MOTION BY ROBERT J. CORR TO PURGE THE RECORDS OF CERTAIN ORDERS, JUDGMENTS, and RULINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE BECAUSE OF FRAUD UPON THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT and OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE PERPETRATED BY JUDGE JOHN W. DARRAH himself; in addition to MOTION TO INTERVENE, if so required; and for other Relief.

Comes now Robert J. Corr, as Movant, and seeking to intervene, if so required, pro se, and moves as follows:

(A) That this matter be sent up through channels as a request for Certificate of Necessity, to the Chief Justice of the United States, Washington, D.C., for the Chief Justice to especially designate a Judge, from faraway, not of the Seventh Circuit, to especially sit in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois, to hear and adjudicate the instant matters.

(B) Insofar as required, Robert J. Corr, by way of this Motion, requests permission to Intervene in the instant case, as provided for in matters involving Fraud Upon the Federal Court Perpetrated By a Federal Judge Himself; as hereinafter more fully set forth;

(C) That the especially designated Federal Judge, not from the Seventh Circuit, that sits in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois, call before the Court, by appropriate means, all those who may be affected by the outcome of the inquiry into Fraud Upon the U.S. District Court in Chicago and obstructions of justice Perpetrated by Chicago U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah Himself; that there be appointed a Master or other court official to elicit testimony and seek and subpoena evidence and documents, and authorized and directed to examine, investigate, and report as to the matters herein referred to, as to the fraud upon the court and obstructions of justice perpetrated by Judge John W. Darrah himself and submit such report of the same to the especially designated Judge sitting in Chicago to hear and determine the same.

(D) That the especially designated Judge purge the records, rulings, decrees, and Judgments in the instant case, as tainted, as having been procured by Fraud Upon the U.S. District Court in Chicago and Obstructions of Justice Perpetrated By U.S. District John W. Darrah Judge Himself.

(E) That the especially designated Judge, from faraway, not of the Seventh Circuit, invoke the doctrine of "unclean hands" against the defendants and defendants' attorneys; and purge the court records of defendants' purported defenses, and other of their court pleadings, including but not limited to claims made by purported counter-claims; and enter Judgment and remedies for plaintiff, and Robert J. Corr, and against defendants and defendants' attorneys, as asked for in the pleadings of the plaintiff, that are in the records of the instant case;

(F) For such other and further relief as this extra-ordinary matter requires.

For grounds, Robert J. Corr, among other things, states, as follows:

1. That as more fully herein set forth, this matter involves rulings, judgments, and decrees, procured and arranged for the financial benefit of the defendants, and for others, by Fraud Upon the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and by obstructions of justice, perpetrated by U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah himself.

2. The principles of law and fact involved in such a matter are set forth in the landmark case of Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 (3rd Circuit, 1948), backed up by U.S. Supreme Court pertinent decisions as to fraudulently procured rulings, involving Judges themselves operating under a malign if not corrupt influence and perpetrating an Obstuction of Justice by the Judges themselves.

3. There is a principle of law pertinent to trade-mark and copyright cases, similar to patent cases.

"This matter does not concern only private parties. There are issues of great moment to the public in a patent suit. (Citing U.S. Supreme Court cases.) Furthermore, tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud."

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, at page 246, 64 S.Ct. 992, at page 1001, 88 L.Ed.1250. Cited and quoted with approval in the Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at page 522.

4. Robert J. Corr, as movant, representing himself in the instant matter, and seeking permission to intervene if so required, has a financial interest in the court rulings, orders, judgments, and decrees in the instant case, procured for the benefit of defendants and others, by obstruction of justice and fraud upon the U.S. District Court in Chicago perpetrated by U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah himself, as hereinafter more fully set forth.

Robert J. Corr derives all his livelihood from the plaintiff corporation. He has borrowed money from other persons and put the same into the corporation. He is the sole stockholder of the corporation.

In consideration of the details, Robert J. Corr, as an interested party in this matter, should be granted permission to intervene. Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514, at pages 523-524 (3rd Circuit, 1948.)

