Part Eleven of a Series
Pepsi-Cola is Really Coca-Cola?
by Sherman H. Skolnick 1/6/04
From ancient times onward, there have always been certain ways of getting things done. By way of defeating your enemy, you send spies to infiltrate your enemy's camp. Or, as an alternative, to control what you perceive as the know-nothings, you set up a false "enemy". AND, claiming the "enemy" is formidable and threatening the nation, what do you do?
Before we continue on this topic, we first must define and identify terms. By YOU, I mean the Establishment, "the powers that be", the Aristocracy, the Ruling Class. And, of course, to do your sneaky, treacherous dirty work, you have your stooges, to be later scape-goated when necessary, to protect and perpetuate your power and your position.
So, by way of supposedly "protecting" the great unwashed, the shirtless ones, against a created "enemy", you put huge on-going obligations on the backs of the populace. You clip the corners of your gold coins, you cheapen your paper money, and raise huge armies and cause your war-mongering industries to invent and produce the latest weaponry at several times the price of civilian-type devices.
Further, you lure volunteers into being your warriors, promising later benefits (eventually reneged on) to those hungry for employment. As a last resort, you require all those reaching military age to register with agencies of the central authority. This, so you can, as needed, set up boards of compulsion, conscripting those who are too proud to run away from their "patriotic duty" to be maimed or slaughtered on some faraway battlefield that many young people cannot find on the map. That is, their "duty" to protect the elite, the plutocrats, and their assets, or crudely described as protecting their asses.
And this, against a background of drum-rolls of guarantees, that the rich and the poor alike, have the equal right to sleep under bridges when it rains.
Is it any wonder, then, that large financial interests, likewise, have certain ways of extending and consolidating their power and control?
Early in their history, the Rockefeller monopoly rid themselves of their obsolete facilities. How? By claiming their competitors, their supposed "enemy", bombed the Rockefeller plant. Left unsaid, except by a pitiful few anti-cartel crusaders, was that the Rockefellers created and controlled this false enemy to fool those who relied too heavily on the popular press, owned as well by the Rockefellers. By the way, to give the image of "law", the Rockefellers bought the Pennsylvania State Legislature, owning all the representatives. Sound familiar?
And for centuries, this sort of way of controlling and creating events, has been played out against a vast panorama of idle jargon and slogans. "We are, after all, a nation, not of men, but of LAWS."
By repeated propaganda, a mindset is put into the mental software of the commonfolk. Namely, that the men and women who adjudicate our rights, privileges, and immunities, together with our claims, on occasion, against the entrenched, large corporate interests---that those who pass judgment on us peons, are all, most certainly, deities. For, take note of the scene. They sit, after all, in their black and austere robes in a high-ceilinged royal chamber, on a throne.
In their opinion, if we dare insult their divine-like authority; then, from the mists and vapors of antiquity, they draw out their battle-axes and chains, and have us thus hauled away to prison, for "contempt of court".[As the writer of this story I know directly. In some eight times in forty six years as a court reformer, wheelchair and all, I have been hauled away to prison, not for crimes, but for "contempt of court", for directly accusing the judges of specific bribery and corruption. In each case, I was later vindicated, and the judges I accused were removed from the bench or sent to prison for bribery. Many of them later died as ex-convicts.]
Appeals, if any, go up through a church-like heirarchy, the head tribunal of which has a demeaning set of their own rules. The common Americans have no right to enter the U.S. Supreme Court seeking remedies. A petitioner has to file a "begging" petition, "praying" to be allowed to enter this holy of holies. This type of plea on bended-knee, is called by the ancient term of Petition for Certiorari.
In October of a recent year, at the opening of the high court term, sixteen hundred of these "prayers" to be allowed to even knock on their door, were pending. (Many lawyers continue to use, as is their tradition, the clerical terminology.) Each and every one of these "prayers" to enter were later marked as rejected, with a single word, "denied", customarily sent by collect telegram, no reasons given by the nine high and mighty priests of America's highest church-court. Each such petition, to be acceptable to be read at all by the high court law clerks and courtiers, has to conclude with a "prayer for relief", required by the rules. All sixteen hundred "prayers for relief" had no merit? Really?
