"" JUDGE JORGE LABARGA
Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and
For Palm Beach County, Florida''
Contributory Antitrust Violations
Facilitates RICO Violations
VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICES
IMPROPRIETY
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - FAILURE TO REPORT ATTORNEY CRIMINAL
MISCONDUCT VIOLATIONS
FAILURE TO FOLLOW JUDICIAL CANNONS ""
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE& THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
First Department Chart
Second Department Chart
Thomas Cahill - ("Cahill");
Joseph Wigley - ("Wigley"); Krane,
any other John Doe ("John Doe")
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION:
FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time.
Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("First Dept DDC").
Source of This Post
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/LABARGA.htm
Florida
Florida Supreme Court - One Rotten Apple - Above the Law.
Jorge Labarga
http://www.frankbrady.org/TammanyHall/Documents_files/07cv11196%20Iviewit%20Complaint.pdf
Showing posts with label Florida Justice System. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Florida Justice System. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Greenberg Traurig, they sure seem to be interested in this Blog, but is anyone interested in Them.
Greenberg Traurig is above the Law, Above Ethics and who cares, Attorneys have all the power and the justice system seems to have no real need for the Truth.
Greenberg Traurig represents the Florida Bar right? as in Toady's Headlines where Jesse Diner claims ONE BAD APPLE.. .. to funny .. but yes he had the Balls to Say it...
Greenberg Traurig seems to be Behind a whole lot of Evil Goin' on Down there in the State of Florida.
Greenberg Traurig is friends of Abramoff Right? And Greenberg Traurig has a bit to do with the Stanford scandal Right?
And Come on How Blatant Can you Get about your Total Disregard for the "Conflict of Interest Thing" When Greenberg Traurig Represented Iviewit somehow right?
I mean didn't Greenberg Traurig do a patent review for the Iviewit Technology Company as retained counsel and then in a Blatant Above the Law and in Total dis-Regard of Conflicts of Interest and Attorney Ethics they turned around and then Represented the Florida State Bar against the Iviewit Company, Hmmmm..
this stuff is So Blatant and So Obvious.
That there is No Way you could ever wonder if the State of Florida holds attorneys accountable, Holds Attorneys to ANY kind of ethics, the Florida State Bar does NOT care about conflicts of interest... it is all about protecting their own asses and We the People, Who Cares About them?
Greenberg Traurig is not accountable for Conflicts of Interest so No Wonder the Florida State Bar is NOT accountable and no Wonder Jesse Diner thinks there is only "one Rotten apple"...
Florida State Bar, Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig represents the Florida Bar right? as in Toady's Headlines where Jesse Diner claims ONE BAD APPLE.. .. to funny .. but yes he had the Balls to Say it...
Greenberg Traurig seems to be Behind a whole lot of Evil Goin' on Down there in the State of Florida.
Greenberg Traurig is friends of Abramoff Right? And Greenberg Traurig has a bit to do with the Stanford scandal Right?
And Come on How Blatant Can you Get about your Total Disregard for the "Conflict of Interest Thing" When Greenberg Traurig Represented Iviewit somehow right?
I mean didn't Greenberg Traurig do a patent review for the Iviewit Technology Company as retained counsel and then in a Blatant Above the Law and in Total dis-Regard of Conflicts of Interest and Attorney Ethics they turned around and then Represented the Florida State Bar against the Iviewit Company, Hmmmm..
this stuff is So Blatant and So Obvious.
That there is No Way you could ever wonder if the State of Florida holds attorneys accountable, Holds Attorneys to ANY kind of ethics, the Florida State Bar does NOT care about conflicts of interest... it is all about protecting their own asses and We the People, Who Cares About them?
Greenberg Traurig is not accountable for Conflicts of Interest so No Wonder the Florida State Bar is NOT accountable and no Wonder Jesse Diner thinks there is only "one Rotten apple"...
Florida State Bar, Greenberg Traurig
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Surely the Honorable Florida Court System and Law Enforcement is Doing Something about all this?