Fellow judges in the same Federal Judicial Circuit , that is the Seventh Circuit, should not sit to hear and adjudicate the instant matter. Rather, a Certificate of Necessity is to be submitted to the Chief Justice of the United States, Washington, D.C., for the Chief Justice to especially designate a judge or judges, from faraway, not from the Seventh Circuit, to hear and determine matters involving fraud upon the federal court and obstruction of justice perpetrated by the Judge or Judges themselves of said Court. See the Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at page 516, starting at the bottom of the first column and continuing to the top of the second column on page 516.

5. Fraudulently procured court orders, decrees, and judgments in combination with obstructions of justice, perpetrated by federal judges themselves, as in the instant matter, can be challenged at any time, without time limits. Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at page 522.

6. Whether orders, rulings, decrees, and judgments have been been procured by fraud upon the court and by obstructions of justice, the federal court inquiring into the same as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, "may bring before it by appropriate means all those who may be affected by the outcome of the investigation."

Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, at 580, 66 S.Ct. 1176, at 1179, 90 L.Ed. 1447. (Emphasis added.) Quoted with approval, Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at 525.

7. For such purpose, the following persons have to be brought before the Court "by appropriate means", to be examined and cross-examined as to the matters herein:
(a) U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah, of the U.S. District Court, Chicago, Illinois:
(b) Sharon S. Corr, perpetrator of the burglary at the offices of Rush Beverage Co. as instigated and connived in by subsidiaries of Pepsico, Inc., defendants in the instant case and their attorneys, as hereinafter set forth;
(c) Chief Kosman/Detective Cornell, Blue Island, Illinois Police Department, investigating police, as a burglary;
(d) Robert Hogan, a Private Investigator, hired by Robert J. Corr, after the burglary;
(d) Walter Monco, attorney, of Rinella & Rinella, attorneys, who represented Sharon S. Corr in the Divorce proceedings;
(e) Dean Duccias, a Divorce Lawyer, who represented Robert J. Corr in his Divorce proceedings;
(f) Edmund J. Ferdinand III and Gregory Battersby, attorneys for South Beach Beverage Co.;
(g) John M. Murphy, David C. Hilliard, and Robert Newbury, attorneys for Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, who represent Pepsico and PepsiCo defendants;
(h) Mr. Superfine, an Attorney for Hamman & Benn, allowed by Pattishall to see the stolen documents.

Evidence to be elicited by the Master or other court official to be submitted by way of a report to the especially designated Judge to sit in Chicago in the U.S. District Court to hear and determine the same: or other appropriate means:

All redacted documents requested to be presented and were not supplied at the depositions of each of the defendants' attorneys. All the Motions and Exhibits filed by attorney James L. Kurtz that are currently not available at the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois. The originals, not the copies, of the stolen documents, being held by Pattishall, McAuliffe, et al., by their own admissions.

8. A Master or other court official should be appointed to elicit testimony and evidence, "authorized and directed" to examine, investigate and report his conclusions as to the fraud upon the court and obstructions of justice perpetrated by Judge John W. Darrah himself, a report to the especially designated, faraway Judge to sit in Chicago to hear and determine the same. See, the Root case, 169 F.2d 514, at page 517 and thereafter.

FACTS NECESSARY TO BE UNDERSTOOD

9. Robert J. Corr is the sole stockholder of Rush Beverage Company. By a series of circumstances, he has claims of trademark and other violations against the defendants.

10. On or about June, 2001, Corr met with attorney James Kurtz who was impressed with Corr's supporting proof of his claims. Together, the two estimated the claims as totallng ten million dollars against subsidiaries of Pepsi-Cola. As a consequence of being so impressed with the details, the attorney agreed to undertake a Federal Court case and pursue and same on a contingency basis, a rare situation for most of those in the intellectual property law field.

11. The instant case was filed on July 23, 2001.

12. Robert J. Corr kept in his office extensive notes, records, notebooks, and other papers and books, as to his confidential and privileged court legal strategies by which he was convinced he could prevail in court against the defendants and their attorneys.

13. One day, Corr went to his office and was shocked that the office was bare, his confidential and privileged materials for pursuing his claims having been cleaned out and burglarized.