Hey, what's this, about Church and State? Why do critics of the high tribunal call it America's nursing home?
So, if you actually comprehend this background, then you might understand the strange and sinister court activities of two giants of the beverage industry, Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola.
1. Knowledgeable sources contend that Coke is really Pepsi and vice versa. BUT, it is not simple to quickly prove this rightaway to those who may be naive and poorly informed.
2. Savvy folks who should know better, nevertheless assert that Coke and Pepsi are competitors. Yet they seem to jointly control the beverage industry and pricing, running the prices up and down, to ruin lesser enterprises.
3. Because of the secret combination between Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola, lesser beverage companies are locked out of profitable markets, such as at beverage counters at movie theaters; such as at vending machines at gas stations and at public and private schools and colleges; such as at shelf space and prominent displays at food store chains; all in violation of Anti-Trust laws and similar provisions outlawing price, market, and distribution favoritism and dirty business with the same.
4. Coca-Cola funds have been used to corrupt judges on the U.S. Supreme Court in the litigation of Bush versus Gore, where a 5-judge, Military-Style Junta on the high court installed George W. Bush as the occupant and resident of the White House. [See our website series, "Coca-Cola, the CIA, and the Courts" Part 9.]
5. There is substantial reason to believe Coca-Cola is responsible for the murder and mayhem directed against labor activists and dissidents in Colombia. See, <http://www.cokewatch.org/>www.cokewatch.org <http://www.killercoke.org/>www.killercoke.org and Pittsburgh, Pa., "Post-Gazette" newspaper, April 29, 2003.
6. See the details regarding Richard M. Nixon, Pepsi-Cola, and the murder of President Kennedy in our website story "The Overthrow of the American Republic", part 42, sub-titled "The Public Execution of John F. Kennedy".
7. Knowledgeable sources contend the facilities of Pepsi-Cola/Coca-Cola overseas are used to secretly process dope, which may be the basis for authorities there to have conducted seizure and ransacking of Coke facilities in Spain, Belgium, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe. See earlier parts of this series.
8.. One giant of advertising and marketing, with a huge unit in the Windy City, DDB Chicago, has ostensibly directly and/or through their parent firm, represented both Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola, an apparent violation of Anti-Trust Laws.
9. So, it should come as no surprise that in certain areas in the U.S., Coca-Cola/Pepsi-Cola work a malign if not corrupt influence on federal judges in cases involving the beverage monopolists. What is certain as we have many times pointed out in our articles, the cheapest federal judge whores in the U.S., are those in the federal courts in Chicago.(Observers of court corruption in New York and Los Angeles, however, loudly object to our seemingly fingering only Chicago's federal courts.) And the two beverage giants prefer to be in a courthouse located a few miles from the old West Side, once site of Chicago's traditional mafia.
10. Coca-Cola is embroiled in a highly corrupt case in the federal courts in Chicago. In another case, in the same courthouse, Pepsi-Cola is apparently likewise entangled in a crooked case. The details are in the court records of each case. The Coke case has already been referred to in earlier parts of this website series. For example, in the case Robert E. Kolody versus Simon Marketing and Coca-Cola Company, the Chicago U.S. District Judge has been Judge Blanche M. Manning.
In the court record, and not disputed, is that a known gangster-type paid at least a million dollars to buy her the judgeship. (An elite government unit, stating they are investigating our undisputed charges in the court records, infored us that we were "not accurate". That in investigating the matter, they confirmed---hey, get this!---that the gangster paid TWO MILLION DOLLARS for the judgeship not one million. Was anyone grabbed and prosecuted for this criminality? Not so far.) A great secret is that state and federal judgeships are bought and sold.---current price for a Federal District Court judgeship is two million dollars, for a judgeship on the U.S. Courts of Appeal in the various circuits around the U.S., the price is "sky is the limit", ten million dollars MINIMUM. Am I hearing some poorly informed, naive person heckling me when I say in many large venues, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, just to name a few places, "Judges are for sale". Hey, remember our website story "Buying A Media Job", those positions in some instances are likewise "for sale".
