NY Lawyers Arrange "Justice" for Chicago $250 Million Ponzi Scam

Committee on Public Integrity
Tel: 202-374-3680
Fax: 202-207-9548
email: CommitteeOnPublicIntegrity@gmail.com
Web: www.CommitteeOnPublicIntegrity.com

READ THE PRESS RELEASE, then CLICK HERE TO SEE THE OVERVIEW OF

The $250 Million Ponzi Scheme, the New York lawyers who worked 'magic', and the participant that might become a U.S. Senator

PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release

U.S. Senate Candidate Involved in $250 Million Ponzi Scheme

The Committee on Public Integrity, in a joint investigation withIntegrity in the Courts Finds that Alexi Giannoulias, U. S. Senate Candidate in Illinois, Failed to Reveal That His Family’s Broadway Bank Paid Kick Backs in Mortgage Fraud Deals with Financial Ponzi Scheme Operators

The Senate Candidate Also Failed to Reveal that the Giannoulias Family Bank Paid a Settlement Valued at $6 Million to End the Lawsuit by U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission

As part of its continuing full disclosure by federal candidates program, The Committee on Public Integrity and Integrity in the Courts has discovered that Alexi Giannoulias, Democratic candidate for US Senate from Illinois has misrepresented the record of Broadway Bank, the Chicago bank owned by his family. The actual facts as revealed in litigation brought by the US Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal that Broadway Bank engaged in fraudulent loans with Wextrust, a finance company. Broadway Bank was subsequently seized by the SEC, and the chief officers of Wextrust are in jail.

During the last debate with Congressman Mark Kirk, Alexi Giannoulias was asked to comment on the activities of Broadway Bank, the main business asset of his family. Giannoulias said, “And let’s be clear, no one has ever suggested that the bank has ever done anything illegal, illicit, or improper. Never." He continued, "I will always tell you the truth. And that's what we need now more than ever. People are sick and tired of Washington, D.C. politics as usual." Information is now coming to light that shows that Broadway Bank engaged in kick-backs and other lucrative deals with Ponzi scheme operators, who are now in jail.

Beginning in 2006, when Alexi Giannoulias was a loan officer at Broadway, the bank entered into a series of commercial loans in joint ventures with Wextrust Capital, a Chicago based lending company. Wextrust provided so-called “hard money” loans to developers, who could not find standard financing from banks. Hard money loans are provided at very high interest rates, up to 18-20% when the costs of so-called origination and finders fees are added.

Under the deals between Wextrust and Broadway Bank, evidence has been discovered showing that borrowers paid the bank high interest charges (12-14%), and then Broadway Bank kicked back 2-3% of the payments received to Broadway as part of a so-called loan servicing contract. Also, it’s been established that throughout its years of operation, Wextrust was insolvent, making all of its mortgage deals void and fraudulent. That meant that all the joint mortgage deals marketed byBroadway Bank and Wextrust were illegal, illicit and improper.

Wextrust was seized and placed in control of a federal receiver by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2008 for operating a $250 MM Ponzi scheme. The SEC found that Wextrust operated a massive Ponzi-type scheme from 2004 that raised approximately $255 million from approximately 1,200 investors in the US and other countries. The Receiver confirmed that Wextrust diverted, co-mingled and misappropriated those funds, in a series of unauthorized transactions. The US Department of Justice filed criminal complaints against Wextrust's principal officers who were immediately arrested, and who remain in custody. The company president, Steven Byers, entered a guilty plea in April 2010, and is awaiting sentencing.

Broadway Bank was a partner with Wextrust in the series of fraudulent loans. Alexi Giannoulias was a loan officer when Wextrust began its dealings with Broadway Bank. Evidence has been uncovered by the SEC showing that Alexi’s brother, Demetri, personally handled these mortgage loans with Wextrust.

In April 2010, just before being seized by the Illinois and US banking authorities, Broadway Bankagreed to forgo $5 million in claims and to pay up to $800,000 in cash to settle litigation with the federal Receiver of Wextrust. This Settlement clearly reflected a payment by Broadway Bank to settle claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission and avoid liability for illegal actions in connection with its financing transactions with Wextrust.

For additional information please contact: John T. Whitely at 202-374-3680

About The Committee on Public Integrity
The Committee On Public Integrity reviews both past and present cases to provide an independent assessment and analysis of the facts. With respect to past cases, the committee will hear from persons who maintain that they have been treated unfairly and unjustly. As part of its efforts, the committee is actively seeking documentation and analysis of various issues. Committee members include individuals who through their personal and professional lives have established a reputation of responsibility and fairness.

For Detailed Information to Referenced Documentation, See Below:

NY Lawyers Arrange "Justice" for Chicago Ponzi Scheme

The $250 Million Ponzi Scheme "Settlement"

Transcript of April 2010 Guilty Plea

August 2010 - 7th Interim Report of Receiver

Response to Objections to the Receiver's Report

Civil Lawsuit: SEC v Byer, et al.

