dated May 20, 2008
I, SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, of Palm Beach County,
Florida, hereby revoke all my prior Wills and Codicils
and make this Will. My spouse is SIMON L.
BERNSTEIN ("SIMON).

My children are TED S. BERNSTEIN ("TED"), PAMELA B. Sllv1ON,
ELIOT BERNSTEIN [EMPHASIS ADDED], JILL
!ANTONI and LISA S. FRIEDSTEIN.

ARTICLE I. TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
I give such items of my tangible personal property to
such persons as I may designate in a separate written
memorandum prepared for this purpose. I give to
SIMON, if SIMON survives me, my personal effects,
jewelry, collections, household furnishings and
equipment, automobiles and all other non-business
tangible personal property other than cash, not effectively
disposed of by such memorandum, and if SIMON does
not survive me, I give this property to my children
who survive me, divided among them as they agree, or if
they fail to agree, divided among them by my Personal
Representatives in as nearly equal shares as practical, and
if neither SIMON nor any child of mine survives me, this
property shall pass with the residue of my estate.

37. Thus, while there was an "Order" issued in Florida claiming I am not a Beneficiary
of the Shirley Bernstein Estate ( but No Order in the Simon Bernstein Estate), this
Order was clearly erroneous and the product of fraud and Appellant is pursuing
motions to vacate in the Florida Courts and will further seek a narrowly tailored
Injunction in these federal proceedings.

38. In both the Simon Bernstein Estate and Shirley Bernstein Estate, Appellant was
formally Noticed as a Beneficiary in both Notices of Administration. See,
documents to be filed Electronically or supplemented.

39. Likewise, in a "resignation letter" by Estate Planner and Ted Bernstein attorney
Donald Tescher from Jan. of2014 after forgeries in the Shirley Estate case were
discovered, Donald Tescher stated affirmatively that Appellant was in fact a
Beneficiary of the Shirley Bernstein Trust yet Donald Tescher was never produced
or called as a Witness in the "validity" Trial despite this letter and despite signing
the Notice of Administration in the Simon Bernstein Estate naming Appellant a
Beneficiary.

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF FEB. 9, 2017 AFTER ISSUANCE
OF DISTRICT COURT ORDER ON APPEAL WITH ESTATE OF SIMON
BERNSTEIN PR BRIAN O'CONNELL ADMITTING THE LANGUAGE
MAKING APPELLANT A BENEFICIARY IN THE SIMON BERNSTEIN
ESTATE IN STATEMENT CONCEALED AND WITHHELD BY TED
BERNSTEIN AND ALAN ROSE SINCE AT LEAST DEC. 22, 2016

40. While Appellant submits to this Court and the Florida Courts the involved
attorneys "had to know" the express language of the Wills made Appellant a
Beneficiary with Standing, "newly discovered evidence" emerged on Feb. 9, 2017
after issuance of the Summary Judgment Order on Appeal in a filing by Ted
Bernstein Attorney Alan Rose in relation to Hearings in the Florida Court for Ted
Bernstein and Alan Rose to "act for the Estate" working hand in hand with PR
O'Connell despite being "adverse" in this Insurance case.

41. This evidence consisted of a Statement by the PR which is "undated" but which by
the submission from Alan Rose shows this Statement was "emailed" to Creditor
Attorney Peter Feaman as of Dec. 22, 2016 (See Exhibit 1) yet withheld from
Appellant until Feb. 09, 2017 and concealed from this Court and the US
District Court to this very day.

42. The language of PR O'Connell in this undated "Statement" in part is as follows:
"Based upon the Will upheld during a probate trial conducted last December,
resulting in a Final Judgment dated December 16, 2015, Simon Bernstein's
children are the named devisees of certain personal property," ( emphasis added) .
Appellant, as a natural child of Simon Bernstein, is a beneficiary with standing
under at least this express language in the Will.

