MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of May 15, 2014, we've received over 137,835 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Iviewit Patentgate Fraud Jumps Into Anderson Appeal

09-5059-CV
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
--v--
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY, Defendants-Appellees


MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
P. STEPHEN LAMONT, PRO SE
35 LOCUST AVENUE, RYE, NEW YORK 10580
(914) 217-0038


P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. respectfully moves this Court for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in the instant appeal of Christine C. Anderson v. Thomas J. Cahill, et al. (CA2 Docket No. 09-509-cv, filed November 25, 2009). Amicus Curiae clearly have an interest relating to the “property or transaction which is the subject of the appeal,” i.e., “retaliatory discharge on account of plaintiff’s complaints of whitewashing and corruption,” or, in the case of Amicus Curiae, the sabotage of intellectual property and the subsequent unpaid royalties resulting from whitewashing and corruption. Additionally, Amicus Curiae have both an organizational and a representative interest in this litigation of the issues that are the subject of this appeal, to wit whitewashing and corruption. From an organizational standpoint, a principle function of Amicus Curiae’s existence is to engage in business activity whereby original content creators and others would execute license agreements to benefit from the value propositions of the inventions, and pay royalties for such non-exclusive use. Accordingly, Amicus Curiae have an interest in seeing that conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints are adjudicated along the lines of the relief requested in instant appeal herein, especially when the United States Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that “what’s going on in your New York complaints,” or words to that effect, prior to giving Amicus Curiae the relief necessary to continue their patent applications.

Date: June 22, 2010

Attorney for Amicus Curiae
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
(914) 217-0038


*******************************************
09-5059-CV

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
--v--
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY,
Defendants-Appellees

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

P. STEPHEN LAMONT, PRO SE
35 LOCUST AVENUE, RYE, NEW YORK 10580
(914) 217-0038

Table of Contents

IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMICUS CURIAE
INTEREST IN THE CASE
STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
A. DISTRICT COURT’S RELIANCE ON
ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE
B. IMMUNITY ANALYSIS WITHIN THE ORDER
1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for
Declaratory or Injunctive Relief
2. Explicit §5 Override
3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim
Judicial and Qualified Immunity
CONCLUSION

Table of Authorities

Cases

Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) 9
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US. 462,483 n. 16 (1983) 7
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) 8 -- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908) 8
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) 7
Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) 9
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972) 9 -- U.S.C. 28 §1331 6

Constitutional Provisions

§5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 7, 8 -- Eleventh Amendment 7, 8

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1291 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1254(1) 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1331 6 -- U.S.C. 42 § 1983 9


IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

The Amicus Curiae parties in this instant action are Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellants, and Petitioners in the following cases:

Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (07-cv-11196, S.D.N.Y filed December 12, 2007), Opinion and Order filed August 8, 2008 granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (08-cv-4873, CA2 NY, filed October 3, 2008), Opinion and Order filed January 5, 2010 dismissing appeal, Opinion and Order filed January 22, 2010 denying Motion for Reconsideration.

Lamont, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (Docket No. _____________, U.S., filed April 22, 2010).