Long Star State Joins New York's "Judges For Sale" Program

Couple in custody battle accused of paying judge for favorable rulings
The Dallas Morning News by - VALERIE WIGGLESWORTH, ED HOUSEWRIGHT and MATTHEW HAAG - October 23, 2010

A University Park couple was embroiled in a costly child-custody battle at the time prosecutors say they paid $150,000 in bribes to the political opponent of the judge hearing their case. David and Stacy Cary were in state district court in Collin County, fighting for custody of David Cary's twin daughters from a previous marriage, records show. The judge in the case, Charles Sandoval, had awarded primary custody of the girls to their mother and issued rulings costing the Carys hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In 2008, Sandoval ran for re-election. Prosecutors allege that in the weeks before and after the March Republican primary, the Carys paid $150,000 to a campaign consultant for Sandoval's opponent, Suzanne Wooten. She outspent and defeated the longtime incumbent. Wooten, the Carys, and the consultant, Steve Spencer, were indicted Oct. 14. Each faces six counts of bribery and one count of engaging in organized criminal activity, all felony charges carrying prison terms if they're convicted. The indictments allege Wooten accepted the money for favorable rulings in the 380th District Court. They don't detail the cases involved, how Wooten influenced them, or how money may have been passed from Spencer to Wooten. But David and Stacy Cary were parties together in just one case in the 380th, the one in which they were seeking custody of his daughters, now 10 years old. Wooten recused herself from the case. Her reason, according to her attorney, was that a lawyer for the girls' mother had served as treasurer for Wooten's judicial campaign. Peter Schulte, Wooten's attorney, said the prosecutors' case on bribery charges is weak. "A lot of it doesn't add up for the state because it didn't happen," Schulte said. "People can blow smoke in multiple directions. That doesn't mean there's fire." Keith Gore, who is representing the Carys, said there is a completely innocent explanation for the couple's payments to Spencer. He declined to elaborate. "These charges stem from a political prosecution, and the Carys deny any wrongdoing and look forward to a full exoneration," Gore said. Gary Udashen, an attorney for Spencer, reiterated that there was a legitimate reason for the payments and that Spencer is not part of any bribery scheme. "The way it's been portrayed in this indictment is flat incorrect," Udashen said. The defendants' attorneys say the charges are part of a political vendetta against Wooten launched by Collin County District Attorney John Roach, who is also a Republican. Roach asked more than a year ago that the Texas attorney general's office assign a prosecutor to investigate Wooten over campaign violations. A feud between Roach and Wooten heated up this summer. The judge alleged in court papers that Roach was intimidating and harassing her and seeking her resignation. In September, a grand jury impaneled by Wooten requested a special prosecutor to investigate "possible criminal wrongdoing" in Roach's office. And earlier this month, Roach said he would no longer submit cases to the grand jury overseen by Wooten. He said he planned to resubmit about 200 indictments made by that grand jury to a new panel. Roach declined to comment for this story, as did lawyers for the attorney general's office, which is handling the prosecution. As many as six different grand juries heard evidence related to Wooten's campaign before the bribery indictments were handed up earlier this month. It remains unclear how exactly the four defendants are connected.

People involved

David Cary, 55, is the chief financial officer of Plano-based TDi Technologies. He is active online in forums and blogs that focus on parental rights. Stacy Stine Cary, 52, owns and operates a commercial real estate company. She also runs an organization called Holistic Health of Texas. In September 2008 the couple started an advocacy group called Family Focus. On its website, the couple said they disagreed with the government disrupting families or taking away parents' rights. The site, which is registered to David Cary, says the group is "unapologetically politically active." The Carys and Spencer worked together, according to Spencer's attorney, who said he didn't know the specifics. The Carys' attorney declined to talk about the work, saying he would offer a full explanation in court filings in a few weeks. Spencer, who is 42 and lives in Dripping Springs near Austin, had worked on political campaigns before. But few details are publicly available about the kind of work he does. Many of his addresses are post-office boxes, including one for now-defunct Spen-Off Strategies, the consulting firm that Wooten paid $110,000 to during her 2008 campaign for judge. Wooten, 42, spent 12 years as a family lawyer in McKinney before making her first run for elected office. Her attorney argues that the fact that both Wooten and the Carys have worked with Spencer does not mean bribery was involved. Wooten doesn't even know the Carys, Schulte said. "To this day," he said, "she's never met them."

Custody battle

The Carys' legal battle in Collin County stems from the 2004 divorce of David and Jennifer Cary. The couple couldn't agree on custody issues related to their twin girls, who were born premature and have special education needs. Neither Jennifer Cary nor her attorney could be reached. In the summer of 2006, the couple reached an agreement through mediation to equally share in the girls' upbringing. But a social study report in the court filings raised doubts about the arrangement. The evaluator noted "difficulties that have surfaced with a number of the professionals that have worked with this family." Other court papers noted the parents' tense relationship and the girls' troubles transitioning between two households. After a three-day bench trial in October 2006, Sandoval named Jennifer Cary the sole managing conservator for the girls. In the order signed Dec. 1, the judge noted, among other things, David Cary's inability to work effectively with therapists, counselors and school officials as well as his "inability to share the rights, powers and duties to co-parent and cooperatively raise the children." Jennifer Cary got custody of the girls during the week and every second weekend of the month. David Cary had them on the other weekends. Sandoval's order went so far as to detail how the girls would be dropped off when the parents traded custody. The ruling spelled out David Cary's child support payments, the $30,000 he owed each year for the children's education fund and the $416,543 he had to pay to cover his ex-wife's attorney fees. His objections, motions to transfer to another court in Dallas County, and filings with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas in the ensuing months were generally denied. Then in June 2007, Sandoval granted Jennifer Cary's motion for sanctions, finding that one of David Cary's motions "was filed frivolously or designed to harass" his ex-wife. Sandoval ordered both David Cary and his attorney to pay $50,000 to Jennifer Cary. Shortly after that, the judge also ordered David Cary to pay $14,500 for his ex-wife's attorney fees.

