Saturday, July 1, 2017

Mr. O'Connell is a Professional? But a Professional What? He sure seems to have a "Legacy" of stealing property, predatory guardianship, and violating the civil rights of those he is being so called "professional" with. And lot's MORE...

" in the Chicago case the plaintiff is
12 really not Ted Bernstein, although he probably
13 nominally at some point was listed as a
14 plaintiff in the case. The plaintiff is the
Simon Bernstein 1995 irrevocable life insurance
16 trust. According to the records of the
17 insurance company, the only person named as a
18 beneficiary is a defunct pension plan that went
19 away.

15:15:45 20 THE COURT: Net something net something,
21 right?

22 MR. ROSE: Right. And then the residual
23 beneficiary is this trust. And these are
24 things Simon -- he filled out one designation
25 form in '95 and he named the 95 trust.

THE COURT: But there's no paperwork,
 2 right?

 3 MR. ROSE: We can't find the paperwork.
 4 Not me. It was not me. I have nothing to do
5 with it. I said we. I wanted to correct the
 6 record because it will be flown up to Illinois.

 7 Whoever it is can't find the paperwork.
 8 So there's a proceeding, and it happens in
 9 every court, and there's Illinois proceedings
15:16:11 10 to determine how do you prove a lost trust.
11 This lawsuit is going to get resolved one
12 way or the other. But in this lawsuit the 95
13 trust Ted Bernstein is the trustee, so he
14 allowed, though under the terms of the trust in
15 this case, and we cited it to you twice or
16 three times, under Section 4J of the trust on
17 page 18 of the Simon Bernstein Trust, it says
18 that you can be the trustee of my trust, Simon
19 said you can be the trustee of my trust even if
20 you have a different interest as a trustee of a
21 different trust. So that's not really an
22 issue. And up in Chicago Ted Bernstein is the
23 trustee of the 95 trust. He is represented by
24 the Simon law firm in Chicago.
I have never appeared in court. He is
going to put in all kinds of records. My name
 2 never appears -- I have the docket which he
 3 said can come into evidence. I don't appear on
 4 the docket.
Now, I have to know about this case though
 6 because I represent the trustee of the
 7 beneficiary of this estate. I've got to be
 8 able to advise him. So I know all about his
 9 case. And he was going to be deposed.

10 Guess who was at his deposition? Bill
11 Stansbury. Bill Stansbury was at his
12 deposition, sat right across from me. Eliot,
13 who is not here today, was at that deposition,
14 and Eliot got to ask questions of him at that
15:17:27 15 deposition. He wanted me at the deposition.
16 He is putting the deposition in evidence. If
17 you study the deposition, all you will see is
18 on four occasions I objected on what grounds?
19 Privilege. Be careful what you talk about; you
20 are revealing attorney/client privilege.

21 That's all I did. I didn't say, gee, don't
22 give them this information or that information.
23 And if I objected incorrectly, they should have
24 gone to the judge in Illinois. And I guarantee
you there's a federal judge in Illinois that if
I had objected improperly would have overruled
 2 my objections. I instructed him to protect his
 3 attorney/client privilege. That's what I was
 4 there for, to advise him and to defend him at
5 deposition and to protect him. That's all I
 6 did in the Illinois case. And that is over.
 7 Now, I am rooting like crazy that the
 8 estate loses this case in one sense because
 9 that's what everybody that is a beneficiary of
my trust wants. But I could care less how that
11 turns out, you know, from a legal standpoint.
12 I don't have an appearance in this case. And
13 everyone up there is represented by lawyers.
14 So what we have now is we have this motion
15:18:36 15 which seeks to disqualify my law firm. We
16 still have the objection to Ted serving as the
17 administrator ad litem. And I think those two
18 kind of go hand in hand.

19 There's another component you should know
15:18:50 20 about that motion. But as I told you, our
21 goals are to reduce expense.
22 The reason that everybody wanted Ted to
23 serve as the administrator ad litem, so he
24 would sort of be the representative of the
25 estate, because he said he would do that for
free.

 2 THE COURT: I remember.

 3 MR. ROSE: Mr. O'Connell is a
 4 professional. He is not going to sit there for
5 free for a one-week, two-week jury trial and
 6 prepare and sit for deposition. That's enough
 7 money -- just his fees alone sitting at trial
 8 are enough to justify everything -- you know,
 9 it's a significant amount of money.
15:19:27 10 So that's what's at issue today.
11 But their motion for opening statement,
12 and I realize this is going to overlap, my
13 other will be --

14 THE COURT: Which motion?

MR. ROSE: The disqualification.

16 THE COURT: I wasn't sure.

17 MR. ROSE: I got you. That was sort of
18 first up. All right. So I am back. That's
19 the background. You got the background for the
20 disqualification motion. This is an adversary
21 in litigation trying to disqualify me.
22 I think it is a mean-spirited motion by
23 Mr. Stansbury designed to create chaos and
24 disorder and raise the expense, maybe force the
25 estate into a position where they have to
settle, because now they don't have a
 2 representative or an attorney that knows
 3 anything about the case.
 4 MR. FEAMAN: Objection.
15:20:11 5 THE COURT: Legal objection?
 6 MR. FEAMAN: Comments on the motivation or
 7 intention of opposing counsel in opening
 8 statement is not proper.

 9 THE COURT: I will allow it only -- mean
10 spirited I will strike. The other comments I
11 will allow because under Rule 4-1.7, and I may
12 be misquoting, but it is one of the two rules
13 we have been looking at under the Florida Bar,
14 the commentary specifically talks about an
15:20:42 15 adverse party moving to disqualify and the
16 strategy may be employed. So I will allow that
17 portion of his argument, striking mean
18 spirited.

19 MR. ROSE: Okay. If you turn to tab 2 of
15:20:53 20 the -- we, I think, sent you a very thin
21 binder.

22 THE COURT: Yes, you did.

23 MR. ROSE: We had already sent you the
24 massive book a long time ago.

15:20:59 25 THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ROSE: And I think all I sent you was
 2 the very thin binder. If you turn to Tab 2.

 3 THE COURT: In any other world this would
 4 have been a nice sized binder. In this
 5 particular case you are indeed correct, this is
 6 a very thin binder.

 7 MR. ROSE: Okay. If you flip to page
 8 2240 --

 9 THE COURT: I am just teasing you, sorry.

15:21:15 10 MR. ROSE: -- which is about five or six
11 pages in.

12 THE COURT: Yes.

13 MR. ROSE: This is where a conflict is
14 charged by opposing party.

15 THE COURT: Yes.

16 MR. ROSE: It's part of Rule 4-1.7. These
17 two rules have a lot of overlap.
18 And I would point for the record I did not
19 say that Mr. Feaman was mean spirited. I
20 specifically said mean spirited by his client.

21 THE COURT: Thank you.

22 MR. ROSE: So conflicts charged by the
23 opponent, and this is just warning you that
24 this can be used as a technique of harassment,
15:21:40 25 and that's why I am tying that in.

But the important things are I have never
 2 represented Mr. Stansbury in any matter.
 3 Generally in a conflict of interest situation
 4 you will see I represented him. I don't have
15:21:56 5 any confidential information from
 6 Mr. Stansbury. I have only talked to him
 7 during his deposition. It wasn't very
 8 pleasant. And if you disqualify me to some
 9 degree my life will be fine, because this is
15:22:07 10 not the most fun case to be involved in. I am
11 doing it because I represent Ted and we are
12 trying to do what's right for the
13 beneficiaries.
14 THE COURT: Appearance for the record.
15:22:18 15 Someone just came in.
16 MR. ELIOT BERNSTEIN: Hi. Eliot Ivan
17 Bernstein.

18 THE COURT: Thank you.

19 MR. ELIOT BERNSTEIN: I am pro se, ma'am.
15:22:24 20 THE COURT: Thank you. You may proceed.
21 I just wanted the court reporter to know.
22 MR. ELIOT BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Your
23 Honor.
24 MR. ROSE: I don't have any confidential
25 information of Mr. O'Connell. He is the PR of
the estate. I don't know anything about
 2 Mr. O'Connell that would compromise my ability
 3 to handle this case. I am not sure he and I
 4 have ever spoken about this case. But in
15:22:39 5 either case, I don't have any information.
 6 So I can't even understand why they are
 7 saying this is a conflict of interest. But the
 8 evidence will show, if you look at the way
 9 these are set up, these are three separate
15:22:50 10 cases, not one case. And nothing I am doing in
11 this case criticizes what I am doing in this
12 case. Nothing I am doing -- the outcome of
13 this case is wholly independent of the outcome
14 of this case. He could lose this case and win
15:23:05 15 this case. He could lose this case and lose
16 this case. I mean, the cases have nothing to
17 do with the issues.

18 Who gets the insurance proceeds? Bill
19 Stansbury is not even a witness in that case.
15:23:17 20 It has nothing to do with the issue over here,
21 how much money does Bill Stansbury get? So
22 you've got wholly unrelated, and that's the
23 other part of the Rule 4-1.9 and 4-1.7, it
24 talks about whether the matters are unrelated.
25 And I guess when I argue the statute I will
argue the statute for you.
 2 At best what the evidence is going to show
 3 you -- and I am not trying to win this on a
 4 technicality. I want to win this like up or
15:23:43 5 down and move on. Because this estate can't --
 6 this delay was torture to wait this long for
 7 this hearing.
 8 But if I showed up at Ted's deposition,
 9 and I promise you I will never show up again, I
15:23:57 10 am out of that case, this is a conflict of
11 interest with a former client. I have ceased
12 representing him at his deposition. He is
13 never going to be deposed again. If it's a
14 conflict of interest with a former client, all
15:24:09 15 these things are the prerogative of the former
16 client. They are not the prerogative of the
17 new client. The new client it's not the issue.
18 So if I represented Ted in his deposition, I
19 cannot represent another person in the same or
15:24:21 20 a substantially related matter.
21 So I can't represent the estate in this
22 case because I sat at Ted's deposition, unless
23 the former client gives informed consent. He
24 could still say, hey, I don't care, you do the
15:24:35 25 Illinois case for the estate. I wouldn't do
that, but that's what the rule says. Use
 2 information. There's no information. I am not
 3 even going to waste your time. Reveal
 4 information. So there's no information. If
15:24:46 5 this is the rule we are traveling under, you
 6 deny the motion and we go home and move on and
 7 get back to litigation. If we are traveling
 8 under this rule, I cannot under 4-1.7 --
 9 MR. FEAMAN: Excuse me, Your Honor, this
15:25:00 10 sounds more like final argument than it does
11 opening statement what the evidence is going to
12 show.

13 THE COURT: Overruled.

14 MR. ROSE: So under 4-1.7, except as in b,
15:25:17 15 and I am talking about b because that's maybe
16 the only piece of evidence we may need is the
17 waiver. I have a written waiver. I think it
18 has independent legal significance. Because if
19 I obtained his writing in writing, I think it's
20 admissible just because Mr. O'Connell signed
21 it. But they object, they may object to the
22 admission of the waiver, so I may have to put
23 Mr. O'Connell on the stand for two seconds and
24 have him confirm that he signed the waiver
25 document.

But except if it's waived, now let's put
 2 that aside. We never even get to the waiver.
 3 The representation of one client has to be
 4 directly adverse to another client. So
15:25:53 5 representing Ted in his deposition is not --
 6 has nothing to do -- first of all, Ted had
 7 counsel representing him directly adverse. I
 8 was there protecting him as trustee, protecting
 9 his privileges, getting ready for a trial that
15:26:07 10 we had before Judge Phillips where he upheld
11 the validity of the documents, determined that
12 Ted didn't commit any egregious wrongdoing.
13 That's the December 15th trial. It's on appeal
14 to the 4th District. That's what led to having
15:26:23 15 Eliot determined to have no standing, to Judge
16 Lewis being appointed as guardian for his
17 children. That was the key. That was the only
18 thing we have accomplished to move the thing
19 forward was that, but we had that.
15:26:34 20 But that's why I was at the deposition,
21 but it was not directly adverse to the estate.
22 Number two, there's a substantial risk
23 that the representation of one or more clients
24 will be materially limited by my
15:26:52 25 responsibilities to another. I have asked them
 1 to explain to me how might -- how what I want
 2 to do here, which is to defend these people
 3 that I have been doing -- I have asked
 4 Mr. Feaman to explain to me how what I am doing
15:27:06 5 to defend the estate, like I defended all these
 6 people against his client, could possibly be
 7 limited by my responsibilities to Ted. My
 8 responsibilities to Ted is to win this lawsuit,
 9 save the money for his family, determine his
15:27:19 10 father did not defraud Bill Stansbury. So I am
11 not limited in any way.

12 So if you don't find one or two, you don't
13 even get to waiver. But if you get to waiver,
14 and this is evidence, it's one of the -- I only
15:27:34 15 gave you three new things in the binder. One
16 was the waiver. One was the 57.105 amended
17 motion.

18 I think the significance of that is after
19 I got the waiver, after I got a written waiver,
15:27:46 20 I thought that changed the game a little bit.
21 You know, if you are a lawyer and you file a
22 motion to disqualify -- so when I got the
23 written waiver --

24 MR. FEAMAN: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Legal objection"


"MR. ROSE: I got a waiver signed by
10 Mr. O'Connell. I had his permission, but I got
11 a formal written waiver. And it was after our
12 first hearing, and it was after -- so I sent it
13 to Mr. Feaman.