14. He later compiled the details proving such purloined material was in the possession of the defendants' attorneys and that they had instigated and connived in the theft of the same.From the facts unearthed by Robert J. Corr, inferences can properly be drawn that said attorneys were acting on behalf of their principals, the Pepsico subsidiaries, being the defendants, and on behalf, as well, of the parent firm, Pepsico, Inc.

15. Corr's attorney prepared and filed over forty court-filed Motions and other pleadings, brought to the attention of Judge John W. Darrah, detailing the burglary instigation by the defendants' attorneys and that they had possession of Corr's confidential and privileged records and the defendants and their attorneys were thus in a position to defeat and obstruct Corr's claims, the basis of his lawsuit.

As shown by the Court records, the defendants did, caused to be done, allowed, permitted, condoned, and acquiesced in the following, among other things:

(a) induced a burglary of Robert J. Corr's office;

(b) issued a fraudulent subpoena to "cover up" the burglary;

(c) obstructed the police investigation of the burglary;

(d) maintained and kept the stolen documents so that Corr's attorney was not able to make objections as to which documents were attorney-client privileged and which were husband-wife relationship privilege, to be kept confidential and not disclosed;

(e) reviewed and studied the documents, so as to determine Corr's legal strategies for seeking justice from Pepsi-Cola's subsidiares; thus obstructing justice;

(f) maintained and reviewed the stolen documents until after the time had expired in the key Judge-ordered time-table for the case; thus blockading and excluding Corr from filing a dispositive motion;

(g) arranged and instigated perjury, called suborning perjury, to damage Corr.

16. Among other remedies Corr demanded of Judge John W. Darrah, as shown by the court records:

(a) that Judge John W. Darrah suspend the proceedings and have this matter turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, headquartered in Chicago, for criminal and other investigation.

(b) that the defendants and their attorneys be punished, including disqualifying the defendants' attorneys from being in Court in this case.

17. Judge Darrah cut-short the re-opening of a proceedings called "Discovery", whereby Corr's attorney informed Judge Darrah that the attorney wanted sufficient time to bring out more of these obstructions of justice.

Corr's attorney said to Judge Darrah: "Your Honor, I need this because I really believe these people have abused, and I mean abused the court system." The transcript, that is the "Report of Proceedings" before Judge Darrah, Oct. 15, 2002.

18. By his acts and doings, Judge Darrah clearly demonstrated he was operating under a malign if not corrupt influence, within the meaning of the Root case. The Judge refused to consider the more than forty Motions and pleadings regarding the burglary and the obstructions of justice. The Judge evaded ruling and considering said matters, quickly entered judgment in favor of Pepsi-Cola's subsidiaries and against Rush Beverage Co., and put the case out of Court.

19. Corr's attorney took an appeal of the case. The federal appeals court said the judgment of Judge Darrah was not final and appealable and sent the case back to Judge Darrah. In the meanwhile, Corr was repeatedly informed by his attorney, James Kurtz, that extreme pressure was being put on him and that Judge Darrah was part of a "whitewash" to benefit Pepsi-Cola's subsidiaries, defendants in the case.

Kurtz was an associate and/or employee of a large law firm that began pressuring and threatening Kurtz to drop the matter. They fired Kurtz and Corr hired a truck and helped Kurtz move his belongings out of Kurtz's office. Kurtz's employer/partners refused to allow him to remove some seventeen boxes of Robert J. Corr's original documents necessary for a trial on the merits of the claims.

20. Corr became informed through Kurtz and other means, that it was evident. and such inferences can be drawn, that Pepsi-Cola's attorneys were exerting extreme pressure on Judge Darrah and on the employer/partners of Kurtz as well, that Corr be stopped from proceeding. By the summer of 2003, under the terrible pressures that Kurtz repeatedly informed Corr that Kurtz was subjected to, Kurtz simply one day dropped dead.

21. In the landmark fraud upon the court case, implicating the judges themselves in obstructions of justice, the special out-of-the-circuit panel, after analyzing the Master's Report of the details, showing the judges operated under a malign if not corrupt influence, stated, which is pertinent to the instant matter, as to the acts and doings of the attorneys for Pepsi-Cola's subsidiaries in combination with Judge John W. Darrah:

"The attorney who attempts by personal influence to control a judge or jury in their decision in a pending case, or who merely holds himself out as able to do so, whether or not he actually makes the attempt, and whether or not he succeeds or fails in the attempt, in short, an apostate lawyer, who is false to the lawyers' creed that justice shall be undefiled, is ejected from the courts, and as a lawyer ceases to exist. (Citing numerous cases.)"

