Friday, 18 August 2017

A Local Attorney claims he could not properly represent his client, out of fear,

"A Local Attorney claims he could not properly represent his client, out of fear,
that Judge Howard Coates, would retaliate against his future clients, if he exposed corruption.

Its a systematic problem. And Judge Howard Coates, leads the Culture of Silence, through by intimidating, attorney's, who are cut our of the Due Process portions of Hearings.

Courts in the in Palm Beach County. have sentenced thousands of children to live with a parent who abused them. The family court judges who reach this decision — and restrict or end the relationship of the parent who reported concerns of abuse — usually do so based on the opinion of a court-appointed expert.

A quick look at how the family courts' multimillion-dollar expert industry operates reveals a system that is built to invite corruption.

The experts are paid thousands of dollars by one or both parents, facts on how their opinions were formed are forbidden to be reviewed by the public and state laws help shield these decision makers from potential lawsuits.

Judges appoint court experts, such as custody evaluators or guardians ad litem, to investigate and make recommendations about what is in the best interest of the child.

"The court follows the recommendations in the evaluation in over 90 percent of custody cases," according to Lawfirms.com .

As an investigative reporter, I have been collecting cases for years where an expert has determined that the alleged abuse of a child is not happening and, instead, the child or parent who fears abuse is the danger. The child is placed in the sole custody of the accused abuser, the protective parent is put on supervised visitation — or forbidden from seeing the child at all — and restrictions are placed barring other child welfare professionals from even talking to the child."

Source
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/west-palm-beach-fl/TAA407L55IPGG1BIB/local-attorney-fears-judge-howard-coates-would-ret

Sunday, 6 August 2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, 1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD., WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

"CASE NO.: 4D16-2319

L.T. No.: 2010DR003810XXXXSB

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE:
MANDATORY DISQUALIFICATION
OF THE 4TH DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEALS AS A PANEL AND
TRANSFER OF CASES

JULIE M. GONZALEZ v. LLOYD G. WICKBOLDT
________________________________________________________________

Appellant / Petitioner(s) Appellee / Respondent(s)

Click To Read
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiaVc5YzdOVENzS2M/view?usp=sharing

Wednesday, 19 July 2017

Letter to FBI Special Agent In Charge George Piro Miami Field Office from Julia Gonzalez

" From: julia gonzalez [mailto:julia.gonzalez85@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 1:19 PM

To: CAD-Division FY; Charles Wender; Anthony Joseph Aragona; Shaun H Malvin; Dana Pechersky; Craig Rory Dearr; ANTHONY.ARAGONA@ATT.COM; LLOYDWICKBOLDTMD@aol.com; chad@CVHLawGroup.com; joshua@malvinfeinberg.com; juliegonzalez64@hotmail.com; pam.bondi@myfloridalegal.com; sa15efile@sa15.org; service@courtreceivers.com; service@dpmiamilaw.com; state@CVHLawGroup.com; george.piro@ic.fbi.gov; michelle.pickels@ic.fbi.gov

Cc: David Ryder; Ralph L. Foreman; Julia Gonzalez; juliegonzalez65@hotmail.com; Kelli-Renee Williams; Sam Sugar MD; Guardian Probate Family Court Victim Alert; Eliot Ivan Bernstein; Robert Pagano; Guardianship Court Robert Sarhan; Skender Hoti; joon.kim@usdoj.gov; tom.wheeler@usdoj.gov; John CMG-WestPalm Pacenti

Subject: Attn: FBI Special Agent in Charge George Piro - Civil Rights Violations Judge Howard Coates 15th Judicial Palm Beach County Re: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE No.: 502010DR003810XXXXSB

FBI Special Agent In Charge George Piro
Miami Field Office 

I am writing to open a specific complaint for Violations under "Color of Law" and other public corruption in the Palm Beach County Courts of the 15th Judicial Circuit and directly against Judge Howard Coates, (561) 274-1452 Room: 2E-115 Courtroom Number:
2 at the South County Courthouse, 200 W Atlantic Ave Delray Beach, Fl 33444 who recently signed the Order attached falsely denying a mandatory Disqualification motion under Florida law. 