District court race

In the summer of 2007, as the Carys were filing motions in court, Steve Spencer was looking for someone to run against Sandoval, who'd never drawn an opponent since taking office in 1997. McKinney attorney Michael Puhl said Spencer approached him about running. Puhl had some experience, having campaigned unsuccessfully for another district court bench in 2006. The two talked on the phone and then met in person, Puhl said. Spencer never mentioned the Carys but said he was affiliated with home-school interests. Spencer said his group would help finance Puhl's campaign and provide workers if he chose to run, Puhl said. "He said they thought I was a good candidate," Puhl said, "and he was encouraging me to run against Charles Sandoval." Puhl said they didn't discuss any of Sandoval's specific rulings. "It was just general disappointment. I never thought of it as, 'I'm trying to influence you to give me a ruling.' " Puhl opted not to run. He said Wooten told him later that she had decided to run and that Spencer had approached her. No one recruited Wooten to run for judge, Schulte said. She had been considering running for six years, he said. She wanted to be a judge, in part, because the hours were more predictable than private practice, Schulte said. Udashen said he didn't know how or why Spencer became Wooten's campaign consultant. He said Spencer didn't know Wooten before he joined the campaign.

Wooten's campaign

Wooten's campaign for judge got off to a slow start. Her first campaign finance report, filed in January 2008, showed $2,045 in contributions and $1,933 in expenses – $1,500 went toward the county's filing fee and the rest to Signs by Randy. Her second campaign finance report, filed eight days before the primary election, showed $9,125 in contributions and $11,734 in expenses. Her first recorded payment to Spen-Off Strategies was Feb. 13, 2008. She ultimately spent $110,341 with the firm for campaign services that included radio ads – an unheard of expense in a local judicial race. Sandoval's campaign expenses of $43,112 were no match for the $125,083 that Wooten spent. She handily beat the incumbent judge with 57 percent of the vote. The bulk of her campaign contributions came in after she'd won the primary. She also loaned her campaign $33,369 to cover the remaining invoice from Spen-Off. Wooten had no opposition in the November general election and took office Jan. 1, 2009.

Another custody battle

Before the month was out, David Cary petitioned to reopen the case related to his children. Wooten recused herself. Selecting her replacement became the job of John Ovard, presiding judge of the First Administrative Judicial Region in Dallas. Ovard, who handles judicial assignments for 34 counties in northeast Texas, including Collin, said he chooses from a pool of 40 to 50 visiting judges. In the Carys' case, Ovard said, he chose Judge John McCraw because McCraw had been an appeals court judge, because the Carys' child-custody case had been referred from the Court of Appeals back to the 380th state district court and because David Cary had been sanctioned. "Sanctions are unusual, rather complex matters," Ovard said. "My thinking at the time was that Judge McCraw, with his experience, would be a good one to handle that."

New outcome

Court documents appealing the sanctions argued that there was no evidence of harassment or frivolousness on David Cary's part. After several hearings, McCraw set aside the sanctions order.

David and Jennifer Cary went back into mediation.

Earlier this year, McCraw found that Sandoval's 2006 order was not in the children's best interests. He noted that since Jennifer Cary remarried and moved to Fort Worth, the girls had to travel 50 miles each way to their school in Dallas. McCraw noted that commute was "detrimental and potentially dangerous" for the girls. He also said that Jennifer Cary had alienated the girls against their father and falsely accused him of abusing the girls and misusing alcohol and drugs. McCraw ordered the couple to once again be joint managing conservators, but he gave David Cary primary custody during the week and every second weekend of the month. The girls' mother got custody on the remaining weekends, and they split summers and holidays. Jennifer Cary has appealed McCraw's decision.

What's next

Last week, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct suspended Wooten with pay until the charges against her can be resolved. Schulte said it's much easier for prosecutors to get an indictment than a conviction. "Getting from indictment to beyond a reasonable doubt is a whole different ballgame," he said. Wooten won't consider a plea bargain and plans to go to trial, Schulte said. "She's not guilty, so she's going all the way." Roach, whose office initiated the investigation of Wooten, likely won't be there. The longtime district attorney didn't seek re-election, and leaves office at the end of the year. vwigglesworth@ dallasnews.com, ehousewright@ dallasnews.com, mhaag@dallasnews.com

State Lawyer Arrested as Probe of Harassing Calls Unfolds

Lawyer arrested as probe of harassing calls unfolds
The Albany Times Union by BRENDAN J. LYONS - October 22, 2010

ALBANY, NY -- An attorney who works for New York state and was formerly a longtime employee of the New York Police Department is in police custody in connection with an investigation into numerous threatening telephone calls that were made to people who live on his street, according to officials familiar with the matter. James J. Hennessey Jr., 58, was taken into custody early Friday in connection with the ongoing investigation by the FBI and Albany detectives, according to a person briefed on the case. State records show Hennessey is an attorney with the Department of Civil Service and his annual salary is listed as $104,080. Hennessey was arraigned in City Court and charged with two counts of aggravated harassment, a felony. Bail is set at $15,000. Hennessey is due back in court on Wednesday. It is unclear whether Hennessey was a police officer for the NYPD. The investigation centers on allegations that Hennessey used an online service to cloak his telephone number and to make it appear the harassing and racially charged telephone calls were coming from other locations, including an office tied to the Ku Klux Klan, sources said. Police records show that Hennessey filed at least two complaints with Albany police several years ago alleging someone had done damage to his home and vehicle. A police spokesman said information about the investigation will be made available later Friday.