From October 11th of 2004 - What is Being Done.. Well Looks to Me Like NOTHING, which is Exactly what I have Come to Expect from the United States Justice System at ALL Levels...
Here is the Court Document...
"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Florida Bar Complaints
CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER
ERIC M. TURNER
MATTHEW H. TRIGGS
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR:
DECLARATORY RELIEF; INTERVENE IN THIRD PARTY
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BOCA RATON POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, AND THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION WITH THE COURT’S OVERSIGHT; AND AN
EMERGENCY HEARING FOR THE IMMEDIATE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN and )
P. STEPHEN LAMONT )
Petitioners )
vs.
THE FLORIDA BAR (IN THE MATTER OF )
ATTORNEY COMPLAINTS AGAINST; )
CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER, FILE NO: )
2003-51 109 (15c); CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER 2, FILE NO: PENDING CASE )
NO. ASSIGNMENT; MATTHEW H. TRIGGS, )
NO: PENDING CASE NO. ASSIGNMENT; )
ERIC M. TURNER, FILE NO: PENDING )
CASE NO. ASSIGNMENT); AND )
COMPLAINTS OF CONFLICTS OF )
INTEREST AND APPEARANCES OF ) CASE NO: SC04-1078
IMPROPRIETY WITH THE FOLLOWING )
FLORIDA BAR REPRESENTATIVES; )
MATTHEW H. TRIGGS AS A GRIEVANCE )
COMMITTEE MEMBER AND FORMER )
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER; )
CHRISTOPHER WHEELER AS A )
GRIEVANCE )
COMMITTEE MEMBER AND FORMER )
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER; )
KELLY OVERSTREET JOHNSON AS )
PRESIDENT, KENNETH L. MARVIN AS )
DIRECTOR OF LAWYER REGULATION, )
JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS AS DIRECTOR )
OF LAWYER REGULATION; LORRAINE )
CHRISTINE HOFFMAN AS BAR COUNSEL; )
ERIC MONTEL TURNER AS CHIEF )
BRANCH DISCIPLINE COUNSEL; AND )
JOY A. BARTMON AS CHAIR OF A )
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE )
That Eliot I. Bernstein and P. Stephen Lamont (collectively “Petitioners”) hereby
supplement the Motion for:
Declaratory Relief; Intervene in Third Party Investigations of the Boca Raton Police Department, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission With the Court’s Oversight; and an Emergency Hearing for the Immediate Protective Custody of Eliot I. Bernstein, Candice M. Bernstein, P. Stephen Lamont, P. Stephen Lamont II and Sophia Rana dated October 7, 2004
(“October 7 Motion”), and state as follows:
1. That on October 7th 2004, Petitioners received a voice mail message, Exhibit “A”,
from Assistant Chief James Burke (“Assistant Chief Burke”) of the Boca Raton Police
Department (“Boca PD”) advising Petitioners of contact names at the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that were the contacts that were supposed to have received information from the Boca Raton PD and the States Attorney over one year ago and were to have attended a meeting at the Boca PD on October 6th 2004 scheduled by Assistant Chief Burke with the FBI and SEC, to assign investigatory duties.
2. That Assistant Chief Burke’s reasons for delivering contact names to Petitioners was
to confirm the attendees to be present from the SEC at the meeting at the Boca PD on
October 8, 2004 and in regard to those certain written statements submitted by Petitioners
to the Boca PD concerning the misappropriation and conversion of up to One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000) in funds of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (“Iviewit”) and the
misappropriation of intellectual property of Iviewit.
3. That, directly after receiving those contact names, Petitioners telephoned the most
senior person involved, a one William Riley (850) 410-9805, of the SEC’s Tallahassee
office, that according to the message left by Burke that Mr. Riley was supposed to have
received information from Doreen Mosemer (305) 982-6301 regarding the investigation.
4. That Mr. Riley, after reviewing a database of cases shared with the West Palm Beach,
Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami branches of the SEC finds no case in the names of either
Petitioners, Iviewit, or any matter pertaining thereto delivered by the Boca PD or the
unidentified States Attorney referenced in the October 7 Motion. Mr. Riley further stated
that he was never informed of any meeting at the Boca PD and had no information
regarding such meeting.