There are certain similarities between the case against Coca-Cola and the one against subsidiaries of Pepsi-Cola, PepsiCO, Inc.
===In the Coke case, the local counsel for the challenger has a sister who is media buyer for Coca-Cola. And Coke spends upwards of ONE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in the media. When it came up in Court, it was not disputed that Coke had a spy in the camp of the one that sued Coke. The sister became at the time unavailable to be subpoenaed, conveniently going off to Ireland. The Federal Judge refused to take action and committed several frauds upon her own court including obstructions of justice. The Federal Judge issued "rulings" with judicial perjuries, what ordinary people call straight-out lies. When the case went up to the federal appeals court in Chicago, the banker-judges sitting there, sat in what the law books call "en banc", meaning all the fourteen judges of the court sitting at once. Guess what? They issued an unsigned ruling stating the challenger suing Coke cannot have his lawyer proceed in the federal appeals court. No reason of any kind was given. [[For many decades, the unwritten policy in the federal courts is that the judges SIGN NONE OF THEIR COURT ORDERS, particularly so in civil cases. Cynics point out the judges are "correct" since the law clerks prepared the Court Orders, not the Judges. Many times the Judges do not even know what is in the Court orders issued supposedly in their name.]
Thereafter, a motion to re-open the Coca-Cola case because the judges have been operating under a malign if not corrupt influence, was evaded. How? By sending the matter to a secret court that supposedly investigates whether federal judges are corrupt and take bribes. Specific details are in "Coca-Cola, the CIA, and the Courts", parts 9 and 10, part of our website series.
11. Briefly stated, RUSH Beverage Co., Inc., has the Ginseng RUSH trademark since 1978, a noncaffeinated energy drink with American Ginseng. They entered into an agreement with Pepsi subsidiary South Beach Beverage Co., Inc. That has been terminated by RUSH Beverage Co., Inc.
As shown by the court record, Pepsi's attorney procured and instigated a burglary of the offices of RUSH Beverage Co., Inc.:
(a) the Pepsi unit's attorney procured and induced a burglary;
(b) they issued fraudulent subpoenas to "cover up" the burglary;
(c) they obstructed the police investigation of the burglary;
(d) they maintained the stolen records, so that attorney for RUSH Beverage Co., Inc., was not able to make objections as to the attorney-client privilege;
(e) they reviewed the stolen documents including the privileged documents of RUSH;
(f) they maintained the stolen documents until afte the time for dispositive motions had expired, thus precluding RUSH from filing a dispositive motion;
(g) they procured perjury, in law talk called, suborned perjury.
(a) the Pepsi unit's attorney procured and induced a burglary;
(b) they issued fraudulent subpoenas to "cover up" the burglary;
(c) they obstructed the police investigation of the burglary;
(d) they maintained the stolen records, so that attorney for RUSH Beverage Co., Inc., was not able to make objections as to the attorney-client privilege;
(e) they reviewed the stolen documents including the privileged documents of RUSH;
(f) they maintained the stolen documents until afte the time for dispositive motions had expired, thus precluding RUSH from filing a dispositive motion;
(g) they procured perjury, in law talk called, suborned perjury.
By the way, earlier parts of our Coke series show how media octopus Tribune Company, owner of various big-time newspapers, radio, and television facilities, black-mailed the Coca-Cola federal district judge. Why? To pressure Coca-Cola to hand out more advertising bucks to the Tribune Company.
See the details where Tribune Company complains about the secret proceedings of Judge Manning, how the judge blanks out court transcripts, and such, detailed in earlier parts of our website series "Coca-Cola, the CIA, and the Courts", such as part 4, sub-titled "Is the media monster, the Tribune Company, a reputed blackmailer of The Coca-Cola Company?"; such as part 5, sub-titled "The Blackmail machine rolls on"; such as part 7, sub-titled "A real-life drama and the players", and the murder of the Chicago Tribune reporter, a columnist on advertising and marketing. A "natural happening" is that the advertising/marketing expert reporter at the Tribune, taking interest in the mess, George Lazarus, was found dead on the commuter train on the way to his Chicago Tribune office. Foul play was suspected.