I have also attached copies of my Motion filed today and prior Motion which shows Judge Howard Coates is directly involved in Falsifying and Fabricating evidence under color of law including Official Court Orders and Court Docket Records acting together or in common with Attorney Anthony Aragona, Atttorney Shaun Malvin, Reciever David Ryder and others committing both a series of Criminal Offenses and Due Process offenses against my rights in order to take my Florida Homestead protected by the Florida Constitution

I am also a victim protected by the Florida ACP ( Adress Confidentiality Program ) and have been wrongfully rendered Homeless as a 65 year old woman who has worked hard all her life and been a law abiding citizen her life. 

Judge Coates is attempting to proceed to illegally Distribute funds from the illegal sale of my home today at a hearing at the Delray Courthouse Room 2 today at 2:45 pm after fraudulently Selling my homestead in the recent weeks despite written statements by Attorney Aragona to the 4th District Court of Appeals in a filing on May 18, 2017 by attorney Aragona that the Title Company had a clause that all appeals had to be over for 30 days and dismissed for 30 days in order to close.  In fact, I have several appeals open at the 4th DCA including a Rehearing on the Appointment of the Receiver under Case No. 4d16-2319 where your Office will see the history of Fraud in the Courts and Fabricating of Evidence and Exhibits by Anthony Aragona and his client Lloyd Wickboldt. 

You may wish to check with Special Agent Michelle Pickels of the New Jersey FBI Office where an open investigation into one attorney Robert Spallina of Palm Beach county is apparently still going on as I have provided information to her office in relation to one Judge David French who was on my case before Judge Coates where direct fraud was going on in a Dissolution Judgment and other civil rights abuses. Other information has been sent to US DOJ Civil Rights Section head Tom Wheeler in the past. 

The direct criminal falsification of Court Orders and Court Dockets is established in my Motion and even today's Order from Judge Coates is a false and fraudulent Court Order citing a case to Deny me on "timeliness" grounds when my Motion alleged facts from July 14, 2017 and to the present where Judge Coates has not corrected the fraud he is directly involved with. 

These frauds have not only rendered me Homeless but also losing my Homestead and cost over a hundred of thousand of dollars and has impacted cases in Broward County as well. I can provide further information later. 

I am also a Court whistleblower who has been involved with many groups copied herein and believe I have been wrongfully retaliated against for First Amendment rights of expression.  John Pacenti of the Palm Beach Post who has been doing an Investigative series on Abusive Court Guardianships that implicateds Judge French is also copied too. 

The systematic abuse of rights in the 15th Judicial and criminal and civil rights violations in the Florida Courts should become a priority for the Miami Field Office. 

I can be reached at .... and ask that you Dispatch a Field Agent today to start to address systematic crimes and public corruption in the 15th Judicial. 

I have other exhibits that were filed with my Disqualification motion to submit as well. 

Thank you.  

Julia Gonzalez "

EVERY RULING Judge Martin Colin and Judge John Philips made in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein and the Estate of Simon Bernstein should be REHEARD.

It is Common Sense and a Matter of Law that "every ruling" of Judge Martin Colin and Judge Philips in the Estate of Simon Bernstein and the Estate of Shirley Bernstein should be VOID, should be "reheard".  There is Clear and Convincing proof of Fraud in these cases yet the Orders of Judge Martin Colin and of Judge Philips are still being "Honored", "Enforced"? What? Why?

Judge Colin KNEW there was Fraud in his court. He even threatened to read those involved their Miranda Rights. Yet his RULINGS are still being upheld by Palm County Courts?

The Palm County Courts Clearly KNOW that there is Massive Fraud in this case and the victims of that Fraud are Eliot Bernstein and his immediate family, along with his former company iViewit.

Below are words from Judge Howard Coates in a Transcript Hearing on June 4, 2015

22· · · · THE COURT:·   Here's the problem.· If I make
23· ·rulings today and you file a motion within 10
24· ·days, every ruling I made today is subject to
25· ·rehearing by the new judge.· So it's a waste of
·1· ·time to proceed and hear any motions .."