14 But if you look under the rule, it's a
15:28:21 15 clearly waivable conflict. Because I am not
16 taking an antagonistic position saying like the
17 work I did in the other case was wrong or this
18 or that.

19 And if you look at the rules of
15:28:31 20 professional conduct again, and we'll do it in
21 closing, but I am the one who is supposed to
22 decide if I have a material limitation in the
23 first instance. That's what the rules direct.
24 Your Honor reviews that. But in the first
 25 instance I do not have any material limitation

on my ability to represent the estate
 2 vigorously, with all my heart, with everything
 3 my law firm's resources, and with Ted's
 4 knowledge of the case and the facts to defend
15:29:01 5 his case, there is no limitation and there's no
 6 substantial risk that I am not going to do the
 7 best job possible to try to protect the estate
 8 from this claim.
 9 And I think we would ask that you deny the
15:29:12 10 motion to disqualify on the grounds that
11 there's no conflict, and the waiver for
12 Mr. O'Connell would resolve it.
13 And we also would like you to appoint Ted
14 Bernstein. There's no conflict of interest in
15:29:25 15 him defending the estate as its representative
16 through trial to try to protect the estate's
17 money from Mr. Stansbury. It's not like Ted or
18 I are going to roll over and help Mr. Stansbury
19 or sell out the estate for his benefit. That's
15:29:41 20 what a conflict would be worried about. We are
21 not taking a position in -- we are not in the
22 case yet, obviously. If you allow us to
23 continue in this case, we are not going to take
24 a position in this case which is different from
25 any position we have ever taken in any case

because all --
 2 THE COURT: Just for the record, for the
 3 record, I see you pointing. So you are not
 4 taking a position in the Palm Beach circuit
15:30:02 5 court --

 6 MR. ROSE: Case.

 7 THE COURT: -- civil case --

 8 MR. ROSE: Different than we've --

 9 THE COURT: -- that's different than
15:30:07 10 probate or even the insurance proceeds?

11 MR. ROSE: Correct. Different from what
12 we did in the federal case in Illinois,
13 different from we are taking in the probate
14 case. Or more importantly, in fact most
15:30:17 15 importantly, we are not taking a position
16 differently than we took when I represented
17 other people in the same lawsuit.

18 You have been involved in lawsuits where
19 there are eight defendants and seven settled
15:30:27 20 and the last guy says, well, gee, let me hire
21 this guy's lawyer, either he is better or my
22 lawyer just quit or I don't have a lawyer. So
23 but I am not taking a position like here we
24 were saying, yeah, he was a terrible guy, he
15:30:38 25 defrauded you, and now we are saying, oh, no
it's not, he didn't defraud you. That would be
 2 a conflict. We have defended the case by
 3 saying that Mr. Stansbury's claim has no merit
 4 and we are going to defend it the same way.
15:30:49 5 And then that's what we'd like to do with
 6 the Florida litigation, and then time
 7 permitting we'd like to discuss the Illinois
 8 litigation, because we desperately need a
 9 ruling from Your Honor on the third issue you
15:31:00 10 set for today which is are you going to vacate
11 Judge Colin's order and free Mr. Stansbury of
12 the duty to fund the Illinois litigation.

13 Judge Colin entered the order. The issue
14 was raised multiple times before Judge
15 Phillips. He wanted to give us his ruling one
16 day, and we -- you know, he didn't. We were
17 supposed to set it for hearing. We had
18 numerous hearings set on that motion, the
19 record will reflect, and those were all
20 withdrawn. And now that they have a new judge,
21 I think they are coming back with the same
22 motion to be excused from that, and that's the
23 third thing you need to decide today.

24 THE COURT: All right.  "


Source and Full Transcript
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkid2h4cnJTWWxhaEU/view?usp=sharing

Friday, June 30, 2017

A Mediation? A Settlement? A Guardian Ad Litem appointed without a petition, a hearing or adjudication of placing Guardianship over Adults? What? A settlement whereby all parties were NOT notified or legally represented? WOW

This Court approved Diane Lewis as Guardian over Adults with No Petition, No Adjudication? What? You can't simply place guardianship without due process over adults, and then what? A settlement negotiation? WHAT? 

"The genesis of the motion to appoint us
22 was what happened at mediation. We had a
23 mediation in the summer. The parties signed a
24 written mediation settlement agreement. We
have asked Your Honor at next week's hearing to

 1 approve the mediation settlement agreement. It
 2 is signed by every single one of the ten
 3 grandchildren or their court-appointed guardian
 4 ad litem, Diana Lewis, who has now been
approved by this Court, upheld by the 4th
 6 District, and upheld by the Supreme Court this
 7 week. So I think it's safe to say that she's
 8 going to be here."

"So the settlement agreement is signed by
 all of those people. It's signed by my client
11 as the trustee. It's also signed by four of
12 the five children, excluding Eliot Bernstein.
13 And as part of this, once we had a
14 settlement, there was a discussion of how do we
15 get this relatively modest estate to the finish
16 line. And the biggest impediment getting to
17 the finish line is this lawsuit. Until this
18 lawsuit is resolved, his client is something.
19 We can debate what he is. He claims to be an
interested person. I think technically under
21 law he is a claimant. Judge, I think even
22 Judge Colin ruled he was not a creditor and
23 denied his motion to remove and disqualify Ted
24 Bernstein as trustee. That was pending and
25 there's an order that does that a long time"
ago. If I could approach?

 2 THE COURT: Sure.

 3 MR. ROSE: I don't have the docket entry
 4 number. This is in the court file. This was
15:03:12 5 Judge Colin on August 22nd of 2014.

 6 THE COURT: I saw it.

 7 MR. ROSE: He has been trying to remove me
 8 and Mr. Bernstein for like almost three or four
 9 years now. But that's only significant because
10 he is not a creditor. He is a claimant. So
11 what we want to do is we want to get his claim
12 to the finish line.

13 So I am not talking about anything that
14 happened at mediation. Mediation is now over.
15:03:35 15 We have a signed settlement agreement.
16 Mr. Stansbury participated in the mediation,
17 but we did not make a settlement with him.
18 Okay.

19 So as a result of the mediation, all the
 other people, everybody that's a beneficiary of
21 this estate coming together and signing a
22 written agreement, those same people as part of
23 the written agreement said we want this case to
24 finish, and how are we going to do that."

Source and Full Transcript
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkid2h4cnJTWWxhaEU/view?usp=sharing


What? All Beneficiaries signed a settlement at a Mediation? What? And now well it is proven CLEAR that Eliot Bernstein is a Beneficiary and well I don't believe he was there or signed any Mediation. Nor do I believe were his ADULT children that have had ILLEGAL, Unadjudicated Guardianship placed on them.

So how are they pushing a settlement through when CLEARLY the beneficiaries were not there, participated or were even notified?

Diane Lewis is CLEARLY violating Florida Guardian Statutes and well she seems to think she is above the Law. I don't really believe she is and I Believe that Justice will Eventually Prevail.

When does all this FRAUD end and Justice Actually Prevail? Well Stay TUNED, one day it will happen. I have Faith in that.


Alan Rose Says: " The only person alive on this planet who knows anything about this case is Ted" WOW, that sure sounds dramatic and blatantly false.

 And Alan Rose goes on to say, "He has got to be the representative of the estate to defend the case. He has got to be sitting at counsel table. If he is not at counsel table, he is going to be excluded under
 the exclusionary rule and he will be out in the hallway the whole trial."

What? Does Ted come to all the hearings? Is Ted at the counsel table? Well he was not there when I was at the court hearing and he does not seem to even show up anymore, so what a load of crap this is that Alan Rose continues to spew. Oh and he wants Judge Scher to grant his fees without allowing any Objections.  What a whiny self righteous ass, in my Opinion.

"    The only person alive on this
 2 planet who knows anything about this case is
 3 Ted. He has got to be the representative of
 4 the estate to defend the case. He has got to
5 be sitting at counsel table. If he is not at
 6 counsel table, he is going to be excluded under
 7 the exclusionary rule and he will be out in the
 8 hallway the whole trial. And whoever is
 9 defending the estate won't be able to do it.
This guy wants Ted out and me out because we
11 are the only people that know anything about
12 this case.

13 So why is that important? Well, it makes
14 it more expensive. It makes him have a better
chance of winning. That's what this is about.
16 And at the same time the Illinois case is
17 really critical here because unless the estate
18 wins the money in Illinois, there's nothing in
19 this estate to pay him.

THE COURT: I understand.

21 MR. ROSE:   Mr. O'Connell, I proffer, he
22 advised me today there's about $285,000 of
23 liquid assets in the estate. And we are going
24 to get some money from a settlement if you
 25 approve it.

Source and Full Transcript
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkid2h4cnJTWWxhaEU/view?usp=sharing

A Settlement? What? Riddled with Fraud, Guardians and Gag Orders.  Assets STOLEN from the estate and wow now they claim this small amount left and well, the attorneys want it.

Ted and Alan Rose are the only ones who know anything about "this" case??? WOW.  Do you mean this scheme, this fraud?

Thursday, June 29, 2017

THIS COURT, JUDGE SCHER PRESIDING, HAVING PERSONALLY WITNESSED AND REVIEWED FRAUD UPON THE COURT INVOLVING TED BERNSTEIN AND HIS ATTORNEY ALAN ROSE SHALL PERFORM MANDATORY OBLIGATIONS, ADDRESS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; STAY PROCEEDINGS, ORDER DISCOVERY AND DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE PENDING FURTHER HEARINGS TO BE SCHEDULED

"ESTATE BENEFICIARY AND INTERESTED  PERSON ELIOT BERNSTEIN’S CLOSING
 Deceased. STATEMENT IN STANSBURY FEE DISCHARGE AND MOTION FOR COURT
 TO PERFORM MANDATORY  OBLIGATIONS UNDER FRAUD UPON  THE COURT, STAY, INJUNCTION,  DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE, CONFLICT  DETERMINATION AND OTHER RELIEF

COMES NOW Eliot Bernstein, Appellant Pro se, who respectfully pleads and prays before this
Court as follows:

THIS COURT SHOULD STAY ANY CURRENT AND FUTURE OBLIGATIONS OF
CLAIMANT WILLIAM STANSBURY TO PAY CHICAGO ILLINOIS “LITIGATION
COUNSEL” IN THE ILLINOIS INSURANCE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF
SIMON BERNSTEIN:

1. I am Eliot Bernstein pro se, a Beneficiary of the Estate of Simon Bernstein with standing and an
interested party herein.

2. I support William Stansbury’s motion to be relieved from any current and future payment
obligations to Chicago litigation counsel on behalf of the Estate of Simon Bernstein but assert
that these obligations should be Stayed at this time and the matter stayed and continued pending
outcome of future hearings and the sorting out of conflicts of interest and correction of the
multiple and various frauds upon the Court.

3. There has always been an inherent Conflict of Interest in this arrangement whereby William
Stansbury as a Claimant against the Estate of Simon Bernstein has simultaneously been paying
for Litigation Counsel for the Estate which Stansbury is otherwise litigating against in a separate
civil action.

4. Part of these conflicts of interest and the need for the Courts to use its Inherent powers is set out
in the federal litigation in Illinois and I have attached as Exhibits filings before the US 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals and a Motion for an Injunction filed in the US District Court under the
All Writs Act which is also the subject of appeal at the 7th Circuit which not only highlights the
conflicts but further provides grounds for this Court to Stay proceedings and use injunctive
powers clearly demonstrating “Missing Millions”, “Missing Originals”, “Missing Witnessses”
and related conflicts. See Exhibit 1 Motion to Accept Late Filing at US 7th Circuit; Exhibit 2
Jurisdictional Statement at US 7th Circuit, Exhibit 3, All Writs Act Injunction at US District
Court.

5. The Conflicts of interest in this case, however, go deeper as thus far Claimant Stansbury has
“settled” with Ted Bernstein in an Undisclosed Settlement not approved by any Court which has
improperly allowed Ted Bernstein to settle out “indivdually” claims against himself made by
Stansbury while also simultaneously acting in the role as Trustee of the Shirley Trust and PR of
the Shirley Estate and further on behalf of other corporate entities thus shifting the burden of
liability to the Estate of Simon Bernstein where there has been no production of Records from
the Corporate entities and no Hearings on Accountings from the Shirley Bernstein Trust or Estate
or any Hearings on Objections to Accountings in the Simon Trust or Estate.

6. The Conflicts are more exaggerated when contemplating that William Stansbury himself is and
was at all relevant times the “Trust Protector” for substantial investments at Wilmington Trust
which according to Account statements in August of 2012 just weeks before Simon’s death
reflected approximately $2.8 Million for Simon Bernstein’s 49% share in BFI ( Bernstein
Family Investments ) which remains wholly unaccounted for and missing.

7. This is even more exaggerated by the suggestion of William Stansbury that it was likely that
Shirley Bernstein’s 49% in BFI also had holdings with Wilmington Trust which could make this
nearly $6 Million Unaccounted for yet there are no Accountings or Hearings thus far granted by
this Court despite these parties and this Court being aware of these actions for more than an
adequate period of time, exceeding months at this point.

8. It is anticipated that William Stansbury will continue to cooperate with myself and will provide
further Sworn Statements in these proceedings highlighting his knowledge of improprieties,
fraud and further that Stansbury has indicated his Counsel Peter Feaman will voluntarily agree to
a Deposition statement on his knowledge of fraud and procedural and substantive improprieties
including in leading up to the Validity Trial itself and the parties simply need to gather a date for
such Deposition which should be timely held as this will also impact the ongoing Illinois
litigation.