INTEREST IN THE CASE

Amicus Curiae clearly have an interest relating to the “property or transaction which is the subject of the appeal,” i.e., “retaliatory discharge on account of plaintiff’s complaints of whitewashing and corruption,” or, in the case of Amicus Curiae, the sabotage of intellectual property and the subsequent unpaid royalties resulting from whitewashing and corruption.
Additionally, Amicus Curiae, have both an organizational and a representative interest in this litigation of the issues that are the subject of this appeal, to wit, whitewashing and corruption. From an organizational standpoint, a principle function of Amicus Curiae’s existence is to engage in business activity whereby original content creators and others would execute license agreements to benefit from the value propositions of the Inventions, and pay royalties for such non-exclusive use. Accordingly, Amicus Curiae have an interest in seeing that conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints are adjudicated along the lines of the instant appeal, especially when the United States Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that “what’s going on in your New York complaints,” or words to that effect, prior to giving Amicus Curiae the relief necessary to continue their patent applications. Amicus Curiae’s interests may not be adequately represented by Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson. Thus, Amicus Curiae’s interests, as a practical matter, may be impaired or impeded by its inability to protect these interests without supporting the appeal, particularly given the fact that an adverse ruling by the Court could result in the continuation of the patent sabotage conspiracy, countless unpaid royalties to Amicus Curiae, and the resultant unwillingness of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue patents to Amicus Curiae based on the inventions. It remains at best uncertain whether the current Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson’s request for relief will encompass all possible issues related to the whitewashing and corruption in hearing attorney disciplinary complaints. It is much more likely that current Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson in this case will only develop the limited issues pertaining to her individual situation and therefore only seek the relief that would provide her individual remedy. Amicus Curiae will bring to the case a variety of fact patterns involving both conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints and the occurrences of civil racketeering among the same group of Defendants, in part; thus, Amicus Curiae’s support sharpens the argument on both sides and provides the Court with a more useful framework of advocacy from which to issue its decision.

STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
The District Court had jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 §1331, and issued its Opinion and Order on August 8, 2008. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on August 18, 2008, and the District Court denied the Motion on August 19, 2008. A Notice of Appeal was filed on September 4, 2008, and the Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit has jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 § 1291. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on January 5, 2010. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on January 12, 2010, and the Court of Appeals issued its final judgment on January 22, 2010. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed on April 22, 2010, and the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 §1254(1).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Is a fundamental underpinning of Rooker-Feldman doctrine that the proper forum to appeal State court decisions is in State court (Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005))?

2. Does §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grant Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment, and if so, does this Amendment abrogate the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment?

3. Is the purpose behind the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to secure the protection of Plaintiff-Appellant’s constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law?

ARGUMENT

Amicus Curiae maintain the following:

A. District Court’s Reliance on Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- In Amicus Curiae’s proceedings, the District Court invoked the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a means to support its Order in granting Amicus Curiae’s Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), makes clear that claim preclusion is a separate doctrine entirely. Exxon stipulates the requisite elements that must be met for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply (See also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US. 462,483 n. 16 (1983)). None of the factors of Exxon are present in the instant appeal; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine simply does not apply.
B. Immunity Analysis within the Order Regarding Immunity, Amicus Curiae’s Complaint, Amended Complaint, Opposition Memorandums, Appellant Brief, and Petition for a Writ of Certiorari pray for injunctive relief; this was clearly stated.

1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief - The District Court’s bald assertion that in Amicus Curiae’s proceedings the Complaint lacked any foundation upon which the District Court can grant legal relief is clearly erroneous. The Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suit against State officers for the kind of injunctive and declaratory relief at issue here. If a State official acts in contravention of the Constitution, pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, or in a manner that violates an individual's constitutionally protected rights, suit to enjoin the offending behavior is proper and does not run afoul of a State's sovereign immunity. (See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908), Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)). Additionally, Ex Parte Young and Edelman v. Jordan provide that the District Court could have provided retroactive monetary relief against an officer sued in his individual capacity, as bringing an action against an officer in his individual capacity does not implicate State sovereignty.

2. Explicit §5 Override - §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment; courts have recognized that this new Amendment, again a consensus of the people, abrogates the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment. In Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), this Court said that Congress can use its Fourteenth Amendment power to override a State's Eleventh Amendment protection.