Click Below to Read Full Transcript
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiTEVzVlE3eWlVN0k/view?usp=sharing

ALL Rulings by Judge Martin Colin and Judge Philips SHOULD be reheard, that is CLEAR. What is not clear is why is Palm County Judges and Officials NOT arresting these folks, disbarring attorneys and exposing the Fraud that they are clearly aware of?

Judge Philips appointed an illegal Guardianship in the Estate of Simon Bernstein case. Judge Philips used former Judge Diana Lewis, appointed, and not from the alleged "Assignment Wheel" for Guardians. He used this Guardian appointment to cover up massive corruption.

As Diana Lewis is the king pin now per say, as they needed and need her to sign off for Eliot Bernstein's adult children so they can all settle and not go to Trial in hopes that they can keep all they stole and not go to jail, as well as not have to lose their various law and insurance licenses and such, and not have to pay punitive damages.  If they Settle, it all goes away like dust in the wind. However, there is Massive Fraud, and at some point there will be an Official, a Judge, God perhaps that will bring these folks to justice. There is Clearly Criminal Charges that SHOULD apply.

It is Clear that without Judge John Philips illegally appointing Guardian, former Judge Diana Lewis, the whole scam of the last 5 years and counting in the stealing of the Simon Bernstein Estate and the Shirley Bernstein estate would unravel. As they removed Eliot Bernstein as beneficiary ILLEGALLY, and so they needed to SILENCE his Adult children. So they placed Guardianship OVER Adults with no hearing, no due process and no adjudication as far as I see it.

Yet NOW, Wow, shocking Turn of Events and Judge Rosemarie Scher restored Eliot Bernstein's rights as Beneficiary, which he LEGALLY had all along, so NOW all the Evil Doers are racing to SETTLE to make the dust blow away in the wind. But wait, WOW, they are creating even more Massive Liability, more Fraud on the Courts, and lot's more Corruption to cover up the former corrupt and fraud.  What a tangled web we weave. And yet the Palm County Justice system can do nothing to STOP these people? Or Can they? Will They? We Shall See.

I wonder what former Judge Diana Lewis was promised out of all this? Or was she threatened? What about her connections to Detective Lewis?  Why is the Palm County Courts not able to STOP this barrage of ruthless Judges and protect the citizens of Florida from their Lawless Wrath?

Judge Martin Colin's unruly rulings BLOCKING a Liz Pendens was pretty amazing. I have owned a real estate company for 17 years and never seen that.  Hiding from the buyer that the property is in litigation and ordered to be SOLD by a corrupt Judge who is known for selling Jewels he has pilfered from estates, right from his own yard via garage sales.

What Judge Martin Colin has thus far got away with in the Simon Bernstein Estate is somewhat shocking to me, as their is so much information that came out about his dirty dealings and his wife Guardian Betsy Savitt.  Why is Judge Colin's Orders still being held up as if they were based in law and not fraud, corruption and kick back.

In the Case of the Estate of Simon Bernstein we also see the Ignoring of Murder and No Trust, No Insurance Policy and Dead Guys signing Documents.  Yet the Hearings still go on, and rulings are still made. ALL ORDERS should be VOID PERIOD. The Attorneys involved are still licensed. All has if the FRAUD is not Known when Clearly the Judges, the Courts, the Sheriff, the Detectives, the Governor, the Florida Bar, the Florida Supreme Court, the FBI ALL KNOW.

What kind of Precedent is set when you can Liquidate Magical Estates that DO NOT Exist. Attorneys make up Trusts, Assets are Stolen and never inventories, names are signed on official documents regarding assets by YOU after you Die, the paying of fake and fraudulent heirs millions on insurance policies that DO NOT EXIST. Oh and on a guy who was reported as Murdered and a Coroners report to suggest it True.

EVERY RULING Judge Martin Colin and Judge John Philips made in the Estate of Shirley Bernstein and the Estate of Simon Bernstein should be REHEARD. And that is Just to Start With. 


Estate of Simon L. Bernstein TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE Judge Howard Coates June 4, 2015

Keep in Mind Folks, that Judge Howard Coates has FULL knowledge that he has MASSIVE Conflicts of Interest in Ruling regarding matters related to iViewit and or Eliot Bernstein. 