And the special panel continues:

"The client who with evil intent employs such an agent fares no better in the instant case. To him also the doors of the courts are closed. From the moment that he ceases to depend upon the justice of his case and seeks discriminatory treatment, he becomes a corrupter of the Government itself and is fortunate if he loses no more than the rights he seeks to obtain."

And the court concludes with the remedy:

"By this action, the records ...of the District Court will be purged...."

Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514, at page 541 (3rd Circuit, 1948). (Emphasis added.)

22. Defendants and their attorneys and Judge Darrah were in a position to know that Robert J. Corr, from a series of circumstances, was impoverished and could not retain by payment, new attorneys. When Corr came to Judge John W. Darrah's courtroom, Corr began complaining about the illegal acts. Judge Darrah sought to shut up Corr who began thus to finger the Judge himself for the obstructions of justice constituting frauds upon the court of which the Judge was himself a part. From the language of the transcript and the circumstances, it is proper to draw an inference that the judge was leading up to scaring Corr by "contempt of court". This is apparent from the Report of Proceedings before Judge Darrah, being a "transcript" , had on July 2, 2003.

That some Exhibits are attached hereto and made a part hereof to show some of the specifics involved in the instant matter.

24. Robert J. Corr has been informed that there are apparent secret financial and other links between Pepsi-Cola and their supposed main "competitor" Coca-Cola, which would constitute Anti-Trust violations. For example, a major marketing and advertising firm through their Chicago unit, DDB Chicago, has represented both Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola, directly and/or also through the parent firm.

25. Corr has also been informed that there has been pending in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, a matter that Corr has been informed similarly implicates a Chicago U.S. District Judge in apparent fraud upon her own Court and obstructions of justice, in some ways, Corr has been informed, similar to the instant matter. Corr has been informed that said other matter is known as Robert E. Kolody vs. Simon Marketing and Coca-Cola Company, having been No. 97 C 190, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

That a proper inference can be drawn as to the U.S. District Court in Chicago, that two judges in said Courthouse are committing obstructions of justice themselves while operating under a malign if not corrupt influence, as in the Root case previously cited. That two of the largest beverage firms are thus benefitted and that said two firms, supposedly "competitors" , have apparent secret financial and other links. A further inference is properly drawn that the two largest beverage firms, to beat down major claims against them, as in the instant case, and Corr has been informed are so in the Kolody case, are the apparent policy of procedure of these two giant beverage firms and their attorneys. That these situations are additional reasons for the issuance of a Certificate of Necessity, requesting the Chief Justice of the United States, in Washington, D.C., to especially designate a faraway judge, not from the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit, to especially sit in the U.S. District Court in Chicago to hear and adjudicate the instant matter. Robert J. Corr, from all such circumstances, believes he cannot reasonably expect a fair and impartial adjudication of the instant extra-ordinary matter, involving, as Corr contends, fraud upon the U.S. District Court and obstructions of justice perpetrated by U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah himself in unlawful combination with defendants' attorneys for the benefit of Pepsico's subisidiaries, the instant defendants, and, by proper inference, benefitting the parent firm, Pepsico, Inc.

26. As stated herein and detailed in and supported by the more than forty Motions and pleadings which Judge John W. Darrah refused to deal with, the defendants and defendants' attorneys are in this case with "unclean hands". The doctrine of "unclean hands" should be invoked against the defendants and defendants attorneys, as asked for in opening paragraph (E). The landmark case involving frauds upon the court and obstructions of justice, perpetrated by the Judges themselves in unlawful combination with certain attorneys and party-litigants, sets forth the doctrine of "unclean hands". Root Refining Co. vs. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514, at pages 534-535 (3rd Circuit, 1948), where the court cites numerous other cases including those of the U.S. Supreme Court.

27. WHEREFORE, Robert J. Corr, movant and seeking to intervene if so required, asks as in opening paragraphs (A) through (F) inclusive, as if verbatim here set forth.