Alright, so you did not know the media fakers use blackmail to get advertisements. It is an old-time practice. Early in the 20th Century, investigative journalist/whistle blower, George Seldes wrote about it in his book, "Tell the Truth and Run".
===In the same federal courthouse in Chicago has been the Pepsi-Cola case. Notice the similarity. Pepsi's attorneys procured and instigated a burglary of the office of the RUSH Beverage Company, the one that sued Pepsi. Pepsi's lawyers as a cover up issued a fake subpoena and blocked the police in the Chicago suburb of Blue Island, from investigating. Proof was uncovered showing Pepsi's lawyers had the stolen records.
What was in the records thus grabbed? Notes and documents how the challenger, called a "plaintiff", Rush Beverage Company, had confidential legal strategies how to proceed in Court against Pepsi subsidiaries, the "defendants". When your court enemy by burglary gets your strategy, your enemy has spied into your camp and knows when, where, and how you intend to attack. In lawyer lingo, it is called "attorney-client" privilege, which your court enemy has no right to see, certainly not by burglarizing your office.
The plaintiff's lawyer filed some forty Motions and court pleadings about this obstruction of justice. Federal Judge John W. Darrah refused to consider the matter, in so doing he committed a fraud upon his own court and obstructions of justice. In law talk, combining with Pepsi's attorneys and to favor Pepsi, Judge Darrah was operating under a malign if not corrupt influence. The judge would not grant sufficient time for the plaintiff's lawyer to have what is called more "discovery", necessary to bring out more about the burglary, and the judge quickly threw the case out of court.
Among other things, the Judge refused the request to refer the matter for criminal and other investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney in Chicago. The judge refused to consider the demand that Pepsi's lawyers be disqualified from being in court in this matter altogether.
How the plaintiff's lawyer was put under terrible, horrible pressure is outlined in the court records. Result? That lawyer simply dropped dead.
The foregoing are in specific court-filed details to purge the court records as to Pepsi and to punish them and their attorneys. This sort of extra-ordinary procedure is seldom invoked. Why? Because law students generally do not learn about fraud upon the court perpetrated by a judge himself, a taboo subject. As non-lawyers, self-educated in law, some in our group are experts, however, on this subject. In 2001 was published a book about how we set off the biggest judicial bribery scandal in U.S. history, toppling Illinois' highest tribunal, the llinois State Supreme court, using accusations in a court-filed Motion accusing them to their face, of fraud upon their own court after they had been bribed. In a typical reaction, they had me as the head of our court-reform group grabbed and clapped in jail for "contempt of court". Later, I was vindicated and the high court was temporarily swept away.
The book is "Illinois Justice" by law professor Kenneth A. Manaster.
MOTION BY ROBERT J. CORR TO PURGE THE RECORDS OF CERTAIN ORDERS, JUDGMENTS, and RULINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE BECAUSE OF FRAUD UPON THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT and OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE PERPETRATED BY JUDGE JOHN W. DARRAH himself; in addition to MOTION TO INTERVENE, if so required; and for other Relief.
Comes now Robert J. Corr, as Movant, and seeking to intervene, if so required, pro se, and moves as follows:
(A) That this matter be sent up through channels as a request for Certificate of Necessity, to the Chief Justice of the United States, Washington, D.C., for the Chief Justice to especially designate a Judge, from faraway, not of the Seventh Circuit, to especially sit in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois, to hear and adjudicate the instant matters.
(B) Insofar as required, Robert J. Corr, by way of this Motion, requests permission to Intervene in the instant case, as provided for in matters involving Fraud Upon the Federal Court Perpetrated By a Federal Judge Himself; as hereinafter more fully set forth;
(C) That the especially designated Federal Judge, not from the Seventh Circuit, that sits in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois, call before the Court, by appropriate means, all those who may be affected by the outcome of the inquiry into Fraud Upon the U.S. District Court in Chicago and obstructions of justice Perpetrated by Chicago U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah Himself; that there be appointed a Master or other court official to elicit testimony and seek and subpoena evidence and documents, and authorized and directed to examine, investigate, and report as to the matters herein referred to, as to the fraud upon the court and obstructions of justice perpetrated by Judge John W. Darrah himself and submit such report of the same to the especially designated Judge sitting in Chicago to hear and determine the same.