There is no time limit on Fraud. The Patents were Stolen. Proskauer Rose was involved as per SEC complaints, FBI complaints and more. 

Judge Coates FALSELY states that he has no recollection of representing iViewit, when clearly the Billing Shows he did. Click Here for That.


Below is the Transcript for Hearing that Discusses removing Coates, and then goes into Estate assets of which COATES was clearly conflicted as iViewit is an estate asset as far as I see it. An asset in which COATES helped Proskauer to STALL in patent courts and to flat out steal. Coates SHOULD not have been involved in disbursing assets of this Estate, Clearly.

Coates should have removed himself immediately and OR never took the case. As he was DIRECTLY involved in the Patent Theft, or it occured while he himself was billing iViewit at the time. Coates should not have to have parties recuse him, he should have done it already.

Judge Howard Coates KNEW he Was Conflicted, yet he accepted the Bernstein cases and all confidential court files of Judge Martin Colin. Then AFTER getting all the files he Sua Sponte recuses but still is on one case of  Simon Bernstein and still issuing orders in that case.

CLEARLY the iViewit Technologies are ASSETS of the Simon Bernstein Estate. It is said to be a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology. ALL Video in every aspect uses the Technology.


" CASE NO.: 502012CP004391XXXXSB
··
· · · ·IN RE:

· · · ·ESTATE OF SIMON L. BERNSTEIN,
· · · · · · · · Deceased.

· · ·____________________________________
·
· · ·ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN, PRO SE
·
· · · · · · · · Petitioner(s),
·
· · · ·vs.
·
· · ·TESCHER & SPALLINA, P.A., (and all
· · ·parties associated and of counsel);

· · ·ROBERT L. SPALLINA (both personally
· · ·and professionally); DONALD R. TESCHER
· · ·(both personally and professionally);

· · ·THEODORE STUART BERNSTEIN (as alleged
· · ·personal representative, trustee, successor
· · ·trustee) (both personally and professionally);
· · ·et al.,
·
· · · · · · · · Respondent(s).
· · · ·_________________________________/
·

 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
HONORABLE HOWARD COATES

APPEARING ON BEHALF OF TED BERNSTEIN:
 PAGE, MRACHEK, FITZGERALD ROSE
 KONOPKA & DOW, P.A.
 505 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE, SUITE 600
 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
 By:· ALAN B. ROSE, ESQ.
 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PR:
 CIKLIN LUBITZ
515 N. FLALGER DRIVE, 20TH FLOOR
 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
 By:· BRIAN M. O'CONNELL, ESQ.


 THE COURT:· All right.· We have the matter of
·8· ·Estate of Simon Bernstein before the court this
·9· ·afternoon.

10· · · · The first motion that I had was a motion
11· ·to stay distribution of estate assets pending
12· ·satisfaction of all creditors claims.· And then
13· ·I see that there was also an amended notice of
14· ·hearing for a multitude of different petitions.
15· · · · So why don't we start out with having
16· ·counsel enter their appearances and then we'll
17· ·get going.

18· · · · MR. O'CONNELL:· Brian O'Connell, Your Honor.
19· ·I'm the personal representative of the estate.
20· · · · MR. ELIOT BERNSTEIN:· Eliot Bernstein, pro
21· ·se.
22· · · · MR. MORRISSEY:· John Morrissey here on behalf
23· ·of four adult grandchildren of the decedents,
24· ·Molly Simon, Alexander Bernstein, Michael
25· ·Bernstein and Eric Bernstein.

·1· · · · MR. ROSE:· Good afternoon, Your Honor.· Alan
·2· ·Rose on behalf of Ted S. Bernstein as successor
·3· ·trustee of the Simon Bernstein Trust, which is the
·4· ·beneficiary of the estate.

·5· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.
·6· · · · MR. ROYER:· Your Honor, I'm Jeff Royer.· I am
·7· ·with Peter Feaman's office.· We represent William
·8· ·Stansbury, who's an interested person and a
·9· ·substantial claimant of the estate of Simon
10· ·Bernstein.

