Julian M.Gumpel,Darrell Mormando Aka Darrell Johnson,Greg Wilson, Patent & Trademark Institute fraudulent representation extorsion wanted cash instead of creditcard, RIPOFFS Garden City New York

THE COMPLETE ACCOUNT

As we all know there are always two sides for every situation, and I, Darrell Mormando, would like to take this opportunity to explain my side of a contempt of court case that was brought against me in March of 2007. In order to do this I must go back 11 years to 1996 when I was serving as a sales consultant for a corporation, located in Virginia, that offered invention marketing services to people that wanted to try to commercialize their new product ideas.

That year the current owner of this business Mr. Robert Waxman, approached me and two other company salesmen with the idea of taking over the operation of the company. The three of us decided to accept the offer as it could potentially increase our income and, also importantly, we felt we could advance the services of the company and improve the assistance activities. As salespeople we felt we had a good handle on what the customer wanted and needed.

However, very shortly after accepting the offer from Mr. Waxman another business opportunity presented itself through a close friend of mine. A well located restaurant in Carson City, Nevada was coming available. The location was outstanding right across from the state capital on the main street in town. In addition, the ambience was great because it was located on the ground floor of a historical 1880's hotel. Now, if I could find the right chef I would have the makings of a terrific operation. I launched a search for a top quality chef. A number of well qualified people applied. One applicant did stand out. He was, in my opinion, a real genius when it came to the culinary arts. Everything he prepared from his liver pate, hazelnut encrusted rack of lamb, lobster masa, blackened swordfish with lingberry coulee and much more was done exquisitely. He was hired and we began the process of organizing the kitchen. The bar area was substantial with seating for 80 to 90. There was a stage and dance floor for live entertainment on the weekends. The Lake Tahoe, Carson City and Reno area was chuck full of talented musicians. I was quite excited about the prospects of the operation.

Although I continued to spend some time with the invention promotion business I found myself having a great time putting together the restaurant and working with the local purveyors, waiters, bartenders, and entertainers. Needless to say, I did find my time stretched quite thin between the two businesses.

While I was in the mist of organizing the restaurant, I received notice from the government agency, Federal Trade Commission, accusing the invention promotion company with unfair sales practices and seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and Asset Freeze. It was July 1997. The issue was brought before the court in Virginia where the judge then lifted the TRO and Asset Freeze and told the parties to work out an agreement as to how the business was to be conducted.

The general manager, Diane Liebowitz, at the Virginia headquarters hired an attorney to work up business practices and disclosure information that might be acceptable to the Federal Trade Commission. In the mean time the invention promotion company, known as New Products of America, Inc. was allowed to operate as it had in the past until the company attorney completed his work.

In March of 1998 I received a call from the attorney, Mark Davidson, stating he had completed items he thought might be acceptable to the FTC to settle their issue with New Products of America. There were 10 items in his paperwork. The main items included a redress fund of $250,000.00 set aside for customers who may have complaints and wanted refunds, a two paragraph disclosure stating how many people were making more money on their inventions than they had paid the company for services, a three year period for holding all customer information in the company files, the right for the FTC to access and monitor the company for compliance, notification of any change of company names or addresses, and legal service notification to the signers from the Court and FTC that these items were acceptable to the FTC with acknowledgement back from the signers notifying the court that the signers had received these agreed upon items. The attorney advised me to sign the papers containing the aforementioned items and return them to him.

I had realized for sometime that it was impossible to assist in running New Products of America, located in Virginia from Nevada. At some point I would either have to move the company to Nevada or I would have to move to Virginia. I, for many reasons, did not want to do either of those things so when Julian Gumpel, one of the company's officers, asked me if I would like to sell my interest in the company to him I felt that was the best solution. He was located on the East coast and could stay on top of the numerous issues required to run the invention promotion company. So on March 31, 1998 I sold my interest to him for $1,000.00 and as part of the sales agreement I would remain as a sales consultant and office manager for the Reno Nevada office where I would receive a 4% override on the dollar sales of Reno sales consultants. Also as part of the sale agreement I was required to resign my position as officer of New Products of America. After April 1, 1998 I was no longer a Director of the company, an Officer of the company, or a stockholder of the company. In addition, I was not a decision or policy maker and I never attended any management meetings either in person or telephonically. In fact, I no longer had access to any company information whatsoever. All this was just fine with me because now I had more time to finalize the opening of the restaurant.