THIS COURT, JUDGE SCHER PRESIDING, HAVING PERSONALLY WITNESSED
AND REVIEWED FRAUD UPON THE COURT INVOLVING TED BERNSTEIN AND
HIS ATTORNEY ALAN ROSE SHALL PERFORM MANDATORY OBLIGATIONS,
ADDRESS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; STAY PROCEEDINGS, ORDER DISCOVERY
AND DISCOVERY COMPLIANCE PENDING FURTHER HEARINGS TO BE
SCHEDULED

9. Judge Scher has Witnessed and has knowledge of proven Fraud before this Court by Ted
Bernstein and Alan Rose which has at least been tacitly permitted by PR Brian O’Connell and
has gone on for over a year and impacted multiple proceedings.

10.    Judge Scher is obligated under law to Order appropriate Discovery to correct these frauds and held proper evidentiary hearings.

11. This Court’s Order of April 27, 2017 confirms in part one avenue of the Fraud whereby Ted
Bernstein and Alan Rose have falsely put forth a scheme to deny Eliot Bernstein standing and
fair opportunities to be heard in the proceedings on the grounds he was not a Beneficiary “of
anything” and not a beneficiary in the Estate of Simon Bernstein

12. This court and others have held that if a party files a motion pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(3), pleads
fraud or misrepresentation with particularity, and shows how that fraud or misrepresentation
affected the judgment, the trial court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine
whether the motion should be granted.[7]See Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2001); St. Surin v. St. Surin, 684 So. 2d 243, 244 (Fla. 2d DCA *782 1996); Estate of
Willis v. Gaffney, 677 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Dynasty Exp. Corp. v. Weiss, 675 So. 2d
235, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Townsend v. Lane, 659 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); S. Bell
Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Welden, 483 So. 2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)”.

13. ("[W]here the moving party's allegations raise a colorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3) relief, a
formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is
required."); Kidder v. Hess, 481 So. 2d 984, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Stella v. Stella, 418 So.
2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also Robinson. Moreover, the courts have held that the
hearing requirement applies when fraud is asserted as a grounds for relief under either rule 1.530
or 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Stella. The motion filed by Robinson sufficiently
alleges fraud and demonstrates how it affected the judgment, thereby satisfying the requirement
for an evidentiary hearing under either rule 1.530 or 1.540.”

14. In fact, as clear and convincing proof that this scheme to defraud set in motion before this Court
is Central to the proceedings and thus Fraud on the Court standards met now triggering this
Court’s duty to act, this Court of Judge Scher’s own Case Management Order of Dec. 13, 2016
which set the schedule for why we are all present in Court today on Feb. 16, 2017 in fact recites
and relied upon the Fraud and False statements of Alan Rose attorney in the Case Management
Order itself Paragraph 4 showing-claiming “Ted S. Bernstein as Successor Trustee of Trust
which is Sole Beneficiary of the Estate { DE 473 }.”.

15. This Court of Judge Scher has or should have actual direct knowledge having had sufficient time to review the Records of proceedings on file with the 15th Judicial and the filings of the parties to know and actually know there has been NO CONSTRUCTION HEARING on the Operative Testamentary documents, No Notice of any such hearing and no hearing in fact occurring and that this fraud directly spills over to the entire Shirley Bernstein Trust and Estate case and all matters should be stayed.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for an Order staying and continuing all current
and future obligations for William Stansbury to pay the Chicago Litigation counsel fees of the
Estate of Simon Bernstein and for a Stay and continuance of all proceedings herein until
Discovery is complied with and Ordered if necessary and all conflicts of interest sorted out, all
frauds corrected and and for such other relief as may seem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 28, 2017

 /s/ Eliot Ivan Bernstein
 Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Source and Full 250 page court filing / document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiYXhGemRUaVJjTXM/view?usp=sharing

So was there really a Car Bombing? Was Ted Involved? How in the World Was Ted's "good name" brought into a Car Bombing?

.. and why in the world is Ted Bernstein now claiming there was no such event.

Lot's More Coming Soon

Attorney Alan Rose knowingly represented a client he knew was conflicted, and still wants paid? YEP. Alan Rose seems, thus far, to be above the law.


Remember this Post
http://tedbernsteinreport.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-is-going-on-why-are-people-not.html

Alan Rose has known of the Fraud and Conflicts of interest in this case for years and still wants to be given the freedom to be paid with no objections, no matter what. Ummm I say NOT.  If you are defrauding an estate, why should the estate pay you? Just Sayin.

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO ACCEPT LATE JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM AND PERMISSION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE AND OTHER RELIEF. Northern District of Illinois, John Robert Blakey.

"COMES NOW ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, APPELLANT PRO SE, WHO
RESPECTFULLY PLEADS AND SHOWS THIS COURT AS FOLLOWS:

1. I, Eliot Ivan Bernstein, am Appellant prose.

2. I respectfully make this Motion to Accept my late filing of the Statement of
Jurisdiction in response to this Court's Orders and further for permission to File
Electronically through the ECF system in the future, to accept my Infonna
Pauperis statement, to exceed the Page limits on my Jurisdiction statement if
needed, and for leave to cure any other defects or requirements by this Court.

3. It is respectfully submitted to this Court that good cause is shown in the filing of
this motion which I believe has merit and is not frivolous and request that the
motions be granted so this Appeal may be fully heard on the merits.

4. As shown herein, in addition to substantial recurring electrical and power problems
at Appellant's home spanning over the last 2 months and ongoing causing
computers and other work equipment to go out and other Hacking into Appellant's
online "repository" of documents and website, Appellant has been continually
engaged in unraveling and sorting out massive frauds which is something
Appellant repeatedly notified the US District Court about and where Appellant has
repeatedly had to seek extensions of time in the Florida State Courts due to
repeated sharp practices and fraudulent filings.

CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, LAW SINCE ENTRY OF ORDER ON APPEAL

5. There has been a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the District
Court's Order on Summary Judgment which was directly predicated in part upon a
clearly erroneous factual and legal determination that Appellant Eliot Bernstein
was not a "beneficiary" with "standing" in either the Estates or Trusts of Simon
and Shirley Bernstein which was then used by the District Court in its Summary
Judgement Order on Appeal on "collateral estoppel" grounds which was clearly
erroneous on multiple grounds including applying the clearly erroneous "legal
standard" for Collateral Estoppel by applying Illinois law instead of the law of
Florida where the Orders occurred as this is a Diversity of Citizenship case for
jurisdiction as cited in Appellant's response to the Summary Judgment ( "Round
2" ).

6. Respectfully, this Court should see that Appellant was clearly a "beneficiary"
"with standing" and remains such in the Simon Bernstein Estate case where there
has Never been an Order of any Court to the contrary, but Appellant also is and
always was a "beneficiary with Standing" in the Shirley Bernstein Estate case and
by the express terms of the Shirley Trust was an expressly "named" Beneficiary of
the Shirley Trust which became "irrevocable" upon her passing which was prior to
Simon Bernstein's passing.

7. Appellant had moved for "Injunctive relief' in the State Court of Florida even prior
to the "removal" of the "Insurance litigation" herein to Federal Court on or about
May 16, 2013.

8. This "Injunctive" relief filed in the State Court was predicated upon the "then
discovered" Frauds and forgeries of Dispositive documents filed in the Shirley
Bernstein Estate case by attorneys working for and with Ted Bernstein, the alleged
"Trustee" and Plaintiff in this action being attorneys at Tescher and Spallina who
were the Estate Planners for Simon and Shirley Bernstein and made themselves
Personal Representatives of the Estates and Co-Trustees of Trusts.

9. As shown by Appellant's Answer and Counterclaims in this case and by a Motion
for Injunctive Relief filed in the US District Court in this action in Feb. of 2016,
the "same parties" involved with the frauds in the State of Florida cases are the
same as those frauds before the US District Court where no "original" documents
have been produced and all key dispositive Documents like the Insurance Policy
and alleged controlling Trust have all allegedly become "lost" and "missing".

10. To the contrary, Appellant has alleged this is all part of a fraudulent scheme to
"control" the Assets and Disposition of Assets and take away Appellant's
"standing" and right to be heard after Appellant has exposed frauds and crimes in
both actions and reported same to Federal and State investigative authorities.

11. Attached is a recent Order of Florida 15th Judicial Circuit Judge Scher which
confirms that I, Appellant, Eliot I. Bernstein am in fact a Beneficiary of the
Simon Bernstein Estate which thus changes the circumstances and facts upon
which the District Court issued its Order.

12. Further, Judge Scher has also found that Ted Bernstein, who is the Plaintiff in this
case, is adverse to the Estate of Simon Bernstein and has a conflict of interest
involving the Illinois Insurance action and yet as later shown herein, continues to
act "in unity" with the Estate PR Brian O'Connell to "control" Discovery and
documents and the frauds and litigation in both this "Insurance" action and the
Florida cases.

13. As this Court will note, while I have attempted in good faith to cite to the Docket
Entries in the Record of the US District Court of the Northern District of Illinois in
both the Jurisdiction State1nent and this motion herein, there are references to
newly discovered facts and change of circumstances which have occurred after the
issuance of the Order being Appealed and this Court's Orders which I believe are
important and while I have attached some of these items in hard copy print, it
would be burdensome to do so for the entire motion and would further delay the
filing of these papers and I request permission to Electronically file in the future
and if required by this Court, to supplement my filings Electronically.

UNDISPUTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF OF ONGOING
FRAUD BY PLAINTIFF TED BERNSTEIN, HIS COUNSELS ALAN B.
ROSE, ESQ. AND ADAM SIMON, ESQ. AND INTERVENOR PR BRIAN
O'CONNELL, ESQ. FOR THE ESTATE OF SIMON BERNSTEIN ACTING
IN CONCERT AND ACTIVE CONCEALMENT OF THE FRAUD
DIRECTLY IMPACTING THE US DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER ON
SUMMARY JUDGMENT "NEWLY DISCOVERED" AFTER ISSUANCE
OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER ON APPEAL; FRAUD THAT
HAS BEEN CONCEALED FROM BOTH THE US DISTRICT COURT AND
NOW THIS 7TH CIRCUIT US COURT OF APPEALS DESPITE
APPELLANT'S REQUEST OF FLORIDA 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
JUDGE SCHER TO NOTIFY ALL PROPER AUTHORITIES

14. The U.S. District Court below, Northern District of Illinois, abused its discretion
acting clearly erroneously by failing to determine any actual proof or evidence in
the Record and submitted on Summary Judgment by the Plaintiffs to support the
False and Fraudulent claim by Ted Bernstein and Counsels Adam Simon and Alan
Rose that Appellant Eliot Bernstein is not a beneficiary of the Estate of Simon
Bernstein, lacks standing and is barred from that Probate action lacking standing
asserted as collateral estoppel which was improperly relied upon by the District
Court in granting Summary Judgment dismissing all of Appellant's claims.

15. On Jan. 30th, 2017, Appellant notified the US District Court prior to the actual
issuance of the Order now on Appeal in part "about important circumstances in the
Florida Courts which I believe are consistent with what I notified this Court about
in my All Writs petition where there is Direct collusion between the parties in the
Florida proceedings which are impacting the Integrity of this Court's
proceedings and path to Judgment Specifically, that in Florida, the Estate of
Simon Bernstein and PR Brian O'Connell are now directly acting in Unity
with Ted Bernstein and Alan Rose and even permitting Ted Bernstein's
attorney Alan Rose to act as the Counsel for the Estate which is a major
conflict of interest. This conflict has also been raised in Florida by the Creditor's
attorney Peter Feaman, Esq. and Hearings are scheduled in a few weeks in
Florida to address this Conflict and it is also important to note that these
hearings are before a new Judge, Judge Scher, and all the Orders that the
Plaintiffs are relying upon for Collateral Estoppel before this Court were
issued by a Judge Phillips who has now left the Bench prematurely and
retired.'' See, US District Court Docket No. 271 filed Jan. 30, 2017.

16. This Court should note that the "Ted Bernstein" Plaintiffs and the Estate of Sitnon
Bernstein as Intervenor are the only remaining parties left in the case and yet these
parties are not only acting in "unity" but doing so in such a "controlled manner" as
to further and protect the frauds at play as shown in the All Writs but now further
proof has emerged showing this scheme even further where there is no "real
controversy" left before the District Court but instead an "inside, secret deal and
nee;otiation" amongst parties acting in fraud and misconduct.

17. The US District Court was repeatedly apprised of these Conflicts including in the
All Writs Act Motion for Injunction of Feb. 2016, Par. 4, providing in part, "until
this Court sorts out conflicts of interest as set out herein and exercises its
inherent powers to probe "side deals" compromising the integrity of this
Court's Jurisdiction and that such injunction should specifically include but
not be litnited to enjoining proceedings before Judge Phillips in Palm Beach
County" ( emphasis added). See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Docmnent #: 214 Filed:
02/24/16 Page 3 of 132 PageID #:3637.

18. Further in the All Writs Motion for Injunction Appellant moved the District Court
stating "that sufficient evidence will be shown to justify this Court exercising its
inherent powers to make inquiry of the parties and respective counsels
about"side agreements" and other "agreements" outside the record of any
proceedings impairing the integrity of proceedings in this Court similar to the
inquiry discussed in Winlder v. Eli Lilly & Co., 101 F.3d 1196, 1202 (7th Cir.
1996)" ( emphasis added). See, Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 11 of 132
PagelD #:3645.