Judge to Stand Trial Over Perjury

Retired Mich. judge to stand trial over perjury
The Associated Press by ED WHITE - October 1, 2010

DETROIT, MI — A retired Detroit-area judge was ordered Wednesday to stand trial on criminal charges, five years after privately agreeing with prosecutors to conceal the identity of a paid police informant in a 103-pound cocaine bust. Mary Waterstone acknowledges that she allowed the informant and officers to lie about his relationship with Inkster police when he testified at trial in 2005. She said she did it to protect the safety of informant Chad Povish. The attorney general's office, however, said jurors and defense lawyers had a right to know. Judge David Robinson Jr. of 36th District Court agreed, and ordered Waterstone to go to trial on four felony charges, including improper communications and concealing perjured testimony. Robinson said Waterstone's actions violated a fundamental tenet of the justice system: "To seek the truth." "This is an extraordinary case involving an extraordinary set of circumstances," he said. Waterstone, 70, declined to comment. Her lawyer, Gerald Evelyn, said he would try to get the charges thrown out in Wayne County Circuit Court, where Waterstone was a judge for 10 years. "You make a mistaken call and now you're charged here with a crime. ... Mr. Povish's life was hanging in the balance," Evelyn told Robinson. Povish said this week that he was repeatedly told by then-prosecutor Karen Plants and Inkster police to lie about being an informant when he testified against Alexander Aceval in 2005. Assistant Attorney General William Rollstin said Waterstone's lack of personal gain in the case is irrelevant. She "willfully allowed perjury to go to the jury," Rollstin said in court. Plants, Wayne County's former top drug prosecutor, was ordered Tuesday to stand trial on conspiracy and other charges. Officers Robert McArthur and Scott Rechtzigel will also go to trial. Povish was arrested while transporting the cocaine. He was paid $4,500 for working with police but had hoped to get thousands more. He's considering a lawsuit. Aceval's 2005 cocaine trial ended in a mistrial when jurors couldn't reach a verdict. He later pleaded guilty and is in prison until at least 2015. He's now trying to get the plea thrown out on grounds that it was part of a tainted legal process. The Michigan Court of Appeals has said Waterstone and Plants' conduct was "disgraceful." The state Judicial Tenure Commission, which serves as a watchdog of judges, did not file a formal complaint but scolded Waterstone. The Attorney Grievance Commission has a complaint pending against Plants.

World Justice Report: U.S. Behind on Rule of Law

US Lags Well Behind Other Wealthy Nations on Rule of Law, Report Says

The American Bar Association Journal by James Podgers - October 14, 2010

Access to justice ranking chart from report.

A U.S. justice system already pummeled by blows from the Great Recession is getting more bad news this morning. A report released by the World Justice Project—a 3-year-old initiative sponsored by the ABA and a number of other organizations representing various disciplines—says the United States lags behind other leading developed nations on all but one of nine key measures of adherence to the rule of law. The findings for each country are based on surveys of some 1,000 residents in three leading cities as well as experts in the law and other disciplines. The good news is that the U.S. ranks no lower than 11th among 35 countries covered by the index on any of nine key rule of law principles. But when compared with 10 other nations designated in the index as "high income," the United States ranks near the bottom in nearly all of those categories. Every major region of the world is represented in the index. Peer groups of nations are categorized by the index on the basis of socioeconomic factors and region, but not form of government.

Notably, the United States ranks at the bottom of both its 11-nation economic group and its seven-nation regional group (Western Europe and North America) on providing access to civil justice through the courts and representation by attorneys or other legal professionals. The other members of the high-income group are Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Spain and Sweden. The Western European nations and Canada also make up the regional group with the United States. Access to civil justice services already is a growing concern in the United States as recessionary pressures are leading many states to reduce funding for their court systems. In some jurisdictions, courthouses have been closed or hours cut back and trials limited. Meanwhile, the Legal Services Corp. uses data from the most recent census to estimate that nearly 57 million Americans—the highest number ever—now qualify for assistance from local legal aid programs. The LSC supports those programs with funding from Congress. Other studies estimate that legal aid offices and pro bono efforts by private attorneys meet only about 20 percent of the civil legal needs of poor Americans. Recognizing the growing crisis, ABA President Stephen N. Zack in August appointed a Task Force on the Preservation of the Justice System to focus on how the recession is affecting access to justice for Americans. When Zack, who is administrative partner in the Miami office of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, announced the task force as one of his primary initiatives, he warned that "the potential to lose the rule of law in our country is very real."