In early 1999 we had the grand opening of the restaurant named Brendel's. The next year or so went quite well from the standpoint of customer satisfaction. I devoted a majority of my working time to the restaurant but I still would stop by the invention marketing office at least twice week to check on things.

I really enjoyed the farmers market in the summertime which was held adjacent to the restaurant. The restaurant had a large outdoor deck where we served cold beverages and presented live musical entertainment. Although it was great fun operating the restaurant a curious trend began to show up. The restaurant just didn't seem to turn a profit. At the end of each quarter I was barely above breakeven. There are many ways to get money out of a restaurant and bar operation and it appeared that several of the employees, including our chef, where taking advantage of their knowledge of the industry. One theory I came up with is that the chef was taking food out of the kitchen to supply a catering business he had set up on the side. And when I confronted him with the food cost breakdown he indignantly resigned.

His resignation created a crisis at the restaurant as the assistant cook was unable to handle the preparation and more importantly the timing of the food service. Over the next six months or so I went through three different cooks none of which worked out. Because the food wasn't coming out right or on time many of my best waiters quit. I was forced to suspend the fine dining operation and close the restaurant to reorganize it into something that would work. I decided to do some remodeling and reopen the facility as a sports bar with just a bar food menu. I named the new operation Woody's and over the next year it met with just mediocre results. It was now late 2000 or early 2001 when I received an offer from an operator of a southwestern themed restaurant to purchase the operation. I accepted the offer and sold the restaurant equipment to him and exited the restaurant business.

During the restaurant period I never completely ignored the invention marketing office. I did make some sales and briefly communicated with other sales consultants. Then in early 2001, approximately three years after I had sold my interest and resigned my position, I went back to work fulltime as an independent contractor sales consultant with the invention marketing company.

Sometime in 2000, all personnel received notice from the Virginia corporate office that new legislation pertaining to patents and inventions was moving through Congress and President Clinton was expected to sign it into law. A short time later we received notice that the old invention marketing company, New Product of America, would be phased out and a new company would be formed. This new company, as stated by the corporate office, would be structured to comply with the provisions in the new legislation that Congress had just passed and the President had signed into law.

With much fanfare all personnel were introduced to the new company which would be called The Patent and Trademark Institute of America. PTI, as it would become to be known, had many new features that the old invention marketing company did not have. This new company was the sole creation of owner, Julian Gumpel. Mr. Gumpel explained that PTI was not an invention marketing company. PTI was a Patent Brokerage firm. The services PTI offered dealt with protection of intellectual property through the use of registered patent attorneys. PTI offered a legal opinion of patentability from the registered patent attorney. PTI offered many intellectual property protection products with its new service. These included trademarks, copyrights, several United States patent options, European patents and Chinese patents. Mr. Gumpel repeatedly assured all personnel that PTI services were now in compliance with the new federal legislation. I believed Mr. Gumpel when he spoke about the structure of the company and how it would provide customers with the best services in the country. All personnel in the company, including myself, had a great deal of study to do to learn the specifics of these new services. All sales personnel, including myself, were required to sign new independent contractor agreements with PTI.

In the ensuing years the new services of PTI seemed quite well received by most of the company's customers. There seemed to be very few complaints. Although I did not have any access to company information I would receive a call back from a customer now and then pleased that they had been granted their patents or trademarks.

New customers submitted their ideas on the company confidential disclosure form. The East coast corporate office would then send out a number of mailings to customers dealing with both procedures and disclosure information on the process of product and patent development. I dutifully followed all the systems and procedures that were handed down by the corporate office. These extensive materials were, according to the corporate office, the ones required by the legislation just passed by Congress.

The customer sent their new product ideas on a confidential disclosure. These disclosures arrived in the East coast corporate office where personnel would review the new product idea. Many of these new product ideas were either rejected outright by the corporate office or required the customer to provide more information before they would be allowed to proceed. A common complaint in this industry is that all disclosure ideas are accepted by some companies. As best as I could tell, I did not see this happening with PTI, although I did not have data on the percentage of confidential disclosures that were rejected.

As the new ideas worked there way through the patent search and research phase (known as Phase 1) I noted that most product ideas were approved to proceed into the patent process. At this stage, the approved product idea had to pass the patent attorneys legal opinion of patentability. I figured that if the research stage had been poorly done the patent attorney would kick out the product and declare it unpatentable. So for me this was the acid test as to the validity of the research that Mr. Gumpel's company was doing on the submitted ideas. Although I did not have access to the company files, I only had two customers of mine in a 7 year period where the patent attorney stated that the product was unpatentable and changes would have to be made before it could be patented.