APPELLANT MOVED TO VACATE CERTAIN SCHEDULING ORDERS
BASED UPON THE FRAUD AND A NEW ORDER OF FLORIDA JUDGE
SCHER UPHOLDS APPELLANT'S STATUS AS A BENEFICIARY IN THE

ESTATE OF SIMON BERNSTEIN WITH STANDING WHERE FLORIDA
JUDGE SCHER HAS "WITNESSED" THE MULTIPLE FILINGS AND
ACTS OF TED BERNSTEIN'S ATTORNEY ALAN ROSE FALSELY
CLAIMING APPELLANT IS NOT A BENEFICIARY OF ANYTHING:

43. In several of the new Hearings in Florida that Appellant notified the District Court
below were about to occur in Appellant's Jan. 30, 2017 filing ( Docket No. 271 )
the following exchanges have occurred in the Transcript of Proceedings. As will be
shown to the Court, Attorney Alan Rose has only "changed his story" in Florida
after being exposed for repeated fraud:

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROSEMARIE SCHER THURSDAY,
FEBRUARY 16, 2017

http://iviewit.tv/Simon%20and%20Shir1ey%20Estate/20l70216%20HEARING%2
0TRANSCR1PT%20JUDGE%20SCHER%20CLEAN%20COPY.pdf

2:38 p.m. - 4:46 p.m.- Simon Bernstein Estate
P. 33 - Rose Addressing the Court

"14 MR. ROSE: I would just state for the
15 record that he has been determined to have no
16 standing in the estate proceeding as a
17 beneficiary.
18 THE COURT: I thought that was in the
19 Estate of Shirley Bernstein.
20 MR. ROSE: It's the same ruling --
21 ( Overs peaking.)
22 THE COURT: Please, I will not entertain

23 more than one person.
24 MR. ROSE: By virtue of Judge Phillips'
25 final judgment upholding the documents, he is
P.34
1 not a beneficiary of the residuary estate. He
2 has a small interest as a one-fifth beneficiary
3 of tangible personal property, which is -
4 THE COURT: I understand."

ESTATE OF SIMON L. BERNSTEIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
HONORABLE ROSEMARIE SCHER VOLUME II THURSDAY, MARCH
2, 20171:35 - 3:39 P.M. TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS

http://iviewit.tv/Simon%20and%20Shirley%20Estate/201702l6%20and%2020170
302%20Hearing%20Transcripts%20Combined%20WITH%20EXHIBITS%20JUD
GE%20SCHER %20CLEAN%20COPY .pdf

Page 127 - Eliot addressing the Court

"9 forthcoming. And I think we'll be able to show
13:42:5110 that there's been fraud on this Court. The
11 other date in that hearing if you look at the
12 transcript Mr. Rose claimed that I had no
13 standing, and you overruled that, or whatever
14 you call it, you did.
13:43:03 15 THE COURT:  I did."
Page 138 - Court Addressing Eliot

"13:51 :55 10 THE COURT:  You don't have to. You have
11 standing. You are sitting there. I have
12 allowed it. I have allowed it. You are a
13 tangible beneficiary whatever assets remain
14 outside of the Simon trust. I think everyone
13:52:08 15 is on the same page. If it's a dollar or if
16 it's ten dollars, that's where you have -- now,
17 I have no idea the dollar figures in any of
18 this.

19 MR. ELIOT BERNSTEIN: None ofus do."

44. As will be further shown when Appellant moves for a Stay and Injunctive relief in
these federal proceedings, there has Never been any "Construction Hearings" in
Florida on the meaning of any of the documents including the alleged "power of
appointment" exercised by Simon Bernstein nor any hearing on the Shirley
Bernstein Trust where multiple documents to this day have never been produced.
While parts of this new Order from Judge Scher are on Appeal by Appellant, the
new Order does Find as follows:

April 27, 2017 Scher Order stating APPELLANT ELIOT BERNSTEIN IS A
BENEFICIARY:

"Elliot Bernstein joins Stansbury's opposition to the appointment of Mrachek Finn.
Elliot is a residuary beneficiary of any tangible property of the Estate. All
other beneficiaries (Trust Beneficiaries) approve the retention of the Mrachek
Firm." (See Attached Order Exhibit 2).

APPELLANT REQUESTS LEA VE TO SUPPLEMENT FILINGS AS NEW
FILINGS BY TED BERNSTEIN'S ATTORNEY ALAN ROSE SHOW TED
BERNSTEIN DIRECTLY ACTING TO "CONTROL" THE HIRING AND
PAYMENT OF THE ESTATE'S COUNSEL TO "CHALLENGE" TED
BERNSTEIN IN THIS VERY FEDERAL CASE OVER "INSURANCE"

45. Appellant seeks leave to supplement these filings and file Electronically to show
the "Inherent Conflicts of Interest" which continue despite Appellant's Motion for
Injunctive Relief in Feb. of2016 showing the District Court the inherent conflicts
of interest and need for use of the "inherent powers" an Eli "probe" of side deals
and agreements. See, All Writs Injunction Motion Feb. 2016.