While the low U.S. score on access to justice reinforces concerns in that area, the United States scores only barely higher in the Rule of Law Index on the other factors that the World Justice Project has identified as key components of a rule of law regime that helps support societies based on opportunity, equity and respect for individual rights. Those factors are limits on government power, on which the United States ranks ninth out of the 11 countries in its income group; whether government operates with an absence of corruption (U.S. rank: 10); whether laws are clear, publicized and stable (U.S. rank: 9); whether society enjoys order and security (U.S. rank: 9); whether fundamental human rights are respected (U.S. rank: 10); whether laws are enforced in a fair manner (U.S. rank: 8); and whether an effective criminal justice system is in place (U.S. rank: 7). The United States scored highest—third among its 11 income group peers—for having an open government process.

Among the nations in the high income group, Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria ranked highest on most of the rule of law factors. Japan and Singapore also scored at the top on some factors. But because the Rule of Law Index is primarily statistical in nature, it does not offer extensive analysis of these patterns. "While the Index is helpful to tracking the 'temperature" of the rule of law situation in the countries under study," states the report issued today, "it is not powerful enough to provide a full diagnosis or to dictate concrete priorities for action. No single index can convey a full picture of a country's situation. Rule of law analysis requires a careful consideration of multiple dimensions—which vary from country to country—and a combination of sources, instruments, and methods."

Speaking at a briefing session in Washington, D.C., where the index was released, World Justice Project chair William C. Hubbard said, "Everyone in this room wants progress and a stronger rule of law, but we're not here with a one-size-fits-all approach to improving the rule of law." Rather, the purpose of the index is to produce data that help each country identify areas for possible reform, said Hubbard, a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in Columbia, S.C., who is immediate past chair of the ABA House of Delegates. The report also cautions against the temptation to use the index results as a simple ranking exercise. Representatives of the World Justice Project said the index is an important addition to rule of law studies, primarily because it seeks to measure specific elements that define the rule of law on the basis of how those elements actually apply to the real lives and experiences of people in various countries. "This kind of tool is most important," said Ellen Gracie Northfleet, the former chief justice of Brazil who sits on the World Justice Project's board of directors. "We can exchange our intuitive knowledge of what's wrong and what's right with measurable data." The report being released today is a more refined and complete version of the Rule of Law Index that was released in late 2009, although both versions are based on research conducted in the same 35 countries. The World Justice Project plans to update the Rule of Law Index on an annual basis, and expand it to cover 70 countries in 2011 and 100 countries—covering more than 95 percent of the world's population—by 2012.

Iviewit Files Motion to Reopen Patentgate Federal Action

Click Here to See the Filed Iviewit Motion to Reopen, with Exhibits

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DOCKET NO: 07Civ11196 (SAS)

ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and P. STEPHEN LAMONT

ON BEHALF OF SHAREHOLDERS OF IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs,

-against-

MOTION

APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE,
THOMAS J. CAHILL, in his official and individual
capacity, JOSEPH WIGLEY in his official and individual
capacity, CATHERINE O’HAGEN WOLFE in her
official and individual capacity, PAUL CURRAN in his
official and individual capacity, MARTIN R. GOLD in his
official and individual capacity , HON. ANGELA M.
MAZZARELLI in her official and individual capacity,
HON. RICHARD T. ANDRIAS in his official and
individual capacity, HON. DAVID B. SAXE in his official
and individual capacity, HON. DAVID FRIEDMAN in his
official and individual capacity, HON. LUIZ A.
GONZALES in his official and individual capacity,
APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE,
LAWRENCE DIGIOVANNA in his official and
individual capacity, DIANA MAXFIELD KEARSE in
her official and individual capacity, JAMES E.
PELTZER in his official and individual capacity, HON.
A. GAIL PRUDENTI in her official and individual
capacity, STEVEN C. KRANE in his official and
individual capacity, HON. JUDITH S. KAYE in her
official and individual capacity, KENNETH
RUBENSTEIN, ESTATE OF STEPHEN KAYE,
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER LIPPE
GOLDSTEIN & BREISTONE LLP, LEWIS S.
MELTZER, RAYMOND A. JOAO, FOLEY LARDNER
LLP, MICHAEL C. GREBE, WILLIAM J. DICK,
DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, STEVEN C. BECKER,
STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION OF
INVESTIGATION, LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT
PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
THE FLORIDA BAR, LORRAINE CHRISTINE
HOFFMAN in her official and individual capacity,
ERIC TURNER in his official and individual capacity,
JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS in his official and individual
capacity, KENNETH MARVIN in his official and
individual capacity, THOMAS HALL in his official and
individual capacity, DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her
official and individual capacity, VIRGINIA STATE BAR,
ANDREW H. GOODMAN in his official and individual
capacity, NOEL SENGEL in her official and individual
capacity, MARY W. MARTELINO in her official and
individual capacity, and John Does., Defendants

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN DOCKET NO. 07-CIV-11196

BASED ON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Plaintiff, P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. moves this Court for an order reopening the above captioned case, Docket No. 07-Civ-11196 (SAS), based upon exceptional circumstances that ensued after the Court’s granting of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and its Opinion and Order of August 8, 2008 (“Order”). Respectfully, the Court should take notice that not all Defendants are parties to this Motion (see CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENDANTS).