(D) That the especially designated Judge purge the records, rulings, decrees, and Judgments in the instant case, as tainted, as having been procured by Fraud Upon the U.S. District Court in Chicago and Obstructions of Justice Perpetrated By U.S. District John W. Darrah Judge Himself.
(E) That the especially designated Judge, from faraway, not of the Seventh Circuit, invoke the doctrine of "unclean hands" against the defendants and defendants' attorneys; and purge the court records of defendants' purported defenses, and other of their court pleadings, including but not limited to claims made by purported counter-claims; and enter Judgment and remedies for plaintiff, and Robert J. Corr, and against defendants and defendants' attorneys, as asked for in the pleadings of the plaintiff, that are in the records of the instant case;
(F) For such other and further relief as this extra-ordinary matter requires.
For grounds, Robert J. Corr, among other things, states, as follows:
1. That as more fully herein set forth, this matter involves rulings, judgments, and decrees, procured and arranged for the financial benefit of the defendants, and for others, by Fraud Upon the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and by obstructions of justice, perpetrated by U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah himself.
2. The principles of law and fact involved in such a matter are set forth in the landmark case of Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 (3rd Circuit, 1948), backed up by U.S. Supreme Court pertinent decisions as to fraudulently procured rulings, involving Judges themselves operating under a malign if not corrupt influence and perpetrating an Obstuction of Justice by the Judges themselves.
3. There is a principle of law pertinent to trade-mark and copyright cases, similar to patent cases.
"This matter does not concern only private parties. There are issues of great moment to the public in a patent suit. (Citing U.S. Supreme Court cases.) Furthermore, tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud."
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, at page 246, 64 S.Ct. 992, at page 1001, 88 L.Ed.1250. Cited and quoted with approval in the Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at page 522.
4. Robert J. Corr, as movant, representing himself in the instant matter, and seeking permission to intervene if so required, has a financial interest in the court rulings, orders, judgments, and decrees in the instant case, procured for the benefit of defendants and others, by obstruction of justice and fraud upon the U.S. District Court in Chicago perpetrated by U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah himself, as hereinafter more fully set forth.
Robert J. Corr derives all his livelihood from the plaintiff corporation. He has borrowed money from other persons and put the same into the corporation. He is the sole stockholder of the corporation.
In consideration of the details, Robert J. Corr, as an interested party in this matter, should be granted permission to intervene. Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514, at pages 523-524 (3rd Circuit, 1948.)
Fellow judges in the same Federal Judicial Circuit , that is the Seventh Circuit, should not sit to hear and adjudicate the instant matter. Rather, a Certificate of Necessity is to be submitted to the Chief Justice of the United States, Washington, D.C., for the Chief Justice to especially designate a judge or judges, from faraway, not from the Seventh Circuit, to hear and determine matters involving fraud upon the federal court and obstruction of justice perpetrated by the Judge or Judges themselves of said Court. See the Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at page 516, starting at the bottom of the first column and continuing to the top of the second column on page 516.
5. Fraudulently procured court orders, decrees, and judgments in combination with obstructions of justice, perpetrated by federal judges themselves, as in the instant matter, can be challenged at any time, without time limits. Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at page 522.
6. Whether orders, rulings, decrees, and judgments have been been procured by fraud upon the court and by obstructions of justice, the federal court inquiring into the same as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, "may bring before it by appropriate means all those who may be affected by the outcome of the investigation."
Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, at 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, at 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447. (Emphasis added.) Quoted with approval, Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at 525.