46. In what is inherently conflicting and bizarre, it has been the Creditor William
Stansbury who has been forced to pay for the Estate of Simon Bernstein's counsel
in this Federal case over the Insurance even though the Creditor and Estate are
adverse in a separate action in Florida where the Creditor seeks nearly $3 million
in damages.

47. The All Writs Injunction motion filed by Appellant had already shown the US
District Court that there is a "secret" undisclosed '"settlement" between Creditor
Stansbury and Ted Bernstein who settled for himself "individually" with Stansbury
while also acting in conflict as the Trustee of the Shirley Bernstein Trust and on
behalf of certain Simon Bernstein entities who were also sued by Stansbury.

48. In documenting many "Missing Millions" in the All Writs filed with the US
District Court in Feb. 2016 which was "Denied" by "Minute Order" but not
"stricken" from the Record as a pleading, this Writ showed there has never been
Any Accounting in the Shirley Bernstein Estate or Trust and Appellant asserts this
is part of the reason for the scheme to deny Appellant's "standing" in order to
"silence" Appellant from exposing the frauds, crimes and missing assets.

49. These conflicts have continued by the same parties who have "controlled'
Discovery and access to documents throughout, Documents which should answer
the very central issues in this action of "where is the Trust", what is the "right
Trust" and "where is the Insurance Policy". See All Writs Motion Feb. 2016.

50. The Conflicts persist where again Ted Bernstein and Estate PR O'Connell while
"adverse" in this action are working in "unity" in the Florida courts where now the
PR of the Estate has sought to "hire" Ted Bernstein's Attorney Alan Rose and
Mrachek law firm while being "adverse" here in Illinois yet where the Estate did
not oppose Ted Bernstein and Alan Rose coming in to "control" the Illinois
Insurance litigation attorney for the Estate in this case on a motion by the Creditor
Stansbury to be "discharged" from further paying for the Illinois Insurance counsel
of the Estate.

51. In its recent Order of April 2017, Judge Scher specifically made findings of this
Conflict involving Ted Bernstein and the Estate in the Illinois insurance case as
follows: "The Court finds Mr. O'Connell to be credible. Conserving the Estate's
assets by not having to pay the Personal Representative to be involved in the
Stansbury litigation is a laudable goal; nonetheless, the Court cannot i2nore the
fact that the Estate and Ted are adverse in the Illinois lawsuit. Moreover, Mr.
O'Connell is capable of representing the Estate. While the Illinois action is still
pendin2, the Court declines to appoint Ted as Administrator Ad Litem." (emphasis added). See attached Exhibit 2.

52. Appellant asks this Court to take notice that not only is Appellant in the process of
filing other motions to vacate in the Florida Courts based on various frauds as the
"onion is peeled back" layer by layer, Appellant will also be filing to Remove both
Ted Bernstein in all capacities as Trustee in Florida and PR Brian O'Connell also
to be removed as PR of the Estate of Simon Bernstein on multiple grounds of
misconduct and fraud including but not limited to the fraud in Denying Appellant's
status as Beneficiary and concealing this fraud from the Federal Courts and
statutory grounds in Florida for failing to account and other grounds shown in the
All Writs Motion of Feb. 2016.

53. Appellant points out to this Court as shown to new US District Court Judge Blakey
in the All Writs Motion for Injunction of Feb. 2016 that prior Judge St. Eve had
"stayed Discovery" due to no proof that Ted Bernstein was a proper Trustee and
yet somehow while never determining this, Discovery then was opened and closed
and Appellant has repeatedly moved for opening Discovery on specific topics.

54. Par. 20 of the Writ provided, "On Jan. 13, 2014 in Docket Entry 71, prior Judge St.
Eve issued a Minute Entry Order which provided in part as follows, "Discovery is
hereby stayed until the proper Trustee is detennined" thus acknowledging that
determination of a "proper Trustee" is an issue in the case, which Case: 1: l 3-cv-
03643 Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 9 of 132 PageID #:3643 Page 9 of
132 remains disputed. The Trustee/Trust/Beneficiaries/Policy issues remains
undetermined presently and this Court's jurisdiction is imminently threatened by
the pennanent loss of evidence, documents and discovery by the parties
orchestrating proceedings in Florida where this evidence and the parties in
possession of such evidence should be enjoined herein." See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643
Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 9 of 132 PageID #:3643.