19. Thus, the District Court had been moved for relief under Winkler v. Eli Lilly &
Co. 101 F.3d 1196, 1202 (7th Cir. 1996) and the All Writs Motion itself set out
sufficient grounds for relief. Appellant respectfully asserts that further grounds
now exist for Injunctive relief and notifies this Court that it will be moving for
Injunctive relief under the Rules.

20. The U.S. District Court's Order on Appeal ( Docket Entry No. 273) appears
in all material respects in this part of the Order to be no more than a simple
"copy and paste" by the Court of False statements and arguments submitted by
Plaintiffs' attorney Adam Simon which have been regurgitated into an official
federal Court Order with no evidence, proof or documents in support, a
"fraud within a fraud" in an ongoing series of frauds.

21. Plaintiffs and their attorney Adam Simon had wholly failed to submit ANY Order
or Judgment from Florida showing Appellant was not a Beneficiary in the Estate of
Simon Bernstein and lacked standing in the Estate of Simon Bernstein. Of course,
legally, the Plaintiffs and Adam Simon could not submit such an Order as No Such
Order exists as this never happened in the Florida state Courts but instead
Plaintiffs and Counsel Adam Simon simply knowingly "stated Fal~e Facts" to
the US District Court that this was the case and such an Order existed in efforts
to wholly remove Plaintiffs Constitutionally protected Due Process and Procedure Rights .

22. The US District Court below appears to have bought into this fraud "hook, line
and sinker" without requiring any Proof or evidence as the Order on Appeal not
only makes reference to these False Facts stated by Adam Simon but instead of
Citing to some actual Order or Judgment document from Florida provided in the
Summary Judgment filings, the District Court simply cites to the Statement of
Facts submitted by Counsel Adam Simon for Plaintiffs.

23. For example, the US District Court states in the Order on Appeal, "First, Eliot
cannot sustain cognizable damages related to the disposition of the Estate or the
testamentary trust in light of the Probate Court's rulings. The Probate Court found,
inter alia, that Simon Bernstein's "children - including Eliot - are not
beneficiaries" of the Will of Simon Bernstein or the related testamentary trust.
[240] at 11." See, US District Court Order Docket No. 273 pages 7-8. The US
District Court had made it clear in FOOTNOTE 1 that, " The facts are taken from
the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and the Court's previous rulings [106,
220[. (240[ refers to Plaintiffs' statement of material facts." Thus, the US
District Court simply ruled based upon a section of False Statement of Facts from
Plaintiffs citing to Plaintiffs Statement of Facts [2401 at 11 that had NO Orders
attached or submitted used to provide the Findings and language that the District
later gives "preclusive effect to" and thus, a fraud within a fraud, a lie within a lie.

SORTING OUT THE FRAUD AND THE FRAUDS WITHIN THE FRAUD,
UNFEELING THE ONION:

24. Part of the basis for Appellant to respectfully move this Court to accept the
separate Jurisdictional Statement is for this Court to consider, as shown and stated
to the US District Court, the painstaldng amount of time it takes and has tal<.en to
continually unravel the "lie within a lie of a lie" or "fraud within a fraud of a
fraud" that this case has been from the outset as pleaded by the Appellant in the
original Answer ( Docket No. 35 Filed: 09/22/13 ) and multiple other filings
including a Motion for Injunctive Relief under the All Writs Act filed Feb. 24,
2016 ( Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 ) and of course
Docket No. 271 above and other filings.

25. I respectfully request this Court to carefully examine Appellant's Motion for
Injunction under the All Writs Act filed by Appellant Feb. 24, 2016 as it is not
only relevant to this Court's Jurisdiction to hear this Appeal having moved for
Injunctive relief at the District Court, but further provides a roadmap to the
Documented "Missing Millions" Unaccounted for in these cases, "Missing
Originals" and documents and Discovery in general, "Missing Witnesses",
pervasive frauds herein and "sharp practices" by the parties against
Appellant including the pervasive "conflicts of interest" which have been
"controlling the withholding of Discovery" and "Discovery used as a Weapon"
throughout these related proceedings.

26. This Court is respectfully referred to Exhibit 10 of Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment
motion ( 1 of 2 "Probate Orders submitted by Plaintiffs) which is a "Final
Judgment" on "validity" of Testamentary instruments from Judge Phillips in
Florida issued Dec. 16, 2015 while the parties were awaiting the first Summary
Judgment determination from the US District Court ( Summary Judgment filings
"No 1 from summer of2015 ).

27. Paragraph 2 of that Final Judgment provides: "Based upon the evidence presented
during the trial, the Court finds that the Testainentary Docmnents, as offered in
evidence by Plaintiff, are genuine and authentic, and are valid and enforceable
according to their terms." See, Adam Simon and Plaintiffs "Round 2" Smnmary
Judgment filing Exhibit 10, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document #: 240-11 Filed:
05/21/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:4193.

28. Instead of the Plaintiffs actually attaching the Will of Simon Bernstein so the
US District Court could see the "terms" of the Will o[Simon Bernstein, Plaintiffs
attorney Adam Simon simply made False Statements of Fact in the Statement of
Facts submitted on Summary Judgment "Round 2" and in the Memorandum
supporting the motion quoting from Attorney at Law Adam Simon presently
licensed as follows:

"The Probate Orders entered after trial include findings that (i) Eliot is not
beneficiary of the Estate of Simon Bernstein; (ii) appoint a guardian ad litem
for Eliot's children; and (iii) Eliot has no standing in the Probate Actions on
behalf of himself, the Estate or his children." See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643
Docmnent #: 241 Filed: 05/21/16 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:4263
29. Further from Adam Simon, "The Probate Orders bar Eliot from the Probate
Actions to represent his own interests," See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document #:
241 Filed: 05/21/16 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:4263

ATTORNEY ADAM SIMON ACTING FOR TED BERNSTEIN
CONTINUING FALSE AND FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS NOW USED
BY THE US DISTRICT COURT IN THE ORDER ON APPEAL WHICH
BEGAN WITH TED BERNSTEIN'S COUNSEL ALAN B. ROSE MAKING
FALSE AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENTS OF FACT AND FRAUD UPON
THE COURT IN FLORIDA:

30. This "fraud" that Appellant was not a "beneficiary" in the Simon Bernstein Estate
case that Ted Bernstein's attorney Adam Simon has used before the US District
Court below began with Ted Bernstein's attorney Alan Rose falsely claiming this
to then "new" Judge Phillips in Florida in an after hours filing on the eve of a
Status Conference in the Simon Bernstein Estate case. See Ted Bernstein and
Attorney Alan Rose Status Conference filing in Florida as follows:
Ted and Rose in Filing# 32030300 E-Filed 09/14/2015 05: 18:25 PM
"TRUSTEE'S OMNIBUS STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE"

"Introduction - The overarching issue in these cases is Eliot Bernstein. He is
not named as a beneficiary of anything: yet he alone has derailed these
proceedings for more than two years and has harassed and attacked the prior
judges, fiduciaries and their counsel." ( See, full document to be uploaded upon
Permission to file Electronically or supplement this filing )

31. As shown in my All Writs filing, this lead to Appellant being denied fundamental
rights to be heard and due process even in the "Scheduling" of the alleged "one
day" "Validity Trial'' that has then been used before this Court to wrongly dismiss
all my claims and remove me from the action which had been scheduled in the
Shirley Bernstein Trust case which was not even "Noticed for Status Conference"
and thus in direct violation of Florida Procedural Laws. See, All Writs Motion
Feb. 2016.

32. On or about Jan. 4, 2016 just a few weeks after this "Validity Trial", Ted
Bernstein's attorney made the following False and clearly Fraudulent Affirmative
Statement of Fact in a Motion to the Florida Court to remove my "standing" in the
cases as follows:

"As a result of upholding these documents, the Court has determined that
Eliot Bernstein, individually, is not a beneficiary of either Simon's or Shirley's
Trusts or Estates. Instead, his three sons are among the beneficiaries of both
Simon1s and Shirleis Trusts, in amounts to be determined by further proceedings.
Eliot lacks standing to continue his individual involvement in this case." See,
Jan. 4, 2016 Motion by Ted Bernstein-Alan Rose to be submitted Electronically
upon permission or to be supplemented.

33. This statement, however, by this attorney at law Alan Rose, was clearly False and
Fraudulent as Judge Phillips had Never done the Acts being claimed as already
occurring and none of these alleged acts or findings are in existence in the "Final
Judgment" ( See, Adam Simon and Plaintiffs "Round 2" Summary Judgment filing
Exhibit IO Probate Order, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document#: 240-11 Filed:
05/21/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:4193. ) and the Transcript of the Validity Trial.
Instead, this is simply a FALSE and Fraud Upon the Court scheme and narrative
that continued for over a year in the Florida Courts and as alleged in the
Appellant's All Writs Motion for Injunctive relief is part of the wrongful scheme to
gain "collateral estoppel" advantage in these proceedings.

ACTUAL WILL LANGUAGE OF SIMON BERNSTEIN

34. While Appellant maintains various legal arguments and objections to any
detennination of"validity" of Testamentary Wills and Trusts from the Florida
proceedings, ARTICLE I of the Simon Bernstein Will upheld and used by
Plaintiffs for "collateral estoppel" actually provides by its express terms:

ARTICLE I. TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
I give such items of my tangible personal property to
such persons as I may designate in a separate written
memorandum prepared for this purpose. I give to
SHIRLEY, if SHIRLEY survives me, my personal
effects, jewelry, collections, household furnishings and
equipment, automobiles and all other non-business
tangible personal property other than cash, not effectively
disposed of by such memorandum, and if SHIRLEY
does not survive me, I give this property to my
children who survive me, [emphasis added] divided
among them as they agree, or if they fail to agree, divided
among them by my Personal Representatives in as nearly
equal shares as practical, and if neither SHIRLEY nor
any child of mine survives me, this property shall pass
with the residue of my estate."

35 _ Thus, being a natural born child and son to Simon Bernstein who has survived him,
the express language of the Will itself which Judge Phillips held to be enforceable
"by its tenns" establishes Appellant as a "beneficiary" in the Estate of Simon
Bernstein with Standing. See, Will of Simon Bernstein 2012 to be submitted upon
permission to file Electronically.

ACTUAL WILL LANGUAGE OF SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN HAS SAME LANGUAGE MAKING APPELLANT A "BENEFICIARY" WITH STANDING IN THE SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN ESTATE WHERE APPELLANT WAS EXPRESSLY NAMED AS A BENEFICIARY IN THE NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATION:

36. The actual Will language of the Shirley Bernstein "Will" which was "validated" by
the Probate Order ( Exhibit 10) advanced by Plaintiffs and Adam Simon expressly
makes Appellant a beneficiary with Standing.

WILL OF SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN
Dated May 20, 2008
I, SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, of Palm Beach County,
Florida, hereby revoke all my prior Wills and Codicils
and make this Will. My spouse is SIMON L.
BERNSTEIN ("SIMON).

My children are TED S. BERNSTEIN ("TED"), PAMELA B. Sllv1ON,
ELIOT BERNSTEIN [EMPHASIS ADDED], JILL
!ANTONI and LISA S. FRIEDSTEIN.

ARTICLE I. TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
I give such items of my tangible personal property to
such persons as I may designate in a separate written
memorandum prepared for this purpose. I give to
SIMON, if SIMON survives me, my personal effects,
jewelry, collections, household furnishings and
equipment, automobiles and all other non-business
tangible personal property other than cash, not effectively
disposed of by such memorandum, and if SIMON does
not survive me, I give this property to my children
who survive me, divided among them as they agree, or if
they fail to agree, divided among them by my Personal
Representatives in as nearly equal shares as practical, and
if neither SIMON nor any child of mine survives me, this
property shall pass with the residue of my estate.

37. Thus, while there was an "Order" issued in Florida claiming I am not a Beneficiary
of the Shirley Bernstein Estate ( but No Order in the Simon Bernstein Estate), this
Order was clearly erroneous and the product of fraud and Appellant is pursuing
motions to vacate in the Florida Courts and will further seek a narrowly tailored
Injunction in these federal proceedings.

38. In both the Simon Bernstein Estate and Shirley Bernstein Estate, Appellant was
formally Noticed as a Beneficiary in both Notices of Administration. See,
documents to be filed Electronically or supplemented.

39. Likewise, in a "resignation letter" by Estate Planner and Ted Bernstein attorney
Donald Tescher from Jan. of2014 after forgeries in the Shirley Estate case were
discovered, Donald Tescher stated affirmatively that Appellant was in fact a
Beneficiary of the Shirley Bernstein Trust yet Donald Tescher was never produced
or called as a Witness in the "validity" Trial despite this letter and despite signing
the Notice of Administration in the Simon Bernstein Estate naming Appellant a
Beneficiary.

NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF FEB. 9, 2017 AFTER ISSUANCE
OF DISTRICT COURT ORDER ON APPEAL WITH ESTATE OF SIMON
BERNSTEIN PR BRIAN O'CONNELL ADMITTING THE LANGUAGE
MAKING APPELLANT A BENEFICIARY IN THE SIMON BERNSTEIN
ESTATE IN STATEMENT CONCEALED AND WITHHELD BY TED
BERNSTEIN AND ALAN ROSE SINCE AT LEAST DEC. 22, 2016

40. While Appellant submits to this Court and the Florida Courts the involved
attorneys "had to know" the express language of the Wills made Appellant a
Beneficiary with Standing, "newly discovered evidence" emerged on Feb. 9, 2017
after issuance of the Summary Judgment Order on Appeal in a filing by Ted
Bernstein Attorney Alan Rose in relation to Hearings in the Florida Court for Ted
Bernstein and Alan Rose to "act for the Estate" working hand in hand with PR
O'Connell despite being "adverse" in this Insurance case.