7. For such purpose, the following persons have to be brought before the Court "by appropriate means", to be examined and cross-examined as to the matters herein:
(a) U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah, of the U.S. District Court, Chicago, Illinois:
(b) Sharon S. Corr, perpetrator of the burglary at the offices of Rush Beverage Co. as instigated and connived in by subsidiaries of Pepsico, Inc., defendants in the instant case and their attorneys, as hereinafter set forth;
(c) Chief Kosman/Detective Cornell, Blue Island, Illinois Police Department, investigating police, as a burglary;
(d) Robert Hogan, a Private Investigator, hired by Robert J. Corr, after the burglary;
(d) Walter Monco, attorney, of Rinella & Rinella, attorneys, who represented Sharon S. Corr in the Divorce proceedings;
(e) Dean Duccias, a Divorce Lawyer, who represented Robert J. Corr in his Divorce proceedings;
(f) Edmund J. Ferdinand III and Gregory Battersby, attorneys for South Beach Beverage Co.;
(g) John M. Murphy, David C. Hilliard, and Robert Newbury, attorneys for Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, who represent Pepsico and PepsiCo defendants;
(h) Mr. Superfine, an Attorney for Hamman & Benn, allowed by Pattishall to see the stolen documents.
(a) U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah, of the U.S. District Court, Chicago, Illinois:
(b) Sharon S. Corr, perpetrator of the burglary at the offices of Rush Beverage Co. as instigated and connived in by subsidiaries of Pepsico, Inc., defendants in the instant case and their attorneys, as hereinafter set forth;
(c) Chief Kosman/Detective Cornell, Blue Island, Illinois Police Department, investigating police, as a burglary;
(d) Robert Hogan, a Private Investigator, hired by Robert J. Corr, after the burglary;
(d) Walter Monco, attorney, of Rinella & Rinella, attorneys, who represented Sharon S. Corr in the Divorce proceedings;
(e) Dean Duccias, a Divorce Lawyer, who represented Robert J. Corr in his Divorce proceedings;
(f) Edmund J. Ferdinand III and Gregory Battersby, attorneys for South Beach Beverage Co.;
(g) John M. Murphy, David C. Hilliard, and Robert Newbury, attorneys for Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, who represent Pepsico and PepsiCo defendants;
(h) Mr. Superfine, an Attorney for Hamman & Benn, allowed by Pattishall to see the stolen documents.
Evidence to be elicited by the Master or other court official to be submitted by way of a report to the especially designated Judge to sit in Chicago in the U.S. District Court to hear and determine the same: or other appropriate means:
All redacted documents requested to be presented and were not supplied at the depositions of each of the defendants' attorneys. All the Motions and Exhibits filed by attorney James L. Kurtz that are currently not available at the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois. The originals, not the copies, of the stolen documents, being held by Pattishall, McAuliffe, et al., by their own admissions.
8. A Master or other court official should be appointed to elicit testimony and evidence, "authorized and directed" to examine, investigate and report his conclusions as to the fraud upon the court and obstructions of justice perpetrated by Judge John W. Darrah himself, a report to the especially designated, faraway Judge to sit in Chicago to hear and determine the same. See, the Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at page 517 and thereafter.
FACTS NECESSARY TO BE UNDERSTOOD
9. Robert J. Corr is the sole stockholder of Rush Beverage Company. By a series of circumstances, he has claims of trademark and other violations against the defendants.
10. On or about June, 2001, Corr met with attorney James Kurtz who was impressed with Corr's supporting proof of his claims. Together, the two estimated the claims as totallng ten million dollars against subsidiaries of Pepsi-Cola. As a consequence of being so impressed with the details, the attorney agreed to undertake a Federal Court case and pursue and same on a contingency basis, a rare situation for most of those in the intellectual property law field.
11. The instant case was filed on July 23, 2001.
12. Robert J. Corr kept in his office extensive notes, records, notebooks, and other papers and books, as to his confidential and privileged court legal strategies by which he was convinced he could prevail in court against the defendants and their attorneys.
13. One day, Corr went to his office and was shocked that the office was bare, his confidential and privileged materials for pursuing his claims having been cleaned out and burglarized.
14. He later compiled the details proving such purloined material was in the possession of the defendants' attorneys and that they had instigated and connived in the theft of the same.From the facts unearthed by Robert J. Corr, inferences can properly be drawn that said attorneys were acting on behalf of their principals, the Pepsico subsidiaries, being the defendants, and on behalf, as well, of the parent firm, Pepsico, Inc.