55. Appellant will show this Court that the District Court's Order was clearly
erroneous, used improper standards switching the burden of proof on Summary
Judgment, was an abuse of discretion and further clearly improperly as even taking
the District Court's claim that Plaintiffs in this case have said I am a ½
"beneficiary of the Insurance proceeds thus I can not show "damages" if the
Plaintiffs win, this is erroneous as it fails to consider the "delay" damages by the
wrongful coverup of operative documents and related damages to be fully briefed
on Appeal.

56. Until the frauds and inherent conflicts are resolved and addressed by the Courts, no
further action should continue and Appellant will be filing for a formal Stay and
Injunctive relief in the federal actions according to the Rules including seeking an
"inquiry" of the conflicted counsels.

APPELLANT HAS REQUESTED FLORIDA JUDGE SCHER TO NOTIFY
THIS COURT AND ALL AUTHORITIES OF THE ONGOING FRAUDS
UPON THE COURT IN RECENT LETTER MOTION OPPOSING
ANOTHER "UMC" ( UNIFORM MOTION CALENDAR - NON
EVIDENTIARY) HEARING BY TED BERNSTEIN AND ALAN ROSE ON
CLEARLY CONTESTED ITEMS IN THE SHIRLEY TRUST AND
ESTATES, A LETTER COPIED TO US. DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL
RIGHTS SECTION HEAD, US ATTORNEY IN SDNY, AND "DC NO. 1"

57. It is further noted for this Court that Appellant has specifically requested Florida
Judge Scher who has been a "Witness" to the frauds upon the Court by Ted
Bernstein and Alan Rose and inherent conflicts of interest to notify proper
authorities including the US District Court and this US 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

58. Upon information and belief, neither Attorney Adam Simon for Ted Bernstein, nor
Alan Rose for Ted Bernstein, nor PR Brian O'Connell for the Estate of Simon
Bernstein, nor Chicago counsel Stamos have Notified the US District Court nor
this US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of the fraud or sought to correct the fraud by
correcting the erroneous statements and pleadings that Appellant Eliot I. Bernstein
is in fact a Beneficiary with Standing thus far in at least the Simon Bernstein

Estate. A copy of this Letter request also transmitted to FederaJ Investigative
authorities is attached as (See Exhibit 3 ).

ADDITIONAL REASONS TO ACCEPT LATE FILING; ONGOING ELECTRJCAL OUTAGES, EMAIL AND WEBSITE DOCUMENT HACKING

59. I was granted permission to file Electronically in the District Court and
respectfully request permission of this Court to do so for future filings in this
Appeal.

60. I note for this Court that I did not receive the initial Orders sent US Mail from this
very Court and only received any of the Orders by Mail for the first time on April
11, 2017 just entering the Jewish Passover time and other religious holidays.

61. I have no knowledge of why this Court's prior Orders were not received by the US
mail and notified one of the Clerk's about this who also maintained another Order
that I had also not received and appeared not to have been sent to me at that time.

62. I contacted the 7th Circuit Clerk's Office to notify the Court that I did not receive
these original Orders by the US Mail and then had received Orders on or about
April 11, 2017.

63. I further notified one of this Court's Clerks that to my knowledge I am now on the
ECF filing system with the 7th Circuit and would be submitting this Motion to
accept my Statement of Jurisdiction and also for further extensions of time to cure
any other deficiencies in the Appeal filings in this case.

64. I was not aware until after business hours on the day of this Court's most recent
deadline of May 26, 2017 that while I had "registered" with the ECF for this 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals, I was not actually able to "submit" filings as I apparently
needed to file a separate motion to get permission to file Electronically which I
now request.

65. This Court's April Order had indicated a filing deadline of April 17, 2017 and I
spoke with the Clerk's Office again on April 18, 2017 after also getting access to
Pacer information from the District Court of the N orthen1 District of Illinois under
Case No. l:13-CV-O3643 to first discover that there were several entries relating
to this Appeal on file with the District Court that was requiring action on my part
and yet I never received any of the filings Electronically through the District Court
either despite having been granted permission and was able to File electronically
and receive documents and notices Electronically in the underlying case for well
over three years.

66. That on April 09, 2017 Appellant's home power began massive surges resulting in
ongoing power outages that resulted in our oven almost catching on fire and blown
out and other electrical items being destroyed including computer and network
equipment.

67. Thus, in addition to not receiving Court documents via the US Mails and not
receiving Electronic Notice and Documents via the US District Court of the
N orthem District of Illinois, that my Home has been experiencing serious and
significant power and electrical "abnonnalities" for over 2 months frequently
knocking out the Internet and home computers and causing substantial delays in
the processing of documents and responses to matters both in this Illinois insurance
case and the related Florida State Court Trust and Estate cases.