5. That subsequent to the call with Riley, Petitioner was contacted by Doreen Mosemer
whom stated that she knew nothing of the matter and that she was never informed of a
meeting at the Boca PD and literally had no idea what Petitioner was talking about
concerning such scheduled meeting.
6. That these series of events leave Petitioner further convinced that the Boca PD was
not truthful when calling Petitioner to schedule a meeting and that the intent may have
been far more devious than stated to Petitioner by Assistant Chief Burke and further
confirms that the information being given to Petitioner was inaccurate and false.
Most disturbing is that Burke had claimed to have contacted the SEC and assured attendance
originally and that subsequently upon questioning the story became more and more
convoluted giving one the impression that the Boca PD had arranged such meeting to
intimidate Petitioner into not filing with Chief Scott a formal internal affairs investigation request.
That combined with the false statement that Chief Scott was personally involved
and oversight to such meeting and Petitioner case and then Chief Scott’s denial of such
involvement or any knowledge of Petitioner’s case, that this presents clear and present
danger that until such information is clarified and investigated fully, that Petitioner’s
lives may in fact be in danger if the objective was to cover up for misdeeds by the Boca
PD and others.
7. Finally, Petitioner has received no return call from Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi at
the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his participation or involvement in such
meeting supposedly arranged and for over one week all calls and faxes have been
ignored.
This may present even more disturbing problems. It is presumed at this point
by Petitioner that the conspirators named in the complaint from various powerful law
firms and other powerful corporate concerns so named in the conspiracy, may in fact
have bribed or positioned to estoppel due process at other state and federal agencies
through devious means such as is alleged regarding the conflicts of interest and
appearance of impropriety at two state bar associations now being reviewed in the Florida
Supreme Court and the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: Second
Department.
That if similar events have occurred at Federal and State investigatory
agencies to block due process, and if these events are close to being uncovered, that the
immediacy for state ordered protective custody of Petitioner’s is evident.
Wherefore, Petitioners reiterate their request that this Court:
(i) enter an order granting a motion for declaratory relief from the Boca PD and Flechaus as to their investigations of the subject matter of the written statements, their review with an
unidentified District Attorney, and their joint submission to the Miami office of the SEC,
and declaratory relief from the FBI as to their submission of their report to the United
States attorney for the Southern District of Florida;
(ii) enter an order granting a motion for the Court’s intervention in the investigations of the Boca PD, the SEC, if any, and the FBI; and (iii) enter an order granting a motion for an emergency hearing for immediate protective custody Eliot I. Bernstein, Candice M. Bernstein, Joshua P. Stephen Lamont, and P. Stephen Lamont II, and such further relief that the Court deems appropriate.
EXHIBIT “A” MESSAGE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE JIM BURKE LEFT ON VOICE MAIL ON OCTOBER 7TH 2004
“Eliot Assistant Chief Jim Burke with Boca Raton Police Department I stated I would
provide you phone numbers for the people at the SEC who have the information on your
case.
The first individual is Doreen Mosemer 305 982 6301 I believe she forwarded your
investigation up to Tallahassee to a William Riley his number is 850 410 9805 that’s the
SEC’s representatives um that’s all I can find you for I tried to set up meeting again the
SEC contact numbers, you should have the FBI contact numbers and you have our
contact numbers, good luck.”
This 8th day of October 2004.
Attorney for Petitioners
Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se
Eliot I. Bernstein
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Source of Post
www.Iviewit.TV
Here is the Court Document...
"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Florida Bar Complaints
CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER
ERIC M. TURNER
MATTHEW H. TRIGGS
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR:
DECLARATORY RELIEF; INTERVENE IN THIRD PARTY
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BOCA RATON POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, AND THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION WITH THE COURT’S OVERSIGHT; AND AN
EMERGENCY HEARING FOR THE IMMEDIATE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN and )
P. STEPHEN LAMONT )
Petitioners )
vs.
