APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants.
On October 11, 2010, Plaintiff, P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. moved 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”). Respectively, Plaintiffs have been properly served with answers that oppose such Motion to Reopen by the Proskauer Defendants, the Foley Defendants, Raymond A. Joao Pro se, the Virginia Defendants, the Florida Bar Defendants, and the New York State Actors (collectively, “Reopen Oppositions”). Additionally Plaintiffs have been properly served with an answer by the State Actors that opposes the removal of the Office of the Attorney General from representation of the State Actors (“Disqualification Opposition”). The Meltzer Defendants did not answer Plaintiffs’ Motion.
The Reopen Oppositions make no mention, lest no defense of: After four and one half years of handling the Plaintiffs’ grievance complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Defendant Martin R. Gold suddenly reached a disposition exactly seven (7) business days after Plaintiffs filed their 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”); and When after said disposition, Defendants Hon. Andrias and Hon Saxe sat on a panel in the First Department Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
These circumstances are exceptional instances in the pattern of racketeering and are direct violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 that continue along with, and of which no statute of limitations may belie, the seminal instances as follows: Deposition testimony will show evidence that dismissed Defendant Joseph Wigley stated “Mr. Cahill has taken the Rubenstein complaint away and is handling the complaint on his own,” or words to these effects. The handling of a grievance complaint by the Chief Counsel himself is quite inapposite to the testimony offered in Anderson v. The State of New York (S.D.N.Y. filed October 26, 2007). This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that in the filing of a response to a grievance complaint against Rubenstein by a referee, the late Steven C. Krane, where, the former Clerk of the First Department Court, dismissed Defendant Catherine O’Hagen Wolfe, stated “Steven Krane? Of course, he is a referee, and I have a meeting with him tonight along with a few others folks,” or words to these effects. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that the State Actors caused the merging of the Rubenstein complaint with the grievance complaint against Raymond A. Joao that was filed in another Disciplinary Department so as to impart a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in light of the Krane response. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. That in making no mention, lest no defense of these exceptional circumstances of 1 and 2 above, Plaintiffs maintain that skirting the issue and providing no defense, clearly and convincingly gives further exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering, in violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, all methods employed by the State Actors to sanctify and preserve the politically connected law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP and its reckless member Defendant Kenneth Rubenstein and his accomplices Defendant Raymond A. Joao and the Meltzer Defendants to preserve and protect a profitable client, MPEG LA LLC.
Plaintiffs argue that, as to the Foley Defendants, the Virginia Defendants, and the Florida Bar Defendants, further deposition testimony will show evidence which will further define the who, what, where, when, and how of the allegations that sufficiently state claims which will become more fully evident, as to whether they acted in collusion with the State Actors in clearly and convincingly acting to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices and/or whether they contrived their own racketeering scheme for securing the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1) (B) section 1503 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to relating to obstruction of justice, section 1511 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement, and section 1952 defines a catch all as activities relating to racketeering.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (4) defines “enterprise” that includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a), (b), (c), and (d) Defendants’ pattern of racketeering clearly and convincingly acted to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants. The Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices contrived their racketeering scheme to sabotage the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom from competing in, and affecting, interstate or foreign commerce for such technologies from the original encoding of video and images and downstream to display on any screen device by an end user.
Deposition testimony will show evidence from a one Wayne Smith, former intellectual property counsel of Warner Bros. Entertainment, a unit of Time Warner, Inc. as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will further show evidence from a one Gregory B. Thagard, one of the principal inventors and proponents of the DVD6c Licensing Group as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will conclusively show evidence from the intellectual property department of Greenberg Traurig LLP (counsel to the Florida Bar Defendants herein), who conducted a full review of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property in or about Spring 2002 as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affects interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery1 to take place.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1963 attaches criminal penalties to the actions of Defendants to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to bring such actions to the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for a full investigation.
18 U.S.C. § 1964 – Civil Remedies
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) grants the district courts of the United States jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 by issuing appropriate orders, and by 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), Plaintiffs injured in their business and property by reason of a violation of section 1962 provides civil remedies by instituting the action prayed to reopen herein, including the recovery of threefold damages the Plaintiffs sustained and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 – Standing
Where 18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 provides that any civil action under §§ 1961 to 1965 by Plaintiffs’ may be instituted against Defendants in this Court or in any district in which such Plaintiffs reside.
Attorney for Plaintiffs, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580, Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By: P. Stephen Lamont
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all defendants by facsimile this 14nd day of November 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
Raymond A. Joao, Pro se, c/o 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