68. I have had to file multiple motions for Extensions of time in both the 4th District
Court of Appeals in Florida and the 15th Judicial Circuit where these Florida state
Court cases are pending and have received extensions for multiple filings thus far.
69. That Florida Power & Light was contacted about the problems that almost set the
home oven on fire and sent workers to the home who immediately removed our
home from the power box and plugged our power into the neighbor's power box
through a "temporary line" above ground and opened a ticket for service to take
out what appeared to be faulty wiring in our yard.

70. Despite reconnecting the power to the neighbor the surges continued and continued
to disrupt power, often for hours of the day and during such time all power,
internet, phones, etc. used for working on filings was down. FPL then connected
the home directly to the transformer and again the power surges continued and it
was discovered that the transfonner wires were melted and in contact with each
other causing part of the problem.

71. The Internet Comcast Box was blown out and had to be replaced leaving us with 3
days of no Internet services.

72. The transformer was fixed and our home was re-connected directly to the power
source and yet the problem still continues and FPL now is investigating the wiring
to our home as also faulty.

73. These problems have caused us massive loss of time to work as Appellant works
from home. Appellant can produce Witnesses who have been to our home that has
seen these electrical problems first hand and Appellant has submitted proof of
multiple Electrical work "Tickets" with FPL to the State Courts of Florida.

74. In addition to all of the electrical and power issues, Appellant has further been
receiving Notices from a company called Canaca located in Canada that hosts my
website and mail where I maintain an online storage and "Docket system" for the
filings and pleadings in multiple cases including this Illinois insurance action.

75. Canaca has been notifying me of multiple "spamming" events through my website
that I have no knowledge of and also discovered that somehow my Password and
email system was hacked where I have had substantial delays in receiving
Electronic notices of Court filings via email at iviewit@iviewit.tv .

76. This has also caused further delays as I use this online website docketing system to
organize and review and refer to Court filings in order to respond to new motions
for file motions of my own and have discovered certain document entries which
appear to be tampered with by either having the wrong Dates associated with the
filing or being in the wrong time period which has resulted in significant time to
check, double check and cross check filings for accuracy.

77. This constant and continuous checking and cross-referencing of documents and
filings is further exaggerated by the pervasive Frauds Upon the Court and actual
proven frauds in Documents filed by parties and attorneys connected with Plaintiff
Ted Bernstein and perhaps others all of which has been extremely difficult and
time consmning with repeated electrical and internet outages many of which have
specifically targeted and impacted my home computer systems.

78. In fact just 10 days or so before this Illinois Insurance action was first "removed"
to Federal Court in the US District Court of the Northern District of Illinois on or
about May 16, 2013 , I had just filed for Emergency Injunctive "Freeze" Assets
and Documents relief on May 6, 2013 in the Florida Estate case of my deceased
mother Shirley Bernstein and separately in the Florida Trust case after I discovered
that Plaintiff Ted Bernstein's counsels Tescher & Spallina had begun filing
"forged" and fraud documents in the Shirley Estate case in October of 2012 falsely
using my then recently Deceased father Simon Bernstein to file documents in that
case to try and "close" the Estate when in fact Simon had passed away in
September of 2012.

79. This lead not only to Florida State Court Judge Colin stating on the record in Sept
of 2013 that he had enough information to read certain attorneys, Robert Spallina,
Esq., Mark Manceri, Esq. and Donald Tescher (who failed to appear) and
fiduciaries (Spallina, Ted Bernstein and Tescher) their "Miranda Warnings" but
also lead t9 a Criminal prosecution and guilty plea by Tescher & Spallina Paralegal
and Notary Public Kimberly Moran after the Governor Rick Scott's Office of
Florida began an investigation upon my complaint of Notary fraud in the case and
then referred it to the Palm Beach County Sheriff for investigation where it was
learned she had forged six parties names on documents submitted to the FL court
by the law firm ofTescher & Spallina, PA in my mother's estate case, including
forging my deceased father's signature and my own.

80.  This time period of October of 2012 when the Shirley Estate frauds were occurring
shortly after the passing of my father Simon Bernstein in Sept. of2012 is also the
same time period that Plaintiff Ted Bernstein's counsel and Estate and Trust codrafter
and planner Robert Spallina was falsely and fraudulently filing to Collect
the Insurance proceeds in this case as the alleged "Trustee" of the alleged "lost"
missing Trust without informing the Carrier that Murder allegations had been made
by Plaintiff Ted Bernstein on the night of Simon Bernstein's passing at the
Hospital and that an open Palm Beach Sheriff Investigation ( PBSO) was pending.