So from this experience I deduced that the researchers Mr. Gumpel had hired were doing a very good job. In addition, the company described the educational backgrounds of the researchers stating most had masters' degrees and some had doctorates according to these company communiques. To house his new research department Mr. Gumpel expanded PTI sometime around 2002 when he opened a new much larger corporate office in New York.

Once the Patent Attorney filed the customers patent (known as Phase 2) with the United States Patent and Trademark in Virginia, the customer, at their option, could contract with a marketing and licensing firm (known as Phase 3) for promotional assistance services. There was no out of pocket charge for the licensing company service as they would work on a percentage contingency basis normally that was 10%. The fees for Phase 2 ranged from $975.00 for a trademark application to $14,975.00 for a China patent. The company sent all sales personnel a complete diagram of all patent procedures, but in particularly that of the Chinese patent process with the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) in China.

A couple of the main reasons, among other things, a Chinese patent was so expensive, according to the company, are because the detailed written claims needed to be translated to Chinese and a Chinese patent attorney must also be retained to prosecute the patent. The United States Patent prices ranged from $4,975.00 to $9,975.00 depending on the type of patent selected by the inventor. One reason I have mentioned these prices is because there is an organization known as the American Intellectual Property Law Association which tracks the fees on an annual basis charged by patent attorneys across the nation. Mr. Gumpel's company prices, which utilized the services of Registered Patent Attorneys, were well within the cost guidelines published by AIPLA. Which really meant if a customer did not use PTI's patent attorneys they most likely would have paid a similar amount to another patent attorney elsewhere for the same exact service.

As the years went by Mr. Gumpel added many new innovations to his company. One was a comprehensive Web site. This web site explained the patent process in detail along with the associated legal and governmental fees. There was a wealth of information on this site, including a video interview with Mr. Gumpel acknowledging that less than 2% of patents become commercially successful. Another section of the company web site had an icon labeled inventions for sale which showed several dozen finished products that were available for purchase. Everybody, including myself, believed that these products were items that the company had played a role in developing.

Also included on the web site was detailed information on past and future trade shows where Mr. Gumpel's company representatives would meet with marketers and manufacturers to determine which ones where interested in reviewing new patents.

There seemed to me to be a sincere effort by Mr. Gumpel's company to provide customers with as many tools as possible to help them with their efforts of advancing their ideas. For instance, for those customers who held Chinese patents Mr. Gumpel contracted with a company called U.S China Partners, Inc. headed by Mr. Salvio Chan. I must admit I don't know the exact workings of U.S. China Partners but the jest of the memos we received from the company were that they were very well connected to market makers in China and the Pacific Rim. Mr. Gumpel's company also contracted with two of the finalists in the ABC television show American Inventors to help them gain publicity for their products. These inventors were featured on the internet and press releases distributed by the company. Publicity from the ABC American Inventors products were intended to encourage manufacturers and marketers to contact the company to find out more information about the many other patents PTI customers held.

From approximately 2003 to 2006 Mr. Gumpel conducted a live New York radio talk show which also streamed worldwide on the internet. The public, including customers of PTI, were encouraged to call in to ask questions pertaining to their efforts in developing their ideas. This radio show, which was broadcast on Island Talk 560 Long Island New York, started as a 30 minute broadcast in its first year and then was expanded to an hour broadcast in subsequent years. This longer time slot allowed more time for the public, including customers of PTI, to call in and ask questions not only of the CEO Julian Gumpel but also to special guests who were experts in the field of product development.

Mr. Gumpel also organized and hosted the first of what was supposed to be many Inventors Forums to be held at a New York State University. The forum had very strong sponsorship like UPS, Fleet Bank and many other major firms. Among the many speakers at the forum was keynote speaker, Mr. Robert Conti, Executive Vice-President of Marketing for the Home Shopping Network on cable TV. He delivered information to inventors as to how to present their ideas for maximum results. These are just some of the things that I knew about that the company was doing to help their customers with their product promotion efforts. By the way there was no cost to PTI customers for the aforementioned promotional assistance activities.