THE FLORIDA BAR (IN THE MATTER OF )
ATTORNEY COMPLAINTS AGAINST; )
CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER, FILE NO: )
2003-51 109 (15c); CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER 2, FILE NO: PENDING CASE )
NO. ASSIGNMENT; MATTHEW H. TRIGGS, )
NO: PENDING CASE NO. ASSIGNMENT; )
ERIC M. TURNER, FILE NO: PENDING )
CASE NO. ASSIGNMENT); AND )
COMPLAINTS OF CONFLICTS OF )
INTEREST AND APPEARANCES OF ) CASE NO: SC04-1078
IMPROPRIETY WITH THE FOLLOWING )
FLORIDA BAR REPRESENTATIVES; )
MATTHEW H. TRIGGS AS A GRIEVANCE )
COMMITTEE MEMBER AND FORMER )
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER; )
CHRISTOPHER WHEELER AS A )
GRIEVANCE )
COMMITTEE MEMBER AND FORMER )
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER; )
KELLY OVERSTREET JOHNSON AS )
PRESIDENT, KENNETH L. MARVIN AS )
DIRECTOR OF LAWYER REGULATION, )
JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS AS DIRECTOR )
OF LAWYER REGULATION; LORRAINE )
CHRISTINE HOFFMAN AS BAR COUNSEL; )
ERIC MONTEL TURNER AS CHIEF )
BRANCH DISCIPLINE COUNSEL; AND )
JOY A. BARTMON AS CHAIR OF A )
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE )
That Eliot I. Bernstein and P. Stephen Lamont (collectively “Petitioners”) hereby
supplement the Motion for:
Declaratory Relief; Intervene in Third Party Investigations of the Boca Raton Police Department, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission With the Court’s Oversight; and an Emergency Hearing for the Immediate Protective Custody of Eliot I. Bernstein, Candice M. Bernstein, P. Stephen Lamont, P. Stephen Lamont II and Sophia Rana dated October 7, 2004
(“October 7 Motion”), and state as follows:
1. That on October 7th 2004, Petitioners received a voice mail message, Exhibit “A”,
from Assistant Chief James Burke (“Assistant Chief Burke”) of the Boca Raton Police
Department (“Boca PD”) advising Petitioners of contact names at the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that were the contacts that were supposed to have received information from the Boca Raton PD and the States Attorney over one year ago and were to have attended a meeting at the Boca PD on October 6th 2004 scheduled by Assistant Chief Burke with the FBI and SEC, to assign investigatory duties.
2. That Assistant Chief Burke’s reasons for delivering contact names to Petitioners was
to confirm the attendees to be present from the SEC at the meeting at the Boca PD on
October 8, 2004 and in regard to those certain written statements submitted by Petitioners
to the Boca PD concerning the misappropriation and conversion of up to One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000) in funds of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (“Iviewit”) and the
misappropriation of intellectual property of Iviewit.
3. That, directly after receiving those contact names, Petitioners telephoned the most
senior person involved, a one William Riley (850) 410-9805, of the SEC’s Tallahassee
office, that according to the message left by Burke that Mr. Riley was supposed to have
received information from Doreen Mosemer (305) 982-6301 regarding the investigation.
4. That Mr. Riley, after reviewing a database of cases shared with the West Palm Beach,
Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami branches of the SEC finds no case in the names of either
Petitioners, Iviewit, or any matter pertaining thereto delivered by the Boca PD or the
unidentified States Attorney referenced in the October 7 Motion. Mr. Riley further stated
that he was never informed of any meeting at the Boca PD and had no information
regarding such meeting.
5. That subsequent to the call with Riley, Petitioner was contacted by Doreen Mosemer
whom stated that she knew nothing of the matter and that she was never informed of a
meeting at the Boca PD and literally had no idea what Petitioner was talking about
concerning such scheduled meeting.