41. This evidence consisted of a Statement by the PR which is "undated" but which by
the submission from Alan Rose shows this Statement was "emailed" to Creditor
Attorney Peter Feaman as of Dec. 22, 2016 (See Exhibit 1) yet withheld from
Appellant until Feb. 09, 2017 and concealed from this Court and the US
District Court to this very day.

42. The language of PR O'Connell in this undated "Statement" in part is as follows:
"Based upon the Will upheld during a probate trial conducted last December,
resulting in a Final Judgment dated December 16, 2015, Simon Bernstein's
children are the named devisees of certain personal property," ( emphasis added) .
Appellant, as a natural child of Simon Bernstein, is a beneficiary with standing
under at least this express language in the Will.

APPELLANT MOVED TO VACATE CERTAIN SCHEDULING ORDERS
BASED UPON THE FRAUD AND A NEW ORDER OF FLORIDA JUDGE
SCHER UPHOLDS APPELLANT'S STATUS AS A BENEFICIARY IN THE

ESTATE OF SIMON BERNSTEIN WITH STANDING WHERE FLORIDA
JUDGE SCHER HAS "WITNESSED" THE MULTIPLE FILINGS AND
ACTS OF TED BERNSTEIN'S ATTORNEY ALAN ROSE FALSELY
CLAIMING APPELLANT IS NOT A BENEFICIARY OF ANYTHING:

43. In several of the new Hearings in Florida that Appellant notified the District Court
below were about to occur in Appellant's Jan. 30, 2017 filing ( Docket No. 271 )
the following exchanges have occurred in the Transcript of Proceedings. As will be
shown to the Court, Attorney Alan Rose has only "changed his story" in Florida
after being exposed for repeated fraud:

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROSEMARIE SCHER THURSDAY,
FEBRUARY 16, 2017

http://iviewit.tv/Simon%20and%20Shir1ey%20Estate/20l70216%20HEARING%2
0TRANSCR1PT%20JUDGE%20SCHER%20CLEAN%20COPY.pdf

2:38 p.m. - 4:46 p.m.- Simon Bernstein Estate
P. 33 - Rose Addressing the Court

"14 MR. ROSE: I would just state for the
15 record that he has been determined to have no
16 standing in the estate proceeding as a
17 beneficiary.
18 THE COURT: I thought that was in the
19 Estate of Shirley Bernstein.
20 MR. ROSE: It's the same ruling --
21 ( Overs peaking.)
22 THE COURT: Please, I will not entertain

23 more than one person.
24 MR. ROSE: By virtue of Judge Phillips'
25 final judgment upholding the documents, he is
P.34
1 not a beneficiary of the residuary estate. He
2 has a small interest as a one-fifth beneficiary
3 of tangible personal property, which is -
4 THE COURT: I understand."

ESTATE OF SIMON L. BERNSTEIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
HONORABLE ROSEMARIE SCHER VOLUME II THURSDAY, MARCH
2, 20171:35 - 3:39 P.M. TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS

http://iviewit.tv/Simon%20and%20Shirley%20Estate/201702l6%20and%2020170
302%20Hearing%20Transcripts%20Combined%20WITH%20EXHIBITS%20JUD
GE%20SCHER %20CLEAN%20COPY .pdf

Page 127 - Eliot addressing the Court

"9 forthcoming. And I think we'll be able to show
13:42:5110 that there's been fraud on this Court. The
11 other date in that hearing if you look at the
12 transcript Mr. Rose claimed that I had no
13 standing, and you overruled that, or whatever
14 you call it, you did.
13:43:03 15 THE COURT:  I did."
Page 138 - Court Addressing Eliot

"13:51 :55 10 THE COURT:  You don't have to. You have
11 standing. You are sitting there. I have
12 allowed it. I have allowed it. You are a
13 tangible beneficiary whatever assets remain
14 outside of the Simon trust. I think everyone
13:52:08 15 is on the same page. If it's a dollar or if
16 it's ten dollars, that's where you have -- now,
17 I have no idea the dollar figures in any of
18 this.

19 MR. ELIOT BERNSTEIN: None ofus do."

44. As will be further shown when Appellant moves for a Stay and Injunctive relief in
these federal proceedings, there has Never been any "Construction Hearings" in
Florida on the meaning of any of the documents including the alleged "power of
appointment" exercised by Simon Bernstein nor any hearing on the Shirley
Bernstein Trust where multiple documents to this day have never been produced.
While parts of this new Order from Judge Scher are on Appeal by Appellant, the
new Order does Find as follows:

April 27, 2017 Scher Order stating APPELLANT ELIOT BERNSTEIN IS A
BENEFICIARY:

"Elliot Bernstein joins Stansbury's opposition to the appointment of Mrachek Finn.
Elliot is a residuary beneficiary of any tangible property of the Estate. All
other beneficiaries (Trust Beneficiaries) approve the retention of the Mrachek
Firm." (See Attached Order Exhibit 2).

APPELLANT REQUESTS LEA VE TO SUPPLEMENT FILINGS AS NEW
FILINGS BY TED BERNSTEIN'S ATTORNEY ALAN ROSE SHOW TED
BERNSTEIN DIRECTLY ACTING TO "CONTROL" THE HIRING AND
PAYMENT OF THE ESTATE'S COUNSEL TO "CHALLENGE" TED
BERNSTEIN IN THIS VERY FEDERAL CASE OVER "INSURANCE"

45. Appellant seeks leave to supplement these filings and file Electronically to show
the "Inherent Conflicts of Interest" which continue despite Appellant's Motion for
Injunctive Relief in Feb. of2016 showing the District Court the inherent conflicts
of interest and need for use of the "inherent powers" an Eli "probe" of side deals
and agreements. See, All Writs Injunction Motion Feb. 2016.

46. In what is inherently conflicting and bizarre, it has been the Creditor William
Stansbury who has been forced to pay for the Estate of Simon Bernstein's counsel
in this Federal case over the Insurance even though the Creditor and Estate are
adverse in a separate action in Florida where the Creditor seeks nearly $3 million
in damages.

47. The All Writs Injunction motion filed by Appellant had already shown the US
District Court that there is a "secret" undisclosed '"settlement" between Creditor
Stansbury and Ted Bernstein who settled for himself "individually" with Stansbury
while also acting in conflict as the Trustee of the Shirley Bernstein Trust and on
behalf of certain Simon Bernstein entities who were also sued by Stansbury.

48. In documenting many "Missing Millions" in the All Writs filed with the US
District Court in Feb. 2016 which was "Denied" by "Minute Order" but not
"stricken" from the Record as a pleading, this Writ showed there has never been
Any Accounting in the Shirley Bernstein Estate or Trust and Appellant asserts this
is part of the reason for the scheme to deny Appellant's "standing" in order to
"silence" Appellant from exposing the frauds, crimes and missing assets.

49. These conflicts have continued by the same parties who have "controlled'
Discovery and access to documents throughout, Documents which should answer
the very central issues in this action of "where is the Trust", what is the "right
Trust" and "where is the Insurance Policy". See All Writs Motion Feb. 2016.

50. The Conflicts persist where again Ted Bernstein and Estate PR O'Connell while
"adverse" in this action are working in "unity" in the Florida courts where now the
PR of the Estate has sought to "hire" Ted Bernstein's Attorney Alan Rose and
Mrachek law firm while being "adverse" here in Illinois yet where the Estate did
not oppose Ted Bernstein and Alan Rose coming in to "control" the Illinois
Insurance litigation attorney for the Estate in this case on a motion by the Creditor
Stansbury to be "discharged" from further paying for the Illinois Insurance counsel
of the Estate.

51. In its recent Order of April 2017, Judge Scher specifically made findings of this
Conflict involving Ted Bernstein and the Estate in the Illinois insurance case as
follows: "The Court finds Mr. O'Connell to be credible. Conserving the Estate's
assets by not having to pay the Personal Representative to be involved in the
Stansbury litigation is a laudable goal; nonetheless, the Court cannot i2nore the
fact that the Estate and Ted are adverse in the Illinois lawsuit. Moreover, Mr.
O'Connell is capable of representing the Estate. While the Illinois action is still
pendin2, the Court declines to appoint Ted as Administrator Ad Litem." (emphasis added). See attached Exhibit 2.

52. Appellant asks this Court to take notice that not only is Appellant in the process of
filing other motions to vacate in the Florida Courts based on various frauds as the
"onion is peeled back" layer by layer, Appellant will also be filing to Remove both
Ted Bernstein in all capacities as Trustee in Florida and PR Brian O'Connell also
to be removed as PR of the Estate of Simon Bernstein on multiple grounds of
misconduct and fraud including but not limited to the fraud in Denying Appellant's
status as Beneficiary and concealing this fraud from the Federal Courts and
statutory grounds in Florida for failing to account and other grounds shown in the
All Writs Motion of Feb. 2016.

53. Appellant points out to this Court as shown to new US District Court Judge Blakey
in the All Writs Motion for Injunction of Feb. 2016 that prior Judge St. Eve had
"stayed Discovery" due to no proof that Ted Bernstein was a proper Trustee and
yet somehow while never determining this, Discovery then was opened and closed
and Appellant has repeatedly moved for opening Discovery on specific topics.

54. Par. 20 of the Writ provided, "On Jan. 13, 2014 in Docket Entry 71, prior Judge St.
Eve issued a Minute Entry Order which provided in part as follows, "Discovery is
hereby stayed until the proper Trustee is detennined" thus acknowledging that
determination of a "proper Trustee" is an issue in the case, which Case: 1: l 3-cv-
03643 Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 9 of 132 PageID #:3643 Page 9 of
132 remains disputed. The Trustee/Trust/Beneficiaries/Policy issues remains
undetermined presently and this Court's jurisdiction is imminently threatened by
the pennanent loss of evidence, documents and discovery by the parties
orchestrating proceedings in Florida where this evidence and the parties in
possession of such evidence should be enjoined herein." See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643
Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 9 of 132 PageID #:3643.

55. Appellant will show this Court that the District Court's Order was clearly
erroneous, used improper standards switching the burden of proof on Summary
Judgment, was an abuse of discretion and further clearly improperly as even taking
the District Court's claim that Plaintiffs in this case have said I am a ½
"beneficiary of the Insurance proceeds thus I can not show "damages" if the
Plaintiffs win, this is erroneous as it fails to consider the "delay" damages by the
wrongful coverup of operative documents and related damages to be fully briefed
on Appeal.

56. Until the frauds and inherent conflicts are resolved and addressed by the Courts, no
further action should continue and Appellant will be filing for a formal Stay and
Injunctive relief in the federal actions according to the Rules including seeking an
"inquiry" of the conflicted counsels.

APPELLANT HAS REQUESTED FLORIDA JUDGE SCHER TO NOTIFY
THIS COURT AND ALL AUTHORITIES OF THE ONGOING FRAUDS
UPON THE COURT IN RECENT LETTER MOTION OPPOSING
ANOTHER "UMC" ( UNIFORM MOTION CALENDAR - NON
EVIDENTIARY) HEARING BY TED BERNSTEIN AND ALAN ROSE ON
CLEARLY CONTESTED ITEMS IN THE SHIRLEY TRUST AND
ESTATES, A LETTER COPIED TO US. DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL
RIGHTS SECTION HEAD, US ATTORNEY IN SDNY, AND "DC NO. 1"

57. It is further noted for this Court that Appellant has specifically requested Florida
Judge Scher who has been a "Witness" to the frauds upon the Court by Ted
Bernstein and Alan Rose and inherent conflicts of interest to notify proper
authorities including the US District Court and this US 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

58. Upon information and belief, neither Attorney Adam Simon for Ted Bernstein, nor
Alan Rose for Ted Bernstein, nor PR Brian O'Connell for the Estate of Simon
Bernstein, nor Chicago counsel Stamos have Notified the US District Court nor
this US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of the fraud or sought to correct the fraud by
correcting the erroneous statements and pleadings that Appellant Eliot I. Bernstein
is in fact a Beneficiary with Standing thus far in at least the Simon Bernstein

Estate. A copy of this Letter request also transmitted to FederaJ Investigative
authorities is attached as (See Exhibit 3 ).

ADDITIONAL REASONS TO ACCEPT LATE FILING; ONGOING ELECTRJCAL OUTAGES, EMAIL AND WEBSITE DOCUMENT HACKING

59. I was granted permission to file Electronically in the District Court and
respectfully request permission of this Court to do so for future filings in this
Appeal.

60. I note for this Court that I did not receive the initial Orders sent US Mail from this
very Court and only received any of the Orders by Mail for the first time on April
11, 2017 just entering the Jewish Passover time and other religious holidays.

61. I have no knowledge of why this Court's prior Orders were not received by the US
mail and notified one of the Clerk's about this who also maintained another Order
that I had also not received and appeared not to have been sent to me at that time.

62. I contacted the 7th Circuit Clerk's Office to notify the Court that I did not receive
these original Orders by the US Mail and then had received Orders on or about
April 11, 2017.

63. I further notified one of this Court's Clerks that to my knowledge I am now on the
ECF filing system with the 7th Circuit and would be submitting this Motion to
accept my Statement of Jurisdiction and also for further extensions of time to cure
any other deficiencies in the Appeal filings in this case.