81. Somehow, both Tescher and Spallina who not only were the "Drafters" and Estate
and Trust Planners for Simon and Shirley Bernstein, Co-Trustees and Co-PR's in
my father's estate and trust and counsel to their close friend and business associate
Ted Bernstein who was alleged Successor Trustee and Successor PR of my
mother's estate and trust but both Tescher and Spallina were also involved in the
frauds and the most obvious parties to have Maintained Records relevant to this
case were allowed to be Dismissed from this Insurance action which I opposed
without ever being allowed to be Deposed or required to provide Discovery which
I have sought in the District Court on multiple occasions but denied thus far.
82. As noted in my Jurisdictional Statement, I did move for Injunctive Relief in the
District Court under the All Writs Act specifically seeking Injunctive relief to
preserve and protect Documentary evidence and records from all of the involved
parties but was denied.

83. As noted in my pleadings before the District Court and the Jurisdiction Statement
herein, I also have extensive Insurance Industry experience and now state to this
Court that to my know ledge and research thus far, this is a case of first impression
and occurrence in that it allegedly involves Insurance Carriers who have allegedly
"Lost" the Actual Policy at issue despite being a highly regulated industry with
rigorous Record Retention requirements.

84.  This is "unheard of' in the Industry and I can produce other witnesses from the
Insurance Industry that would support this and yet, "somehow", all of the Carriers
were also let out of the District Court case with no Depositions or additional
Discovery which was objected to by Appellant who repeatedly moved the District
Court to reopen Discovery.

85.  It is just as unlikely that there are "No Original Documents" produced from any
of my Father's affairs and cases having had multiple businesses, earned millions of
dollars and having multiple "professional" Attorneys and Fiduciaries involved and
just as unlikely that there are so many "missing" and "lost" Documents from my
Father's businesses and life and I submitted a further Declaration to the District
Court about the extensive Record Keeping practices of my father Simon Bernstein
and his businesses which is why my claims and version is the most "reasonable"
and that "reasonable jurors" would likely agree that this action is really about
Fraud and intentional record hiding, spoilation or destruction as set out in my
Summary Judgment responses and the related claims advanced in my pleadings
which I sought to Amend more than once but was also Denied by the District
Court.

86. During all of this time up to the present and as raised originally in my Motion for
Injunctive Relief under the All Writs Act filed in Feb. 2016, Appellant, who is Pro
Se and not a law firm has been assailed with a mass of court pleadings due, court
appeals due and hearings, in the 14 cases relating to these matters in the Florida
Courts and has been late or needed extensions in virtually all of them as a result of
these issues.

87. I received No Notice from the District Court whatsoever that "somehow" I was
"removed" from receiving Filings by the District Court electronically and thus
have no idea why I did not receive this Court's Orders electronically from the
District Court which are on the Docket below.

88. Thus, in addition to moving this Court to accept as late my Jurisdictional
Statement, I further move for a reasonable extension of time to cure any other
deficiencies in my filings and to further brief the Jurisdictional issues if necessary.
89. This Court should be aware that there is massive "fraud" in the underlying
proceedings and also in the related Florida Court Estate and Trust cases that impact
not only the merits of each case but even my ability to timely respond to matters as
there is a constant "unraveling" of existing frauds, including PROVEN forgery of
dispositive documents, discovery and admission of new frauds by fiduciaries and
counsel, including but not limited to additional frauds on the court, and related
items that take significant amounts of time on a regular basis to address in each of
approximately 14 individuals legal actions involving the Estates and Trusts of my
family and all while not being a law firm but rather a Pro Se litigant.

90. In fact, as I have alleged, the mere "filing" of the underlying action which is the
subject of this Appeal which was a State Court filing in Cook County in April of
2013 until "removed" to Federal Court in May of2013 by one of the involved
"Insurance Carriers" is itself an act in "fraud" and "fraud upon the court" that has
never been fully addressed or properly addressed by the District Court of the
Northem District of Illinois.

WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Appellant prays for an
Order accepting my Jurisdictional Statement as late, accepting my informa
pauperis statement, granting permission to file Electronically in the ECF system
for future filings, granting permission to exceed the page lengths where necessary
herein and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper."


Source and Full Document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiMkVoQUlWR1daSk0/view?usp=sharing