3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim Judicial and Qualified Immunity. - Furthermore, in their proceedings, the District Court cannot allow Amicus Curiae’s Respondents to use the guise of State authority as a license for violating Amicus-Curiae’s constitutional rights. Indeed, the entire purpose behind the enactment of U.S.C. 42 § 1983 was to secure the protection of individuals' constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law; Section 1983 creates a private cause of action for damages (as well as injunctive relief) against those "persons" responsible for the deprivation (See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972)).
In Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997), the court determined that declaratory and prospective injunctive relief are available, and that the Plaintiff-Appellants' claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 need not be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Amicus Curaie respectfully supports that this Court reverse the judgment entered herein, with a finding of fact in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant; or if the Court does not feel that it would be justified by the facts in so doing that it should remand the case for a fair and impartial trial before an unprejudiced jury, on proper evidence, and under correct instructions as the law may deem just and proper.

Date: June 22, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
Tel.: (914) 217-0038

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH F.R.A.P. RULE 32(a)(7)

The undersigned, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se, furnishes the following in compliance with F.R.A.P Rule 32(a)(7): I hereby certify that this brief conforms to the rules contained in F.R.A.P Rule 32(a)(7) for a brief produced with a proportionally spaced font. The length of this brief is 1365 words.

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
Tel.: 914) 217-0038

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

These criminals deserve any judicial enema available. Let's not forget about the biggest legal intestinal obstruction in Goshen New York County of Orange, Bernadette E. Lupinetti, Esq. married to a former ADA for Andrew Cuomos' Office Patrick Lupinetti, Esq. (2007) Bernadette E. Lupinetti, Esq. fixes child custody and divorce cases and engages in the trafficking of minor for sexual performance using a United States of America.

Anonymous said...

Great Brief Mr.Lamont..You've done the right thing all along for the Iviewit Company...Keep up the good work!!!!!

will galison said...

Can the rest of us file amicus briefs as well?

Anonymous said...

supporting anderson is surely a positive act but seems like some puffing and posturing in the comment here. the filing does appear to be a bit of a cut and paste of prior filings but those arguments are good arguments nonetheless. but it does appear to be a bit short on connecting the dots via Anderson and the First Dept DDC, Rubenstein et al via Iviewit. this statement is qualified however by stating that a review of any recent Anderson filings has not yet occurred which may otherwise clarify how the dots are connected and perhaps a review of such filings by Anderson does in fact connect the dots already. either way, hoping all goes well for all involved and concerned.

hudson valley region

Anonymous said...

Id agree with the last comment. Someone care to spell it out?

Any news yet a response from the Governor on that Feb /2010 request to stop funding the crooks in the A-Div's & the CJC ? Lots of concerned would like to know. Also just when it the fed going to do something ? When hell freezes?

Anonymous said...

What is Mr. Lamont's legal standing? Is he a certified shareholder of the Iviewit Company? Didn't see any evidence of that material fact. Anderson needs all the help she can get since it is evident that she has not been well served by some people.

Anonymous said...

Mr Lamont is the CEO of Iviewit and holder of 11% of the capital shares outstanding. To fulfill his fiduciary. duties, he acts individually and on behalf of his shareholders as Iviewit has no standing in its own right without representation by an attorney.

Eliot Ivan Bernstein Iviewit said...

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2010/06/iviewit-patentgate-fraud-jumps-into.html
Despite the Lamont lamenting, he has no standing to act on behalf of anyone for any reason as he is NOT an ATTORNEY, as he never ever passed the State Bar exam, after allegedly completing Columbia Law School? Funny, no one joined Lamont after all his claims that everyone was on board with his filings of fraud. Mr. Lamont has been terminated, FIRED, from Iviewit and representing Eliot Bernstein in any way and further reported to criminal authorities for alleged criminal misconduct.
This filing and any others will be used as further prima fascia evidence of criminal misconduct.
Lamont has no standing in the Eliot Bernstein lawsuit, as he failed to file individually and never amended the complaint to change his interest, thus as he cannot represent others, despite his legally unqualified claims and did not sue individually he therefore has no legal basis. The arguments above are ridiculous, the argument in the case is that there is FRAUD ON THE COURT and CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, not retort to fraudulent court orders, etc. Only an idiot could not see this clearly.
I, Eliot, have put the criminals on notice, I have halted my case notifying criminal authorities of the crimes identified by Anderson, the crimes of the judges and clerks, the NY AG, DA, ADA, etc. and I wait the outcome of those I notified, including NY Judiciary Committee, Glenn Fine, DOJ, House and Senate Judiciary Committees and more. Lamont trying to rush my lawsuit illegally through the courts makes no sense as the criminal allegations by Anderson must go first and then civil cases will return, ask any lawyer, just make sure they took the bar and give true legal advice. Otherwise be weary of those who give legal advice and aid without legal degrees.
Bat Out of Hell
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Uview.com, 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. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
http://www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot
Other Websites I like:
http://www.deniedpatent.com
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com
http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html
http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
http://www.changecourtsnow.com
http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com
http://www.parentadvocates.org
http://www.newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com
http://www.disbarthefloridabar.com
http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer
http://www.liberty-candidates.org/greg-fischer/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-For-Greg/111952178833067
http://www.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution)