From my standpoint Mr. Gumpel seemed to operate his business from a very open and transparent position. He certainly, over the nine years he operated the business, gave everyone confidence that all the affairs of the company were handled in a professional and ethical manner. Mr. Gumpel seemed to have a positive growing stature in the New York business world. He was well connected with the New York Yankees where he met and knew most all the players both past and present. He had a New York Yankee agreement to market Yankee player memorabilia and souvenirs. Virtually every Yankee player from Whitey Ford to Derek Jeter to Alex Rodriquez provided signed bats, jersey's and other collectables to Mr. Gumpel for the retail sales business. Mr. Gumpel also produced and promoted music for groups like the Harlem Boys Choir and the Cap Callaway Jazz Band.

The future looked positive and real progress seemed underway. The last thing on my mind was the possibility that there was a hidden time bomb ticking away.

MY SALES ACTIVITIES

I approached my sales calls from what I believed to be a meticulously fair minded standpoint. I knew the industry had a tarnished history with some early companies having no realistic program, no patent attorneys, no drafting departments, etc. I also knew that product development was a high risk investment and endeavor. I made sure the customer knew that as well. I also was aware that like any salesman with any organization that I needed to make sales in order to retain my job. So I presented the company services with enthusiasm. I took the time, usually 40 minutes to an hour, to go over each service option on the PTI patent assistance agreement. I explained to each and every customer, without exception, that there was no guarantee that a patent could be obtained and I gave each and every customer, without exception, the reason why their product might not be granted a patent. I explained it this way

Once the patent attorney has prepared the patent application - which includes the oath and declaration, the patent drawings and the detailed written claims everything will be sent to them (the inventor) for their approval and signature. Then the patent application would then be presented to the United States Patent Office, where the application would then be examined by the patent examiners. The patent examiners job is to scrutinize every little detail contained in your claims and drawings and they will be throwing darts and arrows at those claims and drawings, therefore, your patent application could be denied if the examiners feel it encompasses to many elements of previously granted patents.

Mr. Gumpel's company would allow, at no additional charge to the inventor a second application to be filed if the first was denied. According to company memos 93% of patents that his patent attorney's filed were granted after the first filing. This was another statistic that gave me confidence in the company and the attorneys that Mr. Gumpel had retained.

I went on to explain to customers that if their patent pending status was obtained from the United States Patent Office they, at their option, could contract with a licensing company named United Licensing Corporation. The purpose of United Licensing Corporation was to provide marketing assistance activities for people who were holders of valid and current patents. A separate contract was sent to the customer outlining in detail the services rendered. The Services of United Licensing Corporation were provided at no cost to the inventor, but rather on a contingency basis.

I made sure customers new that I did not have a crystal ball about how their patent would fair in the market place. I would explain it this way when someone asked how successful could their product become?' No one knows what the future may hold even the smartest and most powerful individuals in the world can not predict the success, in advance, not the President of the US, not Alan Greenspan, not Bill Gates, not Donald Trump. The success of a new product depends on factors no one can control like market forces or the buying public's perception of the idea. This is the only approach that made sense to me because it sounded so ridiculous making predictions about what a product would or wouldn't make in the future.

All contracts were generated and mailed from the corporate office in New York, so as part of my sales efforts I would call the customer to see if they had received the contract to find out if they had any questions. I would never badger the customer. If they were interested in making the attempt of patenting and developing their idea that was fine, if they felt it was not for them I would respect their decision and wish them good luck and close the file.

The disclosure information contained in the contracts sent by Mr. Gumpel's company used very clear language printed in 14 point type in a prominent part of the contract. It said, "The field of invention development is a risky, difficult and uncertain endeavor. There are no guarantees of success. There are no promises of financial gain. PTI, its agents, vendors or employees do not express an opinion as to the merit or potential of the invention idea." There was no question in my mind that every single customer new that there was no way to tell in advance if a product would be a success. There were just too many written statements on the paperwork, at the web site, and in the contracts that let everyone know that this venture was a high risk against the odds.


THE COURT HEARING

In January 2007 a fax from the FTC was received in the Reno office claiming that PTI and Mr. Gumpel were in contempt of a court order. My first thought was what court order is the FTC referring too? After some investigation I found out that this action involved the papers that Attorney Mark Davidson had sent me and the other two officers nine years ago back in 1998. Because it had been nine years since the papers were reviewed by me I could not remember if I had signed and /or returned them back to the east coast attorney. As part of the fax that was sent to the Reno office there was a copy of the papers that Mark Davidson sent to me and when I saw documents I noted that not only was my signature on the them but also both the FTC and the judge had signed them. There was a total of ten items contained in the court order and what disturbed me is that I did not know if Mr. Gumpel and his company had complied with all of them or none of them. But, as stated earlier, the company memo's told all personnel that the company was in complete compliance with all federal rules and regulations.