15. Corr's attorney prepared and filed over forty court-filed Motions and other pleadings, brought to the attention of Judge John W. Darrah, detailing the burglary instigation by the defendants' attorneys and that they had possession of Corr's confidential and privileged records and the defendants and their attorneys were thus in a position to defeat and obstruct Corr's claims, the basis of his lawsuit.
As shown by the Court records, the defendants did, caused to be done, allowed, permitted, condoned, and acquiesced in the following, among other things:
(a) induced a burglary of Robert J. Corr's office;
(b) issued a fraudulent subpoena to "cover up" the burglary;
(c) obstructed the police investigation of the burglary;
(d) maintained and kept the stolen documents so that Corr's attorney was not able to make objections as to which documents were attorney-client privileged and which were husband-wife relationship privilege, to be kept confidential and not disclosed;
(e) reviewed and studied the documents, so as to determine Corr's legal strategies for seeking justice from Pepsi-Cola's subsidiares; thus obstructing justice;
(f) maintained and reviewed the stolen documents until after the time had expired in the key Judge-ordered time-table for the case; thus blockading and excluding Corr from filing a dispositive motion;
(g) arranged and instigated perjury, called suborning perjury, to damage Corr.
16. Among other remedies Corr demanded of Judge John W. Darrah, as shown by the court records:
(a) that Judge John W. Darrah suspend the proceedings and have this matter turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, headquartered in Chicago, for criminal and other investigation.
(b) that the defendants and their attorneys be punished, including disqualifying the defendants' attorneys from being in Court in this case.
17. Judge Darrah cut-short the re-opening of a proceedings called "Discovery", whereby Corr's attorney informed Judge Darrah that the attorney wanted sufficient time to bring out more of these obstructions of justice.
Corr's attorney said to Judge Darrah: "Your Honor, I need this because I really believe these people have abused, and I mean abused the court system." The transcript, that is the "Report of Proceedings" before Judge Darrah, Oct. 15, 2002.
18. By his acts and doings, Judge Darrah clearly demonstrated he was operating under a malign if not corrupt influence, within the meaning of the Root case. The Judge refused to consider the more than forty Motions and pleadings regarding the burglary and the obstructions of justice. The Judge evaded ruling and considering said matters, quickly entered judgment in favor of Pepsi-Cola's subsidiaries and against Rush Beverage Co., and put the case out of Court.
19. Corr's attorney took an appeal of the case. The federal appeals court said the judgment of Judge Darrah was not final and appealable and sent the case back to Judge Darrah. In the meanwhile, Corr was repeatedly informed by his attorney, James Kurtz, that extreme pressure was being put on him and that Judge Darrah was part of a "whitewash" to benefit Pepsi-Cola's subsidiaries, defendants in the case.
Kurtz was an associate and/or employee of a large law firm that began pressuring and threatening Kurtz to drop the matter. They fired Kurtz and Corr hired a truck and helped Kurtz move his belongings out of Kurtz's office. Kurtz's employer/partners refused to allow him to remove some seventeen boxes of Robert J. Corr's original documents necessary for a trial on the merits of the claims.
20. Corr became informed through Kurtz and other means, that it was evident. and such inferences can be drawn, that Pepsi-Cola's attorneys were exerting extreme pressure on Judge Darrah and on the employer/partners of Kurtz as well, that Corr be stopped from proceeding. By the summer of 2003, under the terrible pressures that Kurtz repeatedly informed Corr that Kurtz was subjected to, Kurtz simply one day dropped dead.
21. In the landmark fraud upon the court case, implicating the judges themselves in obstructions of justice, the special out-of-the-circuit panel, after analyzing the Master's Report of the details, showing the judges operated under a malign if not corrupt influence, stated, which is pertinent to the instant matter, as to the acts and doings of the attorneys for Pepsi-Cola's subsidiaries in combination with Judge John W. Darrah:
"The attorney who attempts by personal influence to control a judge or jury in their decision in a pending case, or who merely holds himself out as able to do so, whether or not he actually makes the attempt, and whether or not he succeeds or fails in the attempt, in short, an apostate lawyer, who is false to the lawyers' creed that justice shall be undefiled, is ejected from the courts, and as a lawyer ceases to exist. (Citing numerous cases.)"