Anonymous said...

Is this guy Bernstein for real? This is a blog for exposing corrupt courts, public officers, and attorneys, not a forum to bash the CEO of the company you founded who upstages you at every turn. What's wrong with this picture: from time to time I am forwarded messages from Bernstein who alerts his all too lengthy distribution list (perhaps he has an abandonment disorder) to information from Vatican scandals to the Council on Foreign Relations; while Lamont moves the issues forward and pushes the corrupt envelope anywhere from an motion for leave to file an Amicus Brief for Anderson to, and on the LAST filing day, a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court to serve his shareholders.
I was also forwarded a message about something called the "Bernstein Tapes" where Bernstein himself admits to pocketing anywhere from $500,000 to $2.4 million dollars in company monies. If what Bernstein writes has any ring of truth, and it is highly improbable, then it is very much a question of the "pot calling the kettle black." I fully support the Anderson appeal, the Lamont filings (which serve his shareholders, and all related parties), and look upon Bernstein comments with disdain, which has all the twinge of a jilted lover, especially when I see the despicable Bernstein comment on the death of Steven Krane, a criminal in his own right, but don't criminals deserve at least some reverance at the time of there death? Shame on you, Mr. Bernstein, and you continue to embrarrass yourself on this blog time after time after time. Does psychotherapy mean anything to you, because you have the appearances of a being a manically depressed, psychologically, angry, unstable man unable to stick to the issues at hand. Blog Administrator: get his IP address and shut him down.

Eliot Bernstein said...

Lamenting Lamont makes broad sweeping claims about crimes, yet has never filed a criminal complaint against me. I on the other hand have filed several factual criminal complaints against Mr. Lamont.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090618%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20Re%20Lamont%20Signed.pdf
and others and others.

If Lamont did have evidence of crimes and did nothing, he serves the shareholders real well. Also, he has been advised by counsel that he had no legal authority ever in Iviewit and that he should not make fraudulent claims of representing a company that he never truly represented, or issue shares, including to himself, without board approval and a board appointing him. But while Lamont's follies bemuse me, they are criminal and have been duly noted in formal criminal complaints, not just blog talking trash.
Oh, delusional is Lamont for I fear he cannot see the headlights, splat, frozen in fear, pants down, cover blown and the kids they dance and shake their bones...
Site Administrator Brady / McKeown should shut down Lamont and report his criminal activities and filings to the nearest cop as evidence of corruption. I forgot, Brady / McKeown bought a share of stock from Lamont in Iviewit, again, Lamont has no stock certs in any companies to issue stock and that whole dealyo sounds like more criminal activities that also has been reported already to criminal authorities.
As to Lamont's lament about Steven Krane, sounds like a family member or close friend of Lamont's, again I take leak on his grave and wish him well in hell and no there should not be a moment of remorse for scum who has hurt so many of the readers of this blog in his trail of corruption. Nice friends you have Mr. Lamont, is it true that you are related to Judith Kaye, which has been rumored?

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2