- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- (b) they issued fraudulent subpoenas to "cover up"
- (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
- (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
- 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
- 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.
- THE COURT MOTION FINGERING JUDGE JOHN W. DARRAH.
- Originals hand-signed by Robert J.Corr. Filed January
- Robert J. Corr can be contacted by e-mail through <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com
His company website is www.enjoytherush.com
- Two copies of Notice of Motion; Verification including
Proof of Service; Motion; and Exhibits; sent to Clerk of U.S. District
Court, Dirksen Building, 20th floor, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
IL 60604, VIA REGISTERED MAIL, return receipt requested, Registered Mail
Number: RA 294996596 US January 5, 2004
- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
- For the Northern District of Illinois
- Eastern Division
- RUSH BEVERAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff and ROBERT J. CORR,
movant and seeking permission to intervene if so required,
- SOUTH BEACH BEVERAGE COMPANY and PepsiAmericas, Inc.,Defendants.
Case No. 01 C 5684-JWD Judge John W. Darrah, Presiding.
- NOTICE OF FILING
- To: David C. Hilliard, Esq.
- John M. Murphy, Esq.
- Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &
- 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5000
- Chicago, Illinois 60606
- Be informed that on January 5, 2004, two copies filed
with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, by Registered Mail, Return Receipt requested, Registered
Mail Number as above shown, this Notice of Filing, Verification including
Proof of Service, attached Motion with Exhibits thereto attached, all herewith
served upon you and each of you.
- Robert J. Corr, Movant, and seeking permission to intervene
if so required, pro se
- 12201 So. Western Ave., Blue Island, Illinois 60406;
phone: (708) 389-6625; FAX: (708) 389-6504.
- VERIFICATION including PROOF OF SERVICE
- Robert J. Corr, the undersigned, declares and certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1746, that if called as a witness in this
or any related proceedings, he could competently testify from personal
knowledge, as to the following:
- 1. That he understands that pursuant to said statute,
that this instrument has the same full force and effect as if it were an
Affidavit sworn to by him before a Notary Public.
- 2. That the matters in the attached Motion are true and
correct as to his personal knowledge, or are matters of record or of law,
and in either case are true; that the Exhibits attached to the Motion,
are true and correct copies.
- 3. That he is causing a copy of above Notice, this Verification,
attached Motion and Exhibits thereto attached, to be served on those above
shown, by U.S. Certified Mail, return receipt requested, sent on January
- Executed on January 5, 2004. _______________________________
- Robert J. Corr
- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
- Northern District of Illinois
- Eastern Division
- RUSH BEVERAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff and ROBERT J. CORR,
Movant, and seeking permission to intervene if so required,
- SOUTH BEACH BEVERAGE COMPANY and PepsiAmericas, Inc.,
- Case No. 01 C 5684-JWD
- Judge John W. Darrah, Presiding.
- 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
- (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
- For grounds, Robert J. Corr, among other things, states,
- 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.
- 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"
- (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
- 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
- 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.