64. I was not aware until after business hours on the day of this Court's most recent
deadline of May 26, 2017 that while I had "registered" with the ECF for this 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals, I was not actually able to "submit" filings as I apparently
needed to file a separate motion to get permission to file Electronically which I
now request.

65. This Court's April Order had indicated a filing deadline of April 17, 2017 and I
spoke with the Clerk's Office again on April 18, 2017 after also getting access to
Pacer information from the District Court of the N orthen1 District of Illinois under
Case No. l:13-CV-O3643 to first discover that there were several entries relating
to this Appeal on file with the District Court that was requiring action on my part
and yet I never received any of the filings Electronically through the District Court
either despite having been granted permission and was able to File electronically
and receive documents and notices Electronically in the underlying case for well
over three years.

66. That on April 09, 2017 Appellant's home power began massive surges resulting in
ongoing power outages that resulted in our oven almost catching on fire and blown
out and other electrical items being destroyed including computer and network
equipment.

67. Thus, in addition to not receiving Court documents via the US Mails and not
receiving Electronic Notice and Documents via the US District Court of the
N orthem District of Illinois, that my Home has been experiencing serious and
significant power and electrical "abnonnalities" for over 2 months frequently
knocking out the Internet and home computers and causing substantial delays in
the processing of documents and responses to matters both in this Illinois insurance
case and the related Florida State Court Trust and Estate cases.

68. I have had to file multiple motions for Extensions of time in both the 4th District
Court of Appeals in Florida and the 15th Judicial Circuit where these Florida state
Court cases are pending and have received extensions for multiple filings thus far.
69. That Florida Power & Light was contacted about the problems that almost set the
home oven on fire and sent workers to the home who immediately removed our
home from the power box and plugged our power into the neighbor's power box
through a "temporary line" above ground and opened a ticket for service to take
out what appeared to be faulty wiring in our yard.

70. Despite reconnecting the power to the neighbor the surges continued and continued
to disrupt power, often for hours of the day and during such time all power,
internet, phones, etc. used for working on filings was down. FPL then connected
the home directly to the transformer and again the power surges continued and it
was discovered that the transfonner wires were melted and in contact with each
other causing part of the problem.

71. The Internet Comcast Box was blown out and had to be replaced leaving us with 3
days of no Internet services.

72. The transformer was fixed and our home was re-connected directly to the power
source and yet the problem still continues and FPL now is investigating the wiring
to our home as also faulty.

73. These problems have caused us massive loss of time to work as Appellant works
from home. Appellant can produce Witnesses who have been to our home that has
seen these electrical problems first hand and Appellant has submitted proof of
multiple Electrical work "Tickets" with FPL to the State Courts of Florida.

74. In addition to all of the electrical and power issues, Appellant has further been
receiving Notices from a company called Canaca located in Canada that hosts my
website and mail where I maintain an online storage and "Docket system" for the
filings and pleadings in multiple cases including this Illinois insurance action.

75. Canaca has been notifying me of multiple "spamming" events through my website
that I have no knowledge of and also discovered that somehow my Password and
email system was hacked where I have had substantial delays in receiving
Electronic notices of Court filings via email at iviewit@iviewit.tv .

76. This has also caused further delays as I use this online website docketing system to
organize and review and refer to Court filings in order to respond to new motions
for file motions of my own and have discovered certain document entries which
appear to be tampered with by either having the wrong Dates associated with the
filing or being in the wrong time period which has resulted in significant time to
check, double check and cross check filings for accuracy.

77. This constant and continuous checking and cross-referencing of documents and
filings is further exaggerated by the pervasive Frauds Upon the Court and actual
proven frauds in Documents filed by parties and attorneys connected with Plaintiff
Ted Bernstein and perhaps others all of which has been extremely difficult and
time consmning with repeated electrical and internet outages many of which have
specifically targeted and impacted my home computer systems.

78. In fact just 10 days or so before this Illinois Insurance action was first "removed"
to Federal Court in the US District Court of the Northern District of Illinois on or
about May 16, 2013 , I had just filed for Emergency Injunctive "Freeze" Assets
and Documents relief on May 6, 2013 in the Florida Estate case of my deceased
mother Shirley Bernstein and separately in the Florida Trust case after I discovered
that Plaintiff Ted Bernstein's counsels Tescher & Spallina had begun filing
"forged" and fraud documents in the Shirley Estate case in October of 2012 falsely
using my then recently Deceased father Simon Bernstein to file documents in that
case to try and "close" the Estate when in fact Simon had passed away in
September of 2012.

79. This lead not only to Florida State Court Judge Colin stating on the record in Sept
of 2013 that he had enough information to read certain attorneys, Robert Spallina,
Esq., Mark Manceri, Esq. and Donald Tescher (who failed to appear) and
fiduciaries (Spallina, Ted Bernstein and Tescher) their "Miranda Warnings" but
also lead t9 a Criminal prosecution and guilty plea by Tescher & Spallina Paralegal
and Notary Public Kimberly Moran after the Governor Rick Scott's Office of
Florida began an investigation upon my complaint of Notary fraud in the case and
then referred it to the Palm Beach County Sheriff for investigation where it was
learned she had forged six parties names on documents submitted to the FL court
by the law firm ofTescher & Spallina, PA in my mother's estate case, including
forging my deceased father's signature and my own.

80.  This time period of October of 2012 when the Shirley Estate frauds were occurring
shortly after the passing of my father Simon Bernstein in Sept. of2012 is also the
same time period that Plaintiff Ted Bernstein's counsel and Estate and Trust codrafter
and planner Robert Spallina was falsely and fraudulently filing to Collect
the Insurance proceeds in this case as the alleged "Trustee" of the alleged "lost"
missing Trust without informing the Carrier that Murder allegations had been made
by Plaintiff Ted Bernstein on the night of Simon Bernstein's passing at the
Hospital and that an open Palm Beach Sheriff Investigation ( PBSO) was pending.

81. Somehow, both Tescher and Spallina who not only were the "Drafters" and Estate
and Trust Planners for Simon and Shirley Bernstein, Co-Trustees and Co-PR's in
my father's estate and trust and counsel to their close friend and business associate
Ted Bernstein who was alleged Successor Trustee and Successor PR of my
mother's estate and trust but both Tescher and Spallina were also involved in the
frauds and the most obvious parties to have Maintained Records relevant to this
case were allowed to be Dismissed from this Insurance action which I opposed
without ever being allowed to be Deposed or required to provide Discovery which
I have sought in the District Court on multiple occasions but denied thus far.
82. As noted in my Jurisdictional Statement, I did move for Injunctive Relief in the
District Court under the All Writs Act specifically seeking Injunctive relief to
preserve and protect Documentary evidence and records from all of the involved
parties but was denied.

83. As noted in my pleadings before the District Court and the Jurisdiction Statement
herein, I also have extensive Insurance Industry experience and now state to this
Court that to my know ledge and research thus far, this is a case of first impression
and occurrence in that it allegedly involves Insurance Carriers who have allegedly
"Lost" the Actual Policy at issue despite being a highly regulated industry with
rigorous Record Retention requirements.

84.  This is "unheard of' in the Industry and I can produce other witnesses from the
Insurance Industry that would support this and yet, "somehow", all of the Carriers
were also let out of the District Court case with no Depositions or additional
Discovery which was objected to by Appellant who repeatedly moved the District
Court to reopen Discovery.

85.  It is just as unlikely that there are "No Original Documents" produced from any
of my Father's affairs and cases having had multiple businesses, earned millions of
dollars and having multiple "professional" Attorneys and Fiduciaries involved and
just as unlikely that there are so many "missing" and "lost" Documents from my
Father's businesses and life and I submitted a further Declaration to the District
Court about the extensive Record Keeping practices of my father Simon Bernstein
and his businesses which is why my claims and version is the most "reasonable"
and that "reasonable jurors" would likely agree that this action is really about
Fraud and intentional record hiding, spoilation or destruction as set out in my
Summary Judgment responses and the related claims advanced in my pleadings
which I sought to Amend more than once but was also Denied by the District
Court.

86. During all of this time up to the present and as raised originally in my Motion for
Injunctive Relief under the All Writs Act filed in Feb. 2016, Appellant, who is Pro
Se and not a law firm has been assailed with a mass of court pleadings due, court
appeals due and hearings, in the 14 cases relating to these matters in the Florida
Courts and has been late or needed extensions in virtually all of them as a result of
these issues.

87. I received No Notice from the District Court whatsoever that "somehow" I was
"removed" from receiving Filings by the District Court electronically and thus
have no idea why I did not receive this Court's Orders electronically from the
District Court which are on the Docket below.

88. Thus, in addition to moving this Court to accept as late my Jurisdictional
Statement, I further move for a reasonable extension of time to cure any other
deficiencies in my filings and to further brief the Jurisdictional issues if necessary.
89. This Court should be aware that there is massive "fraud" in the underlying
proceedings and also in the related Florida Court Estate and Trust cases that impact
not only the merits of each case but even my ability to timely respond to matters as
there is a constant "unraveling" of existing frauds, including PROVEN forgery of
dispositive documents, discovery and admission of new frauds by fiduciaries and
counsel, including but not limited to additional frauds on the court, and related
items that take significant amounts of time on a regular basis to address in each of
approximately 14 individuals legal actions involving the Estates and Trusts of my
family and all while not being a law firm but rather a Pro Se litigant.

90. In fact, as I have alleged, the mere "filing" of the underlying action which is the
subject of this Appeal which was a State Court filing in Cook County in April of
2013 until "removed" to Federal Court in May of2013 by one of the involved
"Insurance Carriers" is itself an act in "fraud" and "fraud upon the court" that has
never been fully addressed or properly addressed by the District Court of the
Northem District of Illinois.

WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Appellant prays for an
Order accepting my Jurisdictional Statement as late, accepting my informa
pauperis statement, granting permission to file Electronically in the ECF system
for future filings, granting permission to exceed the page lengths where necessary
herein and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper."


Source and Full Document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiMkVoQUlWR1daSk0/view?usp=sharing

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT APPELLANT'S JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM SIMON BERNSTEIN IRREVOCABLE INSURANCE TRUST V. HERITAGE UNION LIFE INSURANCE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

SIMON BERNSTEIN IRREVOCABLE
INSURANCE TRUST DTD. 6/21/95,
et al. ,   Plaintiffs-Appellees,

V.

HERITAGE UNION LIFE
INSURANCE CO., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees


Appeal from the United States
District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

LC No. l:13-CV-O3643
John Robert Blakey, Judge

APPELLANT'S JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM:

APPELLANT- CROSS AND COUNTERPLAINTIFF ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN,
PRO SE, hereinafter referred to as Appellant, respectfully submits the following
Jurisdictional Memorandum in response to this Court's Order ofMay 14, 2017
Order and shows this court as follows:

Appellant asserts that this Court has federal Appellate Jurisdiction under 28 USC
Sec. 1291 and 28 USC Sec. 1292(a)(l) as set out further herein.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

This Statement of Jurisdiction is submitted in response to this Court's Order upon
an Appeal of a Memorandum Opinion and Order of the District Court of the
Northern District of Illinois, Hon. Judge Robert Blakey, presiding, dated Jan. 30,
2017 which Decided various Summary Judgment motions including Dismissing all
of Appellant's claims in the nature of fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
conversion, abuse of legal process, legal malpractice, and civil conspiracy and also
denying Summary Judgment to an Intervenor brought on behalf of the Estate of
Simon Bernstein in relation to certain proceeds Deposited into the District Court
Registry by an Insurance Carrier totaling just under $2 Million US Dollars
allegedly from a Life Insurance Policy for Appellant's Deceased father Simon
Bernstein. See, Docket Entry #273.

As further discussed, this Order was in relation to "the Second Round" of
Summary Judgment motions brought by Plaintiffs, this time moving for Summary
Judgment dismissing Appellant's claims entirely after the US District Court had
found substantial issues of material fact in denying Summary Judgment to the
Plaintiffs initial filing.

All of the critical and undeniable material issues of fact raised by Appellant
leading up to the Denial of Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment in their favor ( on
Summary Judgment "Round l" ) remained material issues of fact in this "second
round" of motions and remain open and existing material issues of fact to this day.

Plaintiffs had never overcome any of these issues of material fact in filing their
motion against Appellant in Round 2, notably, that there is no "Trust" produced by
Plaintiffs as the alleged Beneficiary of a Life Insurance Policy where Plaintiffs
claim the Trust as "lost" or "missing" but Appellant alleges is intentionally
"secreted", "withhe]d" or "destroyed". More importantly, there has been and
remains no actual Life Insurance Policy ( contract ) produced by either the
Plaintiffs or the involved Carriers where again Plaintiffs claimed this Policy is
"lost" or ''missing" despite having gone through a "Reinstatement" shortly prior to
the passing of the Insured Simon Bernstein yet where again Appellant has claimed
the Policy has been intentionally "secreted", "destroyed" or "withheld" and where
this is a "first of its kind" case to Appellant's knowledge where a Carrier has "lost''
a Life Insurance Policy being part of a highly regulated industry with rigid Record
Keeping requirements. Despite having no actual "Policy" produced with full
contractual provisions, riders, amendments and terms and conditions, all Carriers
were "let out" of the case by the US District Court ( prior Hon. Judge St. Eve)
after depositing approximately $1.7 Million into the Court Registry on an Interpleader complaint.

The current US District Court ( Hon. Judge Blalcey ) has repeatedly denied any Depositions and Discovery against the Carriers and denied Appellant's motions to be brought back into the case as parties "necessary" for a full determination on the merits despite evidence
in the Record that the Plaintiffs and their lawyers had communications about
seeking or having a "friendly carrier".