And the special panel continues:
"The client who with evil intent employs such an agent fares no better in the instant case. To him also the doors of the courts are closed. From the moment that he ceases to depend upon the justice of his case and seeks discriminatory treatment, he becomes a corrupter of the Government itself and is fortunate if he loses no more than the rights he seeks to obtain."
And the court concludes with the remedy:
"By this action, the records ...of the District Court will be purged...."
Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514, at page 541 (3rd Circuit, 1948). (Emphasis added.)
22. Defendants and their attorneys and Judge Darrah were in a position to know that Robert J. Corr, from a series of circumstances, was impoverished and could not retain by payment, new attorneys. When Corr came to Judge John W. Darrah's courtroom, Corr began complaining about the illegal acts. Judge Darrah sought to shut up Corr who began thus to finger the Judge himself for the obstructions of justice constituting frauds upon the court of which the Judge was himself a part. From the language of the transcript and the circumstances, it is proper to draw an inference that the judge was leading up to scaring Corr by "contempt of court". This is apparent from the Report of Proceedings before Judge Darrah, being a "transcript" , had on July 2, 2003.
That some Exhibits are attached hereto and made a part hereof to show some of the specifics involved in the instant matter.
24. Robert J. Corr has been informed that there are apparent secret financial and other links between Pepsi-Cola and their supposed main "competitor" Coca-Cola, which would constitute Anti-Trust violations. For example, a major marketing and advertising firm through their Chicago unit, DDB Chicago, has represented both Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola, directly and/or also through the parent firm.
25. Corr has also been informed that there has been pending in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, a matter that Corr has been informed similarly implicates a Chicago U.S. District Judge in apparent fraud upon her own Court and obstructions of justice, in some ways, Corr has been informed, similar to the instant matter. Corr has been informed that said other matter is known as Robert E. Kolody vs. Simon Marketing and Coca-Cola Company, having been No. 97 C 190, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
That a proper inference can be drawn as to the U.S. District Court in Chicago, that two judges in said Courthouse are committing obstructions of justice themselves while operating under a malign if not corrupt influence, as in the Root case previously cited. That two of the largest beverage firms are thus benefitted and that said two firms, supposedly "competitors" , have apparent secret financial and other links. A further inference is properly drawn that the two largest beverage firms, to beat down major claims against them, as in the instant case, and Corr has been informed are so in the Kolody case, are the apparent policy of procedure of these two giant beverage firms and their attorneys. That these situations are additional reasons for the issuance of a Certificate of Necessity, requesting the Chief Justice of the United States, in Washington, D.C., to especially designate a faraway judge, not from the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit, to especially sit in the U.S. District Court in Chicago to hear and adjudicate the instant matter. Robert J. Corr, from all such circumstances, believes he cannot reasonably expect a fair and impartial adjudication of the instant extra-ordinary matter, involving, as Corr contends, fraud upon the U.S. District Court and obstructions of justice perpetrated by U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah himself in unlawful combination with defendants' attorneys for the benefit of Pepsico's subisidiaries, the instant defendants, and, by proper inference, benefitting the parent firm, Pepsico, Inc.
26. As stated herein and detailed in and supported by the more than forty Motions and pleadings which Judge John W. Darrah refused to deal with, the defendants and defendants' attorneys are in this case with "unclean hands". The doctrine of "unclean hands" should be invoked against the defendants and defendants attorneys, as asked for in opening paragraph (E). The landmark case involving frauds upon the court and obstructions of justice, perpetrated by the Judges themselves in unlawful combination with certain attorneys and party-litigants, sets forth the doctrine of "unclean hands". Root Refining Co. vs. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514, at pages 534-535 (3rd Circuit, 1948), where the court cites numerous other cases including those of the U.S. Supreme Court.
27. WHEREFORE, Robert J. Corr, movant and seeking to intervene if so required, asks as in opening paragraphs (A) through (F) inclusive, as if verbatim here set forth.
No comments:
Post a Comment