BACKGROUND

Beginning in 1997, Inventors of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (“Iviewit”) developed video and imaging technologies (the "Inventions") that use significantly less bandwidth than other technologies, provide a way to "zoom almost infinitely on a low resolution file with clarity," and were quickly incorporated into almost every digital camera, DVDs, televisions, cable and satellite and terrestrial television broadcasting, certain websites, and application specific integrated circuits (“chips”); factually, Plaintiffs stake the claim as inventors of “digital zoom,” a feature present on most if not all video capture devices. Defendant Proskauer Rose LLP, a New York law firm, was recipients of disclosures regarding the Inventions through Proskauer partner, Christopher C. Wheeler. Several weeks later, Proskauer represented that purported partners, Defendants Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond A. Joao, would secure patents for the Inventions. Simultaneously, Rubenstein was also counsel to MPEG LA LLC, one of the largest competitors and benefactors of the Inventions. In fact, Petitioners allege that Rubenstein was part of a scheme to sabotage the Inventions so as to preserve and benefit MPEG LA LLC.

BASES FOR REOPENING

Standard of Review

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(6) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The Third Circuit “has consistently held that the Rule 60(b) ground for relief from judgment provides for extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional circumstances” Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002) (see also, e.g., Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) where the court stated “[O]ur cases have required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final judgment.”); Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950), Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d 488, 493 (3d Cir.1975). Notwithstanding that, in some instances, Plaintiffs original pleadings may be facially defective under FRCP Rule 8(a) and Rule 12(b), Plaintiffs argue that enough facts are plainly and simply pled to identify the who, what, where, when, and how of the allegations that sufficiently state claims that will become more fully evident through discovery; this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.

Exceptional Circumstances

On October 3, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. (08-cv-4873, CA2 NY, filed October 3, 2008). That just after filing such appeal, Plaintiffs, and on January 14, 2009, as movants, filed a motion with the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”) requesting an order requiring the immediate investigation of Thomas J. Cahill (“Cahill”), attached herein as Exhibit A; Cahill was a Respondent in the Second Circuit appeal and a Defendant in the District Court case. Whereby, on January 27, 2009, the Cahill complaint was immediately dismissed by Special Counsel Martin R. Gold (“Gold”), also a Respondent in the Second Circuit appeal and a Defendant herein, attached as Exhibit B. On May 13, 2009, the First Department Court denied movants motion in a decision rendered by, among others, Hon. Richard T. Andrias and Hon. David B. Saxe, attached herein as Exhibit C; Hon. Andrias and Hon. Saxe were both Respondents in the Second Circuit appeal and Defendants herein. Praying for relief of conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, on May 22, 2009, Plaintiffs moved the First Department Court for an order vacating the Cahill disposition by Respondent Gold and the denied motion rendered by Respondents Hon. Andrias and Hon. Saxe, attached herein as Exhibit D. The First Department Court summarily denied such motion on October 28, 2009, attached herein as Exhibit E.

Similar Pattern of Racketeering

If it were not for the actions of the above Respondents (Defendants in this Court’s 07-cv-11196), Plaintiffs would not be availing the Court for a Motion to Reopen, but since their incomprehensible actions gives the situation exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering as evidenced by Exhibit B and Exhibit C, Plaintiffs must respectfully ask this Court to grant this prayer for relief.

CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENDANTS

Causes of Action

Should this Court grant this prayer for relief, Plaintiffs move to re-open the case based solely on two federal causes of action in the original complaint: violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (which this Court likened to our direct constitutional claims in its Order and Opinion) and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; various supplemental claims and new defendants may also be included in any Amended Complaint.

Defendants

Plaintiffs move to reopen the case as to only the following defendants in the original complaint:
Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Thomas J. Cahill, in his official and individual capacity, Paul Curran in his official and individual capacity, Martin R. Gold in his official and individual capacity , Hon. Richard T. Andrias in his official and individual capacity, Hon. David B. Saxe in his official and individual capacity, Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Lawrence DiGiovanna in his official and individual capacity, Diana Maxfield Kearse in her official and individual capacity, James E. Peltzer in his official and individual capacity, Steven C. Krane in his official and individual capacity, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breistone LLP, Lewis S. Meltzer, Raymond A. Joao, Foley Lardner LLP, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Steven C. Becker, The Florida Bar, Lorraine Christine Hoffman in her official and individual capacity, Eric Turner in his official and individual capacity, John Anthony Boggs in his official and individual capacity, Kenneth Marvin in his official and individual capacity, Virginia State Bar, Andrew H. Goodman in his official and individual capacity, Noel Sengel in her official and individual capacity, Mary W. Martelino in her official and individual capacity, and John Does.

