Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Eliot I. Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Vs. The Florida Bar. Florida Supreme Court Corruption and Cover Ups over the Iviewit Stolen Patent.

"QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. Does this Court have the power to intercede on behalf of Petitioners' constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution when all other legal remedies instituted to protect such rights at the state level, such as access to the courts, due process and procedure and others, have all been usurped Petitioner by dubious methods employed by members of the system designed to protect such rights?

2. Does this Court have the power to intercede on behalf of Petitioner when the state courts and their self regulated attorney disciplinary system has been infiltrated and corrupted so as to turn the traditional mechanisms of protection for Petitioners' rights, against Petitioners' rights, by those charged with upholding such rights?

3. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification?

4. Did the Florida Supreme Court not only err in decisions but in fact take actions to aid and abet members of that court and its disciplinary agencies and agents from escaping prosecution of violations of public office and conflicts of interests?

5. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the petition for relief and did it also err in failing to provide an opinion or explanation?

6. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in refusing Petitioner's request for conflict of interest checks prior to considering the original petition?

7. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in failing to seek Judicial Qualifications Commission approval as requested by Petitioner prior to the ruling on the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification, in evaluating if their order to destroy the records pertinent to conflicts of interests and violation of public offices of its members, prior to record retention policies, was an attempt to obstruct due process and procedure in effort to aid and abet its members caught in conflict and does this Court have power to levy such charges against them?

8. Does the order to destroy the work product files of The Florida Bar and only return Petitioner filings to Petitioner constitute the basis for charges of obstruction of justice by this Court, as that courts efforts were designed to deny this Court all the facts and evidence in the matters now before this Court?

9. Was the Florida Supreme Court obligated to report the conflicts of interest, violations of public offices at The Florida Bar they oversight, asserted and confirmed conflicts of interests, to the proper authorities?

10. Does the failure to report constitute basis for charges by this Court against that court for failure to uphold justice and follow state law and procedure?

11. Was the Florida Supreme Court obligated to review the merits of attorney misconduct pursuant to their exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and discipline attorneys in the state of Florida?

12. Did the Florida Supreme Court err and further act as accomplice by not allowing Petitioners' complaints to be filed against public office members of Respondent caught in conflict of interest and abuse of public office?

Is such refusal of complaints against public officers against the intent of the Florida and United State constitutions when creating a complaint process to protect the public's interest from conflict of interests and abuses of public offices?

13. Did the Florida Supreme Court fail to follow judicial cannons and attorney conduct codes, in its refusal to make disclosed conflicts of interest at the Florida Supreme Court, and at the Florida civil court.

14. Should this Court take a leading role in establishing oversight to the administration of justice in the matters where the state supreme courts of the states having traditional jurisdiction are now in an adversarial role with Petitioner to block access to the legal and enforcement agencies of those states.

LIST OF PARTIES

[X] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

Iviewit Technologies, Inc., any and all affiliates both known and unknown

Iviewit Holdings, Inc., any and all affiliates both known and unknown

The Florida Bar

Christopher C. Wheeler

Matthew Triggs

Eric Turner

Lorraine Hoffman

Kelly Overstreet Johnson

Joy Bartmon

Kenneth Marvin

John Anthony Boggs "

Source of Post and Tons more Documents and Details.
http://www.iviewit.tv/supreme%20court/index.htm

Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox


Florida Supreme Court Corruption, Judicial Corruption.