11· · · · THE COURT:· So you're actually the movant on
12· ·the first motion I talked about then.
13· · · · MR. ROYER:· We are.· Your Honor, I don't know
14· ·that we noticed for today, but, yes, it's -- it is
15· ·a motion that we filed.
16· · · · THE COURT:· Oh, that's the motion that I had
17· ·for hearing.
18· · · · So anyway, who wants to go first in terms
19· ·of the pending motions because it would
20· ·probably be helpful to have someone kind of
21· ·give me an overview of who the players are.

22· · · · MR. ROSE:· Can I just raise one issue before
23· ·we start the hearing?
24· · · · THE COURT:· Sure.

25· · · · MR. ROSE:· Just because it's -- I sent a
·1· ·letter to the court advising you that Mr. Eliot
·2· ·Bernstein and his relationship to the Proskauer
·3· ·firm, which you were employed at one time.

·4· · · · THE COURT:· Yeah, I got that letter. I
·5· ·reviewed it.· Did you copy everybody else on the
·6· ·letter?

·7· · · · MR. ROSE:· I did.

·8· · · · THE COURT:· All right.· The letter raised an
·9· ·issue of whether I, as the judge, should consider
10· ·disqualification of myself because of my prior
11· ·employment with Proskauer Rose, which was
12· ·approximately 15 years ago.

13· · · · Once I received that letter, I looked into
14· ·the JEAC opinions regarding how far back the
15· ·judges normally go.· And, normally, it's a one
16· ·to two year period that you look back in terms
17· ·of automatic recusal.

18· · · · So based on that, I'm not going to sua
19· ·sponte disqualify myself from this matter. I
20· ·really have no -- I haven't had contact with
21· ·Proskauer in any meaningful way in 15 years,
22· ·so...

23· · · · MR. ROSE:· I was only raising it so that
24· ·Mr. Eliot Bernstein was aware of that.· And if he
25· ·has any objection -- I don't have any objection.

·1· ·I wanted to let -- make sure that he was aware of
·2· ·that and would have an opportunity to --
·3· · · · THE COURT:· I appreciate it.

·4· · · · MR. ROSE:· -- object now if he wishes to.

·5· · · · THE COURT:· Yeah.· And I can -- if I can
·6· ·find.· I have it here, I'll let everyone know
·7· ·which opinion I was relying on when I looked at
·8· ·that.
·9· · · · Yeah, just to be more specific on the note
10· ·that was sent to me -- what was the name of the
11· ·corporate entity that they said was represented
12· ·by Proskauer?

13· · · · MR. ROSE:· It was an entity called Iviewit,
14· ·which engaged in a lengthy multi-year or
15· ·decade-long battle with that law firm.

16· · · · THE COURT:· With Proskauer or Proskauer was
17· ·representing one of the parties?

18· · · · MR. ROSE:· With Proskauer.· Proskauer, I
19· ·think, represented the -- Proskauer represented
20· ·Simon Bernstein while he was alive and drafted
21· ·some documents in 2000 that would have been
22· ·superceded by 2008 documents.· And Proskauer also
23· ·represented the company that Eliot Bernstein
24· ·started called Iviewit.

25· · · · THE COURT:· After 2000?

·1· · · · MR. ROSE:· I think there was litigation -- it
·2· ·was during the '90s.

·3· · · · THE COURT:· Because I left -- I left the firm
·4· ·in 2000, I believe, if my recollection is correct.

·5· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· I think I know you
·6· ·from there.· Did you work at the one in Boca?

·7· · · · THE COURT:· Yeah, I have no recollection of
·8· ·having represented Iviewit, though.

·9· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Well, actually, which
10· ·department were you with?

11· · · · THE COURT:· Litigation.

12· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· I was right across the
13· ·hall from your office, do you recall?

14· · · · THE COURT:· No.

15· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Okay.

16· · · · THE COURT:· This is going back 15 years.

17· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Okay.· And --

18· · · · MR. ROSE:· Just for the record, if I could
19· ·finish.· I wasn't suggesting that you did anything
20· ·wrong.· I was just bringing it to your attention.
21· ·And, also, I do think, though, all the parties
22· ·would appreciate it if Mr. Eliot Bernstein has an
23· ·objection based upon your Proskauer relationship
24· ·and his relationship to that firm, which is --
25· ·that he would raise it if he wanted to, or
·1· ·otherwise we're fine.· Because I don't want to
·2· ·have a problem and get recusal motions coming down
·3· ·the road.