Causative Relationships of the Above Defendants

That the exceptional circumstances inherent in filing this Motion to Reopen are limited strictly to Defendants Cahill, Gold, Hon. Andrias, and Hon. Saxe, may it please the Court, their actions are the expressions of these Defendants as agents that cause incomprehensible actions, to wit, the protection of Defendants Proskauer Rose LLP, Kenneth Rubenstein, Meltzer Lippe Golstein & Breitsone LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Foley Lardner LLP, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Steven C. Becker, and their respective respondeats superior who neglected to supervise their actions, in the sabotage of Plaintiffs backbone, enabling video and imaging technologies for the benefit of MPEG LA LLC. That in their collusion to protect the above named Defendants and continue to block Plaintiffs’ Inventions for the benefit of MPEG LA LLC, Defendants New York State Actors, Florida Bar Defendants, and the Virginia Bar Defendants similarly undertook such actions as agents of the aforementioned Defendants that cause incomprehensible actions, to wit, the protection of Defendants Proskauer Rose LLP, Kenneth Rubenstein, Meltzer Lippe Golstein & Breitsone LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Foley Lardner LLP, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Steven C. Becker, and their respective respondeats superior who neglected to supervise their actions, in the sabotage of Plaintiffs backbone, enabling video and imaging technologies for the benefit of MPEG LA LLC.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN THE REPRESENTATION OF THE STATE ACTORS BY

THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

As the “People's Lawyer,” the Office of the Attorney General (“AG”) serves as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens of New York, its organizations and its natural resources. In its role as the State's chief legal counsel, the AG not only advises the Executive branch of State government, but also defends actions and proceedings on behalf of the State1. As it relates to the instant Motion to Reopen, this Court cannot allow the AG to act on behalf of the State Defendants in neither their official capacity nor individual capacity as by its self proclaimed mandate above, “People’s Lawyer” vis`-a-vis State’s Chief Legal counsel, strongly suggests a incomprehensible conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety when no mention is made of an ethical barrier between different departments of the AG’s office to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, in complete separation of such bilateral functions. Where even in their reply papers, should the AG plead the existence of such a separation of interests (“People’s Lawyer vis`-a-vis State’s Chief Legal counsel) their still exists such a conflict and impropriety. After a multiplicity of complaints filed with the AG, and through several administrations, requesting that the AG should criminally prosecute such lawyers, law firms, and public officers, for harming the “People” (in this case Plaintiffs who seek the fruits of their labor to create the Inventions), instead the AG turns around and represents these same individuals complained of. Accordingly, this Court, however, must now disqualify the AG from any representation of the State Defendants in their official and individual capacities as a result of these conflicts of interests and appearances of impropriety.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs move for a reopening of the action and relief from the Court's August 8, 2008 Opinion and Order whereby the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and a disqualification of the AG’s office in representing the New York State Actors, else Plaintiffs are deprived of rights, powers, or privileges in this action..
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580 - Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By: P. Stephen Lamont

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all defendants by facsimile this 11th day of October 2010. Defendants are served by facsimile as opposed to hand delivery to the Court for the sake of Pro se expediency.

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se

Joanna Smith/Gregg M. Mashberg Proskauer Rose LLP
Counsel for the Proskauer Defendants - Facsimile: (212) 969-2900

Monica Connell, Esq. - Office of the New York State Attorney General
Counsel for the New York State Defendants Facsimile: (212) 416-6075

Kent K. Anker, Esq. - Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP
Counsel for the Foley Larder LLP Defendants - Facsimile: (212) 373-7944

John W. Fried, Esq. - Fried & Epstein LLP
Counsel for Defendant Joao - Facsimile: (212) 268-3110

Stephen H. Hall - Office of the Virginia State Attorney General
Counsel for the Virginia Defendants - Facsimile: (804) 786-1991

Richard Howard - Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone
Counsel for Meltzer Defendants - Facsimile: (516) 747-0653

Glenn T. Burhans/Bridget Smitha
Greenberg Traurig LLP

Counsel for Florida Bar Defendants - Facsimile: (850) 681-0207

CLICK BELOW TO SEE EXHIBITS

Click Here to See the Filed Iviewit Motion to Reopen, with Exhibits

Judge Rips Lying Cops

Years after cabbie was crippled, judge finally rips NYPD cops who covered for drunk colleague
The New York Daily News by Benjamin Lesser - October 7, 2010

Justice Lewis Bart Stone calls NYPD coverup 'disgusting.'

