V. My Lawyers Perpetrate Fraud Upon Several Courts
A. Apr. 2001 – In the Northern District of New York
172. As early as April 30, 2001, when Boies-Schiller requested declaratory judgment to resolve certain issues of law in the Northern District of New York, Boies-Schiller acknowledged that BuddyUSA’s interests were adverse to mine. Because BuddyUSA’s interests and mine were adverse, Boies-Schiller did not represent BuddyUSA in such request for declaratory judgment. Instead, the law firm of Linnan and Fallon was retained to represent BuddyUSA.
173. Trans World was by then already a significant shareholder in BuddyUSA, and Boies-Schiller had already advised me that Trans World’s interests in BuddyUSA were adverse to mine as a purchaser of an interest in my proprietary Aimster method.
174. In a letter sent to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, dated June 29, 2001, Boies-Schiller requested an evidentiary hearing.
175. Boies-Schiller acknowledges in its request of the court that certain record and movie defendants were colluding to bring sham litigation unlawfully against me in contempt of the injunction. Such collusion delayed my timely completion of work on my proprietary Aimster method, and also interfered with Trans World’s obligation for “obtaining permission from copyright owners, as applicable, for the use, distribution, licensing or sale of [music, movies and videogames], and making any payments owed to the copyright owners in respect thereof.” Such collusion in contempt of an injunction provided grounds for the antitrust action that I would file on February 11, 2004, and demonstrated adversity between my interests and Trans World’s.
176. Thus, by 2001, Boies-Schiller had publicly acknowledged in at least three ways that my interests were adverse to Trans World’s:
a. Boies-Schiller declined to represent my interests and BuddyUSA’s simultaneously, at a time when Trans World held a significant share in BuddyUSA;
b. Boies-Schiller appeared in a proceeding in which the court described certain facts demonstrating the adversity between my interests and BuddyUSA’s, at a time when Trans World held a significant share in BuddyUSA;
c. Boies-Schiller requested a hearing as to collusion by certain recording and movie defendants in contempt of the court’s injunction, which provided grounds for my antitrust action and demonstrated further adversity between my interests and Trans World’s;
177. In spite of Boies-Schiller’s public acknowledgement as early as April 2001 of the adversity between my interests and Trans World’s, Boies-Schiller never disclosed to me that it was simultaneously representing both my interests and Trans World’s as a defendant in a related antitrust action in the District Court of Maine, and I never consented to such simultaneous representation by Boies-Schiller.