·4· · · · THE COURT:· Yeah, and I never take those
·5· ·things personally.· It prompted me to go to the
·6· ·Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinions and look at what
·7· ·the standard is.· Because if there is a legal
·8· ·basis that I would need to disqualify myself, I
·9· ·would absolutely do it.· But going back 15 years,
10· ·based on the JEAC opinions, I didn't view there as
11· ·being any legal requirement that the court would
12· ·disqualify itself.

13· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· There might be another
14· ·issue.· I think Proskauer is a counter-defendant
15· ·in one of the estate counter complaints in this
16· ·matter.

17· · · · THE COURT:· Is this matter before me?
18· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Yes, sir.
19· · · · THE COURT:· Is that accurate?
20· · · · MR. ROSE:· Well --
21· · · · MR. O'CONNELL:· I'm not sure.

22· · · · MR. ROSE:· I don't want to be the spokesman
23· ·for the whole world.· But I think starting in the
24· ·'90s Proskauer represented this company that
25· ·Mr. Eliot Bernstein called Iviewit.· And he claims
·1· ·that Proskauer stole his patents worth billions or
·2· ·trillions of dollars.· And then there was
·3· ·litigation that started in maybe 2000 or 2001 and
·4· ·continued through State Court, New York Federal
·5· ·Court, and I believe even in this action he may
·6· ·have -- he has filed a counterclaim and if he's
·7· ·representing that he joined Proskauer as a -- he
·8· ·also sued most of the partners of the firm at the
·9· ·time.

10· · · · THE COURT:· Well, my --
11· · · · MR. ROSE:· Again, I'm just --

12· · · · THE COURT:· Well, I view the issue of
13· ·Proskauer attorneys being in front of me somewhat
14· ·differently than the firm Proskauer being in front
15· ·of me as a party.· So if what I'm hearing is that
16· ·it's not just a situation where Proskauer
17· ·attorneys are in front of me, but Proskauer itself
18· ·is a party to the action, then -- and that's an
19· ·issue that Mr. Bernstein is raising -- then the
20· ·court would probably view that slightly
21· ·differently because in that situation because they
22· ·are a party and I was a partner, even though it
23· ·goes back 15 years -- I'd have to look at the JEAC
24· ·opinions, there may be a legal basis at that
25· ·point.· And I don't know if you're sitting right
·1· ·here now -- there may be a legal basis for me to
·2· ·disqualify myself if Proskauer is actually a party
·3· ·in this proceeding to where I would be asked to
·4· ·make rulings, you know, for or against them.· So
·5· ·where -- they are a party in this -- because all I
·6· ·have in front of me right now is an estate
·7· ·proceeding.

·8· · · · MR. ROSE:· Right.· Well, there's five
·9· ·related -- five or six related cases.
10· ·Judge Colin, I think after denying the second or
11· ·third motion to disqualify, recused himself and
12· ·the cases were just recently transferred.· In one
13· ·of the cases there is a counterclaim.· It has been
14· ·stayed because Mr. Bernstein is not allowed to
15· ·file any papers without getting permission from
16· ·the judge first.

17· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Not only
18· ·Mr. Bernstein, you too.

19· · · · THE COURT:· All right.· Sir, don't interrupt.

20· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· I'm sorry.

21· · · · MR. ROSE:· The counterclaim is stayed.· And I
22· ·don't know if Proskauer is a party, but if
23· ·Mr. Bernstein represents to the court that they're
24· ·a party, then I would take it --

25· · · · THE COURT:· You know, the standard for a
·1· ·motion to recuse is -- the objective standard is a
·2· ·party reasonably in fear that he may not receive a
·3· ·fair trial.· And even at 15 years is remote -- and
·4· ·I think the cases say that.· I'm somewhat
·5· ·sympathetic to a party that would have some
·6· ·concern where a judge who was a former partner at
·7· ·a previous firm is being asked to rule on issues
·8· ·affecting that firm.