6. That these series of events leave Petitioner further convinced that the Boca PD was
not truthful when calling Petitioner to schedule a meeting and that the intent may have
been far more devious than stated to Petitioner by Assistant Chief Burke and further
confirms that the information being given to Petitioner was inaccurate and false.
Most disturbing is that Burke had claimed to have contacted the SEC and assured attendance
originally and that subsequently upon questioning the story became more and more
convoluted giving one the impression that the Boca PD had arranged such meeting to
intimidate Petitioner into not filing with Chief Scott a formal internal affairs investigation request.
That combined with the false statement that Chief Scott was personally involved
and oversight to such meeting and Petitioner case and then Chief Scott’s denial of such
involvement or any knowledge of Petitioner’s case, that this presents clear and present
danger that until such information is clarified and investigated fully, that Petitioner’s
lives may in fact be in danger if the objective was to cover up for misdeeds by the Boca
PD and others.
7. Finally, Petitioner has received no return call from Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi at
the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his participation or involvement in such
meeting supposedly arranged and for over one week all calls and faxes have been
ignored.
This may present even more disturbing problems. It is presumed at this point
by Petitioner that the conspirators named in the complaint from various powerful law
firms and other powerful corporate concerns so named in the conspiracy, may in fact
have bribed or positioned to estoppel due process at other state and federal agencies
through devious means such as is alleged regarding the conflicts of interest and
appearance of impropriety at two state bar associations now being reviewed in the Florida
Supreme Court and the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: Second
Department.
That if similar events have occurred at Federal and State investigatory
agencies to block due process, and if these events are close to being uncovered, that the
immediacy for state ordered protective custody of Petitioner’s is evident.
Wherefore, Petitioners reiterate their request that this Court:
(i) enter an order granting a motion for declaratory relief from the Boca PD and Flechaus as to their investigations of the subject matter of the written statements, their review with an
unidentified District Attorney, and their joint submission to the Miami office of the SEC,
and declaratory relief from the FBI as to their submission of their report to the United
States attorney for the Southern District of Florida;
(ii) enter an order granting a motion for the Court’s intervention in the investigations of the Boca PD, the SEC, if any, and the FBI; and (iii) enter an order granting a motion for an emergency hearing for immediate protective custody Eliot I. Bernstein, Candice M. Bernstein, Joshua P. Stephen Lamont, and P. Stephen Lamont II, and such further relief that the Court deems appropriate.
EXHIBIT “A” MESSAGE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE JIM BURKE LEFT ON VOICE MAIL ON OCTOBER 7TH 2004
“Eliot Assistant Chief Jim Burke with Boca Raton Police Department I stated I would
provide you phone numbers for the people at the SEC who have the information on your
case.
The first individual is Doreen Mosemer 305 982 6301 I believe she forwarded your
investigation up to Tallahassee to a William Riley his number is 850 410 9805 that’s the
SEC’s representatives um that’s all I can find you for I tried to set up meeting again the
SEC contact numbers, you should have the FBI contact numbers and you have our
contact numbers, good luck.”
This 8th day of October 2004.
Attorney for Petitioners
Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se
Eliot I. Bernstein
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Source of Post
www.Iviewit.TV
Sunday, December 27, 2009
How Does the Florida Bar decide Which Attorneys to Protect and Which Attorneys to Hold Accountable?
Christopher C. Wheeler was involved in a "Felony DUI with injury" yet seems to be above the Law.
Why is Christopher Wheeler even still an Attorney, are there No standards for integrity, honor or truth for Florida Attorneys.
All this Prove of what Christopher C. Wheeler did to Harm the Iviewit Inventors and No One Can Do anything....
There is NO LAW, only Politics, Persuasion, Favors, Side Deals and Who Can do What for Whom...
There is NO LAW, only Politics, Persuasion, Favors, Side Deals and Who Can do What for Whom...
And this DUI .. well it was a bad deal and people got hurt, who cares right?
Eric Turner, involved with the Forida Bar, who handled the Iviewit against Christopher Wheeler - well surely he did right by the good citizens of Florida Right on this DUI Right? Or did Eric Turner make a public statement that Wheeler committed a misdemeanor and not felony ? And did Eric Wheeler stand up strong and Firm on the Wrong Side of the Moral Compass?