In 1998, as I mentioned earlier, I had sold my interest in the company and most of my attention was on the restaurant. It seems that what had occurred during that period was the items contained in those papers were indeed acceptable to the FTC. Evidently, the FTC did sign those papers in late November 1998 over eight months after I had returned them to East coast attorney. Then these papers were presented to the court where the judge also signed them. Once the judge had signed, those papers became a court order. I had no idea that any of this had taken place because neither the court nor the FTC made any effort whatsoever to notify me. What happened next, back in 1998, was one of the most confusing aspects of this whole exasperating experience. Instead of notifying me that the papers were signed and entered as a court order, as the order itself called for, someone just filed it away in an office on the East coast thousands of miles away from where I live in Nevada. The only copy of this unknown court order now sat locked away in some file drawer gathering dust for the next nine years. So later on when Mr. Gumpel stated that the new federal legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President would become the rules and regulations that needed to be followed for his new company I had no yardstick to measure if what he was saying was accurate. I had no idea that something different than the new federal legislation could be the governing rules for PTI.

I really did not think that any of this was going to amount to anything because of the fact that Mr. Gumpel and PTI management had repeatedly assured everyone for years that they were in complete compliance with all federal rules and regulations. If they were not operating in complete compliance then surely the FTC would have notified the company years ago.

Two months after Mr. Gumpel and his company were served I was served with contempt of court papers because my signature was on those papers. Had I known in March of 1998 that in a couple of weeks I was going to negotiate a sale of the company I would have never signed those papers. Once the sale was made I had no authority in the business and therefore no ability to comply with the provisions. I believed, however, that no matter who was running the company they would comply with all applicable rules.

It was now March of 2007 and the hearing was scheduled for late April which meant I had just weeks to find and retain an attorney in Virginia and then get him up to speed about what had occurred during the past 11 years. To say I was being steamrolled or railroaded was a major understatement. I tried contacting nine different law firms in Virginia all of them said it was impossible for them to schedule a four day hearing on such short notice. I made a request of the court for the hearing to be rescheduled. The court refused to change the date. The Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court is known by everyone in the legal arena as the rocket docket as I so unfortunately discovered.

I found out that the FTC had approximately a dozen people working on this case. They also had spent about 7 months investigating Mr. Gumpel's company. It was estimated that they spent over 2 million taxpayer dollars on the investigation. The FTC generated seven or eight three inch thick books of material and paperwork that need to be reviewed before the hearing. It would be logical to ask why then did the government put so much time and money into investigating a business that provides a basic long established service. The only thing I can think of is that they assume people are not responsible or mature enough to make decisions about their own ideas. Maybe you have heard about the nanny syndrome relating to the governments mistrust of the public's ability to manage their affairs in a way they see fit. Government does have a place in a free marketplace when customers receive no value for money spent. To me this did not seem to be valid with this case. I felt that the customer received a lot of bang for their buck.

In the seven years of PTI's existence most customers had just received notice of the issuance of their Patent and/or Trademark, taking into consideration that most patents are in force for 14 years to 20 years the vast majority of PTI's customers were in their infancy of the patent period. I have been told it took Velcro 8 years to be accepted in the market place and become a financial success. This rush to judgment before anyone really knew the final outcome involving the customer's patents is very perplexing to me.

I finally found an attorney just three weeks before the hearing that could squeeze me into his schedule. He was a nice and concerned man but this type of case was not his specialty. In the four days of the hearing I had a little over and hour to make my points. Many of the points that I am making in this writing either did not come out in the brief time I had on the stand or were lost in judicial proceedings. For example, huge amounts of paperwork needed to be passed back and forth between the attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants, court reporter, bailiff and judge slowing down and confusing the testimony. I felt that the judge never got a clear feeling of the difference between my situation and that of the company and the owner.

The government knew that I had never received notice of a court order being entered, so they went to their law books and found the term constructive notice which they substituted for actual notice. Maybe in their mind this is the same thing, but for me there is a huge difference. If I had seen an official order signed by FTC representatives and a federal judge I believe it could have changed my perceptions. So, the government, armed with some legalize term successfully argued that I had constructive notice of the court order because my signature was on it. I felt that this case was not a case of constructive notice but more of a case of negligence on two counts by the government.