·9· · · · So I'm -- if you're raising the issue,
10· ·Mr. Bernstein, then I'm -- what I'm telling you
11· ·is at this point I would recuse myself, if
12· ·there was a motion filed.· If you are not
13· ·raising the issue, then, you know, it's a
14· ·remote issue, but, you know, it's something
15· ·that -- it's in the eyes of the beholder to
16· ·some extent.· Are you in reasonable fear of not
17· ·getting a fair hearing and trial on this
18· ·matter?

19· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· I'm not certain yet.
20· ·That's kind of why I'm here today.

21· · · · THE COURT:· The thing is you have to move
22· ·quickly because you have to -- you have to do it
23· ·within 10 days of the date you become aware of the
24· ·information.· And what I told you today is that I
25· ·was a -- you've probably already known it -- but I
·1· ·was a former partner at Proskauer Rose.

·2· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Well, your bio is
·3· ·confusing on the Internet.· Some have you there --

·4· · · · THE COURT:· Maybe I'll have to fix that.

·5· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· And then your -- well,
·6· ·you should fix the court one because it has no
·7· ·biography.

·8· · · · THE COURT:· The court ones, they don't give
·9· ·that kind of -- it's not like private practice.

10· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Here's one of the
11· ·issues I want you to consider because, you know,
12· ·it's going to take me time to consider all the
13· ·factors here that I'm learning now.· One of the
14· ·issues is that the technologies that I invented
15· ·that I allege that Proskauer stole --

16· · · · THE COURT:· Here's the thing.· I don't really
17· ·want you to talk to me about anything regarding
18· ·the substance of this matter until we sort through
19· ·this recusal issue.

20· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· This is what I'm
21· ·talking about.

22· · · · THE COURT:· Here's the problem.· If I make
23· ·rulings today and you file a motion within 10
24· ·days, every ruling I made today is subject to
25· ·rehearing by the new judge.· So it's a waste of
·1· ·time to proceed and hear any motions if you're in
·2· ·good faith telling me you're going to file a
·3· ·motion to recuse.

·4· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· I'm not saying that.
·5· ·But I don't know.· But I am saying for you to
·6· ·consider that the technologies are owned partially
·7· ·by my father, 30 percent of the interests in them.
·8· ·And that will also, I believe, bring Proskauer
·9· ·into this matter as well.· And so, you know, I
10· ·believe -- like I have obligations, you have
11· ·obligations under the judicial canons.

12· · · · THE COURT:· Is Proskauer a party now?
13· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Yeah.
14· · · · THE COURT:· All right.· I'm going to sua
15· ·sponte disqualify myself from this matter.· Had I
16· ·known that Proskauer was a party, I would have
17· ·done it when I reviewed it the first time.· But I
18· ·understood it was just they were attorneys in the
19· ·case.
20· · · · So that means, unfortunately, there's
21· ·going to have to be another assignment of a
22· ·judge in this matter.
23· · · · Sir, at this point I don't really care if
24· ·you file a motion to recuse.· You raised enough
25· ·for me that I'm going to sua sponte disqualify
·1· ·myself.

·2· · · · MR. ROSE:· Thank you, sir.
·3· · · · MR. O'CONNELL:· Thanks, Your Honor.
·4· · · · MR. ELIOT· BERNSTEIN:· Thank you, sir.
·5· · · · THE COURT:· Thank you.


Click Below to Read Full Transcript
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiTEVzVlE3eWlVN0k/view?usp=sharing


What TRICK was Alan Rose using here? He NEVER does the right thing, as far as I see it. SO why did they all want Eliot to Object so badly? Clearly COATES should NEVER have been involved.  And he himself, PERSONALLY, in my opinion, has Massive Liability, as per Proskauer Rose Billing Documents, Judge Howard Coates then Proskauer Partner was representing iViewit, was Advising iViewit. 


Was Judge Howard Coates involved in Letting all the Assets of the Simon Bernstein Estate be Stolen?