APPELLANT SOUGHT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AT THE US DISTRICT
COURT ON A MOTION UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT FILED IN FEB.
2016 AND INTENDS TO APPLY AGAIN FOR A STAY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF UNDER THE RULES AND RESPECTFULLY URGES THIS
COURT TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE THIS MOTION AS A "ROADMAP"
TO THE CASE HEREIN

On Feb. 24, 2016 under District Court Docket Entry 214, Appellant had filed a
detailed motion for a properly narrowly tailored Injunction under the All Writs act
detailing in part how the core parties ( and fiduciaries ) involved in the District
Court action through "extortive, abusive, orchestrated actions of continued abuse
of process in the Florida Probate Courts and by the Florida Probate Courts in
conspiracy and or acting in concert with fiduciaries, counsel and others that are
interfering and threaten to further interfere with this Court's jurisdiction and the
ability to orderly decide the claims before it as there is a real and serious
imminent threat and danger that critical evidence, documents, records, Discovery
and real and personal properties will be permanently lost imminently preventing
this Court from properly adjudicating claims before it while these parties are
simultaneously hiding millions of dollars of assets as shown later herein wholly
Unaccounted for and retaliating against and threatening Appellant." See, Par. 15,
Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 7 of 132 PageID
#:3641.

This motion went on to detail how both Ted Bernstein, the primary Plaintiff in this
action claiming to be the "Trustee" of a "lost Trust" which is the "Beneficiary" of a
"lost" Life Insurance Policy was also acting in concert with Fiduciary Personal
Representative Brian O'Connell of the Estate of Simon Bernstein, to manipulate,
control and orchestrate the Discovery and proceedings in the State Court of Florida
to gain advantage through improper collateral estoppel by rushing to judgment.
While these parties at least on paper appear to be "adversaries" in the District
Court, Appellant showed multiple orchestrated actions where BOTH Fiduciaries
had intentionally failed to obtain Florida Court Ordered Discovery from the
outgoing PRs and Co-Trustees attorneys Tescher and Spallina who were also the
Estate Planners and Drafters for Simon and Shirley Bernstein and who,
presumably, as part of due diligence and common professional practices,
would at least have actual copies of the operative documents, Trusts and Life
Insurance policies now "alleged'' to be "lost" and "missing" in this action.
Tescher and Spallina had been allowed by the Florida Courts to "resign" from the
Florida cases after Appellant filed several Emergency Motions for Injunction and
Freezing of Assets after Tescher and Spallina's office had been caught "forging"
and "falsifying" Notaries and documents under Simon Bernstein's name and others
in the Shirley Bernstein Estate case using Simon Bernstein to sign documents
while then Deceased to such a degree that the Florida Judge had said twice on the
record he had sufficient information to read their "Miranda Warnings".
The All "Writs Motion for Injunction further detailed "Missing Millions"
unaccounted for, "Missing Originals" from related Trusts and Business
entities, "Missing Discovery", "Missing Witnesses", failure to provide
Accountings for years required by Florida Statutes and further showed how
fiduciary Ted Bernstein and PR Brian O'Connell had not only failed to obtain
Court Ordered Discovery from Tescher and Spallina in the Florida State Court
cases but had failed to seek Depositions and Discovery from Tescher and Spallina
on the central operative documents claimed "lost" in this Insurance Action and
further sought to Enjoin and Preserve Evidence in aid of the District Court's
jurisdiction. See, Docket Entry 214, Feb. 24, 2016.

While the District Court had Denied the Motion for Injunction under the AU Writs
finding in part improper Notice procedure used by Appellant, the District Court did
not "strike" the pleading as requested by Plaintiffs and kept the All Writs Motion
pleading in the Record. See Docket Entry 218, Feb. 25, 2016. The District Court
then held several "status" conferences where direct inquiry was made by the
District Court into the "status" of Florida proceedings leading Appellant to believe
there would be a basis to "renew" or "rehear" the All Writs Motion for Injunction
at a later date.

PRIOR HON. JUDGE ST. EVE HAD "STAYED" DISCOVERY UNTIL A
"PROPER TRUSTEE" WAS DETERMINED BUT LATER OPENED
DISCOVERY FOR A BRIEF TIME DESPITE NEVER DETERMINING A
PROPER "TRUSTEE"

Just part of the Appellant's application for Injunctive relief before the US District
Court notified and reminded Hon. Judge Blakey in Paragraph 20 as follows:
"On Jan. 13, 2014 in Docket Entry 71, prior Judge St. Eve issued a Minute Entry
Order which provided in part as follows, "Discovery is hereby stayed until the
proper Trustee is determined" thus acknowledging that determination of a
"proper Trustee" is an issue in the case, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document#: 214
Filed: 02/24/16 Page 9 of 132 PageID #:3643 Page 9 of 132 which remains
disputed. The Trustee/Trust/Beneficiaries!Policy issues remains undetermined
presently and this Court's jurisdiction is imminently threatened by the
permanent loss of evidence, documents and discovery by the parties
orchestrating proceedings in Florida where this evidence and the parties in
possession of such evidence should be enjoined herein." See, Case: 1: 13-cv-
03643 Document#: 214 Filed: 02/24/16 Page 9 of 132 PageID #:3643. ( emphasis
added).

ONLY EVER SO "MINIMAL" DEPOSITION OF TED BERNSTEIN ON
THE "SEARCH" FOR THE ALLEGED LOST TRUST, POLICY WHILE
NO OTHER

Hon. Judge St. Eve had issued this "stay" upon Plaintiffs Ted Bernstein not being
able to produce a "Trust" which he sued under as alleged "Trustee" claiming lost
or missing. Only a very brief Deposition of Ted Bernstein occurred in this case
where Appellant was afforded "minimal" time at all to question Ted Bernstein on
the alleged "Search" for the "Missing Trust" and documents while multiple other
parties should have Depositions on this topic alone such as Tescher & Spallina,
Heritage, Jackson, Reassured America, PR Brian O'Connell and others.
Appellant's claims in the nature of civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duties,
negligence and abuse of process specifically referenced "delay" of inheritance and
delay and denial of proper inheritance rights thus countering any finding that
Appellant had not plead or shown "damages" as "delay damages" particularly in
Life Insurance cases have been recognized by many Courts and thus Appellant will
seek to fully brief the issues upon showing this Court that it has proper Subject
Matter Jurisdiction to hear this Appeal.

Appellant appeared by Telephone in the regular course for a "Status Hearing" on
Jan. 25, 2017, having been granted permission throughout the case to do so as
Appellant lives in Boca Raton, Florida, a considerable distance from Chicago,
Illinois. This "Status Hearing" was set by the District Court on the Court's own
Motion rescheduling a prior Status Hearing scheduled for Dec. 9, 2016. See,
Docket Entry No. 270: "MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey:
On the Court's own motion, the status hearing previously set for 12/9/2016 is reset
for 1/25/2017 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1725. Mailed notice (gel,) (Entered:
12/06/2016)"

At the Jan. 25, 2017 Status Hearing, the Court "announced" that it had made a
Decision on the Summary Judgment motions granting the Motion to Dismiss
Appellant's claims and Denying the Estate's motion for Summary Judgment but
the Decision was not ready yet, that there would be a long written analysis or
words to that effect and the parties would receive the Decision soon. The Court
then Scheduled ALL PARTIES to appear for a Feb. 21, 2017 Status Hearing to
Schedule a Trial. At no time on Jan. 25, 2017 on the Status Conference Call
Appellant appeared on did the Court Announce or indicate that Appellant
was "Removed" from the case, and in fact Appellant asked the Court to
clarify what was ruled upon and again did not Notice Appellant that he was
not to Appear on Feb. 21, 2017 Status to Schedule a Trial along with the other
parties and instead the District Court again reminded All of the parties of the
upcoming Status Conference to "Schedule a Trial".

Appellant made a Jan. 30th, 2017 filing with the District Court under Docket No.
271 notifying the Court of: difficulties Appellant experienced in the last
Conference call, Appellant's request to "ensure" the integrity of documents by a
recent filing by Plaintiff's attorney Adam Simon due to multiple instances of
"false" and "fraudulent" documents in the related actions, notifying the Court of
upcoming Hearings in Florida before a new Judge Scher as Judge Phillips who had
issued the Orders relied upon by the District Court for "collateral estoppel" had
now recently and suddenly "retired" prematurely, and further notifying the Court
of "collusion" between the PR of the Simon Bernstein Estate and primary Plaintiff
in this action Ted Bernstein and counsel Alan Rose who were continuing to act in
"unity" and raising Conflicts of Interest as had been raised by Appellant on
multiple occasions in the District Court particularly in a Motion for
Injunctive Relief under the All Writs Act filed with the District Court in Feb.
of 2016. See, Docket Entry No. 271; All Writs Act Injunctive Relief Petition in the
District Court Docket Entry No. 214,215,216.

Appellant did receive a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order which caine
out later on the Sfillle day Jan. 30, 2017 being on the Electronic ECF System with
the District Court as Appellant had been granted permission to File Electronically
in the District Court and receive Electronic Notices which typically is much easier
being Pro se and not having to go to the Mail to file each document. The express
terms of the Summary Judgment Memorandum did not Notify Appellant that he
was somehow being "fully removed" from the case and simply ended with:
"Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
on Eliot Bernstein's claims [239] is granted, and the Estate's motion for summary
judgment [245] is denied." See Docket Entry No. 273.

THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT ADDRESS APPELLANT'S
STATUS AS A DEFENDANT SUED IN THE INTERPLEADER

It is noted that Appellant was "sued" into the District Court action as a Defendant
in an Interpleader action filed by insurance Carrier Jackson upon Removal to
Federal Court by Jackson as Appellant is a natural child to Simon Bernstein with a
potential c]aim to the proceeds and the Summary Judgment motions did not
address or discuss in any way Appellant's status as a Defendant in the Interpleader.
Appellant had raised on multiple occasions in the District Court that this status as
a Defendant in the "Interpleader" action was Prejudicial as Appellant became
limited in pursuing Counterclaims, Cross claims and causes of action and should
have been included as a proper Party in Plaintiffs' original actions. See, Docket
Entry No. 17 of June 26, 2013 Jackson Answer and Counterclaim for Interpleader
action and Docket No. 273, the Memorandum Opinion and Order.

INSURANCE CARRIERS CHANGING "OWNERSHIP" IN LESS THAN 45
DAYS OF BEING SUED, NO "SUCCESSOR" INFORMATION PROVIDED
AND RELEASED FROM THE ACTION WITH NO ACTUAL "POLICY"
PROVIDED OVER OBJECTIONS OF APPELLANT:

As this Court will see, the Insurance Carrier sued by the Plaintiffs in the Cook
County State Court "breach of contract" action was Heritage Union Life Insurance
Company allegedly of Jacksonville, Illinois, being allegedly a Minnesota
Corporation. See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document#: 1-1 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 1 of
5 PageID #:4, showing Heritage sued as of April 5, 2013.

Despite being a natural child and natural Heir of Simon Bernstein, Appellant was
not Named as a Party Plaintiff in the original Cook County State Court action
Complaint that was Removed to Federal Court. Appellant had no knowledge that
this action had even been filed and in fact, none of the 5 children of Simon
Bernstein were named as Parties or referenced in the original Cook County
action as at least Ted Bernstein was involved in this original action together with
attorney Adam Simon suing under an alleged Simon Bernstein Irrevocable
Insurance Trust Dated 6/21/95 with Ted Bernstein claiming to he "Trustee" of a
Trust which to this very day has never been Produced to the Court or parties,
another allegedly "Missing" - "Lost" document in the Estates and Trusts of
Simon and Shirley Bernstein.

Yet, the Carrier who "removed" the action to Federal Court that Appellant was
sued by in this Interpleader action is Jackson National Life Insurance Company,
allegedly a Michigan corporation who claims to be "Successor in Interest" to
"Reassure America Life Insurance Company", a Dallas, Texas company who
allegedly is the "Successor in Interest" to Heritage. This occurred just over a
month later on May 16, 2013 yet none of the Jackson filings show any
Documentary proof of acquiring Reassure America or Heritage or the Successor
information. See, Docket Entries No. 1, 4. 7. 17.

While the District Court Docket in some instances refers to "Heritage" as the
filing party, the actual filing party is "Jackson". See, example, Docket Entries
No. 9, 10.

Further, "Jackson" filed a Notice of Appearance by Attorney Alexander David
Marks ( Docket Entry No. 3 ), while "Heritage" filed an Attorney Appearance
Notice for Frederic A. Mendelsohn ( Docket Entry No. 12 ).

Allegedly, an "AGREED ORDER" to Tender "Insurance Proceeds" into the Court
was made on June 25, 2013, BEFORE APPELLANT HAD EVEN BEEN
"SUlVIMONED" TO APPEAR IN THE CASE. SEE Docket Entry No. 16.
Appellant was first Summoned into the case the next day, June 26, 2013. See 6-26-
13 Docket Entry With NO Docket Entry Number after Docket Entry No. 18.
NOTE: NO CARRIER OR PARTY TO THE DISTRICT COURT ACTION
HAS TENDERED OR PROVIDED AN ACTUAL LEGALLY BINDING
LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, EITHER ORIGINAL, COPY OR OTHERWISE
THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE THE SIMON BERNSTEIN LIFE INSURANCE
POLICY NO. 100928,

Yet somehow the District Court below "accepted" the funds into the Registry as
"Policy Proceeds" prior to Appellant's entry into the case. To Appellant's
knowledge, this would be the first time in Industry History that a Life Insurance
carrier and Reinsurer "lost the policy" as the Industry is highly regulated with
extensive Record Retention Rules.