The first count of negligence was item #10 in the order which stipulated that they make it known to me that a court order had been entered. It is not like they could not find me I have had the same address and telephone number for more than 15 years. The second count being their negligence on accessing and monitoring Mr. Gumpel's company for compliance as item #5 in the order called for. Item #5 in the court order gave the right to the FTC to enter the company premises during regular business hours to monitor the company for compliance to all the provisions. This single provision alone would seem to me, a lay person, as all that would have needed to be done to prevent any problems or misunderstandings.

The FTC has offices with hundreds of agents in close proximity to Mr. Gumpel's New York corporate office and they could have conveniently dropped in at any time. Had the government done its job on these two items the way the order stipulated there would have been no need for this expensive court action. Instead, they successfully argued that the court order, which I had no idea pertained to me, made it my responsibility to monitor Mr. Gumpel's company. The government did not and could not produce one shred of evidence to show that they either served me with their acceptance and entrance of the court order or that they ever made any effort to access or monitor the company.

The most unfortunate part of this legal action is the fact that if Mr. Gumpel had chosen to follow the exact provisions of the 1998 court order instead of the 2000 federal legislation it would have had very little, if any, impact on the amount of business that was done. The reasons that I can confidently make this assertion are first, there are several identical companies operating for years that follow the court order stipulations.

These companies have a higher dollar volume and more customers than PTI, and second, most of the rest of the personnel of PTI have formed a new company called United Patent Resources and are successfully selling the exact same service utilizing the 1998 court order regulations. Having worked with many of United Patent Resources sales consultants in PTI they are close friends of mine and they tell me there is virtually no difference in sales volume working with the disclosure information that UPR provides as opposed to the provided PTI disclosure information.

I was told by people in Virginia that the judge who heard this case had a high propensity to rubber stamp whatever the cronies over at the FTC bring to him. It seems obvious to me that this is exactly what happened. To add to this perception that this was just a rubber stamp action by the close nit Washington D.C. group of federal attorneys and federal district court was the flimsy case the government made. For example, the FTC said that Mr. Gumpel's company had a total of over 17,000 paying customers yet they only produced 3 complaining customers at the hearing. Of the 17,000 total customers of the company, I estimate that 20% were from the heavily populated eastern seaboard, which meant between three thousand to four thousand customers lived within a relatively easy commute of the Virginia courthouse. Of the three customers that showed up at the hearing one was from Wisconsin, one was from Las Vegas, and one was from Alaska. It sure seems to me that the government had to search high and low to find someone to testify at this hearing. The way I look at this situation is that every company has what is known as complainers these are a tiny number of customers that no matter what you do for them you can not make them happy. As I mentioned earlier I did not have access to customer records so I can not say for sure if the customers had valid complaints but considering the numbers and the locations from where they traveled I highly doubt if their complaints were valid.

The information disseminated by the FTC to the public made it sound like I defrauded customers out of $60 million dollars. The FTC claims give the impression that money customers paid to PTI were simply used to line the pockets of company personnel, as if, everybody took the all the money and partied it away in some exotic vacation spot. These FTC claims are absolutely ridiculous. According to the FTC's own internal audit the largest single expense paid by Mr. Gumpel's company was to the government and patent attorneys for U. S. Patent Office filings. As far as what I earned, after business expenses and taxes, amounts to about $150,000 per year in income. I certainly felt blessed to have a good paying sales position. But the FTC claim that I defrauded customers out of $60 million dollars is an outrageous lie.

But what can we expect from a government that put Secretary of State at the podium of the United Nations concocting a story that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction without even one tiny piece of solid evidence. An absolutely false story that has cost America over 4,000 lives and trillions of dollars of wasted taxpayer dollars. Lying with no conscience is something that is a specialty in the Washington, D.C. culture because there is just no shame or accountability when so many cover each others back. The fact that government bureaucrats can perpetrate huge deceptions on a global scale makes a small citizen civil case, like mine just a petty procedure for their advancement up the government career ladder. Of course, I'm not suggesting that everything the government does is bogus we are still the greatest country in the history of the planet. However at the end of the day the judge ruled that I was in contempt of court, and as one attorney humorously said if a judge says the moon is made of green cheese then the moon is made of green cheese.

So now you have read my side of the story and it may be that I was negligent in some way, or maybe I was just nave but I know one thing for absolutely sure; and that is I would never ever knowingly violate a court order.

Respectively Submitted,
Darrell Mormando

IS ANY ONE ELSE AFFFECTED BY THESE SCAMMERS??PLEASE CONTACT