5-27-2015

Page 1 of link below;

"TO: ALL PARTIES ON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ATTACHED

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the undersigned will call up for hearing before the
Honorable HOWARD K. COATES, JR., Judge of the above court, in the Judge's chambers in the
Palm Beach North County Courthouse, 3188 PGA Blvd, Room 2711, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
33410 on June 4, 2015 at 4:00 PM. (30 minutes set aside) or as soon thereafter as same may be
heard, the

PETITION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE, STORE, AND SELL THE TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7020 LIONS HEAD LANE

PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ESTATE
SHOULD MAKE A LOAN TO ELIOT BERNSTEIN AND FOR OTHER RELIEF
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND REVIEW OF COMPENSATION OF
ACCOUNTANTS' FEES & COSTS

PETITION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
EXPENSES FOR THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SIMON
L. BERNSTEIN FOR NOVEMBER THROUGH DECEMBER 2014

PETITION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
EXPENSES FOR THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SIMON
L. BERNSTEIN FOR JANUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH MARCH 23, 2015 "

Eliot Bernstein NEVER got Relief and in fact was denied due process, denied beneficiary rights and h as been the subject of Massive Fraud. Judge Howard Coates was always ADVERSE to Eliot Bernstein and have serious Conflicts of Interest. 


Page 32, June 15th 2005, Judge Coates GIVES Shirley Bernstein's estate to Philips who later will appoint a Guardian over Adult children of Eliot Bernstein to Steal Assets, while all along parties have stolen money, jewels, real estate and more.

"CLERK'S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT
Pursuant to Court order of the Honorable JUDGE HOWARD K COATES JR. dated JUNE 15;
2015, the above styled case is reassigned to Division IH, Judge(s) JUDGE JOHN L PHILLIPS
for all further proceedings.
WITNESS my hand and .seal of this Court this 18 day of June, 2015. "

Click Below to Read Document for the Quotes above and more.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiaHYtODVBWmpwUXc/view?usp=sharing


From Mr. ROSE to Judge Coates, Page 5, why did Alan Rose bring this Conflict to Judge Coates attention? Clearly Alan Rose, as per the record, is not a fan of Eliot or iViewit or even doing things right or lawful, in my opinion so why this letter?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiaHYtODVBWmpwUXc/view?usp=sharing


Page 33 of link below, January 3rd of 2017 Judge Howard Coates orders that the PR shall close the Trust by March 31st of 2017.  WHAT a Joke that is. What Estate? What Trust? There is no list of Assets that is True and Correct that I know of. Assets were sold and stolen long ago and Palm County Judges Colin, Coates, Philips and more have aided and abetted as far as I see it.

"ORDER SETTING DEADLfNE TO CLOSE TRUST

THIS TRUST has been pending beyond the time expected for administration to be complete Fla.
R. Jud. Admin. 2.250(a)(l)(D).

ACCORDTNGLY, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CLOSE THIS TRUST BY,
MARCH 31, 2017. If the Trust is not closed by the deadline, the Court will close
the file administratively.

2. The Petitioner may request an extension of time to close the Trust by filing a motion
which gives the status, the reason for the delay in closing the Trust, and an
estimated time by which the Trust will be closed. Any such motion must be
accompanied by a proposed order extending the time for closing the Trust, together
with stamped addressed envelopes for all interested persons. Any motion for
extension of time must be RECEIVED BY THE COURT AT LEAST FIVE (5)
WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE DEADLINE TO CLOSE THE TRUST.

Proposed deadlines to close should be the end of a calendar quarter, i.e., March 31,
June 30, September 30 or December 3 I. SIGNED & DATED
DONE AND ORDERED in Palm Beach County, Florida this _ _ day of J~ (}tJ2Ql}17
HOWARD K. COATES, JR.
CIRCUIT JUDGE
HOW A RD K. COATES, JR.
Circuit Judge
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiaHYtODVBWmpwUXc/view?usp=sharing


Julia Gonzales Motion to Disqualify Judge Howard Coates dated 7-18-2017



Click Below to Read Emergency Motion to Disqualify Coates
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkibnRVdzhKcU5Md0k/view

AND

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiVEJNbF9RVjZ2enc/view?usp=sharing

AND (Hearing set July 18th)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiR1RGMlRtYnhyZzQ/view?usp=sharing