NYPD cops engaged in a "disgusting" coverup for a drunken colleague who mowed down a cabbie, paralyzing him for life, a Manhattan judge has found. "The statements made by this victim about a police coverup are totally believable ... and most likely occurred," Supreme Court Justice Lewis Bart Stone declared. "It is disgusting what they did to prevent justice from being done." Sitting in his wheelchair in Stone's courtroom in May, victim Eric Goldin felt vindicated. "It opened up a whole new world of possibilities in terms of getting some ... positive resolution from the [NYPD]," he said. Goldin's long road to the unusual open-court declaration was filled with frustration. It began Nov. 6, 1998, as he drove his cab in the early morning darkness near E. 86th St. and First Ave. Suddenly a car driven by off-duty cop Edilio Mejia slammed into Goldin, sending his cab careening onto the sidewalk. Cops responding to the scene included Police Officers Donald Houvener and Arthur Olivella. Houvener and Olivella said Mejia was being treated for a head wound when they arrived, and Goldin was unconscious on the floor of his taxi, records show. Olivella was told Mejia was a cop, records show. Goldin and Mejia were taken to New York Hospital, where Goldin's then-girlfriend, Johanna Viksne, asked if Mejia had been given a Breathalyzer test. Olivella says he told her he was not trained to perform the test. Records show Olivella and Houvener said there was "no reason to think a Breathalyzer exam was necessary as P.O. Mejia did not smell of, or appear to be, under the influence of alcohol." Goldin's brother complained to the NYPD, but the department closed the case in 1999 based largely on the cops' testimony. Olivella and Houvener were disciplined for failing to tell supervisors there were allegations Mejia had been drinking. In February 2001, Goldin obtained Mejia's hospital records. They show the cop told hospital staff he'd been drinking, and revealed a toxicology report declaring Mejia's blood alcohol level was at least twice the legal limit. Goldin sent the records to the Manhattan DA and the NYPD. Both opened new probes, which found six cops were involved in the 1998 incident, but the DA said Mejia's medical records were inadmissable because he didn't consent to release them. No charges were filed. Then on Jan. 14, 2002, it happened again. Mejia was arrested sitting in a parked car on W. 170th St. with the engine running, his speech slurred and booze on his breath. He was charged with drunken driving. The NYPD opened an internal investigation and ultimately filed departmental charges in the 1998 and 2002 incidents. In October 2002, Mejia was found guilty of DUI in the 2002 incident and sentenced to 60 days in jail. In February 2008, he was found guilty of six departmental counts, including vehicular assault and DWI. He was forced to retire in March 2008, but kept most of his pension. Eight months later, he drove a 2000 Lincoln Navigator the wrong way on the FDR and hit an oncoming car. He was again charged with driving drunk. In May, 12 years after the first incident, Goldin told his sad story in court at Mejia's sentencing. Then it was Stone's turn. "I can't fault you directly for the coverup of the cops because they all did it; they kept you away from any form of Breathalyzer while you were in the hospital after you hit [Goldin]," he said. Then Stone ripped into the other cops. "Your friends on the [NYPD], certainly, you know, gave you a bye till this point ... for you to pay the piper." Mejia got a year in jail for the FDR crash. It's unknown if any of the cops involved in the 1998 "coverup" were punished. NYPD spokesman Paul Browne refused to comment. Prosecutors declined to discuss the case. Houvener and Olivella would not comment. They remain on the force; Houvener has been promoted to sergeant. blesser@nydailynews.com

Federal Judge Arrested on Drug and Gun Charges

Ga. federal judge arrested on drug, gun charges
The Associated Press by Greg Bluestein. - October 4, 2010

ATLANTA, GA — A veteran federal judge faces drug and firearms charges after an exotic dancer at an Atlanta strip club told authorities he used cocaine, marijuana and other illegal drugs with her. Senior U.S. District Judge Jack T. Camp was arrested Friday minutes after he handed an undercover law enforcement agent $160 for cocaine and Roxycodone, a narcotic pain medication, that he intended to use with the exotic dancer, authorities said in a court document released Monday. They said they also found two firearms in the front seat of his vehicle. Camp, 67, who has presided over some high-profile cases, was released Monday on a $50,000 bond. His attorney, William Morrison, said after a brief hearing that the judge intends to plead not guilty. Morrison said Camp would probably take a leave of absence and would not preside over any more cases until the charges are resolved. "This is really a case between Judge Camp and his wife," said Morrison. "It's not about Judge Camp being a judge. It's about him being a husband."

Camp's arrest set up an unusual domino effect in the federal courthouse. The district's federal judges all recused themselves, so Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody of Alabama was brought in to hear the case. Federal prosecutors from Washington also flew in to handle the government's arguments. The charges against Camp were laid out in a shocking eight-page affidavit released after the emergency hearing was finished. Camp met the confidential informant, who recently began cooperating with the FBI, at the Goldrush Showbar in Atlanta in early 2010 and he soon began paying her for sex and buying cocaine from her at $40 to $50 a pop, according to the records. In June 2010, Camp followed the informant to a drug dealer in Marietta to buy Roxycodone. He was also recorded in a wiretapped telephone call on Sept. 28 talking with her about getting together over the weekend to split more pills and cocaine with her, according to the charges. He showed up at a Publix parking lot in northeast Atlanta around 7:15 p.m. Friday to meet with the an undercover agent posing as the dealer. When the informant told her she was worried about his safety, the judge told her, "I not only have my little pistol, I've got my big pistol so, uh, we'll take care of any problems that come up," according to the affidavit. He handed over $160 in cash to pay for the drugs around 7:35 p.m. Ten minutes later, authorities arrested the judge and seized the two guns from the front seat of his vehicle.

The judge faces four drug-related charges and one count of possessing firearms while illegally using drugs. It's a stunning turn for Camp, a Vietnam War veteran who was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. He is a former chief judge for the Northern District of Georgia. Known for wearing suspenders around the courtroom, he handled hundreds of cases before taking senior status — and a lesser caseload — in 2008. In 2004, he sentenced two men accused of killing DeKalb County Sheriff Derwin Brown to life in prison without parole. He also handled litigation from voting rights groups who sought to block Georgia from asking new voters to prove their identities and citizenship before casting their ballots. The judge also handled several high-profile drug cases, including the May 2009 sentencing on prescription-related charges of the personal doctor to a professional wrestler who killed himself, his wife and their 7-year-old son. Camp, wearing a pinstripe suit, said little during the brief hearing Monday but turned to flash a smile at his family after he walked in. He hired four defense attorneys over the weekend to represent him, and Morrison said his client was in "good spirits." "Judge Camp's wife is an extraordinarily strong woman and she's going to stand by her husband," said Morrison. "And this is a very strong man. He's going to overcome these circumstances."