What does the FLABAR, the Florida State Bar say about this? I say that they all protect each other, and that drunk driving and really hurting someone is Legal if your a Proskauer Rose attorney. It seems that Proskauer Rose attorneys are Above the Law at every turning point, as if they are protected somehow. But Why? Why does the Power Elite Protect these People who Hurt others constantly?
It becomes a HUGE group of people who can do No Wrong, Whose powers are unlimited, whose Crimes are constantly Covered up and Well you innocent citizens out there interacting with them, being hurt by them, driving by them when they are DRUNK, well you Get No Justice, No Redemtion, and you have Groups such as the Florida State Bar who makes sure you Get No Justice as they Shovel More of Proskauer Rose Attorneys Indescrestions under that Preverbial Rug.
christopher wheeler
Related Links
Christopher Wheeler
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court FAILS Florida Citizens, Inventors, Companies and Share Holders..
Links to Documents...
Wheeler response to The initial small form Florida Bar complaint
Iviewit rebuttal to Wheeler response to The Florida Bar #1
some wheeler perjury to florida bar goes well with dui and somehow evades detection
William J. Dick - foley and lardner - Virginia state bar rebuttal -
it is interesting to note that dick in his response to the the vsb sends a portfolio patent docket that the united states patent & trademark office says has some false & misleading information contained in - such as certain patents that the company has no rights, title or interests in. the vsb refuses phone calls to re-investigate based on this information that has led to uspto and federal investigations of the matters.
in the dick exhibits you will see how iviewit got dicked around as the evidence appears that there are two sets of patents with similar names and different inventors. iviewit does not attest to these documents as factual representations of the original filings as much document tampering has occurred on the patent documents
matthew triggs - florida bar complaint - florida bar and florida supreme court refuse to docket formally the complaint although it has affirmed violations of triggs public office as a member of the florida bar and conflicting his representation of wheeler. currently under review at the united states supreme court.
supreme court of florida - iviewit original filing
florida bar response to supreme court order to respond to petition
fails to deal with any substantive issues of the petition and as such stands in default. they claim to have done a good review to the supreme court and where such review contained conflicted responses from triggs, that would have invalidated the prior reviews.
response is unintelligible and addresses parties incorrectly such as (this court) when more appropriately (this Court) and other such defined term problems.
iviewit rebuttal to florida bar non-response - supreme court of florida
florida bar response - another turner classic
Wheeler response to The initial small form Florida Bar complaint
Iviewit rebuttal to Wheeler response to The Florida Bar #1
some wheeler perjury to florida bar goes well with dui and somehow evades detection
William J. Dick - foley and lardner - Virginia state bar rebuttal -
it is interesting to note that dick in his response to the the vsb sends a portfolio patent docket that the united states patent & trademark office says has some false & misleading information contained in - such as certain patents that the company has no rights, title or interests in. the vsb refuses phone calls to re-investigate based on this information that has led to uspto and federal investigations of the matters.
in the dick exhibits you will see how iviewit got dicked around as the evidence appears that there are two sets of patents with similar names and different inventors. iviewit does not attest to these documents as factual representations of the original filings as much document tampering has occurred on the patent documents
matthew triggs - florida bar complaint - florida bar and florida supreme court refuse to docket formally the complaint although it has affirmed violations of triggs public office as a member of the florida bar and conflicting his representation of wheeler. currently under review at the united states supreme court.
supreme court of florida - iviewit original filing
florida bar response to supreme court order to respond to petition
fails to deal with any substantive issues of the petition and as such stands in default. they claim to have done a good review to the supreme court and where such review contained conflicted responses from triggs, that would have invalidated the prior reviews.
response is unintelligible and addresses parties incorrectly such as (this court) when more appropriately (this Court) and other such defined term problems.
iviewit rebuttal to florida bar non-response - supreme court of florida
florida bar response - another turner classic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)