Appellant asserts this is all part of the "insurance fraud" scheme which has been
reported to Federal and State authorities. As shown by the Docket and Records of
the case, there has been virtually NO DISCOVERY allowed on Record Retention
practices and where the Policy is or has been although Appellant has repeatedly
sought Discovery in the District Court.

Both Ted Bernstein suing as alleged "Trustee" of an alleged "lost" Trust and
Attorney Adam Simon failed to notify the District Court or the Cook County
Court that Ted Bernstein's "other" Attorney Robert Spallina had attempted
to claim the Policy proceeds first as "Trustee" of the same "lost trust"
without Notifying the Insurance Carrier of allegations of possible "Murder"
of Simon Bernstein made by Ted Bernstein at the Hospital on the Night of
Simon Bernstein's Passing and "Investigated" by the Palm Beach County
Sheriff's Office on Ted Bernstein's Request and the Palm Beach Coroner's
office and Spallina was denied his claim by the carrier as he could not
produce a trust showing he was Trustee;

The underlying original "action" was filed as a "breach of contract" action that was
"removed" to Federal Court which was first filed in Cook County by attorney
Adam Simon on behalf of Ted Bernstein who was now acting as the alleged
"Trustee" of the alleged "Simon Bernstein Irrevocable Insurance Trust dated 6-21-
95" not Spallina.

Par. 12 of the Complaint in Cook County falsely claims that "the BERNSTEIN
TRUST, by and through its counsel in Palm Beach County, Fl, submitted a death
claim to HERITAGE" yet fails to state that this "counsel", one Robert Spallina,
actually filed to get the death benefits paid acting also as "TRUSTEE" of this
"Bernstein Trust" which is also allegedly "missing" and "lost". See Case: 1: 13-
cv-03643 Document#: 1-1 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:5
Par. 13 further goes on to state, "The Policy, by its terms, obligates HERITAGE to
pay the death benefits to the beneficiary of the policy ... " See,
Par. 14 continues that "HERITAGE has breached its obligations under the policy
by refusing and failing to pay the Policy's death benefits to the BERNSTEIN
TRUST as beneficiary under the policy ... " See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document
#: 1-1 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 3 of 5 PagelD #:6

Upon information and belief, at no time did Attorney Spallina notify the
Carrier that allegations of possible "Murder" had been made by his client Ted
Bernstein on the night of Simon's Bernstein's passing such that not only was
Appellant "blocked" by Hospital Security from initially getting back in to see
Simon at the Hospital as he lay dying in a Code Blue recessation state, but further
that the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office hours later showed up at the Simon
Bernstein home to "Investigate" the allegations of Murder which had not been
"closed" at the time the death benefits were sought and Ted summoned the
coroner to conduct an autopsy.

The original Complaint also does not allege that both the Policy and Trust were
"lost" or "missing". See, Case: 1: 13-cv-03643 Document#: 1-1 Filed: 05/16/13.

SIMON BERNSTEIN HOME COMPUTERS "WIPED CLEAN" ON THE
NIGHT OF HIS PASSING ALLEGED AS A POSSIBLE "MURDER"
WHILE OTHER DOCUMENTS GO OUT OF THE "HOl\!IE SAFE" ON
THE NIGHT OF PASSING ALLEGEDLY TO TED BERNSTEIN VIA
RACHEL WALKER; SIMON'S BODY THEREAFTER "GOES MISSING"
AFTER BEING SENT FOR AUTOPSY AND REPORTS COME BACK
WITH ELEVATED HEAVY METALS LEVEL BUT OF A 113 YEAR OLD
MAN

See, All Writs Motion for Injunction ( Docket Entry No. 214) and related filings
for details on Simon Bernstein's Home Computers found "wiped clean" on the
night of his passing and his Body then "going missing" for a week after Palm
Beach Sheriff's Office ( PBSO ) investigating possible "Murder" which was not
reported by Plaintiff Ted Bernstein or his stable of counsels to the Insurance
Carriers.

This action has a complicated procedural history being first originally heard before
US District Judge Hon. St. Eve starting on or around May of2013 and then US
District Judge Hon. Robert Blakey who was Assigned the case beginning on or
around January 15, 2015. Throughout this time, related Estate Probate and Trust
actions have been ongoing in the State of Florida in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
Palm Beach County where Appellant moved residency to several years ago from
California at the specific request of his now deceased parents Shirley and Simon
Bernstein who wanted to be close to Eliot, his wife and three children, Simon and
Shirley, who are originally from the Chicago, Illinois area for many years until
moving to Boca Raton, Florida.

Simon Bernstein was a successful businessman in the Insurance industry since the
1970s, had earned tens of millions of dollars during his lifetime, set up multiple
companies and eventually moved to Boca Raton, Florida with his wife Shirley who
was also Appellant's natural mother.

Successes and Properties of Simon and Shirley Bernstein

Through these successes, Simon and Shirley Bernstein came to own several
insurance businesses, trust companies, fully paid for real estate including an
Oceanfront condo in Boca Raton, FL and Estate home in the prestigious St.
Andrews Golf and Country Club where ''Billionaires" are members, along with
owning multiple luxury cars outright, millions of dollars in jewelry, art and
furnishings, being "Private Banking" clients at leading US financial firms and
having millions of dollars invested in blue chip stocks and other investments. Prior
to his passing, Simon Bernstein had the fully paid for St. Andrew's Home
appraised at approximately $3. 8 Million and the Oceanfront "Shirley" Condo
appraised at approximately $1.8 million dollars. The luxury cars included a fully
paid Bentley and a fully paid leased Porsche. Simon and Shirley often travelled by
Private Jet during their lifetime including with Appellant's children who were
"minors" at the time and their lifestyle remained five star until the day they died.

Sunon in the years before his death in 2012 in 2007-2008 declared income of
$3,756,299 in 2008 and $2,374,392 in 2007 and this from only one of his many
companies, LIC Holdings, Inc.

Direct Knowledge of Record Keepin2 Practices of Simon Bernstein As stated in pleadings and in part by a sworn Declaration before the District Court, at one point in time, Appellant had been a "Top Seller" of Insurance through his independent agency as well working alongside his father Simon Bernstein's companies and became intimately familiar with the meticulous Record Keeping
practices required to be successful in the Insurance industry that his father taught him and was directly familiar with Simon's multiple Record Keeping and Storage locations and practices in the Boca Raton, Florida area in the years prior to his passing. Simon was a leading Estate planner for Insurance products for his clientele primarily composed of millionaires and several billionaires and created sophisticated trusts and estate plans in conjunction with his products for his clients.

Other Business Agreements with Simon Bernstein and "lviewit Technologies"; Simon Bernstein's "Missing Stock:

For further information, see All Writs Injunction Docket No. 214, Feb. 2016 as
these interests and allegations help explain in part the purpose of the fraud schemes
at play.

Appellant Eliot Bernstein later went on to become an "Inventor" of Backbone
Technologies known as "Iviewit" involving the scaling of Digital and Video
Imaging across the Internet and all other wired and wireless mediums, a business
was fonned with he and his father as partners and his father Chairman of the Board
for several years.

Eliot Bernstein later entered into other Business agreements with his father in
relation to the Intellectual Properties as Simon Bernstein became the seed Investor
with a 30% IP interest and 30% Shareholder interest in the Iviewit companies and
where the technologies had been valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars to
"Priceless" over the lifetime of the Intellectual Property after being tested by
Leading engineers and industry experts including at Lockheed Martin, the Intel
Corporation, Real3D Inc, AOLTW, Warner Bros., Sony and others who all signed
various licensing contracts with Appellant and his father's companies dating back
to the late 1990s through early 2000's.

The Intellectual Properties (Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets) were then discovered to be being stolen from the Iviewit Companies by some of the very lawyers retained to protect
the Intellectual Properties and do the Corporate work to license them and these matters have since been the subject of open Federal investigations relating to the Thefts and Fraud at the US Patent Office where Appellant was specifically directed by Harry I. Moatz who headed the Office of Enrollment and Discipline ( OED of the USPTO) to file Fraud charges for Fraud against th.e United States and the true and proper inventors and owners of the IP, as the attorneys had filed fraudulent IP
applications alleging themselves and others as the inventors on IP applications.

Where the Intellectual Properties have both massive Military and Civilian use
across the globe they are now responsible for creating and distributing over 90% of
all digital video and imaging transmissions sent worldwide. Because of the
massive thefts and fraud, Appellant's companies were intentionally forced out of
business and Appellant, other Shareholders and patent interest holders have not yet
been able to monetize the IP Royalties as the Intellectual Properties were
fraudulently placed into the names of others and subsequently suspended by the
USPTO based upon ongoing investigations into the frauds committed by the
attorneys who were USPTO Patent Bar members.

These rogue attorneys at law have converted the royalty streams to themselves and their law firms through multiple Antitrust Violations, including Patent Pooling Schemes that Bundle & Tie
the technologies into "standards" such as MPEG, blocking Appellant from market
Due to this most dangerous situation Appellant was cast into, Simon and Eliot
Bernstein entered into agreements to provide for Eliot's family's welfare and
safety while there are ongoing Federal investigations to regain the IP. Simon and
Shirley therefore set up a monthly income stream to cover all of Eliot's family
living expenses which had been in effect for many years prior to their deaths, they
set up multiple trusts and companies for he and his children to protect the assets
put in their names and their estate plans have provisions to have maintained this for
many years after their deaths. [ NOTE: A source known as "DC No. 1" and by
multiple other names is available upon proper Notice as a Witness in regard to the
Patent Frauds, IP frauds and other Federal and State Corruption issues relevant herein.

 This source is also known, upon information and belief and in part direct
knowledge, to have special Security Access to Federal Courthouses, Chambers
of US Judges, US Attorneys, 26 Federal Plaza of the FBI, NY, NY, Signal
Intelligence information, the "bizarrely stalled FBI Investigation" into the
Iviewit Patent thefts, and is alleged to have worked with multiple Federal Agencies
including the Treasury Department ( IRS ), US Postal Inspector's Office, DOJ, and
to have worked Federal Cases in the Chicago area, Boston area, NYC area and to
have been able to use the Address of 1600 Pennsylvania A venue, Washington, DC
in Federal Court papers with no known sanctions. ]

Specific Estate Planning by Simon Bernstein for the Benefit of Eliot Bernstein
and Family:

Pleadings already exist in the Record showing that Appellant's Family Mini-van
was "Car Bombed" Iraqi style while pursuing rights to the Stolen Intellectual
Properties while Shirley and Simon Bernstein were alive ( see, w\vw.ivie,,vit.tv )
and further that Plaintiff Ted Bernstein, Appellant's brother, who was living with
his children in his parents' home and virtually broke prior to this Car bombing and
closely involved with the last "arrangements" on the Mini Van ultimately Car
bombed in Boynton Beach, Florida and who later became and remains close
friends and business associates with the very same International law firms and
others implicated in the Patent frauds against his brother Appellant and then he
suddenly acquired a $5 Million plus Intra-Coastal home in Palm Beach County
after the bombing. Two of the law firms involved in the IP thefts are Proskauer
Rose and Foley-Lardner who are now also directly implicated in the estate and
trust proceedings in the Florida Courts and this District Court, as a Proskauer Will
for Simon Bernstein and Trust from the year 2000 is involved and may be a
beneficiary of the lost policy, as well as a Foley Lardner LLP trust that is missing
yet is alleged to be the Plaintiff in this matter before this Court.

No direct Discovery against these law firms was permitted or scheduled thus far in District
Court proceedings or in any of the related Florida State Court proceedings.
Simon's friend and Iviewit accountant, Gerald Lewin, CPA, is also implicated in
the IP thefts and was the party to who brought his "friends" from Proskauer Rose
in, Estate planner Albert Gortz and others, ground:floor to be a part of this
revolutionary technology discovered by Appellant and all are small shareholders in
the companies. As a result of dangers to Appellant's family from the Attempted
Murder of his family, resulting Investigations and forced closing of the companies,

Appellant and Simon Bernstein entered into specific agreements and Planning
designed to protect their families in the event Appellant or any of his family were
murdered.

These business agreements between Appellant and Simon Bernstein included
specific Estate Planning for Appellant's family and minor children and Simon and
Shirley further wanted Appellant's family to live close to them in Boca Raton so a
company was set up to Purchase Appellant's family home in Appellant's children's
names and held in separate trusts created for the minor children at the time by
Simon and Shirley in Boca Raton where Appellant and his wife and children
enjoyed a close, loving and special relationship with Simon and Shirley until their
passing.

Thus, Appellant has a direct basis to be aware of the Record Keeping
practices his father Simon Bernstein during his lifetime, but also reason to know
and believe that Appellant is among the Beneficiaries of the various Estate
Planning instruments by Simon and Shirley and someone whose family has claim
to the Life Insurance proceeds.

Plaintiffs Ted Bernstein and Pamela Bernstein Simon with Direct Involvement
in the Simon Bernstein Companies and Significant Insurance Contacts:
Plaintiffs Ted Bernstein and Pamela Bernstein Simon both worked significantly
with Simon Bernstein for years and have decades of contacts in the Insurance
industry."

Source and Full Document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiSm9KbnR4alhQYVE/view?usp=sharing